interesting that they have an agent that is triggered on flaky CI failures. but it seems far too specific -- you can have pull request on many other triggers.
there doesn't seem to be any upside on having it only for flaky tests because the workflow is really agnostic to the context.
I think this is the first article that truly gave me “slop nausea”. So many “It’s not X. It’s Y.” Do people not realize how awful this reads? It’s not a novel either, just a few thousand words, just fucking write it and edit it yourself.
I don't really think this is at all at the quality bar for posts here. This is obviously AI-slop -- why should I invest more time reading your slop than you took to write it?
Even so, at what point do we consider the LLM-ification of all of tech a hazard? I've seen Claude go and lazily fix a test by loosening invariants. AI writes your code, AI writes your tests. Where is your human judgment?
Someone is going to lose money or get hurt by this level of automation. If the humans on your team cannot keep track of the code being committed, then I would prefer not to use your product.
To me that reads more like monorepo is a central point of failure and they’re scrambling to bandaid the consequence of that decision. And the bandaids aren’t gonna scale to 1000 people
I guess they’re missing whatever Google has to make their monorepo scale
It just seems weird to me to throw all these stats together. Putting 75GB of logs in the same category as managing the compute for this many parallel workflows and so on seem like problems on totally different scales.
Unfortunately I didn’t really get the point of the article after being bombarded with stats, expect that the authors have an AI tool to sell.
We get it! They have 22,477 tests with a 99.98% pass rate, ship 65 commits to main daily, and keep 98 engineers productive on a single monorepo.
I thought the repetition of these statitics was a little tired, but overall that's an impressive solution. Also totally get that the hardest part is log ingestion and indexing.
10 comments
[ 2.0 ms ] story [ 41.0 ms ] thread1. Test pass rate is 99.98% is not good - the only acceptable rate is 100%.
2. Tests should not be quarantined or disabled. Every flaky test deserves attention.
Jesus, this is why Bazel was invented.
there doesn't seem to be any upside on having it only for flaky tests because the workflow is really agnostic to the context.
Even so, at what point do we consider the LLM-ification of all of tech a hazard? I've seen Claude go and lazily fix a test by loosening invariants. AI writes your code, AI writes your tests. Where is your human judgment?
Someone is going to lose money or get hurt by this level of automation. If the humans on your team cannot keep track of the code being committed, then I would prefer not to use your product.
I guess they’re missing whatever Google has to make their monorepo scale
Unfortunately I didn’t really get the point of the article after being bombarded with stats, expect that the authors have an AI tool to sell.
Please no AI slop, write your own bloody blog posts.
I thought the repetition of these statitics was a little tired, but overall that's an impressive solution. Also totally get that the hardest part is log ingestion and indexing.