• Ephera@lemmy.ml
    2 years

    Tangentially related rant: We had a new contributor open up a pull request today and I gave their changes an initial look to make sure no malicious code is included.
    I couldn’t see anything wrong with it. The PR was certainly a bit short, but the task they tackled was pretty much a matter of either it works or it doesn’t. And I figured, if they open a PR, they’ll have a working solution.

    …well, I tell the CI/CD runner to get going and it immediately runs into a compile error. Not an exotic compile error, the person who submitted the PR had never even tried to compile it.

    Then it dawned on me. They had included a link to a GitHub Copilot workspace, supposedly just for context.
    In reality, they had asked the dumbass LLM to do the change described in the ticket and figured, it would produce a working PR right off the bat. No need to even check it, just let the maintainer do the validation.

    In an attempt to give them constructive feedback, I tried to figure out, if this GitHub Copilot workspace thingamabob had a Compile-button that they just forgot to click, so I actually watched Microsoft’s ad video for it.
    And sure enough, I saw right then and there, who really was at fault for this abomination of a PR.

    The ad showed exactly that. Just chat a bit with the LLM and then directly create a PR. Which, yes, there is a theoretical chance of this possibly making sense, like when rewording the documentation. But for any actual code changes? Fuck no.

    So, most sincerely: Fuck you, Microsoft.

    • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
      2 years

      Surely you have to blame the idiot human here who actually has the ability to reason (in theory)

        • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
          2 years

          Of course but people selling/offering shitty tool options is not only expected, it’s guaranteed. I certainly do not understand this tendency to blame the machine or makers of the machine and excuse the moronic developer

          • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
            2 years

            Nono i agree with you, people like that cant be trusted with tying their shoes.

            I just wanted to point out that the system is the way it is because of “idiot human here who actually has the ability to reason”

          • Ethan@programming.devEnglish
            2 years

            The person who uses the shitty tool is a moron. The person who makes the shitty tool is an asshole. At least in this case where the shitty tool is actively promoting shitty PRs.

          • Kissaki@programming.devEnglish
            2 years

            Responsibility is shared. It’s not one or the other.

            Many people don’t know what they’re doing. That’s kind of expected. But a tool provider and seller should know what they’re doing. Enabling people to behave in a negative way should be questioned. Maybe it’s a consequence of enablement, or maybe it’s bad design or marketing. Where criticism is certainly warranted.

            • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
              2 years

              Yes the only people ever to blame are everyone but the people who actually did a thing. That’s the same reason voters aren’t responsible for trump, Democrats are. /s

      • Ephera@lemmy.ml
        2 years

        Well, for reasons, I happen to know that this person is a student, who has effectively no experience dealing with real-world codebases.

        It’s possible that the LLM produced good results for the small codebases and well-known exercises that they had to deal with so far.

        I’m also guessing, they’re learning what a PR is for the first time just now. And then being taught by Microsoft that you can just fire off PRs without a care in the world, like, yeah, how should they know any better?

      • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
        2 years

        ultimately the people responsible are the ones giving people tools that can be misused, you don’t hand a gun to a child.

          • smiletolerantly@awful.systems
            2 years

            Oof.

            My employer pays a buttload of money to CircleCI - for extensive checks (build, lint, formatting, full test suite, as well as custom scripts for translation converage, docs,… for the full tech stack) on every push. Reviews start only when everything passes.

            I think you have given me a new-found appreciation for the reasoning behind that decision… 😄

    • Kissaki@programming.devEnglish
      2 years

      Commit with Co-authored-by: Copilot

      or maybe better --author=Copilot

      It would certainly help evaluate submissions to have that context

  • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
    2 years

    I had a Pycharm linter with “inconsiderate writing list” flag my use of “bi” as inappropriate, recommending to use “bisexual” instead. In my data job, BI, means business intelligence, it’s everywhere.

    • Kissaki@programming.devEnglish
      2 years

      The problem was named after an incident in 1996 in which AOL’s profanity filter prevented residents of the town of Scunthorpe, North Lincolnshire, England, from creating accounts with AOL, because the town’s name contains the substring “cunt”.

      haha

    • hakunawazo@lemmy.world
      2 years

      Google: kill child process
      FBI: ಠ_ಠ

      Google: kill child process linux console
      FBI:（︶︿︶)

  • brygphilomena@lemmy.world
    2 years

    I’ve been tempted to create a bot that does nothing but search comments in code for misspelled words and create pull requests for them.

    If it stays in comments, little chance in breaking a working codebase and I’d have an insane amount of commits and contributions to a wide variety of codebases for my resume.

    I’ll never be a top tier coder. But I might make management.

    • Keenuts@lemmy.world
      2 years

      In case that wasn’t satire, please don’t 🥲 A small typo in a comment is not a big issue, and even if the PR is straightforward, a maintainer still has to take some time reviewing it, which takes time away from fixing actual bugs 😢

    • dan@upvote.au
      2 years

      A better use of your time is to improve documentation. Developers generally hate documentation so it’s often in need of improvement. Rewrite confusing sentences. Add tutorials that are missing. Things like that. You don’t necessarily have to be a good developer or even understand the code of the project; you just have to have some knowledge of the project as an end user.

  • NumG@sopuli.xyz
    2 years

    I am in doubt. That wouldn’t even compile. But who am I to think somebody changing something like this would actually do a test compilation afterwards…

    • dan@upvote.au
      2 years

      HTML isn’t compiled, and unknown attributes are allowed. The best practice is to prefix non-standard attributes with data- (e.g. <div data-foo="test">) but nothing enforces that. Custom attributes can be retrieved in JavaScript or targeted in CSS rules.

  • Gork@lemm.ee
    2 years

    It’s time for chbottomt and clbottom to finally become valid HTML statements.

    • jaybone@lemmy.world
      2 years

      Or just have some random subset of browsers support them for some reason and other browsers not so much. It’s the html way.

  • Valmond@lemmy.world
    2 years

    What is a ‘charset’ in this depraved persons mind? A corset? Must be a mighty kinky corset.