@Mark Takata (Adobe) There aren't any "features" of the bug tracker where rejecting a ticket doesn't E-mail the reporter, are there? This ticket of mine was closed (and for terrible reasons, I might add) a few months ago and I've searched my E-mail and can confirm I was never notified at all. https://tracker.adobe.com/#/view/CF-4212129 Also, for crying out loud, can we get this ticket re-opened and some sensible discussion going please? The reason for closing it was basically, "well, that's how it works, so it must be as designed!"

That is appalling behaviour from the CF Team there, @Mark Takata (Adobe). As well as sensible discussion taking place, I think heads need to be knocked together over this one.

Yeah we have reported to Adobe before (before Mark) a few times on the fact that no notification is sent when ticket status changes. And that they do not add a note detailing why the status changed to whatever. Poor customer service.

To me in this case it seems like the notification was actively suppressed when the ticket was updated. I mean there was a comment from someone on the CF team at the time. If I was unkind (moi?) I would suspect that the notification was suppressed specifically because the response from the CF Team was so poor.

So, I'm gonna go ahead and stick my foot firmly in the middle of this. First off, it is not a bug, by definition. It is doing exactly what it was built to do. So, being completely clear, that's the situation. NOW, before you start throwing things at me, is this functionality GOOD? No. I agree that leveraging the internal error msg is both generally a bad call and in this case particularly a very bad developer experience which likely should be altered. which is a feature request. And a very good and useful feature request.

I do not want to get into whether this should be considered a bug or not, but just to call you on some faulty reasoning:

It is doing exactly what it was built to do.

Yeah but if what it was being built to do is wrong, then it's still a bug. If you write a function called

pi

and it returns

3

because you specifically decided "we're only using this in the bible, and god's understanding of trigonometry is a bit bronze age", then it's still a bloody bug because it's wrong. "wrong" can be "because it's inappropriately inaccurate (as in here), or "because it's a security vulnerability". Poor design decisions are bugs.

Adam, we can go back and forth endlessly on this. If poor design decisions are bugs, then my entire life is pretty much a bug. I prefer to think of it as a creative set of feature requests, which keep getting denied. Hence, why I need a beer at noon on a Thursday. 🙂

then my entire life is pretty much a bug

I think it's important to note that it wasn't me who said that.

It is doing exactly what it was built to do.

@Mark Takata (Adobe) The docs I linked to in the comments of the ticket clearly state the len() function accepts two things • strings • binary How can you possibly stand by the idea that accepting a UDF is working as designed. It's certainly not working as documented. So at least one of these two simply cannot be correct. You must either update the docs to match the function or the function to match the docs. But they can't be different and us still pretend everything is fine.

Well, I just told the staff to close my ticket. So there you go.