4 ms·

By looking at the code !quality, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they have no tests at all.

• pilif 16y ago
  How can you look at this code and make any statement about general code quality? The stuff that was exposed was pure initialization code that would look the same anywhere you look. Granted. This should move outside of the web root, but just looking at this one file that just sets up configuration values provides no ground to say anything about general code quality
  • jasonlotito 16y ago
    > How can you look at this code and make any statement about general code quality? The stuff that was exposed was pure initialization code that would look the same anywhere you look. No it doesn't. Having to modify live code just to change configuration options is bad. If I want to add a new slave, or change some configuration option, it should have no affect on running code. I shouldn't be changing any software logic, and that's exactly what editing this file does. Their are standard ways to avoid this. But no, if changing your config file means changing what essentially amounts to changing the executable of your code, you're asking for trouble.
    • bluesnowmonkey 16y ago
      It doesn't really matter if the configuration is in an executable form or not. Without testing, you can break it either way. With testing, you probably won't. They're equivalent.
      • jasonlotito 16y ago
        This issue isn't the site breaking. The issue is the leaking of the configuration options. By removing it from the code, you can help avoid that. And you can even go the extra step of making sure that even if you load a broken config, the system will continue to use the old config.