Bug 55092

Summary:

window.onerror should pass the ErrorEvent's 'error' property as the 5th argument to the event handler

Product:

WebKit

Reporter:

Charles Kendrick <charles.kendrick>

Component:

WebCore JavaScript

Assignee:

Joseph Pecoraro <joepeck>

Status:

RESOLVED FIXED

Severity:

Enhancement

CC:

ap, aroben, arv, bburg, bfulgham, bret.little, buildbot, cdumez, chris.cinelli, commit-queue, dab, demian85, doochik, erights, ggaren, jason, jeremy.lemesle, joepeck, kangax, kapouer, mark.lam, mihaip, pflynn, rniwa, sam, syoichi, tim.c.quinn, webkit-bug-importer, webkit-bugzilla, webkit.org, xk1t, yurys

Priority:

Keywords:

InRadar

Version:

528+ (Nightly build)

Hardware:

All

OS:

All

Bug Depends on:

158192

Bug Blocks:

158657

Attachments:

Description	Flags
Patch	none
[PATCH] Proposed Fix	buildbot: commit-queue-
Archive of layout-test-results from ews103 for mac-yosemite	none
Archive of layout-test-results from ews114 for mac-yosemite	none
[PATCH] Proposed Fix	none

Charles Kendrick

Reported 2011-02-23 15:14:25 PST

When adding an onerror handler, the uncaught exception is not provided, and using "new Error().stack" also does not work: it produces a stack which ends at onerror. Other means of acquiring stacks, like walking the arguments.caller or arguments.callee.caller chain, are likewise unavailable. This makes onerror mostly useless because you can get better diagnostics by putting try/catch blocks around your top-level event handling code, where you will get a valid error.stack. But this is cumbersome and doesn't catch every scenario. So at the moment we (Isomorphic, creators of SmartClient/SmartGWT) need to continue to recommend that users launch Internet Explorer to get definitive error reporting, which is a shame. <html> <body> <script> window.onerror = function onErrorHandler (message, url, linenumber, arg4) { alert("Error via new Error(): " + new Error().stack); var caughtError; try { throw new Error("whoops"); } catch (e) { caughtError = e; } alert("Error via try..catch: " + caughtError.stack); alert("args.caller, args.callee.caller: " + [arguments.caller, arguments.callee.caller]); }; function func3 () { crash(); } function func2 () { func3(); } function func1 () { func2(); } func1(); </script> </body> </html>

Attachments
Patch (90.11 KB, patch) 2014-02-24 13:55 PST, Adam Roben (:aroben)	no flags	Details Formatted Diff Diff
[PATCH] Proposed Fix (112.49 KB, patch) 2016-06-11 00:23 PDT, Joseph Pecoraro	buildbot: commit-queue-	Details Formatted Diff Diff
Archive of layout-test-results from ews103 for mac-yosemite (959.21 KB, application/zip) 2016-06-11 01:21 PDT, Build Bot	no flags	Details
Archive of layout-test-results from ews114 for mac-yosemite (1.51 MB, application/zip) 2016-06-11 01:31 PDT, Build Bot	no flags	Details
[PATCH] Proposed Fix (113.26 KB, patch) 2016-06-13 13:46 PDT, Joseph Pecoraro	no flags	Details Formatted Diff Diff
Show Obsolete (4) View All Add attachment proposed patch, testcase, etc.

Garrett Smith

Comment 1 2011-02-23 23:18:13 PST

I believe this bug may be INVALID. `new Error().stack` shouldn't have anything other than itself in its stack. What else would that new Error possibly have on it? I'm pretty sure that what was called a problem is not a problem at all. Perhaps what you want to do is find what caused onerror to fire, yeah? Perhaps you want error handler that takes the thrown error as a parameter. function handler(errorEvent) { alert(errorEvent.stack); } window.addEventListener("scripterror", handler, false); // OR: // window.onscripterror = handler; asdf4++; // cause an error. And when that error is thrown, then the browser fires a scripterror at the window and a scripterror is just an error so it has the stack, type, message, etc. Post to WHATWG, this is OT. Is this bug INVALID?

Charles Kendrick

Comment 2 2011-02-24 09:04:58 PST

new Error().stack in other circumstances provides the full stack, for example, calling element.focus() and checking new Error().stack in an onfocus handler shows the stack including code that called element.focus(). onerror is behaving specially here. Your suggestion of passing in or otherwise making available the original error object is interesting, and perhaps something you could raise with WhatWG, but is separate from the problem of new Error().stack providing incomplete information within onerror.

Timothy Quinn

Comment 3 2011-08-11 14:12:04 PDT

(In reply to comment #2) I agree with the essence of the bug in that the window.onerror simply does not provide the functionality required for inline debugging. Its about as useful as IE's "Object not defined" ubiquitous error. I strongly suggest further discussion of this to try and nail down a solution to make window.onerror more useful in WebKit. In FireFox, we get an error object and thus we can read the error.stack and parse the result. It's not pretty, but it works as I have a full stack of source file names and line numbers which is 95% of what I need. Personally, this is my preferred IE supports the call stack crawling and this has some nice features like being able to inspect the arguments of each level within the call stack. This methodology does not contain the source file names or line numbers which in its one kind of sucks. If we can get both methods that would be absolutely awesome :) PLEASE don't kill this request off or at least help us get to a solution that brings final closer to this fundamental gap in WebKit. I've been waiting for years for this fix and would love to get my libraries ported over to WebKit but for now, I just cannot support WebKit because it lacks a decent master error handler. - TCQ BTW I really do care about error handlers. I'm the dude who drove critical fix for Mozilla 1.3 which brought it up to par for better debugging: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=158592

Xavier Morel

Comment 4 2012-02-06 08:00:48 PST

> In FireFox, we get an error object and thus we can read the error.stack and parse the result. Could you explain? As far as I know and according to #355430 `window.onerror` does not provide any error object in Firefox. Which is in fact bothersome. 355430: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=355430

Timothy Quinn

Comment 5 2012-02-07 13:56:04 PST

(In reply to comment #4) Wow, I am embarrassed. You are correct that window.onerror in Firefox does not contain the error object in the parameters. I got around this by setting an global variable in my error handlers and then throwing the error up to the window.onerror where I would then retrieve the last error. Sorry for the confusion ( old code ;). I totally agree that there should be a common ground for all browsers that have a master error handler and that such an error handler receive the last un-handled error as one of its parameters. I would wish that the standards organization would also streamline the error object so that it has a system readable and traversable error stack like in Java's StackTraceElement[] return for Throwable::getStackTrace(). This would be a huge win for JavaScript. I would love to see WebKit be proactive and build such an improved master error handler but IMO, this may not happen unless the ECMA script specification can be updated. I've been meaning to take the time to try and write a detailed justification and specification but I have no free time to do this justice on my own. If anybody is interested in collaborating, I'd be very interested in working together.

Timothy Quinn

Comment 6 2012-04-26 22:46:27 PDT

Wow, no need to collaborate, looks like Bug 66571 implements a stack like error.stack in Firefox. Thanks everyone :) Now if we can just get this ticket implemented and WebKit can be one step ahead of Firefox.

Timothy Quinn

Comment 7 2012-06-15 19:30:09 PDT

It appears that there is significant progress being made on bug 40118 which is driving towards building an Error.stack capability into JavaScriptCore. Fingers crossed...

Bret Little

Comment 8 2012-07-16 14:04:27 PDT

(In reply to comment #7) It seems as though that issue is now resolved, what now needs to be done to expose the stack trace inside the onerror callback?

kangax

Comment 9 2012-12-05 05:15:33 PST

Is there anything else blocking this?

Peter Flynn

Comment 10 2013-05-01 17:27:52 PDT

See also Chromium bug on this subject: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=147127 Another bug with this request, https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=104408, was closed based on security concerns. But that doesn't seem like a blocker - if you only provide a stack when the exception came from the same origin, this will still be incredibly useful for many developers. There are threads like https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=159566 that show Chromium, at least, does some origin-based onerror sanitizing already - not sure if WebKit also does that today.

Adam Roben (:aroben)

Comment 11 2014-02-24 11:04:07 PST

*** Bug 104408 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Adam Roben (:aroben)

Comment 12 2014-02-24 11:05:20 PST

Sanitizing away the error object for cross-origin errors should be pretty easy. I'm thinking about starting to work on this. We're collecting JS exception backtraces on github.com from browsers that support this (right now, just Chrome I believe). It would be nice to be getting this information from Safari users.

Adam Roben (:aroben)

Comment 13 2014-02-24 11:12:09 PST

According to the HTML spec (http://html5.org/r/8086, http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/webappapis.html#runtime-script-errors) we should be making the original error object available on ErrorEvent and passing it to window.onerror functions. Since we already have Error.stack, this will make the stack trace available as well.

Adam Roben (:aroben)

Comment 14 2014-02-24 13:55:31 PST

Created attachment 225094 [details] Patch

Adam Roben (:aroben)

Comment 15 2014-02-24 13:57:39 PST

Comment on attachment 225094 [details] Patch View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=225094&action=review Here's an initial attempt at implementing this. I think it's pretty close; I've highlighted a couple of issues below. I'd love some feedback! > Source/WebCore/ChangeLog:64 > + * workers/DefaultSharedWorkerRepository.cpp: > + (WebCore::postExceptionTask): > + * workers/WorkerMessagingProxy.cpp: > + (WebCore::WorkerExceptionTask::performTask): > + Use a null error object reporting exceptions to the main Document or > + to Worker objects, as specified in the HTML spec. I'm not sure any of our tests actually demonstrate this behavior. I need to see if there are some existing tests that I can improve, or if I need to write some new ones. > LayoutTests/ChangeLog:87 > + * userscripts/window-onerror-for-isolated-world-1-expected.txt: > + * userscripts/window-onerror-for-isolated-world-1.html: > + * userscripts/window-onerror-for-isolated-world-2-expected.txt: > + * userscripts/window-onerror-for-isolated-world-2.html: > + Test that column numbers and error objects get passed for errors in > + other isolated worlds. This seems bad. It's an information leak between worlds. We already have a leak by dispatching error events between worlds at all, but the new error object makes it possible to pass actual JS values between worlds. I think this is already an issue because of CustomEvent. Seems like we should probably do the same thing in both places.

Adam Roben (:aroben)

Comment 16 2014-02-24 13:58:29 PST

Sam, perhaps you can comment on the isolated world issue? It'd be great to get some JS-y folks' eyes on this too. <3

Adam Roben (:aroben)

Comment 17 2014-02-24 14:03:30 PST

Comment on attachment 225094 [details] Patch View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=225094&action=review > LayoutTests/http/tests/security/script-no-crossorigin-error-event-should-be-sanitized.html:12 > + shouldBe("event.error", "null"); Looks like I should use shouldBeNull here. > LayoutTests/http/tests/security/script-no-crossorigin-onerror-should-be-sanitized.html:17 > + shouldBe("error", "null"); …and here.

Jérémy Lal

Comment 18 2014-09-10 16:18:39 PDT

Adam, if leaking information between worlds is an issue with CustomEvent, then it is an issue with KeyboardEvent keyIdentifier as well, no ?

Adam Roben (:aroben)

Comment 19 2014-09-12 07:36:58 PDT

(In reply to comment #18) > if leaking information between worlds is an issue with CustomEvent, > then it is an issue with KeyboardEvent keyIdentifier as well, no ? AFAICT keyIdentifier is just a string, not an arbitrary JS object, so I don't think it has the same issue as CustomEvent and ErrorEvent.

David Børresen

Comment 20 2015-08-13 00:57:53 PDT

Any updates on the matter? Missing the 4th argument is really a pain. It's virtually impossible to handle custom exceptions across browsers when relying on window.onerror, and missing the thrown exception.

Timothy Quinn

Comment 21 2015-12-22 14:48:08 PST

FYI, this has been implemented in Chrome (chromium) and Firefox. Both versions implement the same solution which window.onerror has 5 arguments: [message, url, line, column, errorObject] I confirmed on linux using: - electron v0.35.4 (chromium) - chrome 47.0.2526.106 (64-bit) - firefox 42.1 The only webkit browser I tested was midoir 0.5.1.1 which implemented only the first 4 arguments.

Demian

Comment 22 2016-01-20 11:09:27 PST

Hello, is anyone working on Webkit nowadays? Hello? Almost 6 years waiting for this 'feature' to be implemented and still no news... Hello, I want to be able to capture stack traces inside the global error handler. Is that too much to ask? It's year 2016 and Safari 9 is the new IE6. Really sad.

Radar WebKit Bug Importer

Comment 23 2016-04-14 11:42:48 PDT

<rdar://problem/25731279>

Blaze Burg

Comment 24 2016-05-29 06:45:55 PDT

There are two issues to fix here: - ErrorEvent does not include the uncaught exception, if any, in the `error` property. - window.onerror does not include Error object as the a 4th argument. I'm retitling this to narrow scope to the latter, and the former has a separate bug here: https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=158192

Joseph Pecoraro

Comment 25 2016-06-10 17:39:38 PDT

I'll take this. I already started looking into this and ended up doing what looks almost exactly like Adam's patch.

Joseph Pecoraro

Comment 26 2016-06-10 19:14:42 PDT

> I think this is already an issue because of CustomEvent. Seems like we > should probably do the same thing in both places. Correct, CustomEvent has since solved this issue, so we should follow suit here.

Joseph Pecoraro

Comment 27 2016-06-11 00:23:49 PDT

Created attachment 281082 [details] [PATCH] Proposed Fix Thanks Adam for a great starting point! This includes all of the tests you added, and some more tests (regarding workers and isolated worlds) to check we avoid leaking cross world like CustomEvent.details.

WebKit Commit Bot

Comment 28 2016-06-11 00:26:48 PDT

Attachment 281082 [details] did not pass style-queue: ERROR: LayoutTests/ChangeLog:57: Need whitespace between colon and description [changelog/filechangedescriptionwhitespace] [5] ERROR: Source/WebCore/dom/ErrorEvent.cpp:36: Alphabetical sorting problem. [build/include_order] [4] Total errors found: 2 in 92 files If any of these errors are false positives, please file a bug against check-webkit-style.

Build Bot

Comment 29 2016-06-11 01:21:03 PDT

Comment on attachment 281082 [details] [PATCH] Proposed Fix Attachment 281082 [details] did not pass mac-ews (mac): Output: http://webkit-queues.webkit.org/results/1482729 New failing tests: userscripts/window-onerror-for-isolated-world-1.html userscripts/window-onerror-for-isolated-world-2.html userscripts/window-onerror-for-isolated-world-3.html

Build Bot

Comment 30 2016-06-11 01:21:10 PDT

Created attachment 281085 [details] Archive of layout-test-results from ews103 for mac-yosemite The attached test failures were seen while running run-webkit-tests on the mac-ews. Bot: ews103 Port: mac-yosemite Platform: Mac OS X 10.10.5

Joseph Pecoraro

Comment 31 2016-06-11 01:23:41 PDT

Wow, the bots output is way better then my local output! cq- but I'll strive to get a build that look like the bots.

Build Bot

Comment 32 2016-06-11 01:31:32 PDT

Comment on attachment 281082 [details] [PATCH] Proposed Fix Attachment 281082 [details] did not pass mac-debug-ews (mac): Output: http://webkit-queues.webkit.org/results/1482746 New failing tests: userscripts/window-onerror-for-isolated-world-1.html userscripts/window-onerror-for-isolated-world-2.html userscripts/window-onerror-for-isolated-world-3.html

Build Bot

Comment 33 2016-06-11 01:31:39 PDT

Created attachment 281090 [details] Archive of layout-test-results from ews114 for mac-yosemite The attached test failures were seen while running run-webkit-tests on the mac-debug-ews. Bot: ews114 Port: mac-yosemite Platform: Mac OS X 10.10.5

Darin Adler

Comment 34 2016-06-11 12:27:46 PDT

Comment on attachment 281082 [details] [PATCH] Proposed Fix Regressions: Unexpected text-only failures (3) userscripts/window-onerror-for-isolated-world-1.html [ Failure ] userscripts/window-onerror-for-isolated-world-2.html [ Failure ] userscripts/window-onerror-for-isolated-world-3.html [ Failure ]

Joseph Pecoraro

Comment 35 2016-06-13 13:35:36 PDT

(In reply to comment #31) > Wow, the bots output is way better then my local output! cq- but I'll strive > to get a build that look like the bots. Interesting, so these tests fail, and are skipped, on WebKit2. So I'll follow-suit and file a bug on WebKit2.

Alexey Proskuryakov

Comment 36 2016-06-13 13:38:41 PDT

To clarify, EWS failures are WebKit1.

Joseph Pecoraro

Comment 37 2016-06-13 13:46:22 PDT

Created attachment 281195 [details] [PATCH] Proposed Fix

WebKit Commit Bot

Comment 38 2016-06-13 20:26:35 PDT

Comment on attachment 281195 [details] [PATCH] Proposed Fix Clearing flags on attachment: 281195 Committed r202023: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/202023>

WebKit Commit Bot

Comment 39 2016-06-13 20:26:47 PDT

All reviewed patches have been landed. Closing bug.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.