Settings

Theme

Ask HN: Can someone explain why this line exists?

25 points by andrewgross 13 years ago · 16 comments · 1 min read


https://github.com/mongodb/mongo-java-driver/blob/master/src/main/com/mongodb/ConnectionStatus.java#L213

Found via: https://twitter.com/avibryant/status/339840598871769088

dampier 13 years ago

If you read the code, you will notice that the FIRST time this error is encountered, it will always be logged.

The test in question is done frequently, and subsequent failures are about 100 times less interesting than the first. Unless you just like filling up disks with log files while your network is acting up.

Finally, note that the "_ok" flag will be RESET and the resolved condition logged once the test finally returns to succeeding.

  • andrewgrossOP 13 years ago

    Awesome, thanks for the explanation

    • lotyrin 13 years ago

      Thank you for an excellent counterexample for when people claim code comments are useless.

      • ollysb 13 years ago

        You could express the same thing without comments:

            boolean alreadyLogged = !_ok;
            boolean skipLogging = alreadyLogged && (Math.random() > 0.1)
            if( skipLogging ) return res;
        • Dylan16807 13 years ago

          I strongly dislike your version. Creating a boolean just to use and discard in the next line? Twice? Ugly. I'd much rather keep the code simple and try to cut out confusing parts. Give the flag a better name and remove the useless ternary. I'd also get rid of the conditional return and let the one outside the catch do the work.

            if (!errorLogged || (Math.random() < 0.1)) {
              
              errorLogged = true;
              
              // log error
              
            }
          
          But if it's a choice between comments and adding temporary variables that don't do anything, I'll almost always choose comments.
          • qu4z-2 13 years ago

            I'd tend to choose temporary variables. I trust my compiler to optimise them out, and I find it makes it much easier to find the appropriate place to change or add new code.

            "Does this affect working out whether the error has been logged before?", "Does this affect whether we should log this error?", etc

            EDIT: But in this case I'd still want to put a comment clarifying the "why".

            • ranman 13 years ago

              are you sure the compiler is smart enough to do that? I think we frequently assume compilers are smarter than they really are because we don't fully understand them anymore... but in practice I find they often do very dumb things.

              • lmm 13 years ago

                No, but I am sure that my automated performance testing procedures will detect if I've introduced a significant performance problem, and it would be an inefficient use of my time to worry about insignificant performance effects.

              • Dylan16807 13 years ago

                Register renaming is one of the most very basic levels of optimization. I challenge you to find me a single optimizing compiler that slows down when you give names to temporary results. Hell, I can show you non-optimizing compilers that suffer no slowdown from code like this.

          • ollysb 13 years ago

            I wouldn't actually have them as Boolean variables, I'd extract them into query methods, then the code would just be:

                if( skipLogging() ) return res;
      • dampier 13 years ago

        Heh ... agreed. A comment here would definitely not go amiss.

zaroth 13 years ago

I commented earlier, but I can't get over how ridiculous that line is. If you started by just writing the intent (!ok && rand() > .1) you actually have to work really hard to turn it into what you have there, and introduce a bug in the process.

Reminds me of this: http://www.osnews.com/story/19266/WTFs_m - "Dude, WTF!"

byoung2 13 years ago

If an exception was thrown, and _ok evaluates to false, then approximately 10% of the time, log the exception to the error log. Probably just to cut down on noise in the logs, or to account for brief periods of latency where the server appears down, but isn't.

  • andrewgrossOP 13 years ago

    Thanks, was reviewing it with a coworker and crept up on the same conclusion. Seems a bit hard to test and definitely alarming at first glance.

    • avibryant 13 years ago

      I think that you're right about the intent of the author, but unless I'm mistaken, that's not what the code does. If _ok is false, it boils down to if(!(Math.random() > 0.1))) which is the same as if(Math.random() <= 0.1), which means it will return early only 10% of the time, so the exception gets logged 90% of the time.

      Wait, what?

      • zaroth 13 years ago

        Upvote to you, and downvote to whoever wrote that line of code.

        A ternary inside an 'if' statement, really? And even more so when one of the return values is 'true'?

        Relax, it's just a bug, right? But it would be nice if programmers practiced basic Boolean reduction in their 'if' statements...

        (!((_ok) ? true : (Math.random() > 0.1)))

        !((_ok) ? true : (Math.random() > 0.1))

        _ok ? false : !(Math.random() > 0.1)

        !_ok && Math.random() <= 0.1

Keyboard Shortcuts

j
Next item
k
Previous item
o / Enter
Open selected item
?
Show this help
Esc
Close modal / clear selection