You may be interested in this: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-error-stacks/
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017, 06:09 Igor Baklan <[email protected]> wrote: > It would be nice to have `error.prettyStack` and > `Execution.getPrettyStack()` / `Error.capturePrettyStackTrace(..)` to > capture same nice stack trace as `console.error(..)` does. > > Generally problem with `error.stack` is that is is plain-text value, and > it does not take into account source mapping. All this problems are solved > in `console.error(...)` method. It prints nice stack trace with links to > source files (including that, which provided by source mapping), but bad > thing with it - that there is no standard API to capture it (in same nice > form). So for me it looks like fair solution - to define some > implementation-specific `PrettyStack` object/class with some basic methods > like `stk1.concat(stk2)` and (`Array`/`String` -like) `stk.slice(..)`. And > say that `PrettyStack` internal structure is completely > implementation-specific, but the only requirement is that it should be > perfect compatibility between `PrettyStack` and `console` object. So that > the following code snippet should produce 3 log messages with the same nice > stack-trace included/printed: > > ```js > console.error("error message with stack trace"); > console.info("info message with stack trace", Execution.getPrettyStack()); > console.debug("debug message with stack trace", new Error().prettyStack); > ``` > > Main use case of this API is to facilitate some "home made" executable > commands queue. In fact in this case you may want to see async-like > stack-trace (where put-to-queue action stack-trace should be concatenated > to command-execution stack-trace, and actually that concatenated async-like > stack trace would be more informative then having just command-execution > failure stack-trace alone). > > In case if such pretty stack API exists, it would be possible to queue > command-entry which includes current stack trace like `queueAction: > (_actionFunction_) -> {internal_queue.push({callerStack: > Execution.getPrettyStack(), funcToRun: _actionFunction_})}`. And in case if > action from queue failed it would be possible to equip that failure with > extra (async-like) stack-trace information, writing something like: > `err.asyncPrettyStack = err.prettyStack.concat(_queueEntry_.callerStack)` > (or more complete: `if (err.asyncPrettyStack == null) {err.asyncPrettyStack > = err.prettyStack}; err.asyncPrettyStack = > err.asyncPrettyStack.concat(_queueEntry_.callerStack);`). > > Also it would be nice to have something like "base-stack-trace" > ("context-stack-trace") which should be programmatically (freely) > controlled by code, and automatically appended to current execution > stack-trace (like it does for async-like calls to ajax-api, setTimeout-api, > etc). So that it may look like: > > ```js > const runQueueEntry = function({callerStack: entryCallerPrettyStack, > funcToRun: entryActionFunction}) { > // so inside of entryActionFunction execution Execution.getPrettyStack() > should be > // concatenation of entryCallerPrettyStack and actual current > ("not-async") PrettyStack > Execution.runWithContext({basePrettyStack: entryCallerPrettyStack}, > entryActionFunction); > } > ``` > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
