Actually, I too noticed that you've dropped few crasher tests. I think we need to keep them, to make sure that future development will not introduce the same vulnerabilities. That's a common practice with unit-testing.
On 2012-03-09, at 5:27 PM, Victor Stinner wrote: > On 09/03/2012 22:32, Jim Jewett wrote: >> I do not believe the change set below is valid. >> >> As I read it, the new test verifies that one particular type of Nasty >> key will provoke a RuntimeError -- but that particular type already >> did so, by hitting the recursion limit. (It doesn't even really >> mutate the dict.) > > Oh yes, thanks for the report. I fixed that test. > >> Meanwhile, the patch throws out tests for several different types of >> mutations that have caused problems -- even segfaults -- in the past, >> even after the dict implementation code was already "fixed". >> >> Changing these tests to "assertRaises" would be fine, but they should >> all be kept; if nothing else, they test whether you've caught all >> mutation avenues. > > I ran all these tests, none is still crashing. I don't think that it is > interesting to keep them. > > Victor > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: > http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/yselivanov.ml%40gmail.com _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
