If you’re looking for requests ;-), I would love an ECS (and specifically Fargate) emulator that actually ran Docker containers locally as though they were in ECS
I think I can understand why this wasn’t addressed for so long: in the vast majority of cases if your db is exposed on a network level to untrusted sources, then you probably have far bigger problems?
Short answer is no, not as far as I am aware/can reason about it
In more detail: so by my understanding there are two techniques in making zip bombs…
Firstly nested ZIPs that leverage the fact that some unZIP programs recursively extract member files. stream-unzip doesn’t do this (Although you could probably use stream-unzip as a component in a vulnerable recursive ZIP parser if you really wanted to… but that I would argue is not the responsibility of stream-unzip)
The second technique is overlapping member files, but this depends on them overlapping as defined by the central directory at the end of the ZIP, which stream-unzip does not use
But if you are accepting files from an untrusted source, then you should validate the size of the uncompressed data as you unZIP (which you can do as you validate along with any other properties of the data)
> without regard for the maintenance burden 1, 2, 5, 10 years down the road.
To me software craftsmanship isn't just about the code, it's about engineering use of time.
In general shouldn't knowingly make choices that would result in pain in the future, but if you're increasing the chance of the project not making it to the future, then is that really the better option? Finding out enough information to make the judgement call between long term/far future pain and short term benefits is all part of the craftsmanship.
> I don't blame agile. But I do kind of blame Agile™
(Loving the phrasing here! I think I'm right on board, especially if we're talking Scrum/Scum-ish)
To answer this, I suspect that trying to change what certain words/phrases mean to people en-masse is extremely difficult, to the point of impossibility in most cases. However, we each have the power to be clearer in the words we use so they are understood by the people we're communicating with.
> engineering quality matters
But also, this to me suggests that there is some sort of absolute definition of quality, but it's much more nuanced. Nothing is inherently "bad quality", but instead has certain consequences, which may or may not happen or may or may not be acceptable in certain circumstances, and you might not even know what these are until the future. This I think is the point I'm trying to make - there is no absolute definition of engineering quality, and I suspect the term "technical debt" all too often suggests there is.
Have to admit the lazy thing threw me, but I can see how the “doing less” I’m arguing for could be taken that way. The “less” is not about avoiding handling edge cases that are possible now, but about avoiding putting in layers of code to handle cases possible only in some future versions of the code (with some limited exceptions that I mention at the bottom of the post)
In fact, it’s crossing my mind that people might not want to be accused of being lazy, and that is a motivation to over-engineer solutions.
> real mastery often involves learning when to do less, not more
Really love and agree with this, and (shameless plug?) I think really aligns with a way of working I (and some colleagues) have been working on: https://delivervaluedaily.dev/
I've now added a section to https://delivervaluedaily.dev/ that is at least a starting point of trying to make sure it doesn't make bad environments worse.
This has been helpful - thank you.
@RayFrankenstein if you would like a small acknowledgement at the bottom of https://delivervaluedaily.dev/, let me know
Although a follow up… could “Deliver value daily” actually help push _away_ from toxic behaviours like micromanagement?
As long as there is some sort of visible/tangible progress most days, and in a justifiable direction, there could be less of a desire for tight control for example?
I was actually thinking this is all from the developer point of view (or at the very least mine: a developer). I try to deliver some value every working day, and I have to say I pretty much love it. This principle really pushes me to make sure I understand the problems and engineer solutions to them appropriately. And from feedback I get, I am, apparently, very productive doing this. And I do encourage others to work this way (as I was myself encouraged), but I do emphasise the point made repeatedly in the manifesto: the increments can _really_ be extremely small. And to also emphasise another point in the manifesto here - it's not a concern if the aim isn't fulfilled every day. If most developers currently aim for value every 2 weeks say, and that's what they're used to, then of course every day won't always happen, certainly in the beginning of working this way. Or yes, there may be unexpected things along the way. And this is all completely fine.
(This last point was a late addition to the manifesto: but I _think_ made before your comment)
Can you give a bit more detail on the destructive aspects though? If you mean if an organisation follows this, then it ends up as a stick to beat developers with if they don't deliver value every day? I guess my counter to that is, if management is toxic, they will always find a stick to beat developers with, no matter what.
What the manifesto does, or at least tries to do, is encourage developers to think about how larger pieces of work are tackled - so they end up really understanding what the problems are, and so engineer solutions to them appropriately. Wherever possible getting feedback, and if possible on a cadence of at least daily, to me seems such a good way of doing this - but do you have a better suggestion?
Edit: I see https://github.com/rayfrankenstein/AITOW and have started to give it a read… and… wow. I certainly understand where you’re coming from, and I would hate to see “Deliver value daily” make all these situations worse.
I think I’ve been really lucky - only maybe experienced light versions of the worlds described, and in the past few years have worked in a very supportive environment and had a lot of autonomy. In this environment I/my team decide on a lot, including ways of working like how to tackle bigger pieces of work. And in such an environment, “Deliver value daily” I think can really work, and essentially has.
But I think I am sticking with my point - I suspect toxic management will find any excuse, and the three words “Deliver value daily”, will do little to change that.
Although - I am tempted to make it clearer up front that autonomy and a supportive environment (and maybe other things?) are crucial, to try to at least limit how it could be “misused”
For a while now some colleagues and I have been thinking about how to improve ways of working, and specifically around the limitations of Agile - especially how it's practiced. As has been suggested by others before us, Agile is all too often a cargo cult: surface level features - often ceremonies taken from Scrum - are prioritised over delivery and getting feedback. Our solution to this is a simplified manifesto with exactly one principle: "Deliver value daily", which we're hoping will reshape thinking, at least a little bit.
Full disclosure: I posted an earlier version here about a month ago, but have since refined it a bit, so hopefully it's appropriate to post it again.