> In the launch.json, changing the debug level to INFO didn't reduce the
huge
> debug output to the terminal.
This doesn't happen for me; the INFO and DEBUG levels are respected. Can
you share your launch.json configuration?
The relevant section from my launch.json looks like:
...
"configurations": [
{
...
"dfdlDebugger": {
"logging": {
"level": "INFO",
"file": "/tmp/daffodil-debugger.log"
}
}
On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 7:59 AM Mike Beckerle <mbecke...@apache.org> wrote:
> My vote +1 (However, I see already there is a binding -1, so oh well)
>
> I want to try some even harder schemas, but already this is more robust and
> usable than 1.3.0 because it makes the error outputs more visible.
>
> A few notes:
>
> I like the Debug Console tab. The error messages that mention files, the
> file names are clickable to take you to the file at least.
>
> In the launch.json, changing the debug level to INFO didn't reduce the huge
> debug output to the terminal.
>
> If I have the ethernetIP jar on the daffodil debug classpath, only, then
> when I try to step into the ethernetIP schema I get a failure:
> "debugger daffodil.error.scopenotfound", and the parse ends, no infoset is
> created. I have to put the ethernetIP/src/main/resources directory there as
> well.
> I think it should not fail, and it should complain about not finding the
> source (though it IS in the jar and eventually we need it to find it
> there), but it should allow you to *step out of *that back to the PCAP
> schema file.
>
> Even if you choose output type JSON, the output infoset file is named
> infoset.xml. Should be infoset.json.
>
> The layout of the launch wizard is confusing. You have to scroll past much
> less relevant stuff to find the "Program" which is the path to the top
> level schema file - shouldn't be called "program" it should be "Main Schema
> File", and should be near the top of the dialog.
>
> If you stop a debug, or it ends with a parse error, you still get a pop up
> in the corner saying it wrote an infoset file, even though that is empty.
>
> It will let you put a breakpoint on a line that is not an element, but it
> doesn't stop there. Could it somehow indicate that no breakpoint there is
> possible?
>
