Also speaking as a pro, this topic of error checking causes quite a lot of debate at work.
We all agree that input from users (and other untrusted sources) should be fully error-checked (and, for this case of CSV import data, I agree it should be considered untrusted). But when there is an agreed-upon machine interface from A to B, if A violates the interface and crashes B, that is A's problem [this is my position, and many support it; however, the other position is that B should not crash and should always do sufficient checking so that it does not crash]. Likewise, calls to system services are considered trustworthy, so the results are not error-checked... (the status may be checked for a problem, but the data is generally considered safe; for example, I don't know of anyone who error-checks the call to get the current time.) On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 6:12 PM Michael or Penny Novack < stepbystepf...@comcast.net> wrote: > However, speaking as a retired pro, I would consider a program crashing > on ANY bad input to be a bug << a failure of its "input editing" >> > > It is (should be) the responsibility of a program to check incoming data > and reject any data that is bad (preferably with a meaningful error > message). Programs should NOT trust that they will always be given good > input. > > > Michael D Novack > > > _______________________________________________ > gnucash-user mailing list > gnucash-user@gnucash.org > To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe: > https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user > ----- > Please remember to CC this list on all your replies. > You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All. > -- _________________________________ Richard Losey rlo...@gmail.com Micah 6:8 _______________________________________________ gnucash-user mailing list gnucash-user@gnucash.org To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe: https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user ----- Please remember to CC this list on all your replies. You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
