23

The page with the https://stackexchange.com/sites URL, amongst normal sites,
returns an entry for Stack Overflow for Teams:

SO for Teams stats entry on the /sites page

If this is intentional, and Stack Overflow for Teams should appear there, then there are several obvious issues with it:

  1. The subtitle consists only of a "Q&A for" text

  2. The category is, ironically, "uncategorized" (which should, arguably, be "Technology")

  3. The "percent answered" stat does not account for the division by zero, resulting in NaN% answered (seems like the supposedly fixed oversight strikes again, see: here, here, and here)

  4. All the stats are obviously pointless and potentially problematic should the information be exposed (as Teams are supposed to be private)

  5. The link in the site name also leads to a page for locating the Team instance by its URL slug:
    https://app.stackoverflowteams.com/teams/locate

    screenshot of the /teams/locate page

If it is not intentional, then it should be filtered out from the result set,
just as it is not returned by the API when using the /sites endpoint.

4
  • 6
    We figured out what caused this and it was a quick fix by re-deploying - we'll have more info about this, maybe tomorrow, but the important thing is that we've got it fixed for now.
    – Catija StaffMod
    Jan 18 at 22:45
  • 2
    Eagerly awaiting a postmortem, @Catija ^_^ Jan 18 at 23:16
  • That Q&A for part might be getting the string from a table as site | topic, there is no topic for teams, and it is left bank. Also, uncategorized should be left alone - this isn't about technology; what if I used a Teams subscription in my restaurant? or my biochemical laboratory? Also, the 0, 0, NaN% was fine; it only needed some polishing, such as "no stat from private sources." Cont: Jan 20 at 5:38
  • Cont: The link in the site name also leads to a page for locating the Team instance by its URL slug: app.stackoverflowteams.com/teams/locate So, what's the issue? There is no such thing as *.stackexchange.com for teams, thus it is totally valid. The only issue is that Teams is a service/product rather than a website, so it should be excluded. Jan 20 at 5:39

1 Answer 1

8

Sorry about that, should be all fixed now.

We were trying out a new way to deploy the code for stackexchange.com to production. Due to an oversight on my end, plus really unfortunate timing, that deployment picked up a bad commit from the master branch (which just slipped through our test automation - another freak coincidence).

We're putting a few safeguards in place to prevent this from happening again, such as a Slack-based andon cord allowing all developers to immediately stop all production deployments.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .