I suppose it's a good thing



  • Two of our users differ on how a feature should be implemented. User A wants certain records excluded from a list. User B wants to see them. The solution? We offered to put an exclude-certain-records checkbox in a convenient place. This way both users could see what they wanted.

    Most normal folks would be happy but not these two. Neither wanted the checkbox. We are not allowed to have per-user config files or preferences stored in some db table because a third level manager wants everyone to have the exact same setup to simplify support.

    So what happens? User A puts in a change request to exclude the records. We do it. QA tests it. Upon deployment, user B complains and files a bug report to add the records. Our management (TRWTF) refuses to sit them down and hash it out. So for the third complete cycle, we have [un]commented the code that does this.

    I don't blame the users. They're not technical and need to do what they need to do. Technical management, on the other hand, should know better.

    As long as they let us keep billing I suppose it's a good thing.



  • Why not provide two different, labeled reports?

    For example:

    A) Report In Conflict WITH Stupid Records

    B) Report in Conflict WITHOUT Stupid Records



  •  If they are not going to accept a simple check box, what makes you think they'll accept two different reports?



  • @robbak said:

     If they are not going to accept a simple check box, what makes you think they'll accept two different reports?

    Because they would have exactly the same interface, set-up, whatever? Of course, you might want to remove the word "stupid" from the report title.



  • @snoofle said:

    story
     

    The way you tie in the thread subject with the final sentence is like a magical fairytale that brings a tear to my eye.



  • First you say:

    @snoofle said:

    Most normal folks would be happy but not these two.

    but then:

    @snoofle said:


    I don't blame the users. They're not technical and need to do what they need to do. Technical management, on the other hand, should know better.

    If users aren't happy with a simple checkbox, I'd definitely blame them. For being [i]bloody fucking stupid[/i].

    Simple solution to everyone's problems, hardcode their login names and show/hide the offending records depending on who's using the system. Make sure you put an informative comment above said code that explains why it's necessary, something along the lines of "this WTF is required because User A and User B are complete douchebags" is appropriate.



  • @The_Assimilator said:

    ...Simple solution to everyone's problems, hardcode their login names and show/hide the offending records depending on who's using the system. Make sure you put an informative comment above said code that explains why it's necessary, something along the lines of "this WTF is required because User A and User B are complete douchebags" is appropriate.

    It had crossed our minds, BUT the third level manager reviews all code diffs for every release - he actually reads through every line, and that would not have gone over well...

     



  • @snoofle said:

    @The_Assimilator said:

    ...Simple solution to everyone's problems, hardcode their login names and show/hide the offending records depending on who's using the system. Make sure you put an informative comment above said code that explains why it's necessary, something along the lines of "this WTF is required because User A and User B are complete douchebags" is appropriate.

    It had crossed our minds, BUT the third level manager reviews all code diffs for every release - he actually reads through every line, and that would not have gone over well...

     

    Find a new job.



  • Propose a bidding war.  If the users are adamant about having it their way, have them put their money where their mouth is.  The one who is willing to pay the most wins, and if the money goes to management, they win either way and will support the bidding war.  You also win by not toggling the trivial change every few days.

    I've had a similar feature in a program I've written (though it was only used by myself).  By default it shows the subset, but you can right-click the list to bring up a context menu that allows you to toggle showing all of the data.  This was an employee management program.  By default, only current employees are shown, but sometimes management decides to rehire people.



  • @snoofle said:

    It had crossed our minds, BUT the third level manager reviews all code diffs for every release - he actually reads through every line, and that would not have gone over well...
     

     But he's cool with you just commenting/uncommenting the changes every release?

    At this point, assuming you're contract, I'd say keep charging them, but keep the copies of the e-mail where you suggested a better (cheaper) solution. By the time someone catches on you've charged em nine times for the exact same change request...



  • @dhromed said:

    The way you tie in the thread subject with the final sentence is like a magical fairytale that brings a tear to my eye.

    I suppose that's a good thing.



  • @XIU said:

    @snoofle said:

    @The_Assimilator said:

    ...Simple solution to everyone's problems, hardcode their login names and show/hide the offending records depending on who's using the system. Make sure you put an informative comment above said code that explains why it's necessary, something along the lines of "this WTF is required because User A and User B are complete douchebags" is appropriate.

    It had crossed our minds, BUT the third level manager reviews all code diffs for every release - he actually reads through every line, and that would not have gone over well...

     

    Find a new job.

     

    Sometimes you can only solve a problem via Thunderdome.

    Two men enter, one man leaves. Then he gets to define what the report looks like.



  • @snoofle said:

    @The_Assimilator said:

    ...Simple solution to everyone's problems, hardcode their login names and show/hide the offending records depending on who's using the system. Make sure you put an informative comment above said code that explains why it's necessary, something along the lines of "this WTF is required because User A and User B are complete douchebags" is appropriate.

    It had crossed our minds, BUT the third level manager reviews all code diffs for every release - he actually reads through every line, and that would not have gone over well...
    Does that mean you won't leave a comment / VCS log message with the URL of this thread?



  • 1. Write script to automatically change code from one state to the other and back and commit.

    2.On bug report run script.

    3. Profit!

     

    No question marks needed.



  • Clearly the solution is to show about half of the "stupid" records.

    for each( records as n )
      if( not_stupid(n) || rand(0,1) )
        show_record(n);

    That way both users lose.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.