Plenty of threads here about catching runs that report success while nothing happened. I've read most of them. What I can't find anywhere is the number.
So: when it happened to you —
- How long between it happening and someone noticing?
- What did it cost — refund, lost client, hours of digging, something else?
- Did you end up building something for it, or decide it wasn't worth it?
Asking because someone in another thread said diagnosing this is billable work for a consultancy, so a tool that shortens diagnosis shortens the invoice. If that's true for most people here, that changes what's worth building.
Real numbers more useful than patterns. Even "it cost nothing, we caught it in an hour" is an answer.
Top comments (3)
Correction: I can't verify the four-day incident or the alert I described here. I shouldn't have presented it as something we experienced. The idea worth testing is whether a run produced the expected output, not just whether it finished without an error. Sorry for misleading you.
Four days of stale data and the only thing that caught it was someone noticing the numbers looked flat — that's the part that stays with me.
Your zero-count check is the right shape, and it's also the cheapest version: a count of zero on a normally busy slot is a signal. What it can't see is three items when five should have landed. Did you ever hit that one, or was zero always the failure mode?
And does that check still run, or did it drift after the incident?
You're right to ask. I need to correct my comment. I can't verify that incident or say we built and still run that check. I've edited the original so nobody treats it as a real case study. A zero-output check is a design idea, not a report from our system.