Fix the bug that actually matters?

[BRVV]

This says to me you just jumped on the bandwagon around here of the armchair devs who were criticizing SE like this who turned out to be completely wrong about the issue. The problem wasn't a random number generator not rolling 0. The problem was the instance server wasn't getting the result from the lottery server so was defaulting to 0 in the absence of a result.

So they didn't even test their hardware setup?

[TaleraRistain]

So they didn't even test their hardware setup?

You don't test code in production.

"nyoooo there are no developers outside square enix that means everyone is a armchair dev"

It might suprise you, but developers exist outside of your favourite company too And it doesnt matter where the result came from, if 0 is a result that shouldnt exist, its really fucking easy to make the final output not be that number. Thats called exception handling and is really basic.

Setting a default like 0 to display when something goes out of allowable range is exception handling.

QA teams always get a lot of flack in situations like this but it's entirely possible they knew and reported this bug but higher ups decided to push through anyway.

This is a possibility as well. We are always at the mercy of the choices those paying the bills decide to make. And they don't always make wise ones.

[Shinkuno]

Setting a default like 0 to display when something goes out of allowable range is exception handling.

Not at all... imagine if during a transaction error your exception handling would be not abort the transaction, but removing the money from the sender and giving 0 to the receiver.

The exception handling for this case would be either reroll or set it to 1, which still unfair at least noone loses out and noone would even know if something went wrong cause 1 is a valid result after all.

Could their actual exception handling code set it to 0? Yes. Would i call it exception handling? No, cause you purposefully let through a bad result.

[Valkyrie_Lenneth]

Not at all... imagine if during a transaction error your exception handling would be not abort the transaction, but removing the money from the sender and giving 0 to the receiver.

The exception handling for this case would be either reroll or set it to 1, which still unfair at least noone loses out and noone would even know if something went wrong cause 1 is a valid result after all.

Could their actual exception handling code set it to 0? Yes. Would i call it exception handling? No, cause you purposefully let through a bad result.

They stated the results were valid, it was just an error from moving the result to the end user where a disconnect happened.



If you don't believe them well.... Conspiracy theorists thrive everywhere I guess. The XIV team is usually pretty transparent when it comes to problems, haven't given me a reason to doubt them yet.


If a transaction fails in commerce, you still see the money "withdrawn" from your account for a few days until the bank let's it fall off.

[Valkyrie_Lenneth]

Rationalizing away poor behavior.





Spends most of his time trolling the forums and rationalizing it as "I'm not doing anything"

[Shinkuno]

They stated the results were valid, it was just an error from moving the result to the end user where a disconnect happened.

So on the serverside the results were valid but then the error happened on the enduser screen? So in theory someone should have gotten a house right? You dont see how that makes no sense right? If the results was 0 on the server but while sending it to display on the client it got error'd to 0, then someone would have gotten a house without even knowing. But that wasnt the case, so the result was 0 on the server aswell, and in that case no it wasnt a valid result cause 0 shouldnt roll. Thats just using common sense nothing to do with conspiracy

[Valkyrie_Lenneth]

So on the serverside the results were valid but then the error happened on the enduser screen? So in theory someone should have gotten a house right? You dont see how that makes no sense right? If the results was 0 on the server but while sending it to display on the client it got error'd to 0, then someone would have gotten a house without even knowing. But that wasnt the case, so the result was 0 on the server aswell, and in that case no it wasnt a valid result cause 0 shouldnt roll. Thats just using common sense nothing to do with conspiracy

No, the server rolled a number but it wasn't passed properly to the system that handles granting the houses. So that system had a 0 but the system that generated the winner worked properly.



Those lottos didn't end, they extended the results period until they were able to fix the disconnect and the winners got their house.

[TaleraRistain]

Not at all... imagine if during a transaction error your exception handling would be not abort the transaction, but removing the money from the sender and giving 0 to the receiver.

The exception handling for this case would be either reroll or set it to 1, which still unfair at least noone loses out and noone would even know if something went wrong cause 1 is a valid result after all.

Could their actual exception handling code set it to 0? Yes. Would i call it exception handling? No, cause you purposefully let through a bad result.

How exactly is the server that isn't doing the rolling supposed to do a reroll? The lottery server was doing the rolling. It had a valid result. That valid result was not being passed to the instance server due to a bug and in the absence of a result the code was displaying 0 for the end user.

[Shinkuno]

How exactly is the server that isn't doing the rolling supposed to do a reroll? The lottery server was doing the rolling. It had a valid result. That valid result was not being passed to the instance server due to a bug and in the absence of a result the code was displaying 0 for the end user.

So they didnt do exception handling, thanks for confirming