If you have a Rep like grip and it has uninteresting properties, these should be filtered in the preview. However, right now they are not. See Bug 1264685 comment #4. Test object > {a: undefined, b: undefined, c: "c", d: 1} Actual result: > {a: undefined, b: undefined, c: "c", more...} Expected result: > {c: "c", d: 1, a: undefined, more...} Optimal result: > {a: undefined, c: "c", d: 1, more...}

Hi Honza, Based on the discussion in Bug 1264685 comment #4. It seems like you would prefer to treat all the object as uninteresting props. Just want to confirm that: - Is it possible to have a property that doesn't belong to bool/number/string/object? Because even the null/undefined value would be wrap as object in the grip. - Should we treat all the object as uninteresting, or we need to check the value and classify it as uninteresting only if undefined/null?

Looks like we could revise testUninterestingProps in this way, but I'm not sure whether we should add long mode test for a grip exceed the long max length.

(In reply to Steve Chung [:steveck] from comment #1) > Hi Honza, > > Based on the discussion in Bug 1264685 comment #4. It seems like you would > prefer to treat all the object as uninteresting props. Just want to confirm > that: > - Is it possible to have a property that doesn't belong to > bool/number/string/object? Because even the null/undefined value would be > wrap as object in the grip. There might be a `Symbol` (new in ECMAScript 6), but I didn't test it yet. > - Should we treat all the object as uninteresting, or we need to check the > value and classify it as uninteresting only if undefined/null? We should treat objects as uninteresting. So, null, undefined and object is all uninteresting. (In reply to Steve Chung [:steveck] from comment #2) > Created attachment 8771896 [details] [diff] [review] > bug-1276376.patch > > Looks like we could revise testUninterestingProps in this way, but I'm not > sure whether we should add long mode test for a grip exceed the long max > length. Good question, please create another report for it. Honza

Hi Honza, Looks like the bug is a duplicate of Bug 1282791. If so, let's set as duplicate.