[neo2006]

If you are going through writing the do-nothing script anyway why not do a do-something script and remove the error prone human out of the loop, it also can serve as documentation and if you are disciplined enough to never make a change other then trough the automation you can have the benefit of source controlling it and have documentation with historical context

[computronus]

I happen to have just written a do-nothing script, so I can answer why I found it helpful vs. a do-something script.

- I am still developing the procedure in the script, so it is premature to automate. A do-nothing script still benefits you by telling you exactly what to do - in my case, spitting out exact commands to run - but you can assess its steps before performing them.

- The script still gathers a lot of information and associates it together in order to figure out the correct commands. That work is valuable all by itself.

- Even though you have to run commands yourself, it's copy-and-paste vs. hand-typing, so it's already less error-prone.

- The script documents the procedure even without automation, so the benefit is immediate.

Now, I think that it's better for a do-nothing script to _evolve_ into a do-something script. But, if that effort is delayed or never happens, at least you've got something.

[renewiltord]

Simple.

Do nothing script:

    echo “Go to your Google Account settings and set a vacation auto responder”

Do something script:

    import oauth2 # I have already lost, there is no salvation in life, without truth or peace there is only the void that beckons

[slightwinder]

A do-something-script is more work to make than a do-nothing-script, which can basically be just be a better tasklist with abstract instructions. Similar, the human may make more errors, but he is also more likely able to fetch errors and correct the script for changes which happened till the script was written.

[dragonwriter]

> If you are going through writing the do-nothing script anyway why not do a do-something script and remove the error prone human out of the loop

You will, eventually, ideally.

But that's extra up-front cost (especially when do something involves a complex integration), the do-nothing script crystallizes the definition of the existing manual process allowing incremental automation of steps (also, making a to-do list for automation.) It is an example of “do the smallest useful unit of work”.

[mdoms]

You have comprehensively missed the point. And your questions are answered in the article:

> At first glance, it might not be obvious that this script provides value. Maybe it looks like all we’ve done is make the instructions harder to read. But the value of a do-nothing script is immense:

> * It’s now much less likely that you’ll lose your place and skip a step. This makes it easier to maintain focus and power through the slog.

> * Each step of the procedure is now encapsulated in a function, which makes it possible to replace the text in any given step with code that performs the action automatically.

> * Over time, you’ll develop a library of useful steps, which will make future automation tasks more efficient.

> A do-nothing script doesn’t save your team any manual effort. It lowers the activation energy for automating tasks, which allows the team to eliminate toil over time.