Re: Where to put the error handing test?

On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 4:58 AM, Dave Angel <davea@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Peng Yu wrote:

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 9:44 PM, Lie Ryan <lie.1296@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Peng Yu wrote:


Suppose that I have function f() that calls g(), I can put a test on
the argument 'x' in either g() or f(). I'm wondering what is the
common practice.

My thought is that if I put the test in g(x), the code of g(x) is
safer, but the test is not necessary when g() is called by h().

If I put the test in f(), then g() becomes more efficient when other
code call g() and guarantee x will pass the test even though the test
code in not in g(). But there might be some caller of g() that pass an
'x' that might not pass the test, if there were the test in g().


Typically, you test for x as early as possible, e.g. just after user
input
(or file or url load or whatever). After that test, you can (or should be
able to) assume that all function calls will always be called with the
correct argument. This is the ideal situation, it's not always easy to
do.

In any case though, don't optimize early.


Let's suppose that g() is refactored out from f() and is call by not
only f() but other functions, and g() is likely to be called by new
functions.

If I don't optimize early, I should put the test in g(), rather than f(),
right?



Your question is so open-ended as to be unanswerable.  All we should do in
this case is supply some guidelines so you can guess which one might apply
in your particular case.

You could be referring to a test that triggers alternate handling.  Or you
could be referring to a test that notices bad input by a user, or bad data
from an untrusted source.  Or you could be referring to a test that
discovers bugs in your code.  And there are variations of these, depending
on whether your user is also writing code (eval, or even import of
user-supplied mixins), etc.

The first thing that's needed in the function g() is a docstring, defining
what inputs it expects, and what it'll do with them.  Then if it gets any
input that doesn't meet those requirements, it might throw an exception.  Or
it might just get an arbitrary result.  That's all up to the docstring.
 Without any documentation, nothing is correct.

Functions that are only called by trusted code need not have explicit tests
on their inputs, since you're writing it all.  Part of debugging is catching
those cases where f () can pass bad data to g().  If it's caused because bad
data is passed to f(), then you have a bug in that caller.  Eventually, you
get to the user.  If the bad data comes from the user, it should be caught
as soon as possible, and feedback supplied right then.

I'll still confused by the guideline that an error should be caught as
early as possible.

Suppose I have the following call chain

f1() --> f2() --> f3() --> f4()

The input in f1() might cause an error in f4(). However, this error
can of cause be caught by f1(), whenever I want to do so. In the worst
case, I could duplicate the code of f2 and f3, and the test code in f4
to f1(), to catch the error in f1 rather than f4. But I don't think
that this is what you mean.

Then the problem is where to put the test code more effectively. I
would consider 'whether it is obvious to test the condition in the
give function' as the guideline. However, it might be equal obvious to
test the same thing two functions, for example, f1 and f4.

In this case, I thought originally that I should put the test code in
f1 rather than f4, if f1, f2, f3 and f4 are all the functions that I
have in the package that I am making. But it is possible that some
time later I added the function f5(),...,f10() that calls f4(). Since
f4 doesn't have the test code, f5(),...,f10() should have the same
test code. This is clearly a redundancy to the code. If I move the
test code to f4(), there is a redundancy of the code between f1 and
f4.

I'm wondering how you would solve the above problem?

assert() ought to be the correct way to add tests in g() that test whether
there's such a bug in f().  Unfortunately, in CPython it defaults to debug
mode, so scripts that are run will execute those tests by default.
 Consequently, people leave them out, to avoid slowing down code.



It comes down to trust.  If you throw the code together without a test
suite, you'll be a long time finding all the bugs in non-trivial code.  So
add lots of defensive tests throughout the code, and pretend that's
equivalent to a good test system.  If you're writing a library to be used by
others, then define your public interfaces with exceptions for any invalid
code, and write careful documentation describing what's invalid.  And if
you're writing an end-user application, test their input as soon as you get
it, so none of the rest of the application ever gets "invalid" data.

Having the test code for any function and any class (even the ones
that are internal in the package) is basically what I am doing.
However, if I decided to put the test code in f1(), then I can not
have my test code test the error case for f4(). If the rule is to test
each function/class extensively, then I have to put the error handling
code in f4(). But this is contradictory to catch the error as early as
possible and removing code redundancy.

Would you put a global solution to all the above problems that I mentioned?
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Where to put the error handing test?
    ... Or you could be referring to a test that notices bad input by a user, or bad data from an untrusted source. ... And there are variations of these, depending on whether your user is also writing code, etc. ... If you throw the code together without a test suite, you'll be a long time finding all the bugs in non-trivial code. ... If you're writing a library to be used by others, then define your public interfaces with exceptions for any invalid code, and write careful documentation describing what's invalid. ...
    (comp.lang.python)
  • Re: Test-Driven Development (was Re: Career? What languages to learn?)
    ... You are thinking of writing the test after the function. ... obvious bugs. ... Teams using TDD report never needing to use the debugger. ... > which is the call to localtime(). ...
    (comp.programming)
  • [PATCH] [GFS2] Journaled file write/unstuff bug
    ... bugs pertaining to writing to files that have the journaled bit on. ... -GFS2 wasn't ever writing unstuffed journaled data blocks to their ... GFS2 was crashing because you would discard a buffer whose bufdata ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Additional resources to understand C better.
    ... In fact, learning to use your debugger well is probably the single most important thing, since that's what you'll spend most of your time doing when you start writing more complex programs. ... Writing new code is a tiny, tiny part of most programmers' lives; the rest is spent fixing bugs or hacking in the occasional new feature. ... That's not to say writing unportable code is bad -- but you need to know when that's what you're doing, and how to account for it, i.e. writing wrappers so that 90% of the code is portable and all you need to change when porting is to write a new wrapper. ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: [ANNOUNCE] 2.6.33.5-rt23
    ... BUGs. ... This is on a POWER7 system, which may have opened up some timing ... sleeping function called from invalid context at ...
    (Linux-Kernel)