On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Victor Stinner
wrote:
> I ran all these tests, none is still crashing. I don't think that it is
> interesting to keep them.
Indeed, please add them all back as regular parts of the test suite -
this ensures that not only are they fixed now, but they never break
ag
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 05:38:05PM -0500, Yury Selivanov wrote:
> 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.
The
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 doe
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
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
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.)
Meanwhile, the patch throws
