Seven ways to change a trip, and only one of them said so
Changing your arrival time showed a brief "Updating…" while the app reworked your travel times and wake-up. Six other edits — swapping a destination, adding a stop, removing one, reordering them, and switching between driving, walking and cycling — recalculated in exactly the same way and said nothing at all. The numbers on screen just changed, with no visible cause, which reads as a glitch rather than a response. All seven now run through one path, so all seven explain themselves. That also closed a quieter gap: those six edits were starting their recalculations in a way that depended on an ordering nobody had written down, so two quick edits in a row had no guaranteed winner. Worth saying how close this came to breaking something else. Routing those edits through the shared path would have silently disabled the proof for a fix shipped days earlier, because a safeguard in the test setup identified "automatic" recalculations by naming the single manual kind that existed when it was written. Adding new manual kinds put every one of them on the wrong side of it. It was caught by reading that safeguard rather than by running it — the tests would have gone green either way, which is exactly the sort of green worth distrusting.
Share This Ship
🔧 Shipped: Seven ways to change a trip, and only one of them said so 🧵
Changing your arrival time showed a brief "Updating…" while the app reworked your travel times and wake-up.
Six other edits — swapping a destination, adding a stop, removing one, reordering them, and switching between driving, walking and cycling — recalculated in exactly the same way and said nothing at all.
The numbers on screen just changed, with no visible cause, which reads as a glitch rather than a response. All seven now run through one path, so all seven explain themselves.
That also closed a quieter gap: those six edits were starting their recalculations in a way that depended on an ordering nobody had written down, so two quick edits in a row had no guaranteed winner. Worth saying how close this came to breaking something else.
Routing those edits through the shared path would have silently disabled the proof for a fix shipped days earlier, because a safeguard in the test setup identified "automatic" recalculations by naming the single manual kind that existed when it was written.
Adding new manual kinds put every one of them on the wrong side of it. It was caught by reading that safeguard rather than by running it — the tests would have gone green either way, which is exactly the sort of green worth distrusting.
Follow the build → build-log-five.vercel.app #ios #usability #reliability #buildinpublic