[kamaal]

>>There is no laundry list.

Followed immediately by.

>>There is an expectation that a senior engineer writes codes like a senior engineer.

You have no written list, but an imaginary checklist running in your brain about how a senior engineer writes code. Other engineers have theirs. I ran some of it and guess what, in that list absence of basic documentation, unit test cases, basic exception handling, code with types. Or even input validation for functions, like null checks is a no go.

Yet, if you submitted your feature complete project under a tough deadline to me, I'm not going to sit down and split hairs about absence of a favorite add-on feature of mine. That is what we are discussing here.

The code you posted in the comment above obviously doesn't have things like documentation, or validating function variables. Not even None checks. This obviously happens when some one attempts to write and submit code in minutes. When you write code this quickly, you focus on the exact feature demand at hand. Which in this case was SQL injection.

Other people got their feature set, in which several security add-on features would have been good to have but not in the time given.

>>You are arguing reductio ad absurdum to hide the fact that the things which you claimed unreasonable are in fact routine, and your time estimates are off by order of 10.

Oh obviously anyone who can do produce thousand(s) lines of code 24 hour project in 2.4 hours, is some totally different beast altogether.

There sure could exist such people who can produce >1000 lines of highly tested, security hardened code. I have yet to meet them though.

The closest I've seen is people who could write Lisp macros. But even those people wouldn't recommend writing code at the rate of 1000 lines per hour.

[irahul]

Welp. This is the point I checkout. You do you, but I have to ask. Do you have any production experience[1] and/or hiring experience? Because you have a very fundamental misunderstanding of both, and I find it very hard to believe that someone who has written even trivial applications would think that not having sql injection is an extra requirement or is going to take too much time, or anyone in hiring position is not going to politely terminate the interview after someone claims their assignment has an sql injection but that's because they didn't have much time and it wasn't explicitly asked for, or even consider calling someone for in-person eval when their assignment has an sql injection.

[1] There is a lot wrong with your "improvements". db calls aren't randomly placed in try/catch - that will be absurd. And the None checks aren't there because of something which you can very clearly see in the sample code but you also very clearly don't understand.

[kamaal]

I keep repeating that this is not about SQL injection. You could be asked to write a command line app which doesn't even involve a SQL database. And yet there could a lot of such security or even other add-on's on which your code could be evaluated. We are literally discussing code quantity + time Vs Quality here.

>>Do you have any production experience >>db calls aren't randomly placed in try/catch - that will be absurd.

Calls to databases go wrong all the time. Session objects expire, if you have cert based auths, they expire all the time. Especially if you have a largish microservices stack. Or you have locks on db objects, which you would run into. Or that network got flaky, or that just a certain type of resources like maxing out on db connections. Or that you are just trying to do write something to a database that is not allowed, like a duplicate primary key.

Never assume a database or any IO call for that matter will always go right.

Always check for every possible exception that could likely be thrown and handle it appropriately. Preferably each db interaction function should be atomic, and exception should be bubbled/raised/thrown to the application/feature main loop so that appropriate action like a retry or a roll back can be taken.

>>And the None checks aren't necessary because of something which you can very clearly see in the sample code but you also very clearly don't understand.

Pretty much any large codebase, that passes objects around should always do Null pointer checks. This is because several times resource heavy objects are initialized only on certain conditions, and if such objects are passed around they must be checked.

[irahul]

> I keep repeating that this is not about SQL injection.

Is that why you made that absurd claim about sql injection being an explicit requirement? And that weird figure of 24 hours for handling sql injection, and api validation?

> Never assume a database or any IO call for that matter will always go right.

I said "db calls aren't randomly placed in try/catch - that will be absurd". Because they will be handled at app level to return uniform error messages. Now I am sure you will go on pretending that when you said "db calls aren't in try/catch", what you meant was db calls can throw an exception and app will handle it.

> Pretty much any large codebase, that passes objects around should always do Null pointer checks. This is because several times resource heavy objects are initialized only on certain conditions, and if such objects are passed around they must be checked.

What did I say about None checks not necessary because of something which is visible in the code? What do you think those marshmallow schemas and use_kwargs is for?