I suppose it’s “confusing perspective” worthy.

Then I hope it won’t get any traction.

I hope this is a joke and not intended to be real.

I want to see the 10x hamsters!

Shots fired! Shots fired!

It is, but If you review 3 lines of pr and not the whole 50 lines of the file without thinking of the overall picture, this happens. I got this while reviewing a pr like this. And most probably I approved similar prs for this file in the past. Shame on me too…

Yep that’s on me:) let’s call this second breakfast!

It’s not the real issue. I introduced that while anonymizing the data. It’s that a 3-5 liner code became a huge switch case by just incrementing the code and never thinking how it should be done. This was caused by like 15 engineers in time :)

Something like below would be huge improvement:

subs1 = ["cluster1", "cluster2"]
if subs1.contains(clusterName) return subs1

And no reason to state this is from production.

no one looks behind and questions how and why.

it was never an array to begin with!