• (nodebb)

    She loves it when I get access to section G.

    Ok I'll see myself out

  • (nodebb)

    Yeah, if that fall-through pattern is a correct implementation of a business rule, it should fscking well be commented as such.

    But what really grinds my gears is that that long test is repeated ad nauseam instead of being centralized.

  • Jim Jam (unregistered)

    Notice the beautiful inconsistency: to provide access to SectionA there must be an entry other than NoAccess, while for all the others missing value gives the access to the corresponding section.

  • (nodebb) in reply to Jim Jam

    And also the mysterious use of else return UiItem.Unknown; when that is not in the enum definition for UiItem which should be an error.

  • Industrial Automation Engineer (unregistered)

    TRWTF, however, is that the random-generator used on this site to go to a "random" article, has the same quality as the submissions posted here.

  • (nodebb) in reply to Jim Jam

    Notice the beautiful inconsistency: to provide access to SectionA there must be an entry other than NoAccess, while for all the others missing value gives the access to the corresponding section.

    Yeah, someone failed hard at De Morgan's Law on this one.

  • (nodebb)

    So if currentAccess is empty we always get UiItem.sectionB?

  • (nodebb) in reply to Steve_The_Cynic

    Yeah, someone failed hard at De Morgan's Law on this one.

    10 years in chroot jail for this violation.

Leave a comment on “A Secure Item”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article