rakeshpai

8 ms·

1. 31.▲
   by rakeshpai 15y ago

   Oh yes, of course. I'm not explicitly sending the UA string. Since I'm just doing a client-side post, the UA string is sent as a part of the HTTP request itself. I record this, and errors are segregated by browsers by default automatically.
2. 32.▲
   by rakeshpai 15y ago

   Ah. I even read the "oblations" as "obligations" in my head. Thanks for pointing this out. It's fixed now.
3. 33.▲
   by rakeshpai 15y ago

   Thanks. I'm assuming you already looked at http://errorception.com/faq and that wasn't satisfactory? I'll see how I can improve the FAQs.
4. 34.▲
   by rakeshpai 15y ago

   I guess I should clarify that statement on the site. The errors aren't actually ignored. They are just filed separately as "muted errors". None of the errors posted are ignored - they are all visible for review.
5. 35.▲
   by rakeshpai 15y ago

   Nope, no stack trace at the moment. This is because the stack has unrolled by the time window.onerror is hit. However, there might be workarounds - fake stack traces we can build by walking the callstack in some browsers. I'm currently work
6. 36.▲
   by rakeshpai 15y ago

   I asked the mighty Google, and couldn't find anything like that. You could be right, of course. Do you have a link? I've even seen several others use the term verbatim.
7. 37.▲
   by rakeshpai 15y ago

   Cool... thanks for this list. I'll incorporate it in the FAQs. To answer your questions right here: The only info reported back is the three parameters from window.onerror (error message, line number, file name), and the page on which the e
8. 38.▲
   by rakeshpai 15y ago

   Narad, no demo video yet, but I'll see what I can do. It works in most popular desktop browsers - any browser that supports window.onerror is supported.
9. 39.▲
   by rakeshpai 15y ago

   Thanks, Colin. Currently, mobile browsers aren't supported because mobile webkit doesn't support window.onerror. Errorception doesn't distinguish between browsers, so whenever mobile browsers add support, I'll be ready.
10. 40.▲
    by rakeshpai 15y ago

    Thanks. Point taken. Do you have any specific questions in mind?
11. 41.▲
    by rakeshpai 15y ago

    Thanks for the feedback, Clay. I considered that model for a really long time. But there were two problems with it. (a) Actually just handling large amounts of hits wasn't really a huge cost for me, and (b) I don't think the usefulness will
12. 42.▲
    by rakeshpai 15y ago

    Working link: http://errorception.com/
13. 43.▲
    Show HN: Errorception - High performance JavaScript error tracking

    76 points by rakeshpai 15y ago|54 comments
14. 44.▲
    by rakeshpai 17y ago

    This has to be the most underrated witty comment here. +1.
15. 45.▲
    by rakeshpai 17y ago

    Thanks a million. You made my day by saying that.
16. 46.▲
    by rakeshpai 17y ago

    Or is it the other way around. Whatever. I'm Indian, so I grew up under the shadow of the British Monarchy, coupled with the modernism "invasion" of the 'Mericans. That's fucked up English for you. More fucked up than the Brits or the Ameri
17. 47.▲
    by rakeshpai 17y ago

    I surprised that all browsers still understand the meaning of "gray" as opposed to "grey". Anyway, it's fixed. The CSS validates now.