Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Type in the exact number of machines to proceed

rachelbythebay.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 340 posts

Re: Type in the exact number of machines to proceed

#261

Post by jacobwilliamroy »

PureParadigm wrote: post #240
harikb wrote: post #62

I have a habit of creating cli tools, which potentially do dangerous things, to default to dry-run mode. For example, instead of the typical `--dry-run` or `-n` option, my scripts instead had a cheesy `--do-it` to be non-dry-run. It is annoying as hell to my colleagues, but saved the day many times.

A coworker of mine would write all his bash scripts to echo out the commands it would run, and then to actually run it he would pipe it to bash. This way he could inspect the commands to make sure they were correct before running them. Something like: ./dangerous-script.sh $args | bash

I also do this.

Re: Type in the exact number of machines to proceed

#264

Post by wjdp »

dgritsko wrote: post #2

Similar idea as GitHub's "type the exact name of this repository if you want to delete it" confirmation dialog. Maybe that's really what you want to do, but in case that's not actually what you meant to do, having a few extra hoops to jump through seems like a good idea.

Do you type the repo name, or just copy/paste or select/middle click it?

Half of me would want them to put `user-select: none` on that text. The other half has to archive 10+ repos and would hate that!

Re: Type in the exact number of machines to proceed

#265

Post by haimez »

morelisp wrote: post #178
js2 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I learned a technique from a gray beard[0] when I worked as a student sys admin for the CS dept over two decades ago. Whenever typing a destructive command, he'd take his hands off the keyboard and drop them to his side, re-read the command, then put his hands back to press enter. I do this whenever I'm on a production server (which is rare anyway). I use different colored prompts for local and remote shells. [0] Tec…

A similar tip I picked up long ago: If you're typing a dangerous command, first type a `#` (or `--` if it's SQL, etc.), then the command. Then read it. Then go back to the start of the line and remove the comment and run it.

For SQL, always BEGIN first. If you’re unsure, run it as an EXPLAIN first. Then fire. Then commit it or roll back.

Re: Type in the exact number of machines to proceed

#266

Post by Talanes »

rurp wrote: post #242
morty_s wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Came here for this. A: “Passing control” B: “Taking control” A: “You have control” B: “I have control” This is how I remember it (6174, UH-1Y).

Rock climbing is remarkably similar. When a climber begins up a route the standard exchange with their belayer (the person managing the rope and keeping them alive in a fall) goes something like A: "Belay on?" B: "Belay on" A: "Climbing" B: "Climb on" Then the climber begins. It's interesting to me that highly regulated and totally unregulated activities have evolved extremely similar processes. I suppose having your…

For the ultimate low stakes version of this, when I played World of Warcraft in my younger days, tank swaps would communicate the same way.

Re: Type in the exact number of machines to proceed

#267

Post by jraph »

bmaupin wrote: post #189
lqet wrote: post #185

Github has been doing this for quite a while know when you try to delete a repository - you have to type in the exact repository name to confirm.

Which I always mindlessly copy and paste...

But maybe this is enough? I do this too, but this gives me time to actually read the repo name twice. It's way better than a confirm button for me.

I'm sure it would also wake me up from autopilot. But I don't do this often so I can't really know. It seems like this is good enough for many people, who don't perform this action too often.

Re: Type in the exact number of machines to proceed

#268

Post by Fr0styMatt88 »

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #51
nemosaltat wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prior Navy Nuke here. We called it PRO (Point, Read, Operate)- we’d point at the thing we were going to manipulate, state what we were manipulating, and announce the completed action. For certain procedures we had a second party (“reader”) observing and acknowledging each part of each step. Operator (Gesturing anti-clockwise while pointing at valve XYZ) Operator: Opening valve XYZ. Reader: Opening valve XYZ, aye. Ope…

I've noticed from pair programming that the person navigating with a mouse is far less able to read and interpret their surroundings or pick up typos while typing, than an observer that simply has to watch what the other person is doing. Like when clicking on a file in a directory you just entered and looking for the file, the observer can literally locate and point to the file for the mouse user 5-10x faster than th…

Since I have a vision impairment, I'm sure the effect is amplified very much for me, but using the mouse is such a massive break in flow:

- First you have to lift one hand up off the keyboard and put it down on the mouse. This may or may not mean taking your eyes off the screen.

- Then you need to find the mouse pointer on the screen

- Then you need to aim for what is usually a relatively small target and move the pointer there.

- If you're right-clicking, the right-click menu usually presents more small targets you need to aim for.

- If you need to use the keyboard, again you have to move your hand over to the keyboard from the mouse.

For finding the pointer, I developed this unconscious habit of slamming the mouse pointer to the very top-left of the screen. It's difficult though when on someone else's machine, where your brain isn't used to the pointer velocity or where multi-monitor means that slamming the mouse to the top-left actually puts the pointer on another monitor.

People look at me in awe when I'm using a two-pane file manager but honestly not having to take your hands off the keyboard and not having to move your eyes off the screen gives so much better flow. It's also why I like the UI of Blender - one hand on the keyboard and one hand on the mouse at most times.

Re: Type in the exact number of machines to proceed

#269

Post by meesterdude »

PureParadigm wrote: post #240
harikb wrote: post #62

I have a habit of creating cli tools, which potentially do dangerous things, to default to dry-run mode. For example, instead of the typical `--dry-run` or `-n` option, my scripts instead had a cheesy `--do-it` to be non-dry-run. It is annoying as hell to my colleagues, but saved the day many times.

A coworker of mine would write all his bash scripts to echo out the commands it would run, and then to actually run it he would pipe it to bash. This way he could inspect the commands to make sure they were correct before running them. Something like: ./dangerous-script.sh $args | bash

wow that's so clever and simple! Love it.

Re: Type in the exact number of machines to proceed

#270

Post by tatersolid »

grossvogel wrote: post #246
morelisp wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A similar tip I picked up long ago: If you're typing a dangerous command, first type a `#` (or `--` if it's SQL, etc.), then the command. Then read it. Then go back to the start of the line and remove the comment and run it.

I always do destructive SQL commands in two steps: first run a select using the WHERE clause you intend to use and verify which records will be affected, then hit the up arrow and edit the beginning of the query leaving the WHERE intact. I also like adding redundant conditions to the WHERE so a typo in any single one of them won't sink me.

For the rare but critical manual SQL mod our common safety measure is to wrap every DELETE or UPDATE in BEGIN TRAN...ROLLBACK TRAN first. Run on test systems or snapshots multiple times, checking the result inside the transaction.

Finally, change ROLLBACK to COMMIT only when you are positive all is well.

Post reply on HN