search

LeastFixedPoint / wave-dice-robot

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/wave-dice-robot
0 stars 0 forks source link

Should disallow very large rolls (e.g. 10000d100) #15

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Rolls that would place too high load on roller should not be allowed.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by shooshpa...@gmail.com on 2 Nov 2009 at 10:15

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by shooshpa...@gmail.com on 2 Nov 2009 at 10:18

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Patch that kinda fixes it. Doesn't do much to stop people writing 
1d6+1d6+1d6+1d6...
a few thousand times, but stops people writing 999999d6. Feel free to expand on 
it.

I also saw a class 'AbstractRollingMethod' but I don't think it's used, so I 
didn't
adjust it. (I didn't change any DitV stuff either, since it seems to use a 
different
set of classes and I wasn't sure whether it was going to be changed or not.

Original comment by trent.ba...@gmail.com on 2 Nov 2009 at 1:48

Attachments:

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
I also used checked exceptions, which in retrospect might have been better as
unchecked exceptions, to avoid polluting the codebase with 'throws' markers.

Original comment by trent.ba...@gmail.com on 2 Nov 2009 at 11:54

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
I've got an idea: we can place three global limits on rolls:

1) Maximum number of Random#nextInt() calls per roll (e.g. 10000) - to limit 
CPU load 
during the roll itself.

2) Maximum length of roll request string (e.g. 200) - to limit CPU load when 
parsing 
roll request.

3) Maximum length of roll result string (e.g. 200) - to limit outgoing 
bandwidth.

How does it look to you?

Original comment by shooshpa...@gmail.com on 4 Nov 2009 at 9:47

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Sounds good; they're all reasonable limits.

Original comment by trent.ba...@gmail.com on 4 Nov 2009 at 12:11

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by shooshpa...@gmail.com on 4 Nov 2009 at 2:51

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Phew! After two refactorings was able to fix this in an acceptable OOP style.

Original comment by shooshpa...@gmail.com on 8 Nov 2009 at 10:16