Docker for the Reluctant

Old code deserves a little respect, even when it is bad. It has been running in production for years and has already met all the strange inputs you have not thought of yet. Read it carefully before rewriting it, because the odd conditional in the middle is usually a scar from a real incident.

The number looked great on the dashboard, which should have been the first warning. It turned out we were averaging across every request, including the health checks, which are very fast and very frequent. Once they were excluded the graph told a much less flattering and far more useful story.

The review comment that stuck with me was a question: what happens if this runs twice? It had not occurred to me, and the answer was unpleasant. Since then I ask it of every job, webhook and migration I touch, and it has been worth more than any tool I have installed.

What we changed afterwards

• Write down what you expected to happen.
• Read the first error, not the last.
• Say what you measured separately from what you concluded.

We had been treating this as a small problem for about a year. It only ever appeared under load, it went away on a retry, and nobody could reproduce it on a laptop. That combination is how a small problem gets to stay in a codebase long enough to become part of the architecture.

Staging will lie to you, gently and often. It has less data, less traffic and a much more forgiving network. Treat a clean run there as a sign the change is not obviously broken, and keep watching the real thing for a while after it ships, with one hand near the rollback.

Do the rename in its own commit. It feels like extra ceremony right up until someone tries to find out when the behavior changed and the history shows a single enormous diff. Separating the mechanical change from the interesting one costs thirty seconds and saves a very long afternoon.

The wrong theory

We did not find the bug. We found the place where it had been living.

Odette Lang

Keep the change small enough to explain in one sentence. If the description needs the word and, it is probably two changes, and the second one will be the one that causes trouble. Reviewers can hold one idea in their heads at a time, and so, at three in the morning, can you.

One useful habit is to ask what would have told us sooner. Not who should have caught it, but what signal already existed and was not being looked at. Usually there was a log line or a metric sitting there the whole time, and a small alert costs far less than the outage did.

The browser is already very good at most of this. A surprising share of the script we removed was reimplementing things a plain link, a form or a details element will do for free, with better keyboard support and without the bugs we had carefully written ourselves.

The actual fix

Nobody reads the documentation until something is on fire, so write it for that reader. Put the command they need at the top. Say what it changes and how to undo it. Leave the history of how we got here for a later section, where it can be appreciated at leisure.

Choosing boring technology is mostly about choosing where your surprises will come from. The database has been around for decades and its failure modes are written up in great detail. The newer thing may well be better, but its surprises will belong entirely to you, at a time of its choosing.

Test it with the keyboard before you call it finished. Tab through the page, press Enter on things and see where focus lands afterwards. It takes less than a minute, it needs no tooling at all, and it finds a remarkable number of problems that an automated checker will never report.

Why it stayed broken

There is a version of this that uses a library, and for a larger team it might be the right call. We looked at it, read the changelog and counted the dependencies. For the handful of cases we actually have, thirty lines we understand beat three thousand we would have to trust.