Challenge 1: Why Step Into Was the Right Choice in Step 3 — Solution Walkthrough

Why Step Into fit this investigation:

Per Chapter 4's own definitions, Step Into descends into a called
function's own code, line by line, rather than running it to
completion without descending (Step Over). The whole point of Step 3
was investigating the click handler's own internal logic to find WHY
it was silently doing nothing under some condition — the actual bug
was hiding inside that handler's own code (the null check swallowing
the tap), not in a separate function it happened to call.

Why Step Over would not have worked here:

Step Over would have run the entire click handler to completion in one
step, exactly the opposite of what was needed — it would have skipped
past the null check silently returning early without ever revealing
that it was happening at all, since Step Over deliberately doesn't
show what's happening line by line inside the call.

The general principle this illustrates:

Step Into is the right choice specifically when the suspected problem
is believed to be INSIDE the code being stepped into; Step Over is
right when that code is already trusted and the goal is simply moving
past it (exactly the scenario Chapter 4's own Exercise 1 covered). This
capstone's own Step 3 was the former case.

WHY THIS WORKS AS AN ANSWER
------------------------------
This exercise connects Chapter 4's own general stepping-action
definitions to this capstone's own specific narrative moment,
correctly identifying which stepping action fits an investigation
where the suspected bug is believed to be inside the code being
stepped through.