Include stacktrace into log messages

[OrKoN]

This would align behavior in Chrome and the spec and support the following use case:

As a user I want to filter out console messages from third party libraries. For this, I could use the URLs in the stack trace.

Related discussions:

• [Bug]: No location or stack trace for Firefox console messages puppeteer/puppeteer#13264
• Define which methods should provide a stacktrace whatwg/console#203

Low-priority and we can discuss later.

---

Preview | Diff

[sadym-chromium]

I guess we are fine with the extra traffic, as long as the user is opting-in for the log messages.

[OrKoN]

should we perhaps do it for all methods?

[css-meeting-bot]

The Browser Testing and Tools Working Group just discussed Include stacktrace into log messages.

The full IRC log of that discussion

<AutomatedTester> topic: Include stacktrace into log messages
<AutomatedTester> github: https://github.com//pull/807
<orkon> q+
<AutomatedTester> ack next
<AutomatedTester> orkon: this is a PR/issue about stacktrace not being part of the log messages
<AutomatedTester> ... this was originally excluded but they have come up with a use case to ignore log messages if it comes from a "third party script".
<whimboo> q+
<AutomatedTester> ... I am now wondering if we should include stacktraces to all console logs?
<AutomatedTester> ack next
<jgraham> q+
<sadym> q+
<AutomatedTester> whimboo: I think it would be fine to add it. I think it would add it to console logging? I wonder if we want to all people to opt into this extra info as it could add a lot of info
<AutomatedTester> ack next
<AutomatedTester> jgraham: I was going to say something similar. I don't know if it is expensive to compute a stacktrace as it could be expensive
<AutomatedTester> ... this could lead into the subscription discussion later
<AutomatedTester> ... I think it would be good to have a way of config if you don't want debug messages you can exclude them and do we want to opt into stacktraces. It merits a discussion
<AutomatedTester> ack next
<AutomatedTester> sadym: I didn't mean that we add configuration to the subscription. I don't want to send them by default, just if the user subscribes it
<jdescottes> q+
<AutomatedTester> ... and users can limit the info being passed back with preload script
<AutomatedTester> ack next
<jgraham> q+
<AutomatedTester> jdescottes: I think that stacktraces are there for most things, have a way to add it already and support adding it in this scenario
<AutomatedTester> ack next
<AutomatedTester> jgraham: Let's add it by default and if we need filtering we can add that at a later stage
<whimboo> q+
<AutomatedTester> ack next
<orkon> q+
<AutomatedTester> whimboo: could someone submit a PR that updates and adds stacktrace
<AutomatedTester> ... or I can try do it next week
<AutomatedTester> ack next
<AutomatedTester> orkon: this is in the console spec already
<AutomatedTester> whimboo: we don't have this in firefox yet so I think we may need the spec changes
<AutomatedTester> q?
<whimboo> see also https://github.com/whatwg/console/issues/203
<AutomatedTester> whimboo: I have put a link to the issue above
<AutomatedTester> RRSAgent, make minutes
<AutomatedTester> q?
<RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/13-webdriver-minutes.html AutomatedTester
<AutomatedTester> sadym: we already send stacktrace for logEntry

[juliandescottes]

As mentioned by @whimboo during the meeting, in Firefox we indeed only have stacktraces available for a few console message types. For log and warn, the only information available from platform at the moment is the filename/linenumber/columnnumber.

[OrKoN]

So I think this spec change does not depend on the behavior of the main Console spec because we are defining WebDriver BiDi-specific steps here. It should be possible to only compute stacktraces if there is a WebDriver BiDi connection and report them as WebDriver BiDi events without necessarily affecting the behavior in other instances of console use.