Console filter should also include source paths
Categories
(DevTools :: Console, enhancement, P3)
Tracking
(Not tracked)
People
(Reporter: Harald, Unassigned, Mentored)
Details
Attachments
(1 file)
Example message: Content Security Policy: The page’s settings blocked the loading of a resource at inline (“default-src”). panel.js:62:24
panel.js links to chrome://global/content/elements/panel.js
Filtering on elements filters out the message even though the file path contains elements.
|
Reporter | |
Comment 1•5 years ago
|
||
Nicolas, could this be a good first bug?
|
||
Comment 2•5 years ago
|
||
not a good first bug, but a good mentored bug I guess :)
|
|
||
Comment 4•5 years ago
|
||
|
|
||
Comment 6•5 years ago
|
||
Harald, it looks like this was done on purpose (see Bug 1364386).
Should we still proceed with Samarjeet's patch?
Maybe we only allow whats after the protocol and host. For example, if the message is from chrome://global/content/elements/panel.js, it should be visible when input is "conent", "elements" but not when "chrome".
|
|
Reporter | |
Comment 8•5 years ago
|
||
Harald, it looks like this was done on purpose (see Bug 1364386).
Seems like this bug is aiming for old-Console on the behavior; which did not match origin or path. Chrome does the same. On the other side, Chrome has the sidebar for filtering by origin and file, so I am not sure if it a good baseline.
Are there other practical cases where this would be bad?
Maybe we only allow whats after the protocol and host. For example, if the message is from chrome://global/content/elements/panel.js, it should be visible when input is "content", "elements" but not when "chrome".
Filtering on host has its use cases, so maybe just ignoring protocol?
Maybe we only allow whats after the protocol and host. For example, if the message is from chrome://global/content/elements/panel.js, it should be visible when input is "content", "elements" but not when "chrome".
Filtering on host has its use cases, so maybe just ignoring protocol?
Sounds good, should we proceed with that?
|
||
Comment 10•5 years ago
|
||
There's a r+ patch which didn't land and no activity in this bug for 2 weeks.
:thelehhman, could you have a look please?
For more information, please visit auto_nag documentation.
|
||
Comment 11•5 years ago
|
||
Hey Harald, How do you think should we proceed?
|
|
Reporter | |
Comment 12•5 years ago
|
||
Sorry for not getting back to you earlier, Samarjeet . I pinged a few people in Slack last week and got no major pushback against filtering more broadly – so including the path is fine. If users need less results, additional filters can always reduce further.
|
|
||
Comment 14•5 years ago
|
||
Cool, so just to clarify, by "path" do you mean including the protocol?
|
|
||
Comment 15•3 years ago
|
||
The bug assignee didn't login in Bugzilla in the last 7 months.
:nchevobbe, could you have a look please?
For more information, please visit auto_nag documentation.
|
|
||
Updated•3 years ago
|
|
||
Updated•3 years ago
|
Description
•