Return to Answer

• status-planned I've added items on our technical debt backlog to take care of adding tests/refactoring the HasContent function, as well as adding tests for the dependencies of HasContent that were demonstrating the buggy behavior. This bug is something that automated tests can and should catch - we're just missing test coverage here.
• status-deferred During this buggy period, the revision counts were off. Some post history items were being counted as a revision, so this threw off anything that referenced a revision by its number. It's possible that we may be able to make a database fix that fixes rollbacks pointing at invalid revisions, but we're not able to commit resources to fixing this at this time. For now, we're okay with any rollback that occurred showing the fallback of "revision 0" during the impacted time. The data is still there and recoverable if we changed each affected rollback to point to the nearest revision before it, but for now it will continue to point at the history item with no associated revision. If there is a larger problem or we've misunderstood the impact here, please let us know and we can reprioritize appropriately.

• status-planned I've added items on our technical debt backlog to take care of adding tests/refactoring the HasContent function, as well as adding tests for the dependencies of HasContent that were demonstrating the buggy behavior. This bug is something that automated tests can and should catch - we're just missing test coverage here.
• status-completed During this buggy period, the revision counts were off. Some post history items were being counted as a revision, so this threw off anything that referenced a revision by its number. We have performed a network-wide fix of this data that fixes rollbacks pointing at invalid revisions (there were less than 10 instances of this across the network).

The source of the problem was a function that checked if the a post history entry had any content changes. This is a function that effectively hasn't been touched since Atwood first committed it 12 years ago. The original function was:

The source of the problem was a function that checked if the post history entry had any content changes. This is a function that effectively hasn't been touched since Atwood first committed it 12 years ago. The original function was:

• I've added items on our technical debt backlog to take care of adding tests/refactoring the HasContent function, as well as adding tests for the dependencies of HasContent that were demonstrating the buggy behavior. This bug is something that automated tests can and should catch - we're just missing test coverage here.
• During this buggy period, it seems that the revision counts were off. Some post history items were being counted as a revision, so this threw off anything that referenced a revision by its number. We're going to do some more investigation to understand the impact here, but please let us know if you're seeing anything else broken in relation to the revision counts being off.

The approximate period of time this bug was live was:

• Start: 2021-09-14 13:50 UTC
• End: 2021-09-15 15:31 UTC

• status-planned I've added items on our technical debt backlog to take care of adding tests/refactoring the HasContent function, as well as adding tests for the dependencies of HasContent that were demonstrating the buggy behavior. This bug is something that automated tests can and should catch - we're just missing test coverage here.
• status-deferred During this buggy period, the revision counts were off. Some post history items were being counted as a revision, so this threw off anything that referenced a revision by its number. It's possible that we may be able to make a database fix that fixes rollbacks pointing at invalid revisions, but we're not able to commit resources to fixing this at this time. For now, we're okay with any rollback that occurred showing the fallback of "revision 0" during the impacted time. The data is still there and recoverable if we changed each affected rollback to point to the nearest revision before it, but for now it will continue to point at the history item with no associated revision. If there is a larger problem or we've misunderstood the impact here, please let us know and we can reprioritize appropriately.