alt Hacker NewsYes, "their" refers to Bun's code, not the Zig compiler's code. Fuzzili is a fuzzing engine for JavaScript, so integrating it into Bun means that Fuzzili is fuzzing Bun.[0]
From the Bun post[1]
> We fuzz Bun's runtime APIs 24/7 using Fuzzilli, the JavaScript engine fuzzer used by V8 & JavaScriptCore
From Andrew Kelley's post today[2]:
> The post claims they were fuzzing their Zig code, while during our calls the whole Bun team told us that they were not fuzzing anything. This appears to be an outright fabrication.
Sumner says that the Bun team has been fuzzing Bun's Zig code. Kelley says that this is a fabrication. Sumner showed proof that the Bun team has been fuzzing Bun's Zig code.
It looks like Kelley is incorrect and made an unfounded claim. The generous interpretation is that at the time Kelley and Sumner had a more collaborative relationship, Sumner was not fuzzing Bun's Zig code, but I'd expect Kelley to check if anything had changed since then before publicly accusing Sumner of lying in this week's Bun blog post.
[0] https://github.com/googleprojectzero/fuzzilli
[1] https://bun.com/blog/bun-in-rust
[2] https://andrewkelley.me/post/my-thoughts-bun-rust-rewrite.ht...
Replies
Why are you not using hyperlinks and adding links citation style?
AFAIU fuzzing code != fuzzing results. Through skimming it seems that integration tests were using fuzzing, but I would call it fuzzing the code itself.
From "product" perspective there's no difference, but in program-compiler perspective (and e.g. raising bugs about compiler), Fuzilli isn't fuzzing.
Per Wikipedia > (then...) The program is then monitored for exceptions such as crashes, failing built-in code assertions, or potential memory leaks.
As for myself, I wouldn't use term fuzzing for integration testing such the one used by Fuzilla. I always caught it dynamic testing, scenario testing and in bigger cases property based tests. Fuzzing in my mind is reserved to a low-abstraction calls.
Might just be me, though.