Rebasing Without Fear

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.

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.

The fix itself took four lines. Finding out where those four lines belonged took most of a week, including one afternoon spent proving that the bug was not where everyone, including me, had been absolutely certain it was. That is a normal ratio, and it is worth telling new people about.

Where it started

#!/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

A good default is one that nobody has to think about. We spent a long time making this configurable and then discovered that every single environment used the same value. So we deleted the setting, wrote the value down in one place and removed an entire class of support questions.

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.

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.

The actual fix

What surprised me was how much of the cost was in the waiting. The work itself was quick. The build took nine minutes, the review sat for a day and the deploy window was on Thursdays. Shaving a second off the code path would have been easy and would not have changed a thing.

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.

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.

A simpler version

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.

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.