I believe this:
pub fn retrieve_person
I believe this:
also, the span is named as
address_output but then reference it as both an undeclared
id variable and
address. I think a once over on some of the variable naming would make the tutorial a bit easier to go through.
@rlkel0 thanks for letting us know! In the future if you see another issue you can click the ‘Edit’ link at the top and it’ll create a GitHub issue against the page.
ok will do next time
Thanks @rlkel0 really appreciate the feedback. I will fix these up.
There seem to be a bunch of bugs in the Hello Me tutorial, maybe elsewhere as well - its hard as a newbie to Holochain to know whats really going on (logging is really verbose). I reported two of them, but after figuring around the smaller bugs in the other tutorials I hit Hello Me. I reported two of the bugs as @freesig suggested on Git, but the second just made it so blindingly obvious the tutorial was untested that I gave up …
I’m hoping that someone who knows Holo could actually try one of the tutorials line for line and fix the pretty obvious discrepancies, then let us know so we can continue the learning process, rather than wasting hours trying to figure out what we are doing wrong, or understand the verbose debugging info, when its the tutorial itself that is broken.
i actually did the tutorials recently. In the past there were bugs but now they run great for me. what was the bug you ran into?
A typo on ports used (its 9001 in one place and 9000 in the other), https://github.com/holochain/docs-pages/issues/153
and a complete mismatch between the “Check your code” box and the code entered above https://github.com/holochain/docs-pages/issues/154, I spent ages on the first one trying to interpret some very cryptic debugging before I noticed the comment about failing to connect, and gave up on the tutorials when I hit the discrepancies on the second.
I don’t think the second one is a bug, you’re saying the
create_person check your code is too detailed? I think they just expose a couple extra utility functions to make it easier for you to expand on the example.
Sorry to hear you’ve had a bad experience. I appreciate the feedback. We do have automated testing and are running through the tutorials ourselves and with other people. There’s obviously still gaps in this coverage though. I will schedule some time to look at these issues you’ve mentioned and do a general sweep for problems.
There’s also some further automated testing I’d like to add to address some of the things that have not been caught.
Hi Freesig, I don’t think automated testing is going to catch these - the issue is that you go through and add code following the tutorial. Then you get to the line “Check your code” and what I’ve written looks NOTHING like what pops up, because you’ve added functions show_posts, show_person, show_output. (if you’d said - we’ve added a few more functions to speed the process up, then fine, but you didn’t and I don’t think you intended to, as I see now that you add these functions in a different form later in the tutorial) So as the learner, I go back and try and figure out what I did wrong. At this point I give up because clearly the tutorial writers aren’t checking their own work, and since I’ve already wasted a good hour looking for the bug I reported in #153, I figure why waste time on an obviously broken tutorial.
It looks to me that someone edited this page and left an old version of the code there.
Looks like similar lack of QC on the next “Check Code” where you’ve got duplicate “show_person” functions unless I’m missing something. One in the “Zome calls” section and one in the “Render functions” section, but not contained in any way, so looks like a bug to me.
Yep it most likely is a bug that I missed when checking. I think the issue is that the UI is not checked automatically and this is one of the things I’d like to add.
Sorry if this has caused you any frustration but thank you for bringing it to my attention.