Javascript

Using Message Events to Resize an IFrame

Published Aug 26, 2021

Updated Feb 14, 2023

3 min read

This article was written over 18 months ago and may contain information that is out of date. Some content may be relevant but please refer to the relevant official documentation or available resources for the latest information.

Over the years, I've often had to embed interactive data visualizations into other websites. The simplest way to manage this has been to use iframes. The downside to using iframes is that their height doesn't automatically adjust to the size of the child content. But this problem can be solved by using window.postMessage() to tell the parent what the child's height is, allowing it to adjust the iframe's height attribute with JavaScript.

The window.postMessage() API allows you to send data from one window to another across domains. With postMessage, the embedded iframe site is able to send data to the parent window. Scripts in the parent window can then listen for the message event, and take action based on the data sent.

In this example, I'm sending a message from a child window in an iframe to a parent window with the clientHeight of the child's content. The parent window is using that information to adjust the height of the iframe. Every time you ADD or REMOVE a box in the child window, it sends a new message to the parent with the updated height. Click here to see it in action.

First, a script in the child window checks the height of itself, and then sends that height information to the parent window.

const app = document.querySelector('.resizing-app');
const height = app.clientHeight;
window.parent.postMessage(
  { height },
  'https://child-window-origin.com'
);

The script in the parent window creates the iframe, adds it to the document, and then listens to the message event. If it receives a message from the expected source, it will read the message data and update the iframe height.

let container = document.querySelector('#target');
const iframe = document.createElement('iframe');

window.addEventListener('load', () => {
  container.appendChild(iframe);
});

window.addEventListener(
  'message',
  function(e) {
    if (!event.origin.match('child-window-origin.com')) {
      return;
    }

    let message = e.data;

    if (message.height) {
      iframe.height = message.height + 'px';
    }
  },
  false
);

If you've got an app to embed where the height might change independently of any specific action, you can also use setInterval to poll for height changes, and send them on a regular basis. Here is an example of the same app, but the boxes are created and destroyed at random, and polling is used to check the height at regular intervals.

If you'd like to learn more about the postMessage API, more detailed information can be found on MDN.

Live Demo

This Dot is a consultancy dedicated to guiding companies through their modernization and digital transformation journeys. Specializing in replatforming, modernizing, and launching new initiatives, we stand out by taking true ownership of your engineering projects.

We love helping teams with projects that have missed their deadlines or helping keep your strategic digital initiatives on course. Check out our case studies and our clients that trust us with their engineering.

About the author(s)

Tom VanAntwerp
@tvanantwerp @tvanantwerp

The Importance of a Scientific Mindset in Software Engineering: Part 2 (Debugging)

The Importance of a Scientific Mindset in Software Engineering: Part 2 (Debugging) In the first part of my series on the importance of a scientific mindset in software engineering, we explored how the principles of the scientific method can help us evaluate sources and make informed decisions. Now, we will focus on how these principles can help us tackle one of the most crucial and challenging tasks in software engineering: debugging. In software engineering, debugging is often viewed as an art - an intuitive skill honed through experience and trial and error. In a way, it is - the same as a GP, even a very evidence-based one, will likely diagnose most of their patients based on their experience and intuition and not research scientific literature every time; a software engineer will often rely on their experience and intuition to identify and fix common bugs. However, an internist faced with a complex case will likely not be able to rely on their intuition alone and must apply the scientific method to diagnose the patient. Similarly, a software engineer can benefit from using the scientific method to identify and fix the problem when faced with a complex bug. From that perspective, treating engineering challenges like scientific inquiries can transform the way we tackle problems. Rather than resorting to guesswork or gut feelings, we can apply the principles of the scientific method—forming hypotheses, designing controlled experiments, gathering and evaluating evidence—to identify and eliminate bugs systematically. This approach, sometimes referred to as "scientific debugging," reframes debugging from a haphazard process into a structured, disciplined practice. It encourages us to be skeptical, methodical, and transparent in our reasoning. For instance, as Andreas Zeller notes in the book _Why Programs Fail_, the key aspect of scientific debugging is its explicitness: Using the scientific method, you make your assumptions and reasoning explicit, allowing you to understand your assumptions and often reveals hidden clues that can lead to the root cause of the problem on hand. Note: If you'd like to read an excerpt from the book, you can find it on Embedded.com. Scientific Debugging At its core, scientific debugging applies the principles of the scientific method to the process of finding and fixing software defects. Rather than attempting random fixes or relying on intuition, it encourages engineers to move systematically, guided by data, hypotheses, and controlled experimentation. By adopting debugging as a rigorous inquiry, we can reduce guesswork, speed up the resolution process, and ensure that our fixes are based on solid evidence. Just as a scientist begins with a well-defined research question, a software engineer starts by identifying the specific symptom or error condition. For instance, if our users report inconsistencies in the data they see across different parts of the application, our research question could be: _"Under what conditions does the application display outdated or incorrect user data?"_ From there, we can follow a structured debugging process that mirrors the scientific method: - 1. Observe and Define the Problem: First, we need to clearly state the bug's symptoms and the environment in which it occurs. We should isolate whether the issue is deterministic or intermittent and identify any known triggers if possible. Such a structured definition serves as the groundwork for further investigation. - 2. Formulate a Hypothesis: A hypothesis in debugging is a testable explanation for the observed behavior. For instance, you might hypothesize: _"The data inconsistency occurs because a caching layer is serving stale data when certain user profiles are updated."_ The key is that this explanation must be falsifiable; if experiments don't support the hypothesis, it must be refined or discarded. - 3. Collect Evidence and Data: Evidence often includes logs, system metrics, error messages, and runtime traces. Similar to reviewing primary sources in academic research, treat your raw debugging data as crucial evidence. Evaluating these data points can reveal patterns. In our example, such patterns could be whether the bug correlates with specific caching mechanisms, increased memory usage, or database query latency. During this step, it's essential to approach data critically, just as you would analyze the quality and credibility of sources in a research literature review. Don't forget that even logs can be misleading, incomplete, or even incorrect, so cross-referencing multiple sources is key. - 4. Design and Run Experiments: Design minimal, controlled tests to confirm or refute your hypothesis. In our example, you may try disabling or shortening the cache's time-to-live (TTL) to see if more recent data is displayed correctly. By manipulating one variable at a time - such as cache invalidation intervals - you gain clearer insights into causation. Tools such as profilers, debuggers, or specialized test harnesses can help isolate factors and gather precise measurements. - 5. Analyze Results and Refine Hypotheses: If the experiment's outcome doesn't align with your hypothesis, treat it as a stepping stone, not a dead end. Adjust your explanation, form a new hypothesis, or consider additional variables (for example, whether certain API calls bypass caching). Each iteration should bring you closer to a better understanding of the bug's root cause. Remember, the goal is not to prove an initial guess right but to arrive at a verifiable explanation. - 6. Implement and Verify the Fix: Once you're confident in the identified cause, you can implement the fix. Verification doesn't stop at deployment - re-test under the same conditions and, if possible, beyond them. By confirming the fix in a controlled manner, you ensure that the solution is backed by evidence rather than wishful thinking. - Personally, I consider implementing end-to-end tests (e.g., with Playwright) that reproduce the bug and verify the fix to be a crucial part of this step. This both ensures that the bug doesn't reappear in the future due to changes in the codebase and avoids possible imprecisions of manual testing. Now, we can explore these steps in more detail, highlighting how the scientific method can guide us through the debugging process. Establishing Clear Debugging Questions (Formulating a Hypothesis) A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon that can be tested through experimentation. In a debugging context, that phenomenon is the bug or issue you're trying to resolve. Having a clear, falsifiable statement that you can prove or disprove ensures that you stay focused on the real problem rather than jumping haphazardly between possible causes. A properly formulated hypothesis lets you design precise experiments to evaluate whether your explanation holds true. To formulate a hypothesis effectively, you can follow these steps: 1. Clearly Identify the Symptom(s) Before forming any hypothesis, pin down the specific issue users are experiencing. For instance: - "Users intermittently see outdated profile information after updating their accounts." - "Some newly created user profiles don't reflect changes in certain parts of the application." Having a well-defined problem statement keeps your hypothesis focused on the actual issue. Just like a research question in science, the clarity of your symptom definition directly influences the quality of your hypothesis. 2. Draft a Tentative Explanation Next, convert your symptom into a statement that describes a _possible root cause_, such as: - "Data inconsistency occurs because the caching layer isn't invalidating or refreshing user data properly when profiles are updated." - "Stale data is displayed because the cache timeout is too long under certain load conditions." This step makes your assumption about the root cause explicit. As with the scientific method, your hypothesis should be something you can test and either confirm or refute with data or experimentation. 3. Ensure Falsifiability A valid hypothesis must be falsifiable - meaning it can be proven _wrong_. You'll struggle to design meaningful experiments if a hypothesis is too vague or broad. For example: - Not Falsifiable: "Occasionally, the application just shows weird data." - Falsifiable: "Users see stale data when the cache is not invalidated within 30 seconds of profile updates." Making your hypothesis specific enough to fail a test will pave the way for more precise debugging. 4. Align with Available Evidence Match your hypothesis to what you already know - logs, stack traces, metrics, and user reports. For example: - If logs reveal that cache invalidation events aren't firing, form a hypothesis explaining why those events fail or never occur. - If metrics show that data served from the cache is older than the configured TTL, hypothesize about how or why the TTL is being ignored. If your current explanation contradicts existing data, refine your hypothesis until it fits. 5. Plan for Controlled Tests Once you have a testable hypothesis, figure out how you'll attempt to _disprove_ it. This might involve: - Reproducing the environment: Set up a staging/local system that closely mimics production. For instance with the same cache layer configurations. - Varying one condition at a time: For example, only adjust cache invalidation policies or TTLs and then observe how data freshness changes. - Monitoring metrics: In our example, such monitoring would involve tracking user profile updates, cache hits/misses, and response times. These metrics should lead to confirming or rejecting your explanation. These plans become your blueprint for experiments in further debugging stages. Collecting and Evaluating Evidence After formulating a clear, testable hypothesis, the next crucial step is to gather data that can either support or refute it. This mirrors how scientists collect observations in a literature review or initial experiments. 1. Identify "Primary Sources" (Logs, Stack Traces, Code History): - Logs and Stack Traces: These are your direct pieces of evidence - treat them like raw experimental data. For instance, look closely at timestamps, caching-related events (e.g., invalidation triggers), and any error messages related to stale reads. - Code History: Look for related changes in your source control, e.g. using Git bisect. In our example, we would look for changes to caching mechanisms or references to cache libraries in commits, which could pinpoint when the inconsistency was introduced. Sometimes, reverting a commit that altered cache settings helps confirm whether the bug originated there. 2. Corroborate with "Secondary Sources" (Documentation, Q&A Forums): - Documentation: Check official docs for known behavior or configuration details that might differ from your assumptions. - Community Knowledge: Similar issues reported on GitHub or StackOverflow may reveal known pitfalls in a library you're using. 3. Assess Data Quality and Relevance: - Look for Patterns: For instance, does stale data appear only after certain update frequencies or at specific times of day? - Check Environmental Factors: For instance, does the bug happen only with particular deployment setups, container configurations, or memory constraints? - Watch Out for Biases: Avoid seeking only the data that confirms your hypothesis. Look for contradictory logs or metrics that might point to other root causes. You keep your hypothesis grounded in real-world system behavior by treating logs, stack traces, and code history as primary data - akin to raw experimental results. This evidence-first approach reduces guesswork and guides more precise experiments. Designing and Running Experiments With a hypothesis in hand and evidence gathered, it's time to test it through controlled experiments - much like scientists isolate variables to verify or debunk an explanation. 1. Set Up a Reproducible Environment: - Testing Environments: Replicate production conditions as closely as possible. In our example, that would involve ensuring the same caching configuration, library versions, and relevant data sets are in place. - Version Control Branches: Use a dedicated branch to experiment with different settings or configuration, e.g., cache invalidation strategies. This streamlines reverting changes if needed. 2. Control Variables One at a Time: - For instance, if you suspect data inconsistency is tied to cache invalidation events, first adjust only the invalidation timeout and re-test. - Or, if concurrency could be a factor (e.g., multiple requests updating user data simultaneously), test different concurrency levels to see if stale data issues become more pronounced. 3. Measure and Record Outcomes: - Automated Tests: Tests provide a great way to formalize and verify your assumptions. For instance, you could develop tests that intentionally update user profiles and check if the displayed data matches the latest state. - Monitoring Tools: Monitor relevant metrics before, during, and after each experiment. In our example, we might want to track cache hit rates, TTL durations, and query times. - Repeat Trials: Consistency across multiple runs boosts confidence in your findings. 4. Validate Against a Baseline: - If baseline tests manifest normal behavior, but your experimental changes manifest the bug, you've isolated the variable causing the issue. E.g. if the baseline tests show that data is consistently fresh under normal caching conditions but your experimental changes cause stale data. - Conversely, if your change eliminates the buggy behavior, it supports your hypothesis - e.g. that the cache configuration was the root cause. Each experiment outcome is a data point supporting or contradicting your hypothesis. Over time, these data points guide you toward the true cause. Analyzing Results and Iterating In scientific debugging, an unexpected result isn't a failure - it's valuable feedback that brings you closer to the right explanation. 1. Compare Outcomes to the hypothesis. For instance: - Did user data stay consistent after you reduced the cache TTL or fixed invalidation logic? - Did logs show caching events firing as expected, or did they reveal unexpected errors? - Are there only partial improvements that suggest multiple overlapping issues? 2. Incorporate Unexpected Observations: - Sometimes, debugging uncovers side effects - e.g. performance bottlenecks exposed by more frequent cache invalidations. Note these for future work. - If your hypothesis is disproven, revise it. For example, the cache may only be part of the problem, and a separate load balancer setting also needs attention. 3. Avoid Confirmation Bias: - Don't dismiss contrary data. For instance, if you see evidence that updates are fresh in some modules but stale in others, you may have found a more nuanced root cause (e.g., partial cache invalidation). - Consider other credible explanations if your teammates propose them. Test those with the same rigor. 4. Decide If You Need More Data: - If results aren't conclusive, add deeper instrumentation or enable debug modes to capture more detailed logs. - For production-only issues, implement distributed tracing or sampling logs to diagnose real-world usage patterns. 5. Document Each Iteration: - Record the results of each experiment, including any unexpected findings or new hypotheses that arise. - Through iterative experimentation and analysis, each cycle refines your understanding. By letting evidence shape your hypothesis, you ensure that your final conclusion aligns with reality. Implementing and Verifying the Fix Once you've identified the likely culprit - say, a misconfigured or missing cache invalidation policy - the next step is to implement a fix and verify its resilience. 1. Implementing the Change: - Scoped Changes: Adjust just the component pinpointed in your experiments. Avoid large-scale refactoring that might introduce other issues. - Code Reviews: Peer reviews can catch overlooked logic gaps or confirm that your changes align with best practices. 2. Regression Testing: - Re-run the same experiments that initially exposed the issue. In our stale data example, confirm that the data remains fresh under various conditions. - Conduct broader tests - like integration or end-to-end tests - to ensure no new bugs are introduced. 3. Monitoring in Production: - Even with positive test results, real-world scenarios can differ. Monitor logs and metrics (e.g. cache hit rates, user error reports) closely post-deployment. - If the buggy behavior reappears, revisit your hypothesis or consider additional factors, such as unpredicted user behavior. 4. Benchmarking and Performance Checks (If Relevant): - When making changes that affect the frequency of certain processes - such as how often a cache is refreshed - be sure to measure the performance impact. Verify you meet any latency or resource usage requirements. - Keep an eye on the trade-offs: For instance, more frequent cache invalidations might solve stale data but could also raise system load. By systematically verifying your fix - similar to confirming experimental results in research - you ensure that you've addressed the true cause and maintained overall software stability. Documenting the Debugging Process Good science relies on transparency, and so does effective debugging. Thorough documentation guarantees your findings are reproducible and valuable to future team members. 1. Record Your Hypothesis and Experiments: - Keep a concise log of your main hypothesis, the tests you performed, and the outcomes. - A simple markdown file within the repo can capture critical insights without being cumbersome. 2. Highlight Key Evidence and Observations: - Note the logs or metrics that were most instrumental - e.g., seeing repeated stale cache hits 10 minutes after updates. - Document any edge cases discovered along the way. 3. List Follow-Up Actions or Potential Risks: - If you discover additional issues - like memory spikes from more frequent invalidation - note them for future sprints. - Identify parts of the code that might need deeper testing or refactoring to prevent similar issues. 4. Share with Your Team: - Publish your debugging report on an internal wiki or ticket system. A well-documented troubleshooting narrative helps educate other developers. - Encouraging open discussion of the debugging process fosters a culture of continuous learning and collaboration. By paralleling scientific publication practices in your documentation, you establish a knowledge base to guide future debugging efforts and accelerate collective problem-solving. Conclusion Debugging can be as much a rigorous, methodical exercise as an art shaped by intuition and experience. By adopting the principles of scientific inquiry - forming hypotheses, designing controlled experiments, gathering evidence, and transparently documenting your process - you make your debugging approach both systematic and repeatable. The explicitness and structure of scientific debugging offer several benefits: - Better Root-Cause Discovery: Structured, hypothesis-driven debugging sheds light on the _true_ underlying factors causing defects rather than simply masking symptoms. - Informed Decisions: Data and evidence lead the way, minimizing guesswork and reducing the chance of reintroducing similar issues. - Knowledge Sharing: As in scientific research, detailed documentation of methods and outcomes helps others learn from your process and fosters a collaborative culture. Ultimately, whether you are diagnosing an intermittent crash or chasing elusive performance bottlenecks, scientific debugging brings clarity and objectivity to your workflow. By aligning your debugging practices with the scientific method, you build confidence in your solutions and empower your team to tackle complex software challenges with precision and reliability. But most importantly, do not get discouraged by the number of rigorous steps outlined above or by the fact you won't always manage to follow them all religiously. Debugging is a complex and often frustrating process, and it's okay to rely on your intuition and experience when needed. Feel free to adapt the debugging process to your needs and constraints, and as long as you keep the scientific mindset at heart, you'll be on the right track....

May 9, 2025

13 mins

JavaScript

D1 SQLite: Writing queries with the D1 Client API

Writing queries with the D1 Client API In the previous post we defined our database schema, got up and running with migrations, and loaded some seed data into our database. In this post we will be working with our new database and seed data. If you want to participate, make sure to follow the steps in the first post. We’ve been taking a minimal approach so far by using only wrangler and sql scripts for our workflow. The D1 Client API has a small surface area. Thanks to the power of SQL, we will have everything we need to construct all types of queries. Before we start writing our queries, let's touch on some important concepts. Prepared statements and parameter binding This is the first section of the docs and it highlights two different ways to write our SQL statements using the client API: prepared and static statements. Best practice is to use prepared statements because they are more performant and prevent SQL injection attacks. So we will write our queries using prepared statements. We need to use parameter binding to build our queries with prepared statements. This is pretty straightforward and there are two variations. By default we add ? ’s to our statement to represent a value to be filled in. The bind method will bind the parameters to each question mark by their index. The first ? is tied to the first parameter in bind, 2nd, etc. I would stick with this most of the time to avoid any confusion. ` I like this second method less as it feels like something I can imagine messing up very innocently. You can add a number directly after a question mark to indicate which number parameter it should be bound to. In this exampl, we reverse the previous binding. ` Reusing prepared statements If we take the first example above and not bind any values we have a statement that can be reused: ` Querying For the purposes of this post we will just build example queries by writing them out directly in our Worker fetch handler. If you are building an app I would recommend building functions or some other abstraction around your queries. select queries Let's write our first query against our data set to get our feet wet. Here’s the initial worker code and a query for all authors: ` We pass our SQL statement into prepare and use the all method to get all the rows. Notice that we are able to pass our types to a generic parameter in all. This allows us to get a fully typed response from our query. We can run our worker with npm run dev and access it at http://localhost:8787 by default. We’ll keep this simple workflow of writing queries and passing them as a json response for inspection in the browser. Opening the page we get our author results. joins Not using an ORM means we have full control over our own destiny. Like anything else though, this has tradeoffs. Let’s look at a query to fetch the list of posts that includes author and tags information. ` Let’s walk through each part of the query and highlight some pros and cons. ` * The query selects all columns from the posts table. * It also selects the name column from the authors table and renames it to author_name. * It aggregates the name column from the tags table into a JSON array. If there are no tags, it returns an empty JSON array. This aggregated result is renamed to tags. ` * The query starts by selecting data from the posts table. * It then joins the authors table to include author information for each post, matching posts to authors using the author_id column in posts and the id column in authors. * Next, it left joins the posts_tags table to include tag associations for each post, ensuring that all posts are included even if they have no tags. * Next, it left joins the tags table to include tag names, matching tags to posts using the tag_id column in posts_tags and the id column in tags. * Finally, group the results by the post id so that all rows with the same post id are combined in a single row SQL provides a lot of power to query our data in interesting ways. JOIN ’s will typically be more performant than performing additional queries.You could just as easily write a simpler version of this query that uses subqueries to fetch post tags and join all the data by hand with JavaScript. This is the nice thing about writing SQL, you’re free to fetch and handle your data how you please. Our results should look similar to this: ` This brings us to our next topic. Marshaling / coercing result data A couple of things we notice about the format of the result data our query provides: Rows are flat. We join the author directly onto the post and prefix its column names with author. ` Using an ORM we might get the data back as a child object: ` Another thing is that our tags data is a JSON string and not a JavaScript array. This means that we will need to parse it ourselves. ` This isn’t the end of the world but it is some more work on our end to coerce the result data into the format that we actually want. This problem is handled in most ORM’s and is their main selling point in my opinion. insert / update / delete Next, let’s write a function that will add a new post to our database. ` There’s a few queries involved in our create post function: * first we create the new post * next we run through the tags and either create or return an existing tag * finally, we add entries to our post_tags join table to associate our new post with the tags assigned We can test our new function by providing post content in query params on our index page and formatting them for our function. ` I gave it a run like this: http://localhost:8787authorId=1&tags=Food%2CReview&title=A+review+of+my+favorite+Italian+restaurant&content=I+got+the+sausage+orchette+and+it+was+amazing.+I+wish+that+instead+of+baby+broccoli+they+used+rapini.+Otherwise+it+was+a+perfect+dish+and+the+vibes+were+great And got a new post with the id 11. UPDATE and DELETE operations are pretty similar to what we’ve seen so far. Most complexity in your queries will be similar to what we’ve seen in the posts query where we want to JOIN or GROUP BY data in various ways. To update the post we can write a query that looks like this: ` COALESCE acts similarly to if we had written a ?? b in JavaScript. If the binded value that we provide is null it will fall back to the default. We can delete our new post with a simple DELETE query: ` Transactions / Batching One thing to note with D1 is that I don’t think the traditional style of SQLite transactions are supported. You can use the db.batch API to achieve similar functionality though. According to the docs: Batched statements are SQL transactions ↗. If a statement in the sequence fails, then an error is returned for that specific statement, and it aborts or rolls back the entire sequence. ` Summary In this post, we've taken a hands-on approach to exploring the D1 Client API, starting with defining our database schema and loading seed data. We then dove into writing queries, covering the basics of prepared statements and parameter binding, before moving on to more complex topics like joins and transactions. We saw how to construct and execute queries to fetch data from our database, including how to handle relationships between tables and marshal result data into a usable format. We also touched on inserting, updating, and deleting data, and how to use transactions to ensure data consistency. By working through these examples, we've gained a solid understanding of how to use the D1 Client API to interact with our database and build robust, data-driven applications....

Dec 23, 2024

6 mins

JavaScript

JavaScript Errors: An Introductory Primer

JavaScript Errors are an integral part of the language, and its runtime environment. They provide valuable feedback when something goes wrong during the execution of your script. And once you understand how to use and handle Errors, you'll find them a much better debugging tool than always reaching for console.log. Why Use Errors? When JavaScript throws errors, it's usually because there's a mistake in the code. For example, trying to access properties of null or undefined would throw a TypeError. Or trying to use a variable before it has been declared would throw a ReferenceError. But these can often be caught before execution by properly linting your code. More often, you'll want to create your own errors in your programs to catch problems unique to what you're trying to build. Throwing your own errors can make it easier for you to interrupt the control flow of your code when necessary conditions aren't met. Why would you want to use Error instead of just console.logging all sorts of things? Because an Error will force you to address it. JavaScript is optimistic. It will do its best to execute despite all sorts of issues in the code. Just logging some problem might not be enough to notice it. You could end up with subtle bugs in your program and not know! Using console.log won't stop your program from continuing to execute. An Error, however, interrupts your program. It tells JavaScript, "we can't proceed until we've fixed this problem". And then JavaScript happily passes the message on to you! Using Errors in JavaScript Here's an example of throwing an error: ` When an Error is thrown, nothing after that throw in your scope will be executed. JavaScript will instead pass the Error to the nearest error handler higher up in the call stack. If no handler is found, the program terminates. Since you probably don't want your programs to crash, it's important to set up Error handling. This is where something like try / catch comes in. Any code you write inside the try will attempt to execute. If an Error is thrown by anything inside the try, then the following catch block is where you can decide how to handle that Error. ` In the catch block, you receive an error object (by convention, this is usually named error or err, but you could give it any name) which you can then handle as needed. Asynchronous Code and Errors There are two ways to write asynchronous JavaScript, and they each have their own way of writing Error handling. If you're using async / await, you can use the try / catch block as in the previous example. However, if you're using Promises, you'll want to chain a catch to the Promise like so: ` Understanding the Error Object The Error object is a built-in object that JavaScript provides to handle runtime errors. All types of errors inherit from it. Error has several useful properties. - message: Probably the most useful of Error's properties, message is a human-readable description of the error. When creating a new Error, the string you pass will become the message. - name: A string representing the error type. By default, this is Error. If you're using a built-in sub-class of Error like TypeError, it will be that instead. Otherwise, if you're creating a custom type of Error, you'll need to set this in the constructor. - stack: While technically non-standard, stack is a widely supported property that gives a full stack trace of where the error was created. - cause: This property allows you to give more specific data when throwing an error. For example, if you want to add a more detailed message to a caught error, you could throw a new Error with your message and pass the original Error as the cause. Or you could add structured data for easier error analysis. Creating an Error object is quite straightforward: ` In addition to the generic Error, JavaScript provides several built-in sub-classes of Error: - EvalError: Thrown when a problem occurs with the eval() function. This only exists for backwards compatibility, and will not be thrown by JavaScript. You shouldn't use eval() anyway. - InternalError: Non-standard error thrown when something goes wrong in the internals of the JavaScript engine. Really only used in Firefox. - RangeError: Thrown when a value is not within the expected range. - ReferenceError: Thrown when a value doesn't exist yet / hasn't been initialized. - SyntaxError: Thrown when a parsing error occurs. - TypeError: Thrown when a variable is not of the expected type. - URIError: Thrown when using a global URI handling function incorrectly. Each of these error types inherits from the Error object and generally adds no additional properties or methods, but they do change the name property to reflect the error type. Making Your Own Custom Errors It's sometimes useful to extend the Error object yourself! This lets you add properties to particular Errors you throw, as well as easily check in catch blocks if an Error is of a particular type. To extend Error, use a class. ` In this example, CustomError extends the Error class. It changes the name to CustomError and gives it the new property foo: 'bar'. You can then throw your CustomError, check if the error in your catch block is an instance of the CustomError, and access the properties associated with your CustomError. This gives you a lot more control over how Errors are structured and validated, which could greatly aid with debugging because your errors won't all just be Errors. Common Confusions There are many ways that using Errors can go subtly wrong. Here are some of the common issues to keep in mind when working with Error. Failure to Catch When an Error is thrown, the program will cease executing anything else in its scope and start working its way back up the call stack until it finds a catch block to deal with the Error. If it never finds a catch, the program will crash. So it's important to make sure you actually catch your errors, or else you might terminate your program unintentionally for small and recoverable issues. It's especially helpful to think about catching errors when you're executing code from external libraries which you don't control. You may import a function to handle something for you, and it unexpectedly throws an Error. You should anticipate this possibility and ask yourself: "Should this code go inside of a try / catch block?" to prevent an error like this from crashing your code. Network Requests Don't Throw on 400 and 500 Statuses You might want to make a request to an API, and then handle an error if the request fails. ` Maybe you made a bad request and got back a 400. Maybe you're not properly authenticated and got a 401 or 403. Maybe the endpoint is invalid and you get a 404. Or maybe the server is having a bad day and you get a 500. In none of those cases will you get an Error! From JavaScript's point of view, your request worked. You sent some data to a place, and the place sent you something back. Mission accomplished! Except it's not. You need to deal with these HTTP error statuses. So if you want to handle responses that aren't OK, you need to do it explicitly. To fix the previous example: ` You Can Throw Anything You should throw new Errors. But you could throw 'literally anything'. There's nothing forcing you to only throw an Error. However, it's a lot harder to handle your errors if there's no consistency in what to expect in your catch blocks. It's a best practice to only throw an Error and not any other kind of JavaScript object. This problem becomes especially clear in TypeScript, when the default type of an error in a catch block is not Error, but unknown. TypeScript has no way to know if an error passed into the catch is going to actually be an Error or not, which can make it more frustrating to write error handling code. For this reason, it's often a good idea to check what exactly you've received before trying to handle it. ` (Alas, you cannot throw 🥳. That's a SyntaxError. But throw new Error('🥳') is still perfectly valid!) Conclusion Wielding JavaScript Errors is a big upgrade from console.logging all the things and hoping for the best. And it's not very hard to do it well! By using Error, your apps will be much more explicit in how you expect things to work, and how you expect things might not work. And when something does go wrong, you'll be more likely to notice and better equipped to figure out the problem....

Jul 14, 2023

6 mins

JavaScript

“We were seen as amplifiers, not collaborators,” Ashley Willis, Sr. Director of Developer Relations at GitHub, on How DevRel has Changed, Open Source, and Holding Space as a Leader

Ashley Willis has seen Developer Relations evolve from being on the sidelines of the tech team to having a seat at the strategy table. In her ten years in the space, she’s done more than give great conference talks or build community—she’s helped shape what the DevRel role looks like for software providers. Now as the Senior Director of Developer Relations at GitHub, Ashley is focused on building spaces where developers feel heard, seen, and supported. > “A decade ago, we were seen as amplifiers, not collaborators,” she says. “Now we’re influencing product roadmaps and shaping developer experience end to end.” DevRel Has Changed For Ashley, the biggest shift hasn’t been the work itself—but how it’s understood. > “The work is still outward-facing, but it’s backed by real strategic weight,” she explains. “We’re showing up in research calls and incident reviews, not just keynotes.” That shift matters, but it’s not the finish line. Ashley is still pushing for change when it comes to burnout, representation, and sustainable metrics that go beyond conference ROI. > “We’re no longer fighting to be taken seriously. That’s a win. But there’s more work to do.” Talking Less as a Leader When we asked what the best advice Ashley ever received, she shared an early lesson she received from a mentor: “Your presence should create safety, not pressure.” > “It reframed how I saw my role,” she says. “Not as the one with answers, but the one who holds the space.” Ashley knows what it’s like to be in rooms where it’s hard to speak up. She leads with that memory in mind, and by listening more than talking, normalizing breaks, and creating environments where others can lead too. > “Leadership is emotional labor. It’s not about being in control. It’s about making it safe for others to lead, too.” Scaling More Than Just Tech Having worked inside high-growth companies, Ashley knows firsthand: scaling tech is one thing. Scaling trust is another. > “Tech will break. Roadmaps will shift. But if there’s trust between product and engineering, between company and community—you can adapt.” And she’s learned not to fall for premature optimization. Scale what you have. Don’t over-design for problems you don’t have yet. Free Open Source Isn’t Free There’s one myth Ashley is eager to debunk: that open source is “free.” > “Open source isn’t free labor. It’s labor that’s freely given,” she says. “And it includes more than just code. There’s documentation, moderation, mentoring, emotional care. None of it is effortless.” Open source runs on human energy. And when we treat contributors like an infinite resource, we risk burning them out, and breaking the ecosystem we all rely on. > “We talk a lot about open source as the foundation of innovation. But we rarely talk about sustaining the people who maintain that foundation.” Burnout is Not Admirable Early in her career, Ashley wore burnout like a badge of honor. She doesn’t anymore. > “Burnout doesn’t prove commitment,” she says. “It just dulls your spark.” Now, she treats rest as productive. And she’s learned that clarity is kindness—especially when giving feedback. > “I thought being liked was the same as being kind. It’s not. Kindness is honesty with empathy.” The Most Underrated GitHub Feature? Ashley’s pick: personal instructions in GitHub Copilot. Most users don’t realize they can shape how Copilot writes, like its tone, assumptions, and context awareness. Her own instructions are specific: empathetic, plainspoken, technical without being condescending. For Ashley, that helps reduce cognitive load and makes the tool feel more human. > “Most people skip over this setting. But it’s one of the best ways to make Copilot more useful—and more humane.” Connect with Ashley Willis She has been building better systems for over a decade. Whether it’s shaping Copilot UX, creating safer teams, or speaking truth about the labor behind open source, she’s doing the quiet work that drives sustainable change. Follow Ashley on BlueSky to learn more about her work, her maker projects, and the small things that keep her grounded in a fast-moving industry. Sticker Illustration by Jacob Ashley....

Apr 18, 2025

3 mins

Engineering LeadershipGitHub

Let's innovate together!

We're ready to be your trusted technical partners in your digital innovation journey.

Whether it's modernization or custom software solutions, our team of experts can guide you through best practices and how to build scalable, performant software that lasts.

Using Message Events to Resize an IFrame

Live Demo

Tom VanAntwerp

You might also like

The Importance of a Scientific Mindset in Software Engineering: Part 2 (Debugging)

D1 SQLite: Writing queries with the D1 Client API

JavaScript Errors: An Introductory Primer

“We were seen as amplifiers, not collaborators,” Ashley Willis, Sr. Director of Developer Relations at GitHub, on How DevRel has Changed, Open Source, and Holding Space as a Leader

Let's innovate together!

You might also like

The Importance of a Scientific Mindset in Software Engineering: Part 2 (Debugging)

D1 SQLite: Writing queries with the D1 Client API

JavaScript Errors: An Introductory Primer

“We were seen as amplifiers, not collaborators,” Ashley Willis, Sr. Director of Developer Relations at GitHub, on How DevRel has Changed, Open Source, and Holding Space as a Leader