Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Include method arguments in backtrace #90

Open
joshuap opened this issue Jun 18, 2021 · 4 comments
Open

Include method arguments in backtrace #90

joshuap opened this issue Jun 18, 2021 · 4 comments

Comments

@joshuap
Copy link
Member

joshuap commented Jun 18, 2021

I believe Python makes method arguments available to each stack frame in the traceback. Is that correct? If so, I'd like to include the arguments in the Honeybadger backtrace, as we do for Elixir (see filter_args option).

This feature should be enabled when a new filter_args is set to false. The default should be true so that args are not included by default. We'll ship this as an opt-in feature in the next minor version; I may enable it by default in the next major version.

Also, what other data is available in the traceback/stack frame that we could be including?

Resources

Front logo Front conversations

@remstone7
Copy link
Contributor

this is related 👍 to #122

@Kelvin4664
Copy link
Collaborator

Addressed with #123

@joshuap
Copy link
Member Author

joshuap commented Nov 27, 2023

@Kelvin4664 @subzero10 I don't think this was addressed with #123, because this issue was to add local variables at the stack frame level in the traceback, whereas #123 added local variables for the top-level call. Is that right? If so, we should keep this open, assuming it's technically feasible.

@joshuap joshuap reopened this Nov 27, 2023
@subzero10
Copy link
Member

@Kelvin4664 @subzero10 I don't think this was addressed with #123, because this issue was to add local variables at the stack frame level in the traceback, whereas #123 added local variables for the top-level call. Is that right? If so, we should keep this open, assuming it's technically feasible.

Oh, you are right! Good catch!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants