Timeline for How can I debug a minified JS in firebug?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 19, 2013 at 16:57 | history | edited | Elias Zamaria | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Turned beautifier URL into an actual link
|
| Mar 22, 2011 at 5:01 | history | edited | Stephen Chung | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 412 characters in body; added 695 characters in body
|
| Mar 22, 2011 at 4:57 | comment | added | rsp | @Stephen: jQuery uses UglifyJS now – see commit d503845d. | |
| Mar 22, 2011 at 4:54 | comment | added | Stephen Chung | However, you can always "map" the beautified code with the original source (if you have it). Then you can just compare lines one by line to see which line in the minified code corresponds to which line in the original source, and which renamed local variable corresponds to which original variable name. Notice that if the code is processed by the Closure Compiler in Advanced Mode (like most of Google's JS code), then the compiled code will show little resemblance with the original source -- and you'll need to be extremely well-trained in using the Closure Compiler to map them back. | |
| Mar 22, 2011 at 4:52 | comment | added | Kumar | in my case the script is just minified not obfuscated, white spaces removed thing | |
| Mar 22, 2011 at 4:51 | comment | added | Stephen Chung | See my caveat. You won't be able to reverse engineer a minified piece of JS code without the original source because local variables are usually renamed. The standard jQuery distribution is minified with the Closure Compiler in Simple Mode (not Advanced). It does a very good job in obfuscating everything except public function/property names. | |
| Mar 22, 2011 at 4:41 | comment | added | Kumar | I guess you didn't understand the issue, I have added clarifications | |
| Mar 22, 2011 at 4:36 | history | answered | Stephen Chung | CC BY-SA 2.5 |