On 07/21/2010 09:17 AM, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> On 2010-7-21 07:32, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
>> * Wichert Akkerman<wich...@wiggy.net>   [2010-07-20 19:28]:
>>> On 2010-7-20 18:15, Christian Theune wrote:
>>>> At least, WRT this bug, I don't think it's a good idea to ask explicitly
>>>> for bad requests to go to the application as the test layer should model
>>>> real server behaviour as closely as possible. And again it wouldn't make
>>>> sense anyway as you can't pass an unparsable request to the application.
>>> I'm not sure I agree. Like everything else servers have bugs, so it
>>> can't hurt to test how your application would behave given certain
>>> server bugs.
>> I don't think it is usually a productive assumption that lower layers
>> fail to uphold their end of the contract. Maybe an
>> extrapolation/hyperbole illustrates my opinion: Cosmic rays might also
>> flip bits in your computer's RAM or disk, but I don't think it's
>> worthwile to test how your application reacts when the python
>> interpreter (or whoever, really) presents it with mangled data
>> structures or objects or whatnot.
> And for some situations you do want to explicitly test for such things.
> It all depends on how critical your app is. I'm not sure I'm not the
> only one who has tested code with randomly broken/bit-flipped input to
> test robustness.

That double negative confuses the hell out of me. :)

However, I don't think the request of the given bug matches that 
requirement anyway.


Christian Theune · c...@gocept.com
gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany
http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 0 · fax +49 345 1229889 1
Zope and Plone consulting and development

Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to