The first thing I recycle inspection, that is, asked me to hand me something familiar in the form of documents. I have a feeling that this is calling me to do the transfer, but I still calmly. With every job seriously: I think that my job is not to make mistakes him no reason to dismiss me. But in retrospect, I'm really too simple, I was back from close inspection group will not stop looking for a variety of reasons.
Take the first thing that came back said above, that I organize my familiar business. I finally returned to wear a hat estimate delays in work. I put together a document before leaving at this time will be described, but they deny it, and see specific instructions on this link: transfer insist buckle deliberately delayed a hat, that I do not actively give his business to know .
After finishing the call out my business, according to the second thing is what he meant remodeling business-critical code I wrote before (it plainly, this is in fact a disguised form of transfer of work, but I have not the slightest neglect and complaints). The reconstruction work is ko, basic test did not test out the bug caused by me. May in the reconstructed version tested by time, have no time to wait until the official release to the environment, he found a reason, let me write code. (At this point in my possession because things are passed over to him). Next we, let me say this Ha reason to write code, how far-fetched by the.
10 am before, leading to modifications L to announce yesterday they tested out I have never worked on the business logic of a development environment bug.
I will start from the analysis of the source code.
Morning around 10:40, the leadership of L criticize me or bug slow, and inform directly connected to the camera debugging on to analyze the cause of
the team has only one camera, and has been the tester is being used, in consultation with the test: What happened was , agreed to give me the FBI after noon use
in the morning 11:35, customer service feedback data synchronization failed a project site,
Around 11 am 50, L verbal arranged for me to troubleshoot the cause of this problem, and sitting next to me staring at me deal
13:15 to find the cause of the error and deal with abnormal transfer, L in the customer service problem nails announce deal
At this time, L will go to lunch (I did not eat lunch and he has been dealing with this issue), I then observed after the repair data, to ensure that the error does not happen again (I did not eat lunch that day)
14:00, where to get the camera from the test equipment to begin processing that I am assigned to a bug
Around 14:40, leading the initiative to ask that question did not deal with the question, I answer: too much code and the business involved (indeed been designed for business and involves the core business logic), I still analyzing. At this leadership once again criticized the process is too slow. And inform before 16:00 can not handle, then I have to debug the code most part, so the answer: 4:00 certainly no problem.
15:20, a field issues assigned to me, I stopped hands work (this time bug fixes progress 90%) to deal with the problem online.
15:27, L speaker: put down the task at hand, then called out to talk. I severely criticized modify this bug low work efficiency. And stop all my development work and do not let me participate in the development.
About 16:00, L departments to report the matter to the leadership of W, W So I do interviews (indirect talk about leaving things)
In case I did not write bug, did not affect the business told me not to write code, I found out of thin air can not write code: Recording
Since then, L will not let me participate in the project development work, they called me to do a special online technical support issues. If this support and inform the work is done well, then they leave.
The second thing: L and I communicate with the business, do not understand their own business, I helped him correct business, they get angry, stare, finally pound the table and leave.
Background: Our business after receipt and delivery. Normal circumstances: first car + goods receipt is weighed (Jane into a heavy car), and then remove the goods is only known empty (referred empty) That is, the same car a particular receipt is generally the first car weigh later known as empty. If a colleague is pulling out something from the site (delivery). Is the first known empty (empty come from outside the project and ready to pull the goods), after weighing the vehicle (cargo transfer and then pull out) whether receipt or delivery because the car is not part of the project, the car out of the current project that shipping and receiving is complete.
Conflict: based on traffic as described above, L and then the task database (stored time sequence data) inside the plate with two continuous data, if the previous one is greater than the weight after a weight is the receipt. Because it is shipped. This judgment must be wrong, I have repeatedly example to his dialectical such judgments can not. But he always thought he was right, and finally angry, stare, pound the table curse that leave.
He finds that: after recording a pre-weighed weighing more than once on the receipt must be the project because we receipt is first weighed empty car and then said, this is certainly greater than the previous weight after weight once. But on the other hand does not hold ah. I was there, for example dialectic: car not to receipt of a shipment (empty after the first heavy vehicles). However, he weighed so empty, because of (a power outage, or other line drivers go on the platform did not go off, or a software error, and many of these cases we have seen before) that eventually led to a weighing record there is no record in our database. But then when he finished loading the goods leave normal weighing data is recorded into the system. The next day the car has been arranged for delivery, when he entered the empty projects, empty database will record a record. This is a heavy car before, is after a light rail vehicles. The truth is shipped to the results of our software will judge him as a receipt. This is wrong.
I explained a lot, but he has insisted that his fight, and directly in front of everyone to leave Paizhuo angry at the station.
Here is angry recording (recording is poor, then pound the table last fall than sound obvious but this behavior): Here is a sound recording
The third thing: is not my fault my fault.
Background: I am responsible for the end part of the development site. I called to the scene after obtaining license plates and weight, call L wrote WebAPI interface. L is then received by the interface parameters, respectively weight information and the license plate number is written to the cloud Table A and Table B. A table found an error when writing data to the success of the test, B table data write failure. Testing bug assign this to me.
I stick to the code without errors, and to test interpretation. L I write interface is passed to a data, he got this piece of data, to Table A and Table B are written license plates and weight. A table write was successful it means I have license plates and weight are accurately delivered to him. A data writing table, B is not written to the table, it is generally L webApi internal processing error interface. And told him to go to L to confirm the changes. But the tests do not recognize this argument, or has asked me to change the code to upload when I called. And that I will test more and more intense debate.
L hear our arguments later, called me out of the conversation (something no test), I criticize my work is not responsible for affecting the team atmosphere. I did not personally refute (because based on the similar thing, the more I personally refute my more serious consequences).
Later, I repeated the test and take the initiative to communicate this problem in a very soft voice, he finally recognized the cause of webapi. Then notice this bug fix after L modified webapi.
The fourth thing: I was wrong to exaggerate. Before I was leaving the labor group, I had clearly told the leadership of the original D, for some logical process to be optimized, but if you cancel the transfer if one statement will cause more production environment a bigger mistake. The results during the labor group I was called to close inspection into the release version of the time so I really worry, canceled tune that if I reminded the judge. Online data modification result invalid. I went back to collect inspection team soon after they received complaints related to the user, I immediately analyze the if statement is due to the previously mentioned. L but just do not agree to release a new version to fix this bug. But version was released about 20 days after I returned to the team this if statement starts (was able to fix this problem). I was very conscious of his aim: to prove that he is to accept the time how bad software, so deliberately delay 20 days this bug is not fixed. And if repair is successful is to enable some logic already written.
The fifth thing. Trumped-up charges, arbitrary and cake speech. Please report this case to the department and the boss, that I do not work actively.
January 18, 2019 (the twelfth lunar month 26), Saturday and holidays. About 16:00 receive on-site customer feedback: an evening due to the current software led to flash back can not use unattended, causing multiple vehicles weighing queuing, queuing vehicles that are routed to State Road go up. The project next year we hope to help him solve the problem software flash back years later. Because the project has been put on reporting this issue when the Spring Festival false, pound room computer shutdown, the staff has been a holiday. And this matter has been the butt handle customer service, did not go to the technical side.
January 20, 2019, Monday morning led me severely L batch, said that because I did not deal with the problem, leading to the project queue of vehicles to the national highway. At that time I still do not know how it happened, then I know that afterwards chats from customer service qq group, to report again to the leadership of L: 1, when the project report is the weekend, I did not see on leave group messages, and the entire communication process I did not participate have not received customer service task switching. 2 project feedback is something the night before, in the group feedback when they shut down the project has been put annual leave, pound computer room is also shut down, workers holiday. Not remote to the scene. 3, the project also made it clear that we want to deal years later, not immediately treated.
It is for this reason: L I support the determination can be done (he mentioned before, if technical support is also doing well, then they leave). Really it is: arbitrary and hang him!