Hard to get a stack trace

[SimonsUnikaNamn]

Hi,

I am having a bit of a nasty bug where the inputted parameter does not adhere to the value in the state.

In recoil I could just put a debugger line inside a if statement in the atomFamily that is called with the inconsistent values and look at the stack trace in my dev tool to find the correct path.
In Jotai this is not possible

Apologies for the swedish text, but I guess you can see the issue. The stack trace should be several layers, but it is only 2 functions deep, which is strange to me. In fact, the App.tsx is not even calling the atomFamily in features.tsx

Is it possible to fix this?

[dai-shi]

Thanks for opening a discussion.
I'm not sure if it's fixable. tbh, I'm not super familiar with stacktrace, so if anyone can give some hints, I would appreciate it.

Maybe not related, but we have an old issue in the past: #931

[SimonsUnikaNamn]

Not sure, in recoil I would get something looking like this when stopping with a debugger

DeeplyNestedAtom.tsx:123
MoreShallowAtomCallingDeeplyNestedAtom.tsx:64
EvenMoreShallowAtomCallingMoreShallowAtomCallingDeeplyNestedAtom.tsx:64
...

So I could trace it all the way up the tree. I don't get that with jotai for some reason or other

I don't think that one is related, I saw it before, but maybe should look again

[himself65]

I think there're lots of anonymous function in jotai source code, wonder if we repalce with the normal function?

[dai-shi]

I see. I prefer allow functions to make the bundle size smaller, but if that's causing this debugging issue, we could use named function expressions. Would anyone like to try that and see if it improves the stack trace?

In fact, the App.tsx is not even calling the atomFamily in features.tsx

I wonder if it's related with anonymous functions in the Jotai core, though.

[himself65]

from bundler perspective, I don't think there will have very significant size difference if you enable minify?

[dai-shi]

true for function declaration vs. const arrow function. another reason is arrow function discourage the use of this explicitly.
anyway, my question is if it actually fixes OP's concern.