> So it validated in the input and failed in an unsafe way. Is that what you’re saying? Instead of rejecting the input and failing in a safe way.
It rejected the input and "failed" in a loud way (showing an error) for the user, as opposed to not rejecting the invalid input and continuing anyway in a degraded/invalid state, which would instead have allowed users to continue browsing but would not have worked properly for some other purposes (e.g. it probably would not have continued blocking malicious/bad scraper requests). Neither is ideal, though of course depending on your priorities one might be better than the other.
> My only point was, the language doesn’t matter. It could have been written in brainfuck.
Yeah I definitely agree. My point was that the error was also somewhere else, since an internally-controlled input was invalid.
It rejected the input and "failed" in a loud way (showing an error) for the user, as opposed to not rejecting the invalid input and continuing anyway in a degraded/invalid state, which would instead have allowed users to continue browsing but would not have worked properly for some other purposes (e.g. it probably would not have continued blocking malicious/bad scraper requests). Neither is ideal, though of course depending on your priorities one might be better than the other.
> My only point was, the language doesn’t matter. It could have been written in brainfuck.
Yeah I definitely agree. My point was that the error was also somewhere else, since an internally-controlled input was invalid.