• NumG@sopuli.xyz
    6·
    2 hours ago

    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…

  • Ephera@lemmy.ml
    144·
    7 hours ago

    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
      22·
      4 hours ago

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

        • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
          7·
          4 hours ago

          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
            3·
            3 hours ago

            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”

  • brygphilomena@lemmy.world
    30·
    7 hours ago

    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
      17·
      4 hours ago

      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 😢

  • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
    87·
    9 hours ago

    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.

  • Gork@lemm.ee
    22·
    8 hours ago

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

    • jaybone@lemmy.world
      6·
      7 hours ago

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