• Warl0k3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    15 hours ago

    Cannot imagine how this could be legit - you’d run into a hard limit unless you explicitly designed that field to be unbounded.

    • MotoAsh@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      14 hours ago

      Meh, not that hard to default things to “string”, or similar. For example, the “text” type in PostgreSQL explicitly says “unlimited”, though it seems it’s up to 1Gb. See https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/datatype-character.html

      Similarly, it’s not like text fields on web pages automagically apply limits.

      It’s not unimaginable that some dumbass could vibe-code themselves up an easily exploited form.

      • ByteJunk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 hours ago

        100% accurate, though vibe coding is optional.

        If I have a set of requirements that don’t mention any type of restriction, then I won’t arbitrarily add one - as far as I know, I could be breaking intended functionality. If I’m invested in this, I’ll add it to the list of stuff that needs clarification, otherwise it’s gonna ship as specified, and eventually someone’s gonna file a change request.

        • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          8 hours ago

          Sincere question, are you not expected to clarify questionable business rules? I’ve never worked somewhere that leaving such an obvious issue like “unrestricted fields in a public-facing application” without getting it explicitly stated that that’s intended functionality wouldn’t have gotten me fired instantly.

          • ByteJunk@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 hour ago

            Look around you, you’ll find “unrestricted fields in a public-facing app” (from a practical perspective) everywhere. Shrek’s script has what, less than 50k characters? That’s nothing, you can fit that in a Facebook post and still have more than enough to write a full movie review.

            Where this would likely raise flags is when somebody decided that it needs to be printed, but that could be a different team, maybe outsourced, maybe after the main app was developed, maybe it’s just some “plug-and-play” system that also handles bulk printing jobs, who knows.

      • filcuk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 hours ago

        These ‘unlimited’ scams are getting out of hand. All I wanted was to store the library of alexandria in plain text.

      • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        Yeah, sleepy and wasn’t thinking about file sizes. That 1Gb limit (or, the Tsql 65,536 * [something] limit) was what I was referring to, but rather obviously the plaintext script for the movie is a just a little tiny bit smaller than that (51kb).

        It’s still a good deal larger than what in my experience can be fit into a receipt printer, but I can forgive their phrasing even if it was only a small part of the whole script. And aside from that, it does look to be a pretty modern device so it’s very possible that the stupid stupid 20kb file size limit that was so common has since been expanded (Last time I had to deal with a receipt printer the file was streamed over a serial connection into the printer cache before being run off G-code style. Incredibly charming piece of tech…)