Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] Call stacks in crash reports from unresponsive web pages (Issue #981)

aluhrs13 left a comment (w3ctag/design-reviews#981)

@jyasskin - We'll talk more amongst implementers, WebPerfWG, etc. but what would TAG think of redacting the frames that have extensions instead of the entire stack?

With the scenarios this will serve, we expect that developers will aggregate and group based on the stacks. When doing that, there's going to be some amount of "unknown" where the UA didn't/couldn't get a stack, the site's processing pipeline fails, etc. Omitting the entire stack leaves the question of "Is this intentionally blank, or was there an issue in getting/processing it?"

Redacting only the frames from extensions would give the site details on *something* is negatively impacting *something* on their site with at least a vague pointer to the *something* on their site that they can look into is much better than nothing.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/981#issuecomment-2669469130
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/981/2669469130@github.com>