Bug 150826
| Summary: | Web Inspector: Timeline Records Unexpected FunctionCall inside of FunctionCall | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | WebKit | Reporter: | Joseph Pecoraro <joepeck> |
| Component: | Web Inspector | Assignee: | Nobody <webkit-unassigned> |
| Status: | NEW | ||
| Severity: | Normal | CC: | graouts, inspector-bugzilla-changes, webkit-bug-importer |
| Priority: | P2 | Keywords: | InRadar |
| Version: | WebKit Nightly Build | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | All | ||
Joseph Pecoraro
* SUMMARY
Timeline Records Unexpected FunctionCall inside of FunctionCall.
* TEST
<body>
<script>
var observer = new MutationObserver(function alpha() {
setTimeout(function beta() {
console.log("whoa");
}, 10);
});
observer.observe(document.body, {attributes: true, childList: true, characterData: true});
document.write("<b>Test</b>");
</script>
* STEPS TO REPRODUCE
1. Inspect test page
2. Show Timeline
3. Reload (needs at least one timestamp...)
4. Start recording timeline
5. Reload
6. Stop recording timeline
=> warning in console about missing FunctionCall inside of FunctionCall
* NOTES
The eventRecorded stacking looks like:
- RenderingFrame
- TimerFire
- FunctionCall (with Profile)
- FunctionCall (no Profile)
- TimerInstall
I do find it interesting that the Profile for the Function Call has 2 root node ("alpha" and "beta").
Given this issue, I have a feeling that this is a backend issue generating records nested incorrectly.
* PROTOCOL
"method": "Timeline.eventRecorded",
"params": {
"record": {
"startTime": 0.010606311028823256,
"data": {},
"type": "RenderingFrame",
"children": [{
"startTime": 0.02177164499880746,
"endTime": 0.02231149101862684,
"type": "TimerFire"
"children": [{
"startTime": 0.021776599052827805,
"endTime": 0.02230980701278895,
"type": "FunctionCall"
"data": {
"scriptName": "file:///Users/pecoraro/Desktop/function-call.html",
"scriptLine": 5,
"profile": {
"rootNodes": [{
"id": 8129808,
"callInfo": {
"callCount": 1,
"startTime": 0.02185550204012543,
"endTime": 0.02203003002796322,
"totalTime": 0.00017452798783779144
},
"functionName": "beta",
...
}, {
"id": 4486534,
"callInfo": {
"callCount": 1,
"startTime": 0.0220418720273301,
"endTime": 0.022289311047643423,
"totalTime": 0.00024743902031332254
},
"functionName": "alpha",
...
}]
}
},
"children": [{
"startTime": 0.022038987022824585,
"endTime": 0.02229272504337132,
"type": "FunctionCall"
"frameId": "0.1",
"data": {
"scriptName": "file:///Users/pecoraro/Desktop/function-call.html",
"scriptLine": 3
},
"children": [{
"startTime": 0.022177679056767374,
"frameId": "0.1",
"type": "TimerInstall"
"stackTrace": [{
"functionName": "setTimeout",
"url": "[native code]",
"lineNumber": 0,
"columnNumber": 0
}, {
"functionName": "alpha",
"url": "file:///Users/pecoraro/Desktop/function-call.html",
"lineNumber": 5,
"columnNumber": 15
}],
"data": {
"timerId": 2,
"timeout": 10,
"singleShot": true
},
}],
}],
}],
}
...
| Attachments | ||
|---|---|---|
| Add attachment proposed patch, testcase, etc. |
Radar WebKit Bug Importer
<rdar://problem/23366530>
Joseph Pecoraro
* SIMPLER TEST (Just Reload)
<body>
<script>
var observer = new MutationObserver(function alpha() {
setTimeout(function beta() {
console.log("whoa");
}, 1000);
});
observer.observe(document.body, {attributes: true, childList: true, characterData: true});
document.write("<b>Test</b>");
</script>
I'm still not really sure what is going on.
Blaze Burg
Joe, is this bug invalid now that we have sampling profiler?
Joseph Pecoraro
(In reply to comment #3)
> Joe, is this bug invalid now that we have sampling profiler?
The assertion can still happen. When viewing profile data it is not a problem. It might be possible for this to affect correlation of ScriptProfiler Event's and Timeline Event's.