[Webkit-unassigned] [Bug 40781] Web Inspector: show actual breakpoint position in UI.
bugzilla-daemon at webkit.org
bugzilla-daemon at webkit.org
Thu Jun 17 13:15:27 PDT 2010
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40781
Pavel Feldman <pfeldman at chromium.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment #59002|review?, commit-queue? |review-
Flag| |
--- Comment #3 from Pavel Feldman <pfeldman at chromium.org> 2010-06-17 13:15:27 PST ---
(From update of attachment 59002)
WebCore/ChangeLog:5
+ Web Inspector: show actual breakpoint position in UI.
Could you please provide more details on the scenario in the ChangeLog?
WebCore/ChangeLog:9
+ No new tests. (OOPS!)
Remove this line (or add tests!)
WebCore/bindings/js/ScriptDebugServer.cpp:141
+ bool ScriptDebugServer::setBreakpoint(const String& sourceID, ScriptBreakpoint breakpoint, int* lineNumber)
I don't like the fact that lineNumber is [inout] here. We should only use input or output parameters. I would return int instead of bool with actual line. -1 could indicate unsuccessful attempt. r- is for this.
WebCore/inspector/front-end/BreakpointManager.js:99
+ _saveBreakpointOnBackend: function(breakpoint, callback)
Every time I look at the method name, I find it confusing. Lets rename to _setBreakpointOnBackend ?
WebCore/inspector/front-end/BreakpointManager.js:110
+ _didSetBreakpoint: function(breakpoint, success, line)
I think this needs to be a local function in _saveBreakpointOnBackend defined as
function didSetBreakpoint()
{
...
}
I see that you don't want to call it for the one-timers, but it makes the overall logic more confusing. In fact, I would probably use same code for one-time-breakpoints and make them show up in the UI (probably using a bit different rendering).
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.webkit.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
More information about the webkit-unassigned
mailing list