microsoft / microsoft/debug-adapter-protocol
Add condition, hitCondition, and logMessage to the Breakpoint type
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- HTML
- Stars
- 1.8k
- Forks
- 173
- Avg merge
- 7d 7h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 2
Description
Problem
The SourceBreakpoint type (request side) includes condition, hitCondition, and logMessage, but the Breakpoint type (response/event side) does not. This means when a debug adapter sends a breakpoint event, the client cannot determine whether the breakpoint is a logpoint or conditional breakpoint.
Consequence: Logpoints sent via breakpoint events render as regular breakpoints in the UI — losing the logpoint icon and confusing users. Conditional breakpoints similarly lose their condition decoration.
Proposed Change
Add three optional fields to the Breakpoint type, mirroring SourceBreakpoint:
interface Breakpoint {
// ... existing fields ...
condition?: string;
hitCondition?: string;
logMessage?: string;
}
Rationale
Symmetry: line and column already round-trip between SourceBreakpoint and Breakpoint. condition, hitCondition, and logMessage should too.
Backward compatible: All fields are optional — existing adapters and clients are unaffected.
Enables correct rendering: Clients can use logMessage presence to render logpoints (◇) vs breakpoints (●), and display conditions in hover/detail views.
Unblocks AI usecase: In developing AI capabilities for debugging, logpoints and conditional breakpoints are particularly requested features as agents can easily leverage advanced breakpointing techniques.
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by locating the Breakpoint and SourceBreakpoint type definitions and compare their existing fields, using the linked Debug Adapter Protocol specification for context. Add the three optional fields proposed in the issue and verify that the protocol definition remains consistent with the documented request and response types.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Domain
- api
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 2/5
- Estimated time
- 1-3 hours
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Clearly specified
- Newbie friendliness
- 48/100