Reply to: Systems down!

[vetran]

I wish I could publish the email trail I have, it's absolutely fantastic. They've now found the routeot cause and it's classic schoolboy error.

what they couldn't speill? Its Roots of a tree!


well at least you come out smelling of roses. Well done, always send the CYA mail eh?

[MarillionFan]

I wish I could publish the email trail I have, it's absolutely fantastic. They've now found the route cause and it's classic schoolboy error.

It starts with a screenshot of my comments on the original story saying 'NB. Check the label / field change does not cause an integration problem'

Then a number 'about 20' emails back and forth with an ever increasing number of people (now 20) chipping in, pointing out a possible solution.

Eventually it was found that on system A as well as renaming the labels they made the column name similar, do similar the integration code picked up the new field name instead of the other. Of course after lots of finger pointing and an ever increasing number of 'I disagree with the last email' they've now come to the conclusion it was nobodies fault and a problem with the platform. The solution to add -new- in the name of the new field as opposed to making it identical to the old one.

FFS this is route 1 schoolboy error. Makes me laugh though.

[eek]

Hawd on...


The forms fields have variable names and they are correct but it is the on screen text labels beside the fields are wrong and that is killing the system?

Jesus ****!

Is it salesforce?

[eek]

Sack Test Monkey who signed off the Exit Report
Sack Release Monkey who failed to do due diligence
Sack Change Monkey who failed interrogate the work of the above

But first sack the product owner who didn't check what any of the, was signing off

Eek in its just MF's attempt to escape now rather than later mode

[SimonMac]

Don't you have a change control doc? Who signed off the testing?

Sack Test Monkey who signed off the Exit Report
Sack Release Monkey who failed to do due diligence
Sack Change Monkey who failed interrogate the work of the above

[amcdonald]

Whose sockie is MF, no one really experiences this much fail surely

[minestrone]

Hawd on...


The forms fields have variable names and they are correct but it is the on screen text labels beside the fields are wrong and that is killing the system?

Jesus ****!

[suityou01]

I think your only rescue might be to call up Suity.

Busy, sod off.

HTH

[Old Greg]

I think your only rescue might be to call up Suity.

I ain't gettin' on no plane with that crazy fool.

[Mich the Tester]

Don't you have a change control doc? Who signed off the testing?

Not me guv.

[mudskipper]

Looking forward for the RCA as everyone is looking at each other for why nobody tested it when it had been explicitly written down by the business as a possible gotcha.

Don't you have a change control doc? Who signed off the testing?

[Mich the Tester]

I think your only rescue might be to call up Suity.

[Old Hack]

I had a client who when told their data wasn't clean enough to get into the database, as the triggers were catching the iffy data, ordered the triggers to be turned off so they could get the data in.

It had other triggers which copied the data into archive tables too if it was manipulated, which, later on, would be used to roll-back on errors.

3 years worth of work cleaning it all up.

Now that was some meeting when that came out into the open

[MarillionFan]

New fieldname conflicts with another fieldname from a different table, so the underlying select now has an ambiguous column name?

It's not the column name as in the database, it's the text label on the form!

The new database field name has a u_ in front of it though, so they think it' either the label (which is how the platform can work) or someone used a *name* on the integration.

Looking forward for the RCA as everyone is looking at each other for why nobody tested it when it had been explicitly written down by the business as a possible gotcha.

[mudskipper]

New fieldname conflicts with another fieldname from a different table, so the underlying select now has an ambiguous column name?