[ic] Call for testers

Gert van der Spoel gert at 3edge.com
Fri Mar 13 09:32:05 UTC 2009

> -----Original Message-----
> From: interchange-users-bounces at icdevgroup.org [mailto:interchange-
> users-bounces at icdevgroup.org] On Behalf Of Peter
> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 11:02 AM
> To: interchange-users at icdevgroup.org
> Subject: Re: [ic] Call for testers
> On 03/13/2009 12:47 AM, Gert van der Spoel wrote:
> >> Well, if all we wanted to do was log and continue then all that is
> >> needed is to wrap a few lines of perl in an eval.  Unfortunately, we
> >> also have to decide how to process the bad text that is causing the
> >> problem since if we just leave it then (1) we will have large chunks
> of
> >> text missing of the resulting page as a result and (2) it is likely
> to
> >> fail again on the same string elsewhere.  I think we really need to
> do
> >> something to sanitize the illegal characters (which may just be one
> or
> >> two chars) out of the text, then we can log and continue.
> >
> > I think that 'log & continue'  is good enough. I do not think
> Interchange is
> > responsible for sanitizing the garbage someone puts in. To prevent
> filling
> > up the error log we could split the issue in a logError and logDebug
> > notification where the logError entry is smaller with a hint to
> logDebug for
> > more info.
> We need to do something with the invalid characters, even if it's just
> to remove them, otherwise we are no better off than simply leaving it
> as-is and allowing the internal server error.

Yes no internal server errors .. with 'continue'  I kinda implied that it
would go on in a working fashion ... I suppose that means to toss out
whichever part it chokes on ... Not to go find the 2-3 characters that cause
the check to fail ... If that means a full paragraph missing then so be it,
it would be shown in the logs, so it would be easy to understand for the
site administrator why there is missing text ...

Makes sense?

More information about the interchange-users mailing list