ref(replay): Streamline rrweb internal error check#9391
Merged
Conversation
Contributor
size-limit report 📦
|
billyvg
approved these changes
Oct 27, 2023
Member
billyvg
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's possible we've missed applying our error handler in the rrweb codebase, but I agree we probably shouldn't rely on this as it's not very reliable.
Lms24
approved these changes
Oct 27, 2023
I think we don't really need this anymore, and this doesn't even work anyhow in any minified scenario, so we can safe these bundle bytes & also the work to check this on each error.
b31cf70 to
1c41f3e
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I think we don't really need this anymore, and this doesn't even work anyhow in any minified scenario, so we can safe these bundle bytes & also the work to check this on each error.
Or @billyvg do you see scenarios where this would catch something that the check above wouldn't? 🤔