|
|
The best defensive code is the use of 'not equal to' in any comparison test.
|
|
|
|
|
I guess I don't quite know what defensive programming is then...
A few things that I think are good defensive programming practices are...
1. NULL checks on pointers.
2. Limited use of stack buffers, and bounds checking when used...
3. Use the const operator for reference passing, to avoid accidental writes to objects.
4. Comments when the operation of a method is opaque.
5. Make data members protected or private unless there is a good reason not to.
6. Make all unsafe methods protected or private. If they need an interface, make a public one that provides some validation of the inputs.
I've been criticized by some in using const references to pass objects. I'm told it's an optimization. Instead, I should copy objects on the stack by default. But that seems to me, to be bloatization, as a default reference point. It certainly can bring a server to it's knees if it's used as the default practice.
|
|
|
|
|
Kinda surprised at the people that say they don't know how the code will be used or writing secure code.
I see defensive coding as following a set pattern of tests before accessing an object:
Is it null when it shouldn't be?
Is it of the proper format expected?
Am I trapping possible exceptions?
Am I logging those exceptions and returning a message?
Basically defensive programming is making sure that in spite of usage that nothing will cause the unexpected exception window to pop up and stop the application from running.
|
|
|
|
|
...so I arrange the code to work anyway. 
Veni, vidi, vici.
|
|
|
|
|
From the wikipedia entry it seems "defensive programming" is more about avoiding security holes (buffer overflows, etc.). "continuing function of a piece of software in spite of unforeseeable usage of said software" is a bit vague. To me that sounds like using a spreadsheet program to do video editing.
|
|
|
|
|
In general, it is good to follow basic defensive programming rules, as long as:
1) Software does not slip in an undefined state when you have no idea what it is doing any more.
2) Data does not get corrupted.
I believe it is much better to crash on the spot than hit either 1) or 2).
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, we're talking about software here aren't we?
So what can be less foreseeable than developing a piece of code?
At the time of development you may have an absolute idea of what it is meant to do, and with a strict data input but it will most certainly change.
It may take a day, a month, a year but if the software itself lives, your code will have to handle some "unexpected" scenarios, and this is where your "defense" will be put to the test.
Business change, people change, everything change, so every piece of code you do must adapt even if by just handling the errors and reporting them correctly to the IT dep.
To be prepared for errors won't consume more development time if its implemented by design. Think about it right from the beginning and it will feel natural to use, not an hack.
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm, if you do this for a living you work to a written and agreed specification. If the customer changes his mind or wants more (they always do) he has to write it down, agree the details with you and, of course, give you more money.
You can never guess in advance all the things that can go wrong, though after a few years you get a pretty good idea, and do things like checking input data even if you sent it yourself from the previous module. If you know your customer you can anticipate future changes and put comments in - "comment this bit back in for southern hemisphere".
~~~~~~~ <;,>< ~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
You're right.
Like you said, customers change their mind, either because they just do or because the business itself did, but things change despite its written on a 1000 sheet spec or not.
At the end of the day the customer wants it changed, even agreeing to pay for it, it's up to you to decide how hard it will be for you  .
So what I think is that the software we write must be prepared to handle change in more way than just the user input, we also must prepare it for business change, for scalability, extensibility, etc...
Usually this doesn't mean a whole bunch of extra work, specially if it's design that way right from the beginning.
If the design is right you can start to think about software changes as a way of earning extra money instead of just loosing it! 
|
|
|
|
|
Our customers expect our SW to grow with them, so it is always in the spec that it has to be extensible and so on. They don't specify what that means, or how you test it (you have to be able to test any requirement). We always have that in mind, and it really helps if you assume it from the start.
Anyway, we are supposed to be product based now, so we have to plan from the start the possibility of selling it to someone else, so things like putting button labels in a file instead of hard-coding them, so you can change language.
(I ported a project to Arabic once, that was such fun!)
~~~~~~~ <;,>< ~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
Translate to Arabic should be fun
I only eard about some of the challenges, like handling dates effectively.
About preparing for change, we're on
Cheers mate
|
|
|
|
|
What I consider to be defensive programming seems somewhat different from some descriptions floating around the internet. If I had to give a short description of what I consider defensive programming I would say "distrust, check, and if checks fail they do so loudly".
I think of defensive programming as two rules to follow while programming:
- A block of code (e.g. function) should never handle external data (e.g. function parameters, data returned from other functions) without strictly checking that the data it receives are know good values. If the checks fail they should fail loudly and the block of code should not touch the data at all.
- A block of code should have its behaviour checked (e.g. check return/result data, unit testing). If the checks fail again they should do so loudly.
I'm a strict follower of the first rule, but I confess that I'm a bit lax in relation to the second, especially regarding unit testing.
|
|
|
|
|
We make safety critical stuff so we have to, and it gets checked. Having said that, you can still write rubbish, but it comes out in the test and integration.
I like to try and write foolproof code. It's a bit of added fun to what could otherwise be boring. I am a badass and dreaded tester, because I have a rough idea where the bodies are going to be buried, having interred a few myself over the last decades. And yes, I have found a few nasties in my own code ... oops
------------------<;,><-------------------
|
|
|
|
|
RedSonja wrote: I like to try and write foolproof code.
So do I, but I also always remember the maxim, "As soon as you idiot-proof the code, along comes another idiot."
|
|
|
|
|
Thank goodness for that, it's what keeps us in work.
~~~~~~~ <;,>< ~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
Which is rare.
I always try to work out everything the user could possibly do wrong, and code to catch it.
If a user can do something to kill your software than at some point they will.
Defensive programming saves you time later, but requires more time up front cos you need to think about things fully.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
|
|
|
|
|
Well said, Chris.
I could not have said it better.
The theory is there, but full application of said theory is impossible, IMHO.
"the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011)
"It is the celestial scrotum of good luck!" - Nagy Vilmos (2011)
"But you probably have the smoothest scrotum of any grown man" - Pete O'Hanlon (2012)
|
|
|
|
|
ChrisElston wrote: I always try to work out everything the user could possibly do wrong, and code to catch it.
I consider that approach to be bad, security wise. Trying to prevent wrong behaviour/data is a flawed strategy and far too frequently fails. A better approach is to only accept know good behaviour/data. Yes, sometimes some good behaviour/data may be blocked but bad behaviour/data will almost certainly also be blocked.
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't it the same thing?
Only this is allowed = everything but this isn't allowed.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
|
|
|
|
|
No, it is not.
know bad as in "I always try to work out everything the user could possibly do wrong"
know good != not know bad
|
|
|
|
|
I think I may have explained myself poorly originally.
By everything the user could do I meant all the points in the UI where they enter something rather than all the possible data they could possibly enter.
Basically what I was trying to say was don't assume you know everything a user will try to do.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
|
|
|
|
|
I'll have to agree with Pedro.
Say the user ID should not accept spaces or special characters, so you code something to block all spaces and special characters of standard languages.
That will work until you get a Chinese user. Your database is not prepared to accept unicode data and there you go, your application just broke.
Now, if you coded in the first place to accept only [a-z], [A-Z] and [0-9] characters, the chances to fail that validation would disappear.
So yes, there is a difference between allowing the valid and disallowing the invalid. It has a different perspective. Even worse, imagine having to take into account all alphabets from all cultures.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson
----
Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
|
|
|
|
|
They say things like:
"It worked on my machine"
"That's not how you described it"
"That wasn't specified"
"Its not my fault, blame the [insert guilty party]" , e.g. "Spec", "Testers", "Users" .
|
|
|
|
|
beat me to it 
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
