This repository was archived by the owner on Apr 5, 2024. It is now read-only.
Fixed "Load More Stack Frames" loading the wrong set of frames. #113
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
When we get a request to load more frames, there's a `startFrame` property in the arguments which was previously ignored.
|
Thank you so much for looking into this! |
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
When you break and the "Load More Stack Frames" button is visible, instead of loading more, it actually loads the same set of frames that are already loaded and appends them to the list.
When we get a request to load more frames, there's a
startFrameproperty in the arguments which was previously ignored. Offsetting the index into the backtrace bystartFrameseems to fix the issue for me, and it seems to be in line with the debug protocol docs I'm looking at. This isn't my area of expertise though!