Back to Details

debugger

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Systematic Debugging

系统化调试

Overview

概述

Random fixes waste time and create new bugs. Quick patches mask underlying issues.
Core principle: ALWAYS find root cause before attempting fixes. Symptom fixes are failure.
Violating the letter of this process is violating the spirit of debugging.
随机修复不仅浪费时间，还会引入新bug。仓促的补丁只会掩盖潜在问题。
核心原则： 在尝试修复前，务必找到根本原因。仅修复症状等同于失败。
违反此流程的任何环节，都是违背调试的本质。

The Iron Law

铁律

NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRST
If you haven't completed Phase 1, you cannot propose fixes.
未完成根本原因调查，禁止进行任何修复
如果尚未完成第一阶段，不得提出修复方案。

When to Use

使用场景

Use for ANY technical issue:
  • Test failures
  • Bugs in production
  • Unexpected behavior
  • Performance problems
  • Build failures
  • Integration issues
Use this ESPECIALLY when:
  • Under time pressure (emergencies make guessing tempting)
  • "Just one quick fix" seems obvious
  • You've already tried multiple fixes
  • Previous fix didn't work
  • You don't fully understand the issue
Don't skip when:
  • Issue seems simple (simple bugs have root causes too)
  • You're in a hurry (rushing guarantees rework)
适用于任何技术问题：
  • 测试失败
  • 生产环境中的bug
  • 异常行为
  • 性能问题
  • 构建失败
  • 集成问题
尤其在以下场景必须使用：
  • 面临时间压力时（紧急情况下容易凭猜测行事）
  • 看似"只需快速修复"时
  • 已尝试多种修复方案时
  • 之前的修复无效时
  • 尚未完全理解问题时
切勿跳过的场景：
  • 问题看似简单（简单bug同样存在根本原因）
  • 时间紧迫时（仓促行事必然导致返工）

The Four Phases

四个阶段

You MUST complete each phase before proceeding to the next.
必须完成当前阶段后，才能进入下一阶段。

Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation

第一阶段：根本原因调查

BEFORE attempting ANY fix:
  1. Read Error Messages Carefully
    • Don't skip past errors or warnings
    • They often contain the exact solution
    • Read stack traces completely
    • Note line numbers, file paths, error codes
  2. Reproduce Consistently
    • Can you trigger it reliably?
    • What are the exact steps?
    • Does it happen every time?
    • If not reproducible → gather more data, don't guess
  3. Check Recent Changes
    • What changed that could cause this?
    • Git diff, recent commits
    • New dependencies, config changes
    • Environmental differences
  4. Gather Evidence in Multi-Component Systems
    WHEN system has multiple components:
    BEFORE proposing fixes, add diagnostic instrumentation:
    For EACH component boundary:
  - Log what data enters component
  - Log what data exits component
  - Verify environment/config propagation
  - Check state at each layer

Run once to gather evidence showing WHERE it breaks
THEN analyze evidence to identify failing component
THEN investigate that specific component
  5. Trace Data Flow
    • Where does bad value originate?
    • What called this with bad value?
    • Keep tracing up until you find the source
    • Fix at source, not at symptom
在尝试任何修复之前：
  1. 仔细阅读错误信息
    • 不要跳过错误或警告
    • 它们通常包含确切的解决方案
    • 完整阅读stack traces（堆栈跟踪）
    • 记录行号、文件路径、错误代码
  2. 稳定复现问题
    • 能否可靠触发问题？
    • 具体步骤是什么？
    • 是否每次都会发生？
    • 如果无法复现 → 收集更多数据，不要猜测
  3. 检查近期变更
    • 哪些变更可能导致此问题？
    • Git diff、近期提交记录
    • 新增依赖、配置变更
    • 环境差异
  4. 在多组件系统中收集证据
    当系统包含多个组件时：
    提出修复方案前，添加诊断工具：
    For EACH component boundary:
  - Log what data enters component
  - Log what data exits component
  - Verify environment/config propagation
  - Check state at each layer

Run once to gather evidence showing WHERE it breaks
THEN analyze evidence to identify failing component
THEN investigate that specific component
  5. 追踪数据流
    • 错误值源自何处？
    • 是谁传入了错误值？
    • 持续向上追踪，直到找到源头
    • 从源头修复，而非仅修复症状

Phase 2: Pattern Analysis

第二阶段：模式分析

Find the pattern before fixing:
  1. Find Working Examples — Locate similar working code in same codebase
  2. Compare Against References — Read reference implementation COMPLETELY
  3. Identify Differences — List every difference, however small
  4. Understand Dependencies — What other components does this need?
修复前先找到规律：
  1. 寻找可行案例 — 在同一代码库中定位类似的可运行代码
  2. 对比参考实现 — 完整阅读参考实现
  3. 识别差异 — 列出所有差异，无论多么微小
  4. 理解依赖关系 — 该功能依赖哪些其他组件？

Phase 3: Hypothesis and Testing

第三阶段：假设与测试

Scientific method:
  1. Form Single Hypothesis — "I think X is the root cause because Y"
  2. Test Minimally — Make the SMALLEST possible change to test hypothesis
  3. Verify Before Continuing — Did it work? Yes → Phase 4. No → form NEW hypothesis
  4. When You Don't Know — Say "I don't understand X". Don't pretend to know.
遵循科学方法：
  1. 形成单一假设 — "我认为X是根本原因，因为Y"
  2. 最小化测试 — 做出最小的改动来验证假设
  3. 验证后再继续 — 是否有效？是 → 进入第四阶段。否 → 形成新假设
  4. 当不确定时 — 直接说"我不理解X"。不要假装懂。

Phase 4: Implementation

第四阶段：实施修复

Fix the root cause, not the symptom:
  1. Create Failing Test Case — Simplest possible reproduction. MUST have before fixing.
  2. Implement Single Fix — Address the root cause. ONE change at a time.
  3. Verify Fix — Test passes? No other tests broken? Issue actually resolved?
  4. If Fix Doesn't Work — STOP. Count fixes tried. If ≥ 3: question the architecture.
  5. If 3+ Fixes Failed: Question Architecture
    • Is this pattern fundamentally sound?
    • Should we refactor architecture vs. continue fixing symptoms?
    • Discuss with user before attempting more fixes
修复根本原因，而非仅修复症状：
  1. 创建失败测试用例 — 最简单的复现方式。修复前必须完成。
  2. 实施单一修复 — 针对根本原因。一次只做一处变更。
  3. 验证修复效果 — 测试通过？其他测试未被破坏？问题真的解决了吗？
  4. 如果修复无效 — 停止。统计已尝试的修复次数。如果≥3：质疑架构设计。
  5. 如果3次以上修复失败：质疑架构
    • 这种模式从根本上是否合理？
    • 我们应该重构架构，还是继续修复症状？
    • 在尝试更多修复前与用户讨论

Red Flags — STOP and Follow Process

危险信号 — 停止并遵循流程

If you catch yourself thinking:
  • "Quick fix for now, investigate later"
  • "Just try changing X and see if it works"
  • "Add multiple changes, run tests"
  • "It's probably X, let me fix that"
  • "I don't fully understand but this might work"
  • "One more fix attempt" (when already tried 2+)
ALL of these mean: STOP. Return to Phase 1.
如果你发现自己有以下想法：
  • "先快速修复，之后再调查"
  • "试试修改X看看能不能行"
  • "同时做多处变更，然后运行测试"
  • "可能是X的问题，我来修复它"
  • "我不完全理解，但这个可能有用"
  • "再试一次修复"（已尝试2次以上）
以上所有想法都意味着：停止。回到第一阶段。

Common Rationalizations

常见合理化借口

ExcuseReality
"Issue is simple, don't need process"Simple issues have root causes too.
"Emergency, no time for process"Systematic debugging is FASTER than guess-and-check.
"Just try this first, then investigate"First fix sets the pattern. Do it right from the start.
"Multiple fixes at once saves time"Can't isolate what worked. Causes new bugs.
"I see the problem, let me fix it"Seeing symptoms ≠ understanding root cause.
"One more fix attempt" (after 2+ failures)3+ failures = architectural problem.
借口实际情况
"问题很简单，不需要流程"简单问题同样有根本原因。
"紧急情况，没时间走流程"系统化调试比试错法更快。
"先试试这个，之后再调查"第一次修复会定下模式。从一开始就做对。
"同时做多处变更节省时间"无法确定哪项变更起作用。会引入新bug。
"我看到问题了，我来修复"看到症状≠理解根本原因。
"再试一次修复"（失败2次后）3次以上失败意味着架构存在问题。

Quick Reference

快速参考

PhaseKey ActivitiesSuccess Criteria
1. Root CauseRead errors, reproduce, check changes, gather evidenceUnderstand WHAT and WHY
2. PatternFind working examples, compareIdentify differences
3. HypothesisForm theory, test minimallyConfirmed or new hypothesis
4. ImplementationCreate test, fix, verifyBug resolved, tests pass
Related skills:
  • oac:verification-before-completion
    — Verify fix worked before claiming success
  • oac:test-generation
    — For creating failing test cases (Phase 4, Step 1)
阶段关键活动成功标准
1. 根本原因阅读错误信息、复现问题、检查变更、收集证据理解问题是什么以及为什么发生
2. 模式分析寻找可行案例、对比参考实现识别差异
3. 假设与测试形成理论、最小化测试假设得到验证或形成新假设
4. 实施修复创建测试用例、修复、验证Bug解决，测试通过
相关技能：
  • oac:verification-before-completion
    — 确认修复有效后再宣告成功
  • oac:test-generation
    — 用于创建失败测试用例（第四阶段，第一步）