[quickthrower2]

Would be interesting to see an example.

I’ve been on the receiving end of people who want their question asked exactly as worded, cross-examination style, and it is not fun. I wonder if it is that?

If the other person doesn’t answer how you expected, then expect that, persist, be kind and be calm. Assume the best intents.

They might actually be saying dumb things to help themselves make sense.

Here might be an example:

You: Why is the test suite taking 30 minutes now?

Them: Did you run it last night?

(Because they know something about the system state last night and want to check if the implied unhappiness about the test run length might be due to that)

[janj]

It's never a cross examination or contentious from my end.

One recent edited example:

My question: "I'm trying to investigate why a request is failing, I found it in aws, the logs for [service] contain a stack trace up to where the [microservice] request is made, logs are very sparse. Is there a way to get [microservice] stack trace?" [I included links to logs and relevant info]

His response is "Do you want a stack trace on every log? I assume dumping a stack trace is somewhat expensive (though I don't actually know if this is the case) so I would be hesitant to attach one to every log entry"

Did I ask to attach a stack trace to every log? I guided him through the original ask and did receive some help. If this happened one time it wouldn't register, but his initial response here was very typical, something I got used to.

[quickthrower2]

From that example. My take:

You explained clearly and respectfully with the background info what you need.

They came back with a question. An odd question. I suspect:

* They are not experienced

* They have been “punished” before because someone asked for “X, and common sense implies X,Y” but the requestor wanted “X,Z”. So they ask dumb questions to be sure.

* Not enough coffee, and realtime conversation they didn’t parse what you said properly.

I would take the question with a sense of calm and not worry. It is a good think they are asking questions. Encourage dumb questions. 1% of the time they are smart questions.

As a senior dev it could be your time to shine with some mentoring:

“It would be fantastic to have a stack trace on every log, but I suspect this would cause performance problems and increase our log storage costs. It is sufficient to only have stack traces when an exception occurs”

I guess you said something like this at the time.

By the way stack trace logs where there are no exceptions are something I have done, but not every log.

Aside: A stack trace for every log almost sounds like a cool startup idea or monitoring product differentiator, as long as the UX is good and it doesn’t add noise.

[janj]

They are experienced, we were equals, maybe I'm just under him, maybe that was what we was trying to assert.

Again this was an observed pattern, not just one time.

[travoltaj]

Their answer sounds fine to me.

Stack trace usually means a full stack trace. I've rarely seen one in production - it's usually for unhandled errors. Usually it'll be a one line log which will point you to the point in code where it's erroring out.

Sounds like you just want the logs for the [microservice] for a particular failing request, and not the stack trace?

It'd be bad communication on both sides, here.

[janj]

I'm genuinely surprised that a question about a particular failed request could be interpreted as a request to start logging stack traces for all requests. One reason for the surprise is I also believe it would be unreasonable to log the stack trace for every request.

I always try to give people the benefit of the doubt, if my interpretation of something seems unreasonable I like to make sure there's not a more generous interpretation, and give the benefit of the doubt when possible.

Again it's about a pattern over time, not just one instance. I realize I'm consistently not being given the benefit of doubt so I work on my communication. It continues and I start to wonder if it's intentional. To answer your question in the other thread, it seems similar for some but not others.

I think some people form an initial impression of others and that impacts the communication going forward, probably not always intentional. I think also some people try to diminish others through public communication. I don't know if that is what I was experiencing but it could be the case, something to be aware of.

[janj]

Wanted to add for context, this question wasn't directed to him specifically, was posted in a general channel. I don't want to sound paranoid but based on his pattern of responses it seemed like this type of immediate response in a public channel was intended to influence other's perspectives. I'm not into the office politics games but I am aware that people play them.

[travoltaj]

Is this pattern of responses from him, the same to everyone, or just to you?

If it's the former, it's probably just them and not office politics.