Our Deploy Script Is Forty Lines

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.

Naming turned out to matter more than the structure did. Once the function stopped being called process and started saying what it did, two of the three bugs in the surrounding code became obvious to everybody reading it, including the person who had written them, who was me.

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.

Reading the evidence

#!/usr/bin/env bash
set -euo pipefail

for file in dist/*.js; do
  gzip -9 --keep "$file"
done

echo "compressed $(ls dist/*.gz | wc -l) files"

plain preformatted text with no code element

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.

Write the failing case down before you change anything. It can be a test, a curl command or a sentence in the ticket. The point is that you have something outside your own head that says what wrong looks like, because your memory of the bug starts drifting the moment you begin working on it.

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.

Things that did not help

It helps to separate what you measured from what you concluded. We measured that the page took longer after the change. We concluded that the new query was responsible. Only the first of those was a fact, and it took an embarrassing amount of time to notice that the second one was wrong.

The first thing to do when something breaks is to stop guessing. Open the log, find the first line that looks wrong, and read it twice. Most of the time the message is telling you exactly what happened, and the only thing standing in the way is the theory you formed on the walk to the keyboard.

After that, the only thing left was to delete the workaround. This is the step that tends to get skipped, which is how a codebase ends up with fixes for bugs that stopped existing years ago. Put the removal in the same ticket, or accept that it will outlive everyone on the team.

What to watch for

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.

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.

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.