Can someone from CG (@_CG_Thibaud or @_CG_SaiksyApo I presume), after a natural investigation, can treat the following COC and remove them and have, at least, a serious discussion with their(s?) validator(s?).
Btw, as @eulerscheZahl said “Thank you very much for this demonstration of how vulnerable the approval system is.”
but who cares, no time to check, validated as soon as they appeared by friend/fake accounts …
if i could, i had removed them as quickly ( and banned all these account ) … ( i can … but i won’t because they’ll be stupid enough to resubmit )
it is rottening clash of code as we said it was going to happen …
cf Ian Malcolm: I hate being right all the time.
The point here is not to let a bot do the job but MANUALLY remove those contributions since they, most probably, have been validated by fake accounts and without any real review process ! CG must really act against that kind of XP farming and have a real brain storming on the most global problem of contribution validation.
There is still one problem with it (and I don’t have permission to modify already approved clashes and correct it myself):
The validators are always much longer than the visible tests. The default code is generated by read s:string(256), which isn’t sufficient for validators having a length > 900.
I know that i don’t touch CoC validation so maybe i’m wrong.
But how the f*ck is this not a bad clash ? Validators are not even close to visible tests. There’s no chance anyone found the solution during a CoC. Just, no … no chance. How am i suppose to guess this code. Even with validators there’s no chance i’ll find it.