Bug 113670 – Web Inspector: manually update local variable in UI after its value was changed

• Component: Web Inspector (Deprecated)
• Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX

[Peter Rybin]

Currently after user changed local variable, the old value is still on display. Variable only visible changes it value after debug step. This is due to the fact that protocol doesn't support rereading local variables. We should mechanically update display value on frontend. Without this UI is quite counterintuitive

[Peter Rybin]

Created attachment 195913 [details]
Patch

[Pavel Feldman]

Comment on attachment 195913 [details]
Patch

View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=195913&action=review

> Source/WebCore/inspector/front-end/RemoteObject.js:243
> +            if (this._scopeRef) {

So when should I pay attention to scopeRef and when I should not? Does RemoteObject now represent different entities from different domains?

[Peter Rybin]

> > Source/WebCore/inspector/front-end/RemoteObject.js:243
> > +            if (this._scopeRef) {
> So when should I pay attention to scopeRef and when I should not? Does RemoteObject now represent different entities from different domains?

ScopeRef logically couples with objectId. Having ScopeRef set means that the remote object is transient and some operation don't have meaning for it.

[Peter Rybin]

Created attachment 196142 [details]
Patch

[Peter Rybin]

(In reply to comment #2)
> (From update of attachment 195913 [details])
> View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=195913&action=review
> 
> > Source/WebCore/inspector/front-end/RemoteObject.js:243
> > +            if (this._scopeRef) {
> 
> So when should I pay attention to scopeRef and when I should not? Does RemoteObject now represent different entities from different domains?

RemoteObject is left intact (almost), as we discussed offline. ScopeRemoteObject inheriting class is introduced instead.

[Pavel Feldman]

Comment on attachment 196142 [details]
Patch

View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=196142&action=review

> Source/WebCore/inspector/front-end/RemoteObject.js:185
> +    getPropertiesImpl: function(ownProperties, callback)

We typically say doGetProperties

> Source/WebCore/inspector/front-end/RemoteObject.js:191
> +        

Extra space

> Source/WebCore/inspector/front-end/RemoteObject.js:389
> + * @param {WebInspector.ScopeRef=} scopeRef

Why is this optional?

> Source/WebCore/inspector/front-end/RemoteObject.js:450
> +            WebInspector.RemoteObject.prototype.setObjectPropertyValueImpl.call(this, result, name, callback);

When do we get here and why?

[Peter Rybin]

Created attachment 196216 [details]
Patch

[Peter Rybin]

> > Source/WebCore/inspector/front-end/RemoteObject.js:185
> > +    getPropertiesImpl: function(ownProperties, callback)
> We typically say doGetProperties

Done

> > Source/WebCore/inspector/front-end/RemoteObject.js:191
> > +        
> Extra space

Done

> > Source/WebCore/inspector/front-end/RemoteObject.js:389
> > + * @param {WebInspector.ScopeRef=} scopeRef
> Why is this optional?

Done

> > Source/WebCore/inspector/front-end/RemoteObject.js:450
> > +            WebInspector.RemoteObject.prototype.setObjectPropertyValueImpl.call(this, result, name, callback);
> When do we get here and why?

Done

[Peter Rybin]

I no longer work on WebKit.

[Csaba Osztrogonác]

Comment on attachment 196216 [details]
Patch

Cleared review? from attachment 196216 [details] so that this bug does not appear in http://webkit.org/pending-review.  If you would like this patch reviewed, please attach it to a new bug (or re-open this bug before marking it for review again).