ntfy.sh v2.18.0 was written by AI
-
This EMQX?
Seems it's no longer FOSS?
I've been using Gotify for a few notifications from Home Assistant and it doesn't appear to be eating my battery.
It's a little more responsive than ntfy - sometimes ntfy doesn't alert for ages after the trigger (could be phone power saving the wifi...), but then I also get realerts from yesterday.... not had that with Gotify.
that's the one.
FOSS or not, it still runs just fine on my infra. I prefer it over something like rabbitmq because it has a pretty slick admin webgui.
I'll have to give gotify another try.
-
Testing in production is the most idiotic last 10 years or so concept, which is mainly driven by incompetence of project managers.
Imagine if you get sold a car by a company, for 100k, then it starts having major issues and the car company tells you: "we'll fix it".
While that does not necessarily apply to software or services or webapps, the logic still stands. You are selling bugs to people. Bugs that could have been cought, with some risk management and planning.
Edit: F-ing ios keyboard.
which is mainly driven by incompetence of project managers.
I completely agree. I work on an internal solution, which is a part of a very large product. It's not a live product, only part of a pipeline that runs on a predetermined schedule. Our bit is the only one with actual business/performance KPIs, most of the other teams measure only "user story/CR points". If the other teams screw up, it will impact our performance unless we prove it's their fault. And of it's their fault, they open a US/bug which improves their metrics (one more US closed).
Our team has to think ahead and try to do things well in one go, because our bugfixing doesn't count as work. But our speed is measured against people who benefits from half doing stuff.
When we did massive effort, we got complaints we were slow. Now we do less effort and once every blue moon we have to do a hotfix.
Most often than not when we have an production issue is due to the other teams that run before us on the pipeline, so we even had to develop checks to our input because they won't add checks to their outputs. And they won't because that's a CR that requires extra funding that's not approved, but we had to create them for our own sanity.Yes, I'm looking to move out haha
-
Do you know any? I've never really looked beyond ntfy.sh until now
I recently switched to gotify. Push notifications to iOS aren’t as good but I’m happy with it.
-
According to the release:
Adds experimental PostgreSQL support
The code was written by Cursor and Claude
14,997 added lines of code, and 10,202 lines removed
reviewed and heavily tested over 2-3 weeks
This makes me uneasy, especially as ntfy is an internet facing service. I am now looking for alternatives.
Am I overreacting or do you all share the same concern?
I'm so tired of that.
I'm using it for scripts notifications + unifiedpush. I don't know where to start to find the fitting alternative.
-
there is this repo that lists some slopware :
https://codeberg.org/small-hack/open-slopware
maybe someone can add itoh no. not ladybird! You were supposed to save us!
-
Consider a donation to help people providing you the open source software you seem to depend upon.
Usage of a helper tool to perform tasks on code whether it is AI or the IDE internal features can reduce the work load of benevolent developers who has not asked you to use their softwares.
Maybe the language was not appropriate but get real. With the little revenue generated by the usage of people complaining, the use of AI agentic coding might be the only way to bring features without pushing benevolent devs to burnout.
Edit: to bring, not to being!
You are completely correct, and to be honest I've tested commercial product features in prod as well on teams that have the capacity to handle it and make a living on it, unlike this maintainer.
I'm also experimenting heavily with vibe coding and I think it has many uses for a seasoned programmer while getting a lot of flak.
Of course there are issues and problems with it, but for me it had been helping out a lot.
-
I'm so tired of that.
I'm using it for scripts notifications + unifiedpush. I don't know where to start to find the fitting alternative.
If more people were contributing there wouldn't be a need for AI.
-
If more people were contributing there wouldn't be a need for AI.
Non-sense comment. The project was fine without AI. And it's so stupid: how do you expect people to contribute if there's only AI? How do you expect developers to learn to code if everything is AI?
-
According to the release:
Adds experimental PostgreSQL support
The code was written by Cursor and Claude
14,997 added lines of code, and 10,202 lines removed
reviewed and heavily tested over 2-3 weeks
This makes me uneasy, especially as ntfy is an internet facing service. I am now looking for alternatives.
Am I overreacting or do you all share the same concern?
"but reviewed and heavily tested over 2-3 weeks by me. I created comparison documents, went through all queries multiple times and reviewed the logic over and over again. I also did load tests and manual regression tests, which took lots of evenings."
This is the way.
-
It looks like that tool is more or less built by a single developer (you already trust their judgment anyways!), and even though the code came through in a single PR it was a merge from a branch that had 79 separate commits: https://github.com/binwiederhier/ntfy/pull/1619
Also glancing through it a bit, huge portions of that are straightforward refactors or even just formatting changes caused by adding a new backend option.
I'm not going to say it's fine, but they didn't just throw Claude at a problem and let it rewrite 25k lines of code unnecessarily.
Yeah, I mean, with or without AI, I've always only had a big pull request for releases, from a stable release branch into the main branch, the release branch would be a merge of various branches or just be worked on directly on various stages.
One big pull request doesn't really mean anything.
-
"but reviewed and heavily tested over 2-3 weeks by me. I created comparison documents, went through all queries multiple times and reviewed the logic over and over again. I also did load tests and manual regression tests, which took lots of evenings."
This is the way.
Pretty much.
I've started using AI on a project last week and the first thing I do is write tests. Lots of tests.
With enough guardrails, you could actually get pretty decent quality output out of it and with enough regression tests, you can ensure that nothing's actually breaking.
Similarly, reviewing its changes and actually reading the code that's being generated to ensure correctness is necessary. However, I am finding ways to automate that and reduce the incident rate of problems to even lower than my co-workers.
-
I'm so tired of that.
I'm using it for scripts notifications + unifiedpush. I don't know where to start to find the fitting alternative.
The maintainer you and said that they tirelessly tested, reviewed and verified changes over the course of 3 weeks to make sure that things were running and operating correctly.
This is how it should be done. It's not like they're vibe coding this.
-
According to the release:
Adds experimental PostgreSQL support
The code was written by Cursor and Claude
14,997 added lines of code, and 10,202 lines removed
reviewed and heavily tested over 2-3 weeks
This makes me uneasy, especially as ntfy is an internet facing service. I am now looking for alternatives.
Am I overreacting or do you all share the same concern?
This doesn't make me uneasy. It makes me resentful, a little angry, and a lot tired. Thanks for bringing it to attention, I will make sure that nothing of that project or from that author will ever cross my ecosystem again.
-
Self-host
It is possible to host your own Autopush server. Autopush is designed to work with Google BigTable but it is also possible to use it with redis.
For this:
- Clone Autopush
# mozilla-services/autopush-rs
Autopush-rs
Mozilla Push server built with Rust.
By using Sunup, your are going to have to trust Mozilla.
-
Pretty much.
I've started using AI on a project last week and the first thing I do is write tests. Lots of tests.
With enough guardrails, you could actually get pretty decent quality output out of it and with enough regression tests, you can ensure that nothing's actually breaking.
Similarly, reviewing its changes and actually reading the code that's being generated to ensure correctness is necessary. However, I am finding ways to automate that and reduce the incident rate of problems to even lower than my co-workers.
At that point, I think: Why not just write the code yourself?
Writing the code is more fun that reviewing code, not to mention less error prone.
-
"but reviewed and heavily tested over 2-3 weeks by me. I created comparison documents, went through all queries multiple times and reviewed the logic over and over again. I also did load tests and manual regression tests, which took lots of evenings."
This is the way.
that's nowhere near enough testing for such a large change… special one written by the slop machine
-
At that point, I think: Why not just write the code yourself?
Writing the code is more fun that reviewing code, not to mention less error prone.
A many-month-long refactor on code you've already written is less than fun. While I don't love seeing a project I'm using being 80% replaced by Claude code, I've had Claude code look at some of my old projects and find underlying issues I was able to verify, and then suggested a more best-practice approach that I wasn't even aware of. The real question is, was the claude output better than the original code? If it is and it has unit tests and many eyes on it, it's quite possible that it's better off now.
I'll sit on my current versions for a few months and let everyone else test it out
-
A many-month-long refactor on code you've already written is less than fun. While I don't love seeing a project I'm using being 80% replaced by Claude code, I've had Claude code look at some of my old projects and find underlying issues I was able to verify, and then suggested a more best-practice approach that I wasn't even aware of. The real question is, was the claude output better than the original code? If it is and it has unit tests and many eyes on it, it's quite possible that it's better off now.
I'll sit on my current versions for a few months and let everyone else test it out
I agree with you, though even when I have just made a change myself, I am looking through the git diff like a crazy person.
So, still I think refactoring my own code is much more fun than telling AI to do it for me and then proceeding to review and test it for weeks (allegedly, lol).
You seem to be using it responsibly by asking it how things could be better.
I'd never copy and paste output from an AI or give it free roam to make a PR, etc myself.
I'll probably be sitting out on this update for a while too until I gage the general reactions of people heh
-
Lol my project has an AGENTS.md and its contents are basically, "Don't use AI agents on this codebase."
Well it's AI slop then - at least by the definition of most users here.
-
According to the release:
Adds experimental PostgreSQL support
The code was written by Cursor and Claude
14,997 added lines of code, and 10,202 lines removed
reviewed and heavily tested over 2-3 weeks
This makes me uneasy, especially as ntfy is an internet facing service. I am now looking for alternatives.
Am I overreacting or do you all share the same concern?
I'd run for the hills
There are so many issues with AI
