More junk cases for output validator fuzzing - #491
Open
Matistjati wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Rationale for each:
1e1000000000: we try to target output validators that naively use Fraction(input()), which will time out. The other one with1\n...targets the same class, but guesses that the output format is firstn, number of items.float(int("1"+"0"*400))and1.0 - int("1"+"0"*400)both RTE1e309and1e-400targets std::stod, which throws an exception for bothCases 1-3 crashes real output validators installed on Kattis. The fourth is hypothetical, but they seem generally useful to have.
These are clearly malicious inputs and somewhat implausible to be observed from "normal" contestants.