Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Inspecting remote Dictionary value fails to show instance, shows large negative integer instead. #93757

Closed
ohadfarkash opened this issue Jun 29, 2024 · 2 comments

Comments

@ohadfarkash
Copy link

Tested versions

  • Reproducible in: v4.3.beta2.official [b75f048]
  • Not present in: v4.2.2.stable.official [15073af]

System information

Windows 10.0.22621 - Vulkan (Forward+) - integrated Intel(R) Iris(R) Xe Graphics (Intel Corporation; 31.0.101.4575) - 12th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-1235U (12 Threads)

Issue description

Just a small beta bug.

When inspecting remote nodes with a dictionary type member, the inspector shows the dictionary incorrectly. The values for objects are shown as a large integer (likely related to the Object ID). These integers can't be further inspected, and trying to click on it throws warnings in the inspector stating that the number is too large.

This was checked in 4.2.2 and worked fine.

Steps to reproduce

  1. Create a script inheriting from node so it can become a remote instance.
  2. Define a variable as a dictionary.
  3. At any point in the code, add an instance of an object to the dictionary under any key.
  4. Run and inspect the remote node member. Trying to inspect the properties of the object instance will be impossible.

image
Inspector does not show the object properly in 4.3.beta2

image
The good old days

NOTE: This works in 4.3.beta2 just fine for other types, just not objects.

Minimal reproduction project (MRP)

MRP: RemoteDictionaryBug4.3.beta2.zip

@matheusmdx
Copy link
Contributor

matheusmdx commented Jun 29, 2024

This looks like a duplicate of #92533 (a more clear title in the first issue would be better) and this is a regression from #88231

@Chaosus
Copy link
Member

Chaosus commented Aug 4, 2024

Indeed, its fixed on rc2.

@Chaosus Chaosus closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale Aug 4, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants