Meta developer tools: Working at scale

Post by shostack » Thu, Jun 29, 2023, 2:48 AM UTC

LoulouMonkey wrote: post #112

zug_zug wrote: post #19

I think Meta's tooling is inferior to industry standard. I actually took a survey while I was there, and that wasn't the majority opinion, but frankly I think most outsiders would absolutely agree. Things like Eden were a great idea, but tools had all sorts of issues they gloss over (a virtual file system can be really slow if you have a ton of small files), dev environments would randomly fail a lot, really the only…

As a Meta employee as well, and working in the data analytics / engineering space, I'm finding tooling to be pretty high standards actually. Though we arguably rely on a lot of Apache products, whatever we use that's internal only is great to work with. Daiq** recently started supporting notebooks, which has been a game changer for us as well as for the teams we work with. Phabricator is great as well, and makes ship…

Post by vlovich123 » Thu, Jun 29, 2023, 3:11 AM UTC

zug_zug wrote: post #192

vlovich123 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GitHub's developer workflow is a joke compared with the ticketing, CI, and code review tooling at Meta. I found the tools at Meta made it a lot smoother and faster to write and review code. Also, their automated flaky test detection, suppression, & ticket issuance/resolution is no joke. One of my favorite features. Their feature flagging system was also on point. Also, Workplace is a fantastic replacement of Wiki tha…

>> GitHub's developer workflow is a joke compared with the ticketing, CI, and code review tooling at Meta. ??

Post by vlovich123 » Thu, Jun 29, 2023, 4:37 AM UTC

erik_seaberg wrote: post #200

vlovich123 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It determines flakiness in aggregate across all builds. It also does automatic retries but it does so for the purposes of marking a run as flaky which it then remembers. And it's your team's responsibility for making your tests stable. If they're not stable, they're not going to fail builds which is the correct response (a ticket is filed & it's your team's job to keep those tickets under control). The neat thing is…

If a test goes from “flaky” to “never succeeds,” I absolutely want to fail builds. To me it seems pretty common for large integration tests to be flaky, and I don’t know that it’s always feasible to avoid without mocking so much that the test becomes meaningless.

Post by roland35 » Thu, Jun 29, 2023, 4:40 AM UTC

shostack wrote: post #202

hyuuu wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

as a former employee who has worked both in many other companies over a decade + starting a few startups, Meta tooling is one of the best if not the best, it's so good to a point where Saas companies came out of facebook simply by replicating their internal tooling, like Asana, Scuba, etc

I thought Asana were Xooglers?

Post by optymizer » Thu, Jun 29, 2023, 4:51 AM UTC

wilde wrote: post #160

optymizer wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what it's worth, as a Meta employee, I generally disagree with this comment. I mean, calling it 'inferior' is just laughable. It's way better than what open source projects have access to and it's way better than Amazon internal tooling (is that 'industry standard' enough?). The sapling workflow is better than git. I was skeptical when I joined, but between no branches and excellent stack and merge support, it's…

> Eden is fast. Crazy fast, in fact, if you look at the size of the monorepo. You’re measuring the wrong thing. The user actions are slow and take several seconds to complete usually. No one gives a shit how big the repo is. They care how long their operation takes.