6 ms·

I've had issues with this e-visa implementation and was told I could not board flights. As a someone in tech, I feel this a classic case study of how NOT to ro

by zabil 24d ago

I've had issues with this e-visa implementation and was told I could not board flights. As a someone in tech, I feel this a classic case study of how NOT to roll out a release and develop a solution. The release was chaotic, none of the airlines staff were trained on how to use this. So they still insisted on the expired cards and then picked on the expiry dates. Next, almost everyone makes you generate a verification share code in front of them by logging into the e-visa website even if the rules say I can print it out and just use the code. It takes a few minute to get on the website and generate one. This solution assumed that everyone has access to a smart phone and a good wifi connection to make this work. Whoever built this didn't test it on the ground.

MarceliusK 24d ago
This is the classic difference between testing whether the software works and testing whether the system works
alphabeta3r56 24d ago
How did they roll it out embassy without having at least some old systemd or a human in the loop backup working?
- CoastalCoder 24d ago
  > ... without having at least some old systemd ... Back in my day, visas were handled by init scripts. And we like it that way!
  - JSR_FDED 24d ago
    But with systemd you can start deportation procedures while waiting for the rest to resolve.
RedShift1 24d ago
> Whoever built this didn't test it on the ground. God this happens all the time. Software written by people that don't use the software themselves. It has happened to me so many times, I come across a piece of software with weird bugs or interactions that would be immediately fixed if the developer just spends 5 minutes using the software like an end user would. Dogfood all the things!
- aleph_minus_one 24d ago
  > Software written by people that don't use the software themselves. It has happened to me so many times, I come across a piece of software with weird bugs or interactions that would be immediately fixed if the developer just spends 5 minutes using the software like an end user would. Dogfood all the things! My experience is completely contrary: developers typically do care deeply about such things. The problem is rather that very commonly managers actively disallow these poor developers to apply their diligence to the software that they develop. I really have a strong feeling that you want to participate in the ugly vendetta against software developers that has been going on for decades ("Replace all software developers"; current season: "Replace them with AI"). Don't do that. Rather fight the people who are really responsible (who are often (project) managers or Scrum masters).
  - lukan 24d ago
    "I really have a strong feeling that you want to participate in the ugly vendetta against software developers that has been going on for decades ("Replace all software developers"; current season: "Replace them with AI")." Paranoia? There are a lot of devs who don't really like what they develope so don't spend any time dogfooding it. Has nothing to do with devs who are blocked by management.
    - aleph_minus_one 24d ago
      > There are a lot of devs who don't really like what they develope so don't spend any time dogfooding it. Note that in my comment I wrote nothing about dogfooding - for a very good reason: It is well-known that dogfooding leads to software that has rather few bugs, but also dogfooded software often shows a tendency to be "biased towards programmers and power users". So, there often exist very good reasons if the programmers actively don't dogfood their software, and rather trust someone else (who is very trusted by the programmers) that the workflow that the programmer should implement does make sense for the user, even though most programmers would implement this aspect very differently.
      - 24d ago
andy_ppp 24d ago
I bet you 100% it was built not by in house team but farmed out to an agency for £££££ millions. They will have been saying in their case studies some absolute nonsense about how they saved the government millions rather than burned loads of money too.
- deleted 24d ago
  [deleted]
- graemep 24d ago
  and the sales people promised it would be 100% reliable.
rwmj 24d ago
So did we, although we were in the end able to persuade them to let us board the flight by showing a screenshot of my friend's eVisa status from the UK government website (so secure!) To be fair to the airlines here, if they get it wrong then the UK government fines the airline. This is why they are pretty risk averse, and also why I'm surprised that the screenshot worked.
- throw73849494 24d ago
  If you would lie with screenshot, it is a forgery of official documents, and airline can sue you for damages.
tym0 24d ago
Also for years prior it was explicitly said share code were _not_ to be used for travels and that airlines were not allowed to ask for them. And now that they are the airlines do not have the system to check them so you have to print the webpage which also explicitly said should _not_ be used instead of the share code...
blitzar 24d ago
> As a someone in tech Computer says no.

by zabil 24d ago

MarceliusK 24d ago

This is the classic difference between testing whether the software works and testing whether the system works

alphabeta3r56 24d ago

How did they roll it out embassy without having at least some old systemd or a human in the loop backup working?

CoastalCoder 24d ago
> ... without having at least some old systemd ... Back in my day, visas were handled by init scripts. And we like it that way!
- JSR_FDED 24d ago
  But with systemd you can start deportation procedures while waiting for the rest to resolve.

RedShift1 24d ago

> Whoever built this didn't test it on the ground. God this happens all the time. Software written by people that don't use the software themselves. It has happened to me so many times, I come across a piece of software with weird bugs or interactions that would be immediately fixed if the developer just spends 5 minutes using the software like an end user would. Dogfood all the things!

aleph_minus_one 24d ago
> Software written by people that don't use the software themselves. It has happened to me so many times, I come across a piece of software with weird bugs or interactions that would be immediately fixed if the developer just spends 5 minutes using the software like an end user would. Dogfood all the things! My experience is completely contrary: developers typically do care deeply about such things. The problem is rather that very commonly managers actively disallow these poor developers to apply their diligence to the software that they develop. I really have a strong feeling that you want to participate in the ugly vendetta against software developers that has been going on for decades ("Replace all software developers"; current season: "Replace them with AI"). Don't do that. Rather fight the people who are really responsible (who are often (project) managers or Scrum masters).
- lukan 24d ago
  "I really have a strong feeling that you want to participate in the ugly vendetta against software developers that has been going on for decades ("Replace all software developers"; current season: "Replace them with AI")." Paranoia? There are a lot of devs who don't really like what they develope so don't spend any time dogfooding it. Has nothing to do with devs who are blocked by management.
  - aleph_minus_one 24d ago
    > There are a lot of devs who don't really like what they develope so don't spend any time dogfooding it. Note that in my comment I wrote nothing about dogfooding - for a very good reason: It is well-known that dogfooding leads to software that has rather few bugs, but also dogfooded software often shows a tendency to be "biased towards programmers and power users". So, there often exist very good reasons if the programmers actively don't dogfood their software, and rather trust someone else (who is very trusted by the programmers) that the workflow that the programmer should implement does make sense for the user, even though most programmers would implement this aspect very differently.
    - 24d ago

andy_ppp 24d ago

I bet you 100% it was built not by in house team but farmed out to an agency for £££££ millions. They will have been saying in their case studies some absolute nonsense about how they saved the government millions rather than burned loads of money too.

deleted 24d ago
[deleted]
graemep 24d ago
and the sales people promised it would be 100% reliable.

rwmj 24d ago

So did we, although we were in the end able to persuade them to let us board the flight by showing a screenshot of my friend's eVisa status from the UK government website (so secure!) To be fair to the airlines here, if they get it wrong then the UK government fines the airline. This is why they are pretty risk averse, and also why I'm surprised that the screenshot worked.

throw73849494 24d ago
If you would lie with screenshot, it is a forgery of official documents, and airline can sue you for damages.

tym0 24d ago

Also for years prior it was explicitly said share code were _not_ to be used for travels and that airlines were not allowed to ask for them. And now that they are the airlines do not have the system to check them so you have to print the webpage which also explicitly said should _not_ be used instead of the share code...

blitzar 24d ago

> As a someone in tech Computer says no.