Which stack trace option yields the most useful information best?

gistfile1.sh

Note: This part of the discussion is now over, #1 was the "winner" :)
See the other file for Part II of the discussion and the end result.

# Option 1 - Tabular

      5. fail()                       266 /usr/local/bdsm/modules/bash/logging/dsl 
      4. module_dsl()                 236 /usr/local/bdsm/modules/bash/modules/dsl 
      3. source()                       3 /usr/local/bdsm/extensions/mod/bin/dsl 
      2. extension_action()           152 /usr/local/bdsm/modules/bash/extensions/dsl 
      1. main()                        76 /usr/local/bin/bdsm 
        
# Option 2 - Nested, by function

main()                        76   /usr/local/bin/bdsm 
  extension_action()          152  /usr/local/bdsm/modules/bash/extensions/dsl 
    source()                  3    /usr/local/bdsm/extensions/mod/bin/dsl 
      module_dsl()            236  /usr/local/bdsm/modules/bash/modules/dsl 
        fail()                266  /usr/local/bdsm/modules/bash/logging/dsl 

# Option 3 - Nested, by function, reversed order

        fail()                266  /usr/local/bdsm/modules/bash/logging/dsl 
      module_dsl()            236  /usr/local/bdsm/modules/bash/modules/dsl 
    source()                  3    /usr/local/bdsm/extensions/mod/bin/dsl 
  extension_action()          152  /usr/local/bdsm/modules/bash/extensions/dsl 
main()                        76   /usr/local/bin/bdsm 

# Option 4 - Nested, by function, reversed order, reversed nesting

fail()                        266  /usr/local/bdsm/modules/bash/logging/dsl 
  module_dsl()                236  /usr/local/bdsm/modules/bash/modules/dsl 
    source()                  3    /usr/local/bdsm/extensions/mod/bin/dsl 
      extension_action()      152  /usr/local/bdsm/modules/bash/extensions/dsl 
        main()                76   /usr/local/bin/bdsm 

# Option 6 - Tabular, Reversed

      1. main()                        76 /usr/local/bin/bdsm 
      2. extension_action()           152 /usr/local/bdsm/modules/bash/extensions/dsl 
      3. source()                       3 /usr/local/bdsm/extensions/mod/bin/dsl 
      4. module_dsl()                 236 /usr/local/bdsm/modules/bash/modules/dsl 
      5. fail()                       266 /usr/local/bdsm/modules/bash/logging/dsl 

gistfile2.txt

# BDSM Framework Backtraces (bash)

∴ for editor in ' ' less nano vi vim emacs mvim mate; do   export EDITOR="${editor:-}";   printf "\n\nEDITOR: ${EDITOR:-}\n";   bdsm module dingus; done


EDITOR:  

Action binary/file dingus missing for extension mod
    (/usr/local/bdsm/extensions/mod/bin/dingus)

function()         $   +#   source file                                   
===============================================================================================
fail()             $   +265 /usr/local/bdsm/modules/bash/logging/dsl      
extension_action() $   +84  /usr/local/bdsm/modules/bash/extensions/dsl   
main()             $   +76  /usr/local/bin/bdsm                           
===============================================================================================


EDITOR: less

Action binary/file dingus missing for extension mod
    (/usr/local/bdsm/extensions/mod/bin/dingus)

function()         $      +#   source file                                   
===============================================================================================
fail()             $ less +265 /usr/local/bdsm/modules/bash/logging/dsl      
extension_action() $ less +84  /usr/local/bdsm/modules/bash/extensions/dsl   
main()             $ less +76  /usr/local/bin/bdsm                           
===============================================================================================


EDITOR: nano

Action binary/file dingus missing for extension mod
    (/usr/local/bdsm/extensions/mod/bin/dingus)

function()         $      +#   source file                                   
===============================================================================================
fail()             $ nano +265 /usr/local/bdsm/modules/bash/logging/dsl      
extension_action() $ nano +84  /usr/local/bdsm/modules/bash/extensions/dsl   
main()             $ nano +76  /usr/local/bin/bdsm                           
===============================================================================================


EDITOR: vi

Action binary/file dingus missing for extension mod
    (/usr/local/bdsm/extensions/mod/bin/dingus)

function()         $    +#   source file                                   
===============================================================================================
fail()             $ vi +265 /usr/local/bdsm/modules/bash/logging/dsl      
extension_action() $ vi +84  /usr/local/bdsm/modules/bash/extensions/dsl   
main()             $ vi +76  /usr/local/bin/bdsm                           
===============================================================================================


EDITOR: vim

Action binary/file dingus missing for extension mod
    (/usr/local/bdsm/extensions/mod/bin/dingus)

function()         $     +#   source file                                   
===============================================================================================
fail()             $ vim +265 /usr/local/bdsm/modules/bash/logging/dsl      
extension_action() $ vim +84  /usr/local/bdsm/modules/bash/extensions/dsl   
main()             $ vim +76  /usr/local/bin/bdsm                           
===============================================================================================


EDITOR: emacs

Action binary/file dingus missing for extension mod
    (/usr/local/bdsm/extensions/mod/bin/dingus)

function()         $       +#   source file                                   
===============================================================================================
fail()             $ emacs +265 /usr/local/bdsm/modules/bash/logging/dsl      
extension_action() $ emacs +84  /usr/local/bdsm/modules/bash/extensions/dsl   
main()             $ emacs +76  /usr/local/bin/bdsm                           
===============================================================================================


EDITOR: mvim

Action binary/file dingus missing for extension mod
    (/usr/local/bdsm/extensions/mod/bin/dingus)

function()         Source
===============================================================================================
fail()             mvim://open?url=file:///usr/local/bdsm/modules/bash/logging/dsl&line=265
extension_action() mvim://open?url=file:///usr/local/bdsm/modules/bash/extensions/dsl&line=84
main()             mvim://open?url=file:///usr/local/bin/bdsm&line=76
===============================================================================================


EDITOR: mate

Action binary/file dingus missing for extension mod
    (/usr/local/bdsm/extensions/mod/bin/dingus)

function()         Source
===============================================================================================
fail()             mate://open?url=file:///usr/local/bdsm/modules/bash/logging/dsl&line=265
extension_action() mate://open?url=file:///usr/local/bdsm/modules/bash/extensions/dsl&line=84
main()             mate://open?url=file:///usr/local/bin/bdsm&line=76
===============================================================================================

1 or 4 - both equally good imo

--> 2. (reasons, copied from twitter): #4 is plain confusing because of the reversed order, #3 is hard to follow, #1 is not very clear on the eyes

Edit of edit: god damn markup.

I like 4 but wonder if it won't get hard to fit after a deeply nested error. Second choice is 1.

Edit: rebuttal of @dominikh's comment. The reversed order is helpful because you see the immediate context of the error first and can follow downward to see how you got there.

@nuclearsandwich the problem is that from most tools, and even non-computer fields, we're used to that nesting in the form of "first fail() happened, then/inside that module_dsl() happened and so on", which obviously is the wrong order.

And regarding those who say that the most recent info should be on top: that's not the way terminal output works unless you default to a pager (like git does)

Option 2, since your usually looking at the bottom of the screen where the shell prompt is located.

Also could you provide a reverse-ordering of Option 1? The indentation thing is kind of annoying.

1. Don't bother with the indentation. As the stack trace gets longer it will also get wider and more likely to wrap; with the diagonal left margin it'll be even more difficult to visually distinguish the function name once that starts happening. Failing function first has precedent in almost every other language I've seen, but failing function last would be easier to find scrolling backwards through a logfile. I don't think you need to number the lines.

Option 6 way better.

I like option 1 because it presents the (likely) most important information at the top which is where it failed.

I don't see the value of indenting since it is consistent and predictable. Every item will be indented after the next. It also looks like a very deeply nested set of lists where each list is only one item long.

I like Option 6, with numbering removed. Having the relevant info as close to the bottom makes sense to me, it will prevent having to visually hunt for the most useful information.

Also, there can be a limited nest. This gets rid of the "OMG, it'll indent 4eva" problem while maybe highlighting/increasing readability for the last 4 levels (for example): https://gist.github.com/947599

I prefer option 1, but without the linenumbers ... also, how about displaying line numbers as path:nnn ?

option 1, as is the (mostly common) standard, IMHO

Option 1, please. Indentation is hella bad as nesting gets deep and it's honestly the way I've grown accustomed to reading stack traces. It's ingrained to work back up the stack.

It would be easiest to read if the error message were at the same end of the stack trace as the failing function. [ie, at the top for option 1, or at the bottom for option 6.]

Opinions are like assholes.

Option 6 because it presents the most useful information at the bottom, which is the first thing I will see in my console. Scrolling up sucks.

You should change the line number syntax to +30 path/to/file. This will allow one to copy/paste it into a vim / emacsclient command:

vim +30 path/to/script.sh

Now that I LOVE :)