| Summary: | NPE when script with JSDT breakpoint encountered | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [WebTools] JSDT | Reporter: | Grant Gayed <grant_gayed> |
| Component: | Debug | Assignee: | Michael Rennie <Michael_Rennie> |
| Status: | ASSIGNED --- | QA Contact: | Michael Rennie <Michael_Rennie> |
| Severity: | normal | ||
| Priority: | P3 | CC: | david_williams, thatnitind |
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | All | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
|
Description
Grant Gayed
(In reply to comment #0) > I think this is a side effect of last Friday's changes. The steps below give a > specific case, but presumably the problem happens with other sites as well. > Yes, this one is kind of a double-whammy. Changes released on Friday simplified some of the script comparisons, but did not handle the script load case for about:blank that crossfire sends. Arguably this should be handled in the crossfire implementation of ScriptReference:sourceURI() - the form of the URI we get now has no path and a scheme of 'about' and decoded scheme segment of 'blank', which is bogus. I am wondering if we should ever care about about:blank loads? Should we just ignore them altogether? Is there ever a case when someone would want to the know that this loaded? another thing to consider, why is the Crossfire server holding about:blank as a script?
For example when we send a 'scripts' request, one of the entries we get back is:
{script={id=about:blank, lineOffset=0, sourceLength=1, lineCount=1, compilationType=URLOnly, sourceStart=The resource from this URL is not text: about:blank, columnOffset=0}}
This works for me in the latest, tried with both IE and FF. Closing report. This does work in the latest code, but only because I hacked it. We should fix it 'properly' by: 1. preventing script objects from being created for about:blank AND / OR 2. fixing crossfire itself to not send script load events for about:blank Michael, will we be doing a "proper" fix for 3.3.0 (which will require PMC approval going forward), or do you want to defer this to 3.3.1? Since no answer to question in comment #6, I am assuming and moving to 3.3.1. Feel free to triage/handle in a different way ... such as could have closed one, and clone a new one for future? ... I just didn't want to leave it targeted to a past milestone since more likely to be overlooked? |