this.notifyFirebug is not a function

9 views
Skip to first unread message

Nell

unread,
May 29, 2008, 5:08:07 PM5/29/08
to Firebug
Using Firebug 1.2 with Firefox 3, I am getting the following error:

Failed loading ...js with error: TypeError: this.notifyFirebug is not
a function

I searched through our javascript to make sure notifyFirebug was not
one of our calls, which it is not, and I do see that notifyFirebug is
part of Firebug 1.2 code. How can I debug this further?

Thanks,
Nell

John J Barton

unread,
May 29, 2008, 6:00:24 PM5/29/08
to Firebug
If you run 1.2X from http://getfirebug.com/releases the line numbers
will be correct for the source we have. You can also run 1.2X from the
command line and set FBTrace panel options ERRORS on to pinpoint it.

Nell

unread,
May 29, 2008, 8:50:39 PM5/29/08
to Firebug
I looked for some instructions on what I should be looking for, but
couldn't find any. I installed 1.2X, but the error looks the same to
me

Failed loading ...js with error: TypeError: this.notifyFirebug is not
a function

with the line number just being a line in my foo.html file.

I didn't know what else to do, so I clicked on ERRORS in the FBTrace
panel to highlight it, but it didn't seem to do anything.

Obviously I'm not looking in the right place... can you give me some
further guidance or point me to some instructions?

Thanks,
Nell

On May 29, 6:00 pm, John J Barton <johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com> wrote:
> If you run 1.2X fromhttp://getfirebug.com/releasesthe line numbers

Jan Odvarko

unread,
May 30, 2008, 4:24:35 AM5/30/08
to Firebug
> I didn't know what else to do, so I clicked on ERRORS in the FBTrace
> panel to highlight it, but it didn't seem to do anything.
FBTrace dumps info in to the Firefox console (-console command line
argument when launching FF).

If you could provide an (online) test-case, so it's simply
reproducible,
it would be awesome! As soon as I can reproduce that, I'll fix it.

Honza


On May 30, 2:50 am, Nell <nga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I looked for some instructions on what I should be looking for, but
> couldn't find any.  I installed 1.2X, but the error looks the same to
> me
>
> Failed loading ...js with error: TypeError: this.notifyFirebug is not
> a function
>
> with the line number just being a line in my foo.html file.
>
> I didn't know what else to do, so I clicked on ERRORS in the FBTrace
> panel to highlight it, but it didn't seem to do anything.
>
> Obviously I'm not looking in the right place... can you give me some
> further guidance or point me to some instructions?
>
> Thanks,
> Nell
>
> On May 29, 6:00 pm, John J Barton <johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com> wrote:
>
> > If you run 1.2X fromhttp://getfirebug.com/releasestheline numbers

Nell

unread,
May 30, 2008, 7:54:46 PM5/30/08
to Firebug
Hi,

Here's the output from that error using ERRORS and -console:

fbs.onError with this.showStackTrace=true and this.breakOnErrors=false
kind=Uncaught-Exception msg=this.notifyFirebug is not a
function@http://localhost:8080/foo.html:14.0
fbs.onError needToBreakForError=false; in any case we will drop in to
onDebug
fbs.onDebug fileName=http://localhost:8080/foo.html
reportNextError=true breakOnNextError=false
debugger.onError: this.notifyFirebug is not a function
Firebug.errorStackTrace:
<top>
(0)/dojo/./_firebug/firebug.js:14-15@-434
(0)XPCSafeJSObjectWrapper.cpp:445-446@445
(0)/foo/debug.js:550-563@111
(0)/foo/debug.js:476-487@37
(0)/foo/Foo.js:461-484@18
(0)/foo/Foo.js:815-843@372
(0)http://localhost:8080/dojo/dojo.js.uncompressed.js:1921-1951@1948
(0)http://localhost:8080/dojo/dojo.js.uncompressed.js:1918-1919@1918
(0)/foo/Foo.js:449-900@451
(0)http://localhost:8080/dojo/dojo.js.uncompressed.js:428-450@449
(0)http://localhost:8080/dojo/dojo.js.uncompressed.js:576-608@605
(0)http://localhost:8080/dojo/dojo.js.uncompressed.js:611-620@615
(0)http://localhost:8080/dojo/dojo.js.uncompressed.js:547-573@569
(0)http://localhost:8080/dojo/dojo.js.uncompressed.js:765-835@818
(0)/foo/Foo.js:449-1355@8
(0)http://localhost:8080/dojo/dojo.js.uncompressed.js:428-450@449
(0)http://localhost:8080/dojo/dojo.js.uncompressed.js:576-608@605
(0)http://localhost:8080/dojo/dojo.js.uncompressed.js:611-620@615
(0)http://localhost:8080/dojo/dojo.js.uncompressed.js:547-573@569
(0)http://localhost:8080/dojo/dojo.js.uncompressed.js:765-835@818
(0)http://localhost:8080/foo/Foo.js:1-2@1
<bottom>
debugger.onError: sees object with typeof: 'object'; object contains:
[message]=this.notifyFirebug is not a function;
[fileName]=http://localhost:8080/foo.html;
[lineNo]=14;
[pos]=0;
[flags]=2;
[errnum]=22;
[exc]=[xpconnect wrapped jsdIValue];

Does this give you enough info?

Thanks,
Nell

John J Barton

unread,
May 31, 2008, 12:45:18 AM5/31/08
to Firebug


On May 30, 4:54 pm, Nell <nga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here's the output from that error using ERRORS and -console:
>
> fbs.onError with this.showStackTrace=true and this.breakOnErrors=false
> kind=Uncaught-Exception msg=this.notifyFirebug is not a
> function@http://localhost:8080/foo.html:14.0
> fbs.onError needToBreakForError=false; in any case we will drop in to
> onDebug
> fbs.onDebug fileName=http://localhost:8080/foo.html
> reportNextError=true breakOnNextError=false
> debugger.onError: this.notifyFirebug is not a function

Ok, so this.notifyFirebug is not a function, I got it, I got i :-)


> Firebug.errorStackTrace:
> <top>
> (0)/dojo/./_firebug/firebug.js:14-15@-434

Hmm.. this doesn't make a lot of sense, its says that a function
defined between lines 14-15 in _firebug/firebug.js is on the stack at
line -434.

> (0)XPCSafeJSObjectWrapper.cpp:445-446@445

ok, now we are crossing security boundary..

> (0)/foo/debug.js:550-563@111

and ending up in user code .. weird...

> (0)/foo/debug.js:476-487@37
> (0)/foo/Foo.js:461-484@18

I think we'd need to see foo.html and _firebug/firebug.js or at least
the lines in question.

Nell

unread,
Jun 1, 2008, 10:38:33 AM6/1/08
to Firebug
firebug.js is part of Dojo, and its source code is here:
http://trac.dojotoolkit.org/browser/dojo/trunk/_firebug/firebug.js?rev=12122

So once I saw that it was involved, I turned off debug=true in Dojo,
and the error disappeared. So do you think this is something I need
to take up with the Dojo team? Or some interaction between their
version of Firebug lite and Firebug 1.2 beta?

Thanks,
Nell

On May 31, 12:45 am, John J Barton <johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com>
wrote:

John J Barton

unread,
Jun 1, 2008, 8:39:40 PM6/1/08
to Firebug


On Jun 1, 7:38 am, Nell <nga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> firebug.js is part of Dojo, and its source code is here:http://trac.dojotoolkit.org/browser/dojo/trunk/_firebug/firebug.js?re...

That code manipulates 'console', an object that Firebug thinks belongs
to Firebug.

>
> So once I saw that it was involved, I turned off debug=true in Dojo,
> and the error disappeared. So do you think this is something I need
> to take up with the Dojo team? Or some interaction between their
> version of Firebug lite and Firebug 1.2 beta?

The console implementation in Firebug 1.2 is different from 1.1. So
any code that relies on the only mechanism needs to be reviewed.

If the code you point to intends to be "Firebug-lite", then its not
somthing that should be needed when running with Firebug. In that
case the problem could be that the older code is trying to detect
Firebug and when it does not see Firebug it adds its own console
object. Later Firebug adds its console and then things are not good.
Just a guess, since we think Firebug 1.2 should not be detectable
now.

John.

John J Barton

unread,
Jun 7, 2008, 1:22:56 AM6/7/08
to Firebug
Hey Nell, you have company:
http://code.google.com/p/fbug/issues/detail?id=762

If you still have the code you ran to create that stack trace, I'd
like to know what the lines around:

(0)/foo/debug.js:550-563@111

looked like. I'm thinking that somewhere there is

var foo = console.log;
...
foo();

so that log() gets called without 'console' being 'this'.

John.

Nell

unread,
Jun 9, 2008, 9:52:36 AM6/9/08
to Firebug
I see two calls to
console[type].apply(this,arr);
which seems similar to what is in the bug. I will get them changed.
Thanks for following up!

Thanks,
Nell
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages