Dumping objects outputs [object Object]
See original GitHub issueIf you pass an object instead of a string, what gets dumped is [object Object]
instead of the actual dump of that object. One solution could be to possibly check if it’s of type ‘object’ and if so, either just return the object unstyled, or JSON.stringify()
it, but I’m not sure that’s ideal.
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 7 years ago
- Reactions:17
- Comments:12 (5 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
Dump Object in JavaScript - Linux Hint
The “JSON.stringify()” method is used to transform a JavaScript object into a string. This method can be applied to dump the object as...
Read more >Using ObjectDumper - How to Dump Objects in C# - CodinGame
The idea of the object dumper is that it recursively loops on the object's properties through reflection and collects all data underlying that...
Read more >How to Dump Object for Debugging Purposes in C#? - Coding ...
You can dump object in C# using either reflection or serialization, you can either use ObjectDumper, JSON Serializer or YAML Serializer.
Read more >Object Dump JavaScript - Stack Overflow
In Node. js this just prints a literal "%o" in output. Merely separating the string from the object, however, does dump a human-readable...
Read more >Dump Object (DMPOBJ) - IBM
The Dump Object (DMPOBJ) command dumps the contents or attributes of the ... then the output is not spooled but printed directly; and,...
Read more >Top Related Medium Post
No results found
Top Related StackOverflow Question
No results found
Troubleshoot Live Code
Lightrun enables developers to add logs, metrics and snapshots to live code - no restarts or redeploys required.
Start FreeTop Related Reddit Thread
No results found
Top Related Hackernoon Post
No results found
Top Related Tweet
No results found
Top Related Dev.to Post
No results found
Top Related Hashnode Post
No results found
Top GitHub Comments
Not interested in changing that behavior. It’s been like that for years and you’re the first to complain. If I had done it again I would have typechecked the input and thrown a TypeError, but that’s not worth doing a breaking change over.
@HillTravis for the record, you could always do