Hacker News Reader

Comment by 01100011 | Hacker News Reader

FWIW, our codebase is growing, and the size of each change is also growing, but it's because AI is making us fix all the bugs we'd previously check in because our code long ago surpassed what even our best developers can reason about.

The funny thing is that the AI adopters are in the middle of the bell curve. Our worst devs continue to perform worse than AI yet refuse to use it and our best devs continue to insist AI sucks despite it finding issues in their code and the reviews and designs they've approved.

View on HN

Too many comments about AI read like inadvertent admissions of incompetence or dysfunctional projects.

Couple of WTFs that come to mind:

* How many bugs did one have per commit, that commits have to noticeably grow in order to not have those bugs in the first place?

* How does one even do software engineering if the (best) developers can’t reason about the code?

Code debt.

Software engineering is possible but largely a myth in practice.

Jesus man take some responsibility.

Lol sure dude.

Shouldn’t you be, in general, separating out new functionality from old fixes?

Shouldn’t those “fixing bugs we gained in the past” be their own MR that can be read, reasoned about and have evaluated test coverage?

Sure and sometimes that is what happens. Sometimes it's not. We should be doing a lot of things, but have to triage issues and act pragmatically.

In the case of what I'm currently working on, filing bugs for every issue I found, and then factoring out each fix, and then running each change through the 8 hour ci/cd system, and hoping an unrelated issue doesn't get misattributed to me... No, I'd rather just wrap it up into one coherent refactoring change and be done with it because when I'm done there are several more like it waiting for my attention.

I don't know your exact situation; and there are sometimes genuinely valid reasons for an 8-hour CI/CD system; but ... man, reducing that down to like 20 minutes (which is possible and often common) would pay as many dividends as all the AI stuff that's been added. Man, like ... holy crap @_@

We're uh.. we're a well known and widely used piece of software. There is an insanely large amount of testing that needs to go in to each change across many platforms and configurations and we have a lot of devs hammering that system with changes to test. Even worse now because of AI...

If your company is really interested in doing AI stuff you may be able to sell people on the idea of a "fast agentic CI" where you:

1. Track code coverage from all current test cases in your big 8hr runs.

2. Index the coverage so it goes testcase name -> methods touched.

3. On every commit run an agent which looks at the diffs, tries to predict which tests the code being edited is touching, and run just those tests (or a random subset if there are too many).

Once you have this you can also automatically kick off builds every 8hr that contain all the previously submitted patches. Once that is done, if a test begins to fail, it can automatically bisect the history to find change, and notify the author.

You could also get these benefits with a Bazel like build system which can cache test executions so others don't need to rerun them if the binary is not changed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com