Override because you can



  • So I've been assigned the maintenance on a hand-rolled "log parser" that's just bristling with odd decisions and general buggery. The first odd decision was that we should parse a log file to put data from the log file into a database. The following odd decision came somewhere further down the line, but managed to make it past code review and into the first commit of this file, verbatim:

    @Override
    protected String readLine(String quitBeforeTok, BufferedReader reader, BufferedWriter echoWriter) throws Exception {	
    	String line = super.readLine(quitBeforeTok, reader, echoWriter);
    	if (line == null){
    		return line;
    	}
    	return line;
    }


  • @DemonWasp said:

    So I've been assigned the maintenance on a hand-rolled "log parser" that's just bristling with odd decisions and general buggery. The first odd decision was that we should parse a log file to put data from the log file into a database. The following odd decision came somewhere further down the line, but managed to make it past code review and into the first commit of this file, verbatim:

    @Override
    protected String readLine(String quitBeforeTok, BufferedReader reader, BufferedWriter echoWriter) throws Exception {	
    	String line = super.readLine(quitBeforeTok, reader, echoWriter);
    	if (line == null){
    		return line;
    	}
    	return line;
    }

     

     There is so much more wrong  with that piece of code than what you think at first glance. Truly a work of art WTF, well done. Now, please, kill it with fire.

     



  • @DemonWasp said:

    So I've been assigned the maintenance on a hand-rolled "log parser" that's just bristling with odd decisions and general buggery. The first odd decision was that we should parse a log file to put data from the log file into a database. The following odd decision came somewhere further down the line, but managed to make it past code review and into the first commit of this file, verbatim:

    @Override
    protected String readLine(String quitBeforeTok, BufferedReader reader, BufferedWriter echoWriter) throws Exception {	
    	String line = super.readLine(quitBeforeTok, reader, echoWriter);
    	if (line == null){
    		return line;
    	}
    	return line;
    }

    TRWTF is multiple return statements. </sarcasm>

    But seriously, I would hope that the original developer had intended on adding more specific logic at some point and was just stubbing it out as a placeholder. But, I generally am too generous with my BotD giving. 🙂



  • @pbean said:

    There is so much more wrong  with that piece of code than what you think at first glance. Truly a work of art WTF, well done. Now, please, kill it with fire.

    Indeed, where does one even begin? Wait right here: WHY DOES READING REQUIRE A WRITER?? Also, BufferedReader already has a method called readLine(). And it throws a top-level Exception? Sure.

    Presumably "Tok" stands not for "Token" but "Toking". Unfortunately, the developer did not quitBeforeTok.



  •  @dohpaz42 said:

    But seriously, I would hope that the original developer had intended on adding more specific logic at some point and was just stubbing it out as a placeholder.
    I would agree if it never got committed!



  • @hoodaticus said:

    I would agree if it never got committed!

    Sadly, it did. Twenty commits later, the method is entirely unmodified (until I removed it a moment ago). TRWTF, of course, is found in the first sentence of the OP.



  • PML.


    Ve haf vays of making you Tok.

    Best bits are:

    1. It returns "line" whether it's null or not.

    2. You would expect "line" not to be returned as null from super.readLine, as that would just be wrong.

    3. Oh FMR, I've finally worked out that there is no point in this method at all. The penny's just dropped.


  • @dohpaz42 said:

    But seriously, I would hope that the original developer had intended on adding more specific logic at some point and was just stubbing it out as a placeholder.

    "Seriously"? "Seriously"?!?!

    If any of my coworkers were to try to rationalize an abomination like the one above with reasoning like that, I'd smack them well across the room with the biggest cluebat I could find.

    If you want to add more logic, then do it now or never! If you don't - leave things f-ing alone!



  • @hoodaticus said:

    I would agree if it never got committed!

    Just yesterday I was fixing a bug. It turned out that the code was trying to register with an object that was not there (and not checking null), because the particular device didn't have that particular sensor. So I checked why the code needs those data. Well, two calls later, in a different thread, it logged them (only if debugging was on) and forgot them. Fix was to just delete 170 lines.

    I guess the WTF is that I am not even surprised.



  • @Anonymouse said:

    "Seriously"? "Seriously"?!?!

    If any of my coworkers were to try to rationalize an abomination like the one above with reasoning like that, I'd smack them well across the room with the biggest cluebat I could find.

    If you want to add more logic, then do it now or never! If you don't - leave things f-ing alone!

    Down boy! Breath.



  • @Anonymouse said:

    If you want to add more logic, then do it now or never! If you don't - leave things f-ing alone!
    Ah, the YNGNI principle.



  • @dohpaz42 said:

    But seriously, I would hope that the original developer had intended on adding more specific logic at some point and was just stubbing it out as a placeholder. But, I generally am too generous with my BotD giving. 🙂
    In that case, they failed by not adding a comment explaining their intentions.



  • @lolwtf said:

    @dohpaz42 said:
    But seriously, I would hope that the original developer had intended on adding more specific logic at some point and was just stubbing it out as a placeholder. But, I generally am too generous with my BotD giving. 🙂
    In that case, they failed by not adding a comment explaining their intentions.
     

    Comments: making bad code good since 1951.


Log in to reply
 

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