Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Redbox left PII on decommissioned machines

digipres.club

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 173 posts

Re: Redbox left PII on decommissioned machines

#91

Post by sigseg1v »

xnorswap wrote: post #46

> Redbox.HAL.Configuration > .ConfigurationFileService implements IConfigurationFileService > STOP MAKING SERVICES AND FACTORIES AND INTERFACES AND JUST READ THE FUCKING > JSON FILE YOU ENTERPRISE FUCKERS I know it's cool to "hate" on OO, but "just read the fucking file" doesn't work if you want to run your unit tests without reading a fucking file. It makes sense to abstract configuration behind an interface so you…

You are right. I read their posts as the ramblings of someone who is currently in shock, found a bunch of bad practices in the logging + data retention, and is now just tongue-in-cheek mocking (the puns...) everything even if they don't have much experience with it. I would probably say something similarly incorrect if I found some perl and tried to understand it because I know nothing about writing maintainable perl.

Re: Redbox left PII on decommissioned machines

#92

Post by klibertp »

pylua wrote: post #82
throwaway365x2 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't follow .Net closely, but it seems like there should be a better alternative. Java has a library called "Mockito" that can mock classes directly without requiring an interface. I assume something similar exists for .Net, as they have similar capabilities. Making an interface for one class, just so another class can be tested seems like we allow the tool (tests) to determine the architecture of what it is testi…

What’s wrong with having an interface with one implementation ? It’s meant to be extended by code outside the current repo most likely. It’s not a smell in any sense.

90% of single-implementation interfaces (in Kotlin on Android projects I've seen) are internal (package/module private, more or less.) So no, they are not meant to be extended or substituted, and tests are their only raison d'etre (irony: I've almost never seen any actual tests...) This is insane because there are other tools you can use for testing, like an all-open compiler plugin or testing frameworks that can mock regular classes without issues.

An interface with a single implementation sometimes makes sense, but in the code I've seen, such things are cludges/workarounds for technical limitations that haven't been there for more than a decade already. At least, it looks that way from the perspective of a polyglot programmer who has worked with multiple interface-less OOP languages, from Smalltalk to Python to C++.

Re: Redbox left PII on decommissioned machines

#93

Post by cruffle_duffle »

xnorswap wrote: post #46

> Redbox.HAL.Configuration > .ConfigurationFileService implements IConfigurationFileService > STOP MAKING SERVICES AND FACTORIES AND INTERFACES AND JUST READ THE FUCKING > JSON FILE YOU ENTERPRISE FUCKERS I know it's cool to "hate" on OO, but "just read the fucking file" doesn't work if you want to run your unit tests without reading a fucking file. It makes sense to abstract configuration behind an interface so you…

I am lost is that a code comment or the author commenting on something they found?

Because I always enjoy leaked code comments. It’s like “tell me how you really feel about this shitty bloated enterprise framework you are using”.

There were some good ones in the leaked windows source code, weren’t there?

Re: Redbox left PII on decommissioned machines

#94

Post by robrtsql »

cruffle_duffle wrote: post #93
xnorswap wrote: post #46

> Redbox.HAL.Configuration > .ConfigurationFileService implements IConfigurationFileService > STOP MAKING SERVICES AND FACTORIES AND INTERFACES AND JUST READ THE FUCKING > JSON FILE YOU ENTERPRISE FUCKERS I know it's cool to "hate" on OO, but "just read the fucking file" doesn't work if you want to run your unit tests without reading a fucking file. It makes sense to abstract configuration behind an interface so you…

I am lost is that a code comment or the author commenting on something they found? Because I always enjoy leaked code comments. It’s like “tell me how you really feel about this shitty bloated enterprise framework you are using”. There were some good ones in the leaked windows source code, weren’t there?

That's the author commenting on something that they found.

Re: Redbox left PII on decommissioned machines

#95

Post by dylan604 »

flomo wrote: post #31
dylan604 wrote: post #2

Take this as a lesson. If you've been a dev long enough, you've worked on a project knowing that how the project is being done isn't the best method with every intention of going back to make it better later, but not at the expense of getting the MVP up and running. You'll also have seen that never actually happening and all of those bad decisions from the beginning still living all the way to the bitter end. I'm gue…

They might have had the most perfectly developed decommissioning process. And nobody is going to care when their paychecks stop showing up, and everything suddenly gets trucked-off into receivership. Given the era and constraints, I don't see how it was irresponsible or 'sloppy' to have a local database on these things. This most likely is not on development.

> and everything suddenly gets trucked-off into receivership.

That's the problem. These things aren't getting collected and trucked off. They are just left rotting in their installed locations. I'm pretty confident that you could just show up to any of these with a tool box to just start opening one up to take out whatever you wanted from the insides, and not one person would question you. They already said they don't care if you never returned any discs you had in your possession, so nobody would care if you emptied their inventory of discs within. And until now, I'd wager not one person inside the company ever thought they might be vulnerable to a PII attack like this either.

Re: Redbox left PII on decommissioned machines

#96

Post by aidenn0 »

xnorswap wrote: post #46

> Redbox.HAL.Configuration > .ConfigurationFileService implements IConfigurationFileService > STOP MAKING SERVICES AND FACTORIES AND INTERFACES AND JUST READ THE FUCKING > JSON FILE YOU ENTERPRISE FUCKERS I know it's cool to "hate" on OO, but "just read the fucking file" doesn't work if you want to run your unit tests without reading a fucking file. It makes sense to abstract configuration behind an interface so you…

If you need to make your code more baroque and harder to understand in order to unit-test it, that seems like the tail wagging the dog.

Re: Redbox left PII on decommissioned machines

#98

Post by shagie »

xnorswap wrote: post #81
rcxdude wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why is it so hard to read a file during a unit test? Files are pretty easy to mock in many different ways, all of which are pretty fast. You don't need a special-purpose interface to be able to test the code that uses a config file.

Perhaps a better example is a real world example I ran into just this week. I found out that our unit test suite would only pass when run under elevated credentials. Our internal developer tooling had been running under semi-privileged credentials for years, and was the usual way of triggering a full unit test suite run, so no-one really noticed that it didn't work when run at a lower elevation. When run from a lower…

> DateTime.Now

I've got this in several places.

I have code that needs to check if other date is within two weeks of today. I have test data.

I could either modify the test data based on today's date (adding other logic to tests that itself could be faulty), do something while loading the test data... or have the date to be used for comparisons be injected in.

That date is July 1, 2018. It was selected so that I didn't have difficulty with reasoning about the test data and "is this a leap year?" or across a year boundary on January 1.

Its not a "I don't trust it to work across those conditions" but rather a "it is easier to reason about what is 60 days before or after July 1 than 60 days before or after January 1.

And returning to the point - injectable dates for "now" are very useful. Repeatable and reasonable tests save time.

Re: Redbox left PII on decommissioned machines

#99

Post by nihilist_t21 »

Ahh I miss Foone's threads on Twitter/X!!! They were always such an interesting joy to read. I know they migrated off of Twitter/X and they were one of the ones I was most sad to see leave. But given 95-99% of the accounts I follow never left, I'm not going to bother to cultivate another social media account just for Foone's threads, or whomever else's which I've forgotten left Twitter/X.

Re: Redbox left PII on decommissioned machines

#100

Post by burnte »

xnorswap wrote: post #46

> Redbox.HAL.Configuration > .ConfigurationFileService implements IConfigurationFileService > STOP MAKING SERVICES AND FACTORIES AND INTERFACES AND JUST READ THE FUCKING > JSON FILE YOU ENTERPRISE FUCKERS I know it's cool to "hate" on OO, but "just read the fucking file" doesn't work if you want to run your unit tests without reading a fucking file. It makes sense to abstract configuration behind an interface so you…

> I know it's cool to "hate" on OO, but "just read the fucking file" doesn't work if you want to run your unit tests without reading a fucking file.

Then don't do that, if in the real world it'll read a fucking file, then test with reading a fucking file. Tests aren't there to just be passed, they're to catch problems and if they're not testing the same workflows that the code will see IRL then the test is flawed. The first test should be reading a fucking file and that fucking file could be full of all sorts of garbage.

Same goes for non-fucking files.

Post reply on HN