Imagine i have a function with a bug in it:
Pseudo-code:
void Foo(LPVOID o)
{
//implementation details omitted
}
The problem is the user passed null:
Object bar = null;
...
Foo(bar);
Then the function might crash due to a access violation; but it could also happen to work fine. The bug is that the function should have been checking for the invalid case of passing null, but it just never did. It was never issue because developers were trusted to know what they're doing.
If i now change the function to:
Pseudo-code:
void Foo(LPVOID o)
{
if (o == null) throw new EArgumentNullException("o");
//implementation details omitted
}
then people who were happily using the function, and happened to but not get an access violation, now suddenly will begin seeing an EArgumentNullException.
Do i continue to let people using the function improperly, and create a new version of the function? Or do i fix the function to include what it should have originally had?
So now the moral dillema. Do you ever add new sanity checks, safety checks, assertions to exising code? Or do you call the old function abandoned, and have a new one?
Consider a bug so common that Microsoft had to fix it for developers:
MessageBox(GetDesktopWindow, ...);
You never, ever, ever want to make a window model against the desktop. You'll lock up the system. Do you continue to let developers lock up the user's computer? Or do you change the function to:
MessageBox(HWND hWndParent, ...)
{
if (hWndParent == GetDesktopWindow)
throw new Exception("hWndParent cannot be the desktop window. Use NULL instead.");
...
}
In reality Microsoft changed the Window Manager to auto-fix the bad parameter:
MessageBox(HWND hWndParent, ...)
{
if (hWndParent == GetDesktopWindow)
hWndParent = 0;
...
}
In my made up example there is no way to patch the function - if i wasn't given an object, i can't do what i need to do on it.
Do you risk breaking existing code by adding parameter validation? Do you let existing code continue to be wrong, getting incorrect results?