Another application of Parse, don't validate. The vulnerability isn't really about the single-line regex, it's that the validation doesn't match the use. If the regex extracted (read: parsed) the valid bit with a group, then passed that through, it would be fine.
this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2024
9 points (84.6% liked)
Ruby
527 readers
2 users here now
A community for discussion and news about Ruby programming.
Learning Ruby?
- Try Ruby in your browser
Tools
- Ruby Version Manager (RVM) Install, manage and work with multiple Ruby environments. adsf is an increasingly popular option too.
- rbenv Groom your app’s Ruby environment with rbenv.
- Looking for new gems? ruby-toolbox
- Install Ruby on macOS
Documentation
- Ruby API or Ruby Doc
- YARD docs via rubydoc.info YARD Documentation Server
Books
- Well Grounded Rubyist
- Eloquent Ruby
- Metaprogramming Ruby
- Effective Testing with RSpec 3
- Programming Ruby 1.9: The Pragmatic Programmers’ Guide
- The Ruby Programming Language
Screencasts
News and updates
- Ruby news in a weekly email from Ruby Weekly
- 'Planet' of Ruby blogs at rubyland.news
- Ruby tweets at @RubyInside
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Holy cow! What an absolute slog of a read. I'm not an AI model, but I'll do my best to summarize that link:
[When writing code that works with non-trivial and null-able data types,] use a data structure that makes illegal states unrepresentable. Model your data using the most precise data structure you reasonably can[, ...] as quickly as you can. [W]rite functions on the data representation you wish you had, not the data representation you are given. The design process then becomes an exercise in bridging the gap.
There. Hopefully someone out there learned something cool without having to read a 25-minute striptease before the author rushes through their main idea in the span of two bullet points found in the final 25% of the article.
I think your summary is less useful than reading the whole article. Teaching well involves more than just stating a refined idea.
I also think the ideas in the article are worth the 25 minutes.
Teaching also involves stating an idea - which the author forgot to actually do. If it is your article that I am criticizing, I'm sorry for being crass, but make no mistake, the writing is half-assed. An article whose primary piece of advice is to "focus on the datatypes", shouldn't avoid the word "datatype" until the 2nd to last header.
Truthfully, the article would be better served by removing the first and 2nd to last section and instead be titled "Why I dislike working with monads in languages that support monads."
Okay. I don't really want to keep arguing about this. Your negativity seems entirely unwarranted, so I'm not really sure what you're trying to achieve. Given the only thing I wanted to say is "this article is worth reading", I don't think there's a productive line for this conversation to go down.