Remove implementation frames from stack trace #922

meeber · 2017-01-29T23:38:38Z

Note to self: Rebase after #899 is merged and update to turn Error into an AssertionError that properly retains ssfi. A follow up PR will properly retain the user's custom message here and elsewhere.

This PR is split into five commits:

Expand the role of the keep_ssfi flag so that it's easier to tell Chai not to overwrite an existing ssfi when it shouldn't, such as when an assertion is being called from within another assertion, or when an assertion is wrapped in a function such as every assertion on the assert interface.
Fix all issues on expect/should interfaces that were causing implementation frames to leak through. Also improve the internal Chai error test helper to validate stack traces.
Fix all issues on assert interface that were causing implementation frames to leak through. Further improve the internal Chai error test helper to validate stack traces.
Rename keep_ssfi flag to lockSsfi.
Clean up excessive test comments.

Closes #878
Closes #904

meeber · 2017-02-12T14:49:09Z

Pinging @keithamus @lucasfcosta @vieiralucas @shvaikalesh for review :D

lucasfcosta

Awesome job! Very clean implementation.

I also liked the tests, I think they cover all the edge cases and general functioning of this change.

I think, however, that some minor details in docstrings and error messages should be changed.

I left a few other comments throughout the code with suggestions and my thoughts on this matter.

I also tried to find any nested assertion invocations that did not set the keep_ssfi flag but I couldn't find any.

Thanks for your work @meeber!

lib/chai/assertion.js

lucasfcosta · 2017-02-12T16:44:46Z

lib/chai/utils/addChainableMethod.js

+          // Setting the `ssfi` flag to `chainableMethodWrapper` causes this
+          // function to be the starting point for removing implementation
+          // frames from the stack trace of a failed assertion.
+          //


Let me see if I get this:

If we're dealing with a "single-level" assertion it is okay to remove these frames from the stack since they're irrelevant due to the fact that they're just calling the assertion's inner routine, but if we're dealing with "nested" assertions (assertions that call other assertions) we must not remove this because we need to have the frames from before calling this function (which is the topmost assertion's code).

Right?

The ssfi flag should always contain a reference to the lowest internal Chai frame in the stack, because that frame and all frames above it will be filtered out. In other words, the very first Chai internal function that gets hit in an assertion should set the ssfi flag, and any functions after that shouldn't mess with the ssfi flag.

For example:

expect({foo: 1}).to.include({foo: 1});

When expect({foo: 1}) gets called, ssfi is undefined.

When .to gets called, ssfi gets set to either the proxyGetter or propertyGetter function for .to, depending on whether on not proxies are supported and enabled. Note that .to doesn't call any more internal Chai functions, so we're done with this step. But if it did happen to call more internal Chai functions, then it'd freeze it's ssfi before calling them since we want to keep ssfi pointing at the first internal Chai function that gets hit when .to is invoked.

When .include gets called, ssfi gets set to the chainableMethodWrapper function for .include. Now, .include calls the .property assertion internally, so we freeze ssfi before calling .property since we want to keep ssfi pointing at the first internal Chai function that gets hit when .include is invoked.

lucasfcosta · 2017-02-12T16:47:46Z

lib/chai/utils/expectTypes.js

@@ -13,6 +13,8 @@
 *
 * @param {Mixed} obj constructed Assertion
 * @param {Array} type A list of allowed types for this assertion
+ * @param {fn} ssfi starting point for removing implementation frames from stack


Isn't it @param {Function} instead of @param {fn}?

lucasfcosta · 2017-02-12T16:57:35Z

test/globalErr.js

+            throw Error();
+          });
+        } catch (e) {
+          throw Error("This should never happen");


Perhaps these error messages here could be a little more descriptive to ease bug detection/interpretation.

lucasfcosta · 2017-02-12T16:57:57Z

test/globalErr.js

+            throw Error();
+          }, undefined, true);
+        } catch (e) {
+          throw Error("This should never happen");


The same goes for the Errors below.

meeber · 2017-02-12T22:38:16Z

Pushed a new version. Changes:

Added new commit that renames keep_ssfi flag to lockSsfi. (Avoided "freeze" to avoid confusion with JavaScript's concept of a frozen object.)
Modified existing commits to make the globalErr helper function throw a more descriptive error message when implementation frames are detected in the stack trace of a failed assertion.
Modified existing commits to add comments that make it more clear what exactly tests of the globalErr helper function are doing.

lucasfcosta

Awesome job @meeber!

The variable name change was much better than what I suggested, lock is really the right word for this. Very well thought.

Also, by reading the code I think that we have too many comments explaining simple tests, especially because some of them are almost identical versions of each other. IMO this adds unnecessary noise to the code and makes it more laborious to maintain (as I explained in another comment).

However, I won't reject these changes because of that, but please, if you agree with these opinions, let us know.

lucasfcosta · 2017-02-14T00:10:21Z

test/globalErr.js

+    // is being asserted on. Instead, if a test is failing, then Mocha will pick
+    // up the error that's thrown by `err`.
+    describe('falsey', function () {
+      // The inner `err` executes `myGetter` and catches the thrown error. But


I don't think we need these comments.

They are really well written, but I think it is very easy to understand what is happening just by reading the code. If we have too many comments on the code it just makes it more difficult to maintain because we gotta make sure we update all the related comments, otherwise they will tell a different story than the code does.

IMO the outer code is okay, but this one (inner one) seems too much.

Anyway, I won't reject this PR because of this, please let me know what you think about it. 😄

lucasfcosta · 2017-02-14T00:12:37Z

test/globalErr.js

+        }, undefined, true);
+      });
+
+      // `err` executes `myWrapper` and catches the thrown error. Since


These comments are almost all the same, I think it adds a lot of noise to the code, especially because one of them would already be enough, but even more because now that we've got more descriptive error messages and awesome test case descriptions that already do the job of conveying the message we want it to.

meeber · 2017-02-14T01:05:56Z

Pushed new version with excessive comments removed. (Changed it in a new commit instead of rebase in case we change mind in future).

lucasfcosta

Looks much cleaner now!
Excellent work 😄

LGTM, let's wait for another review to merge this.

snackycracky · 2017-03-09T06:15:40Z

this article refers to this pr http://lucasfcosta.com/2017/02/17/JavaScript-Errors-and-Stack-Traces.html

keithamus · 2017-03-23T09:56:45Z

How are we with this @meeber? Given:

Note to self: Rebase after #899 is merged and update to turn Error into an AssertionError that properly retains ssfi. A follow up PR will properly retain the user's custom message here and elsewhere.

meeber · 2017-03-23T10:19:39Z

@keithamus I made that note to myself yesterday :D

I'll update this PR after work!

- Allows the `keep_ssfi` flag to be set when creating new Assertion objects by providing its value as the fourth argument. - Updates the `transferFlags` util to only transfer `keep_ssfi` when the `includeAll` argument is set to `true`. - Updates assertion creation and proxify utils to only set `ssfi` if `keep_ssfi` isn't set. - Updates inline docs to reflect expanded usage of `keep_ssfi`.

- Make it so that only `AssertionError` is thrown from inside of an assertion - Always pass the current `ssfi` to a `new AssertionError` inside of an assertion - Always pass the current `ssfi` to a new `Assertion` inside of an assertion, and set the `keep_ssfi` flag - Improve the `globalErr` test helper function to also validate that the thrown error's stack trace doesn't contain implementation frames

- Make it so that only `AssertionError` is thrown from inside of an assert interface wrapper function - Always set `ssfi` to the current function when creating a new `AssertionError` inside of an assert interface wrapper function - Always set `ssfi` to the current function when creating a new `Assertion` inside of an assert interface wrapper function, and set the `keep_ssfi` flag - Improve the `globalErr` test helper function to also validate that the thrown error's stack trace doesn't contain frames from the assert interface

meeber · 2017-03-23T22:27:57Z

@keithamus @shvaikalesh @vieiralucas @lucasfcosta Rebased since #899 was merged. As expected, some instanceof tests started failing due to implementation frames in stack trace. Updated as planned. Tests now pass.

I think this PR is ready to go. After this is merged, there will be a follow-up PR related to messages.

lucasfcosta · 2017-03-27T21:06:46Z

LGTM!
Good job 😄

meeber · 2017-04-04T20:47:39Z

@keithamus @shvaikalesh @vieiralucas Need a second review on this one!

keithamus · 2017-04-04T21:22:08Z

LGTM @meeber! Great work, it's not always glamorous to do this kind of work, but it's definitely needed. That's one of the many reasons you're such a valuable contributor 😘 👍 💯

meeber mentioned this pull request Jan 29, 2017

Custom message not always respected #923

Closed

meeber force-pushed the remove-chai-frames branch from 46a1c6b to c1a08c8 Compare January 30, 2017 22:59

meeber mentioned this pull request Feb 4, 2017

Throw error when instanceof is passed something that is not a function as constructor #899

Merged

meeber mentioned this pull request Feb 12, 2017

Chai needds a better way to assert the existence of an error #930

Closed

lucasfcosta requested changes Feb 12, 2017

View reviewed changes

meeber force-pushed the remove-chai-frames branch from c1a08c8 to 2999156 Compare February 12, 2017 22:33

lucasfcosta reviewed Feb 14, 2017

View reviewed changes

lucasfcosta approved these changes Feb 15, 2017

View reviewed changes

meeber mentioned this pull request Feb 15, 2017

Custom message not always respected #934

Closed

dwqs mentioned this pull request Mar 5, 2017

[译]JavaScript错误处理和堆栈追踪 dwqs/blog#49

Open

meeber added 5 commits March 23, 2017 18:04

refactor: rename keep_ssfi to lockSsfi

8fad9c8

docs: remove excessive comments from tests

a253b4c

meeber force-pushed the remove-chai-frames branch from 42ff3c0 to a253b4c Compare March 23, 2017 22:22

meeber mentioned this pull request Mar 26, 2017

fix: always honor custom message #947

Merged

keithamus merged commit e5ac3b0 into chaijs:master Apr 4, 2017

lucasfcosta mentioned this pull request May 10, 2017

4.x.x Complete Migration Guide #781

Closed

meeber deleted the remove-chai-frames branch August 6, 2017 13:49

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Remove implementation frames from stack trace #922

Remove implementation frames from stack trace #922

meeber commented Jan 29, 2017 •

edited

meeber commented Feb 12, 2017

lucasfcosta left a comment

lucasfcosta Feb 12, 2017

meeber Feb 12, 2017

lucasfcosta Feb 12, 2017

lucasfcosta Feb 12, 2017

lucasfcosta Feb 12, 2017

meeber commented Feb 12, 2017 •

edited

lucasfcosta left a comment

lucasfcosta Feb 14, 2017

lucasfcosta Feb 14, 2017

meeber commented Feb 14, 2017

lucasfcosta left a comment

snackycracky commented Mar 9, 2017

keithamus commented Mar 23, 2017

meeber commented Mar 23, 2017

meeber commented Mar 23, 2017

lucasfcosta commented Mar 27, 2017 •

edited

meeber commented Apr 4, 2017

keithamus commented Apr 4, 2017

Remove implementation frames from stack trace #922

Remove implementation frames from stack trace #922

Conversation

meeber commented Jan 29, 2017 • edited

meeber commented Feb 12, 2017

lucasfcosta left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

lucasfcosta Feb 12, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

meeber Feb 12, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

lucasfcosta Feb 12, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

lucasfcosta Feb 12, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

lucasfcosta Feb 12, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

meeber commented Feb 12, 2017 • edited

lucasfcosta left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

lucasfcosta Feb 14, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

lucasfcosta Feb 14, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

meeber commented Feb 14, 2017

lucasfcosta left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

snackycracky commented Mar 9, 2017

keithamus commented Mar 23, 2017

meeber commented Mar 23, 2017

meeber commented Mar 23, 2017

lucasfcosta commented Mar 27, 2017 • edited

meeber commented Apr 4, 2017

keithamus commented Apr 4, 2017

meeber commented Jan 29, 2017 •

edited

meeber commented Feb 12, 2017 •

edited

lucasfcosta commented Mar 27, 2017 •

edited