WTF Bites
-
So it would be
Twenty euros fifty cents
in one field and€20.50
in the other.I think it should actually be
~~~twentyeurosfiftycents~~~
.
-
But does it simply truncate the password, or does it replace the very last character with the last value from the entered text?
I didn't investigate further. I just swore at it, took a screenshot and reset the password to something shorter than 200 characters.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in WTF Bites:
I don't even want to attempt it in mysql v.ancient.
Increasing the length of a VARCHAR column without losing the contents is fine on even 5.1.
-
@HardwareGeek said in WTF Bites:
Not just sailed, but sank in deep ocean, with all hands lost.
While on fire. Don't forget the fire.
Damned lithium batteries...
-
In an email from my kid's school:
We have discovered an anomaly in StudentVUE and ParentVUE, which limits the use of special characters in passwords. We have reported this anomaly to the vendor. In the meantime, StudentVUE and ParentVUE will only accept these special characters: ! , @, #, $, and *. Students or parents that are having trouble with their log-in may be using other special characters that are not currently permitted in the application.
As we work through this issue with the vendor, the fastest resolution for students and parents with special characters in their password is to reset their FCPS password and choose one of the 5 special characters currently allowed: !, @, #, $, or *. We apologize for any inconvenience and continue to work with the vendor to resolve this issue.
-
@boomzilla Mr Tables? Is that you?
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in WTF Bites:
We store users emails and use them for a bunch of purposes, including (gasp) sending transactional emails (we don't do any marketing ones from this product). That's not the WTF.
We store them in the database, in a
VARCHAR(100)
field. Uh...ok...We had the same email length problem, and when I did some research into it, I found that the official email spec accepts up to 250 characters, IIRC. (I'm not sure why it's not 255 or 256, but kicked in at that point.) We brought that up to the dev team, and they fixed it in the next version; but for the older versions, if one of our clients wants to add an email that is >100 characters, we have to update the column type. Thankfully, SQL Server DBs allow extending a varchar column length without losing existing data.
At nu last gig, I wrote a fairly correct email verifier regex. It basically verified that there was an @ in the address, and no illegal characters. Very low effort.
Apparently, some system we sent this data to couldn't handle long emails, nor emails with a tld that was longer than three characters. And only a-z and . before @. And someone decided that the host name couldn't be longer than 12 characters. And the total length was 72 or something like that. Stupid as all hell.
I kept telling them to fix their broken shit. They didn't.
-
I wrote a fairly correct email verifier regex
I dread to ask this but what language doesn't have an email validator built in. Even PHP has it as a core feature these days...
-
I wrote a fairly correct email verifier regex
I dread to ask this but what language doesn't have an email validator built in. Even PHP has it as a core feature these days...
NIHvascript
-
@izzion Petition to rename the language that since it has no actual Java in it.
-
@Arantor this has been long-standing, but has made little progress. Efforts to rename C# since it's managed, have also gained surprisingly little traction.
-
I was taught that numbers below ten should be written out, and numbers above 10 should be written in digits.
Same, but up to and including twelve. But, whatever.
Use the bingo terms to avoid confusion.
Why do some of the explanations say "Cockney rhyming slang for..." and others just say "Rhymes with..."?
Aren't they the same picture?If rhyming slang actually rhymes with its intended meaning, it’s a colossal failure of rhyming slang.
You’d have to be some kind of septic to conflate the two
-
I think it should actually be
~~~twentyeurosfiftycents~~~
.
-
I wrote a fairly correct email verifier regex
I dread to ask this but what language doesn't have an email validator built in. Even PHP has it as a core feature these days...
Why, Java of course. But if it had a proper email validator, I couldn't have used it anyway because systems downstream were retarded.
-
I dread to ask this but what language doesn't have an email validator built in.
Ancient Greek.
-
@HardwareGeek said in WTF Bites:
Not just sailed, but sank in deep ocean, with all hands lost.
While on fire. Don't forget the fire.
Damned lithium batteries...
Nope. Mercury cells.
-
I dread to ask this but what language doesn't have an email validator built in.
C
Of course, there's a lot of things that C doesn't have built-in and that's part of the point of the language (to have a very small runtime; most of the size of libc is actually handling POSIX).
-
@izzion Petition to rename the language that since it has no actual Java in it.
Call it Eczemascript.
-
Why, Java of course. But if it had a proper email validator, I couldn't have used it anyway because systems downstream were retarded.
Hibernate has a decent email validator (the validation stuff is reasonably isolated from the rest of Hibernate) so that's not a big problem. Spring uses the Hibernate validator. You can stack it with other validators too (such as string length and general regexp) so at least some of the bonus retarded can be handled as well.
-
As such, the chip has 20 lanes of PCIe 3.0 connectivity (16 for graphics, four for the chipset, and four for storage) compared to 24 lanes of PCIe 4.0 found on the Ryzen 5000 models for the desktop PC.
So, that's 16 + 4 + 4 = 20
Uh...
-
Why, Java of course. But if it had a proper email validator, I couldn't have used it anyway because systems downstream were retarded.
Hibernate has a decent email validator (the validation stuff is reasonably isolated from the rest of Hibernate) so that's not a big problem. Spring uses the Hibernate validator. You can stack it with other validators too (such as string length and general regexp) so at least some of the bonus retarded can be handled as well.
Yeah. I think that it wasn't available in the stack I was working on though. Not that it mattered, since it validates pretty correctly, and the downstream systems doesn't. There is a bunch of other libraries with email validators as well.
-
As such, the chip has 20 lanes of PCIe 3.0 connectivity (16 for graphics, four for the chipset, and four for storage) compared to 24 lanes of PCIe 4.0 found on the Ryzen 5000 models for the desktop PC.
So, that's 16 + 4 + 4 = 20
Uh...
Oh $deity, not another "99 percent of people can't solve this one math problem" posts....
-
As such, the chip has 20 lanes of PCIe 3.0 connectivity (16 for graphics, four for the chipset, and four for storage) compared to 24 lanes of PCIe 4.0 found on the Ryzen 5000 models for the desktop PC.
So, that's 16 + 4 + 4 = 20
Uh...
Tech writers spouting gibberish without proof-reading
To clarify:
Ryzen 5000 has 24 physical lanes, but only 20 of them are available for your use, because the chipset link uses 4 lanes.
Intel's latest (assuming that's the chip being talked about) has 20 physical lanes available for your use, and does not use PCI-Express to link to the chipset (although DMI is pretty much that in all but name).
-
-
@loopback0 Since graphic cards are mostly out of stock, that's precisely what I went for.
-
@Applied-Mediocrity I was looking up if the 5000G-series was using the old config of 8+4+4 of the earlier APUs. But it seems the difference this time is they use PCIe 3.0 (while the non-G use 4.0) instead of halving the number of lanes.
-
Not that it mattered, since it validates pretty correctly, and the downstream systems doesn't. There is a bunch of other libraries with email validators as well.
Also, real email validation requires checking that the user can actually receive an email sent to them. There's literally no other way that works, but it's very much not a cheap operation.
-
@loopback0 Then it appears what they wanted to say was that 5700G being upjumped older design has the same number of lanes (16+4 and 4 taken), it's just that they're still PCI-E 3.0.
<>Of course, it's marked as "against", because people buying this kind of CPU will certainly afford themselves to $400 PCI-E 4.0 SSDs and run benches on it to see if all those Linux ISOs are indeed being copied about faster.</>
-
Not that it mattered, since it validates pretty correctly, and the downstream systems doesn't. There is a bunch of other libraries with email validators as well.
Also, real email validation requires checking that the user can actually receive an email sent to them. There's literally no other way that works, but it's very much not a cheap operation.
Yeah, we didn't do that either. In fact, no email was ever sent to the user.
-
@Carnage OK, so
santa.claus@example.org
is good for you.
-
So the tester in one of our projects just came with a bug that he's getting a 502 Bad Gateway from some request.
That usually means the service behind the reverse proxy is dead.
It works for other requests, just not this big one.
Then it can be too big. Apply this to rise the request body size.
applying
Nope, did not help.
fishes out the access log
[warn] 30190#30190: *62863374 a client request body is buffered to a temporary file /tmp/client-body/0000000065, client:
…
[error] 30190#30190: *62863374 upstream sent too big header while reading response header from upstream, client:
…
Can you tunnel directly to the backend and check what it returns?
(developer chimes in) When you try to set entries on dates where they are not allowed, it returns an empty response, but reports the days it ignored in a header…… and when you try to set it for all days of a year, the hundred and a couple header lines returned for each weekend day of the range make Nginx nope out and cut the response.
-
@Bulb ooh, error returns in header, that's new.
-
This post, in its entirety.
-
@Benjamin-Hall I love it.
-
@Benjamin-Hall Fooling around is not a . Fooling around is good. And he does explicitly say he won't ever use it in production and neither should anybody else.
Or in other words, the nerdy jokes thread is
-
@Benjamin-Hall Fooling around is not a . Fooling around is good. And he does explicitly say he won't ever use it in production and neither should anybody else.
Or in other words, the nerdy jokes thread is
The is that this is even possible. Yes, CSS is Turing complete. But some things should be locked off behind strong walls and summon the Internet police on any attempt to access them.
-
@Benjamin-Hall There is a long standing tradition for programming tools to give you enough rope to hang yourself. Some even take it to the next level and give you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot. CSS just continues that venerable tradition
-
@dkf yes but how many people are writing something that will accept an email address in C?
-
@dkf yes but how many people are writing something that will accept an email address in C?
If I know anything about the state of software development, the answer is too darn many.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in WTF Bites:
@Benjamin-Hall Fooling around is not a . Fooling around is good. And he does explicitly say he won't ever use it in production and neither should anybody else.
Or in other words, the nerdy jokes thread is
The is that this is even possible. Yes, CSS is Turing complete. But some things should be locked off behind strong walls and summon the Internet police on any attempt to access them.
I just don't put the really bad stuff in source control.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in WTF Bites:
@dkf yes but how many people are writing something that will accept an email address in C?
If I know anything about the state of software development, the answer is too darn many.
It's a frequent enough problem to warrant an optimized native solution and stop copying my business plan.
-
-
Not that it mattered, since it validates pretty correctly, and the downstream systems doesn't. There is a bunch of other libraries with email validators as well.
Also, real email validation requires checking that the user can actually receive an email sent to them. There's literally no other way that works, but it's very much not a cheap operation.
Or even a possible operation given that plenty of systems silently accept everything and then bitbucket or backscatter the mail if it turns out they don't have that mailbox or don't like the sender or the content (particularly likely for those "probe" messages).
It would be fantastic if people simply validated against RFC822 (or even the sensible subset that PHP uses, instead of rolling their own validation
-
@Benjamin-Hall There is a long standing tradition for programming tools to give you enough rope to hang yourself. Some even take it to the next level and give you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot. CSS just continues that venerable tradition
Which is I have a rule (in my current job) that the the application we sell (well, the one that I am in charge of) is quite extensible, but always in a way that it's strictly not Turing-complete.
Sometimes the customers are quite disappointed, but it's actually quite easy to reason about this. The magic word is securityI have learned this trick from DB2. In particular, the "Common Table Expression" (way before it become part of standard) were sometimes refused with a confusing error code. One of the more detailed documentation (RedBook?) provided the explanation: it is a special check that prevents Turing-completeness.
-
@Kamil-Podlesak said in WTF Bites:
I have learned this trick from DB2. In particular, the "Common Table Expression" (way before it become part of standard) were sometimes refused with a confusing error code. One of the more detailed documentation (RedBook?) provided the explanation: it is a special check that prevents Turing-completeness.
Did they explain how CTEs could facilitate Turing-completeness?
-
@boomzilla probably reentrancy
-
-
@boomzilla said in WTF Bites:
Did they explain how CTEs could facilitate Turing-completeness?
Recursive CTEs definitely can, as they can work with “practically infinite” sets and calculate transitive closures.
-
Recursive CTEs definitely can
Uh...hmm...that's something I would have never thought could have been a thing.
-
@boomzilla said in WTF Bites:
@Kamil-Podlesak said in WTF Bites:
I have learned this trick from DB2. In particular, the "Common Table Expression" (way before it become part of standard) were sometimes refused with a confusing error code. One of the more detailed documentation (RedBook?) provided the explanation: it is a special check that prevents Turing-completeness.
Did they explain how CTEs could facilitate Turing-completeness?
Recursion.