logoalt Hacker News

kayson • yesterday at 6:16 PM • 2 replies • view on HN

> However, we did not have any tests asserting the behavior remains consistent due to the ambiguous language in the RFC.

Maybe I'm being overly-cynical but I have a hard time believing that they deliberately omitted a test specifically because they reviewed the RFC and found the ambiguous language. I would've expected to see some dialog with IETF beforehand if that were the case. Or some review of the behavior of common DNS clients.

It seems like an oversight, and that's totally fine.

Replies

bombcar • yesterday at 6:21 PM

I took it as being "we wrote the tests to the standard" and then built the code, and whoever was writing the tests didn't read that line as a testable aspect.

➕ show 1 reply
supriyo-biswas • yesterday at 6:21 PM

My reading of that statement is their test, assuming they had one, looked something like this:

    rrs = resolver.resolve('www.example.test')
    assert Record("cname1.example.test", type="CNAME") in rrs
    assert Record("192.168.0.1", type="A") in rrs
Which wouldn't have caught the ordering problem.
➕ show 1 reply