I'm trying to create a custom component loader within knockout but I'm struggling with the view model. Essentially I want to remotely go grab both the HTML template and the JavaScript view model, but in this instance I don't want to use a traditional AMD module loader.
I've managed to get some of this working, specifically loading the HTML template but I can't figure out how to load the view model. Before I start here's my directory structure:
-- index.html
-- customerLoader.js
-- comps
-- myCustom.html
-- myCustom.js
So I've created my component loader like so. getConfig basically takes the name of the component and turns that into a path for the viewModel and the html template.
var customLoader = {
getConfig: function(name, callback) {
callback({ template: "comps/" + name + ".html", viewModel: "comps/" + name + ".js" });
},
loadTemplate: function(name, templateConfig, callback) {
console.log("loadTemplate", name, templateConfig);
$.get(templateConfig, function(data) {
callback(data);
});
},
loadViewModel: function(name, templateConfig, callback) {
console.log("loadViewModel", name, templateConfig);
$.getScript(templateConfig, function(data) {
callback(data);
});
}
};
ko.components.loaders.unshift(customLoader);
This successfully makes a request to load the template, which brings back some basic content. What I'm struggling with is the view model. I'm not sure what should be in the target of my JavaScript file?
I assumed that I'd want to return a function that would take some parameters, most likely a params object. However if I try and do this I get an error, telling me the JavaScript is invalid:
Uncaught SyntaxError: Illegal return statement
This is the current content I've got that is producing this error:
return function(params) {
console.log("myCustom.js", name, viewModelConfig);
// Add a computed value on
params.bookNum = ko.computed(function() {
switch(this.title()) {
case "A": return 1;
case "B": return 2;
case "C": return 3;
default: return -1;
}
});
//ko.components.defaultLoader.loadViewModel(name, viewModelConstructor, callback);
};
So ultimately I'm not sure how to achieve this, but I guess there are 3 basic questions that explain the gaps in my understanding:
What should my "view model" JavaScript file contain exactly? A function? An object? etc...
Do I need to call the ko.components.defaultLoader.loadViewModel at all?
Within my customLoader what should loadViewModel() be doing with the result of the jQuery callback? I'm not sure if I get back a JavaScript object, or just a string?
I'm open to achieve this in a different way if need be (e.g. not using jQuery but getting files a different way), but I don't want to use a module loader (e.g. require.js/curl.js in this instance).
First lets figure out what is happening...
From the docs:
This ($.getScript()) is a shorthand Ajax function, which is equivalent to:
$.ajax({
url: url,
dataType: "script",
success: success
});
And from jQuery.ajax():
...
dataType: ...
"script": Evaluates the response as JavaScript and returns it as plain text.
So your code is fetched, evaluated and then would have been returned as text, but evaluation first fails because you can't return if you're not within a function.
So what can be done? There are several options:
Use a module loader.
jQuery isn't a module loader, and as such it doesn't have the ability to parse fetched code and create a value / object from that code. A module loader is designed specifically for this task. It will take a script written in a specific pattern and "evaluate" it into a value (typically an object with 1 or more properties).
Change your script to a legal script
Because it's illegal to have a return statement in global code, your current code fails. You could however create a named function (or a variable with a function expression) and then use that name to reference that function. It could look like this:
function myCreateViewModel(param) {
// whatever
}
And the usage would be:
$.getScript(templateConfig, function() {
callback(myCreateViewModel);
});
The downside here is that if you ever go through that code path twice in the same page, your script will overwrite the old declaration. That might not ever be a problem, but it feels dirty.
Not use $.getScript(), use $.ajax() (or $.get()) with dataType: 'text' and evaluate yourself.
Remove the return from your code, and wrap it with an eval(). It will be evaluated as a function expression, the return value of the eval will be your function, and you could pass that directly to the callback:
$.get({
url: templateConfig,
dataType: 'text',
success: function(text) {
callback(eval(text));
}
});
This will work, but it will use the frowned upon eval(), which is exposing you to various risks.
So as you might know, Razor Syntax in ASP.NET MVC does not work in external JavaScript files.
My current solution is to put the Razor Syntax in a a global variable and set the value of that variable from the mvc view that is making use of that .js file.
JavaScript file:
function myFunc() {
alert(myValue);
}
MVC View file:
<script language="text/javascript">
myValue = #myValueFromModel;
</script>
I want to know how I can pass myValue directly as a parameter to the function ? I prefer to have explicit calling with param than relying on globals, however I'm not so keen on javascript.
How would I implement this with javascript parameters? Thanks!
Just have your function accept an argument and use that in the alert (or wherever).
external.js
function myFunc(value) {
alert(value);
}
someview.cshtml
<script>
myFunc(#myValueFromModel);
</script>
One thing to keep in mind though, is that if myValueFromModel is a string then it is going to come through as myFunc(hello) so you need to wrap that in quotes so it becomes myFunc('hello') like this
myFunc('#(myValueFromModel)');
Note the extra () used with razor. This helps the engine distinguish where the break between the razor code is so nothing odd happens. It can be useful when there are nested ( or " around.
edit
If this is going to be done multiple times, then some changes may need to take place in the JavaScript end of things. Mainly that the shown example doesn't properly depict the scenario. It will need to be modified. You may want to use a simple structure like this.
jsFiddle Demo
external.js
var myFunc= new function(){
var func = this,
myFunc = function(){
alert(func.value);
};
myFunc.set = function(value){
func.value = value;
}
return myFunc;
};
someview.cshtml
<script>
myFunc.set('#(myValueFromModel)');
myFunc();//can be called repeatedly now
</script>
I often find that JavaScript in the browser is typically conceptually tied to a specific element. If that's the case for you, you may want to associate the value with that element in your Razor code, and then use JavaScript to extract that value and use it in some way.
For example:
<div class="my-class" data-func-arg="#myValueFromModel"></div>
Static JavaScript:
$(function() {
$('.my-class').click(function() {
var arg = $(this).data('func-arg');
myFunc(arg);
});
});
Do you want to execute your function immediately? Or want to call the funcion with the parameter?
You could add a wrapper function with no parameter and inside call your function with the global var as a parameter. And when you need to call myFunc() you call it trough myFuncWrapper();
function myFuncWrapper(){
myFunc(myValue);
}
function myFunc(myParam){
//function code here;
}
On a button click, I'm calling a function in client side JavaScript.
doIt("TEST");
"TEST" is just the ID of label on my XPage.
In the function, I want to use the variable I passed as an ID. Something like:
function doIt(item){
alert(dojo.query("[id$=':item']").innerHTML);
}
OR
function doIt(item){
val = XSP.getElementById("#{id:item}").innerHTML;
alert(val);
}
I have also tried using this, which gives undefined:
val = dojo.query("[id$=':" + item + "']").innerHTML;
alert(val);
If I hard code the ID name like so, then I get the correct innerHTML of the element with the ID "TEST":
val = XSP.getElementById("#{id:TEST}").innerHTML;
alert(val);
Where is my syntax wrong when trying to write this very simple line of code used the passed variable?
The easiest way is to call your function with the complete id:
doIt("#{id:Test}")
and to use it in your function
function doIt(item){
alert(dojo.byId(item).innerHTML);
}
In the "onclick" client-event in the button, (inside XPage or CC), the client Ids can be computed, so you should put there something like this:
doIt("#{id:Test}"); // << "#{id:Test}" is computed in the server-side and the final client ID is sent to the browser
Then, in your cjs library (cjs libraries are not "evaluated" before sending to the client, so here you cannot use "#{id:Test}" expressions) you should have something like:
function doIt(idElement) {
var domElem = dojo.byId(idElement); // << here you get the element
}
I need to pass an URL to a .js file. This URL is generated by Rails and accepts one argument.
#routes
get "my_super/:some_id" => "controller1#my_super",
#index.html.haml
:javascript
var myUrlFunc = "#{my_super_url}"; //my_super_url(...) expects one argument
And a .js file:
$.ajax({
url: myUrlFunc($("#active_user_id"));
})
//................
The point is I don't know some_id initially as it's dynamically chosen, it's chosen from a drop down list. So I have to a function myUrlFunc which takes one argument and returns the URL instead of the URL itself. I thought this would work that it didn't due to an error:
No route matches {:action=>"my_super", :controller=>"controller1"} missing required keys: [:some_id]
What do I do about this?
As you have found out, the routing helper won't let you call it with missing parameters. Further more ruby doesn't know how to serialize a ruby method into a javascript function.
One simple, if not particularly elegant would be to pass a dummy value to my_super_url. Your function would then be along the lines of
var myUrlFunc = function(id){
var base = #{my_super_url("--DUMMY--")};
return base.replace("--DUMMY--", id);
}
I want to make an ajax call that will return a json object. One of this JSON object's properties will be the string of a function to be executed in the client. I realise this can easily be solved by using eval, but seeing the many disadvantages of eval, I'd rather avoid it. My question is:
Can I in some way return from the server some js code and execute it without resorting to eval?
As requested, here's some example code:
Server (Node.js):
var testFunc = function() {
alert('h1');
};
app.get('/testPack', function(req, res) {
var template = jade.render('h1 hi');
res.send({
template : template,
entity : testFunc.toString(),
data : {
id: "OMG I love this"
}
});
});
Client:
$(document).ready(function() {
$.ajax({
url: '/testPack',
success: function(data) {
$('body').append($(data.template))
alert(data.data.id);
var entity = eval(data.entity);
entity();
}
})
})
Of course, the returned function called entity wouldn't do such a silly thing, it would expose an API of the returned widget.
Just to clarify, I'd like to avoid having to make a separate call for the javascript itself. I'd rather bundle it with the template and data to render.
Easiest way to do that, is not to call a server through an ajax, but instead to create a new script tag on the page with the url pointing to a RESTful web-service that would output pure JavaScript (not JSON). That way your output will be evaluated by the browser directly without the use of eval.
To expand a little on my answer:
To get around the problems of running script in the global context you could do some tricks. For example, when you are adding script tag to the head, you can bind onload event (or rather fake onload event, since IE doesn't support onload on the script tag) to it, and if your response from the server will be always wrapped in the the function with a known name, you could apply that function from within your object. Example code below (this is just an example though):
function test ()
{
this.init = function ()
{
var script = document.createElement("script");
script.type = "text/javascript";
script.language = "javascript";
script.src = "test.js";
var me = this;
window.callMe = function () { me.scriptReady(me); };
var head = document.getElementsByTagName("head")[0];
head.appendChild(script);
};
this.scriptReady = function (object)
{
serverResponse.call(object);
};
this.name = "From inside the object";
this.init();
}
var t=new test();
The server response should look something like this:
function serverResponse()
{
alert(this.name);
}
window.callMe();
In this case, everything inside serverResponse() will use your object as "this". Now if you modify your server response in this way:
function serverResponse()
{
this.serverJSONString = { "testVar1": "1", "testVar2": 2 };
function Test()
{
alert("From the server");
}
Test();
}
window.callMe();
You can have multiple things being returned from the server and with just one response. If you don't like just setting variables, then create a function in your main object to handle JSON string that you can supply by calling this function from your response.
As you can see, it's all doable, it really doesn't look pretty, but then again, what you are trying to do is not pretty to begin with.
P.S. Just inserting a string inside tag will not work for IE, it will not allow you to do that. If you don't have to support IE, then you could get away with just inserting server response inside a newly created script tag and be done with it.
P.P.S. Please don't use this code as is, cause I didn't spend too much time writting it. It's ugly as hell, but was just ment as an example:-)
No, you can't do this by definition, because JavaScript functions are not valid JSON. See the spec here:
http://www.json.org/
If you're returning a string, then that's what it is: just a string. You can't evaluate it without eval. You can call whatever else you're returning whatever you want, but please don't call it JSON.
Here's an example of how I think this could work.
The json object represents what is returned from the server. The c and d properties contain function names as strings. If those functions are properties of some other object which exists in your page, then you should be able to call them using the object["property"] accessor.
See it working on jsFiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/WUY4n/1/
// This function is a child of the window object
window.winScopedFunction = function() {
alert("ROCK THE WIN");
}
// This function is a child of another object
var myObject = {
myFunction : function() {
alert("ROCK ON");
}
};
// pretend that this json object was the result of an ajax call.
var jsonResultFromServer= {
a : 1,
b : 2,
c : "myFunction",
d : "winScopedFunction"
};
// you can call the local functions like so
myObject[jsonResultFromServer.c]();
window[jsonResultFromServer.d]();
Yes, there's a way, but it has the exact same disadvantages as eval.
You can use the Function constructor to create a new function, and then call it. For example:
new Function(code)();
http://code.google.com/p/json-sans-eval/ is a fast JSON parser that does not use eval, and JSON.parse is becoming increasing widely available in new browsers. Both are excellent alternatives to eval for parsing JSON.
You can use the trick that Google does with Google Charts.
<html>
<head>
<script>
function onWorkDone(data) {
console.log(data);
}
</script>
<script src="callback.js"></script>
</head>
</html>
Then your callback.js is:
function doWork(callback) {
callback({result: 'foo'});
}
doWork(onWorkDone);
Basically, your script will call onWorkDone when the doWork completed. You can see a working example here:
http://jsfiddle.net/ea9Gc/
Do you have some example cases? Some things I can think of is you that you can just have a regular function inside your js file, and your server will return some parameters for your function to execute. You can even specify what function to use! (Isn't that amazing?)
// your js file
var some_namespace = {
some_function : function(a, b){
// stuff
}
}
// your server output
{
some_other_data: "123",
execute: {
func: "some_namespace.some_function",
params: [1, 2]
}
}
// your ajax callback
function(r){
window[r.execute.func].apply(this, r.execute.params);
}
The reasons of not using eval
Well, you already said it yourself. Don't use eval. But you have a wrong picture regarding why.
It is not that eval is evil. You are getting the reason wrong. Performance considerations aside, using eval this way allows a sloppy programmer to execute code passed from server on the client. Notice the "passed from server" part.
Why never execute code passed from server
Why don't you want to execute code passed from the server (incidentally that's what you're planning to do)?
When a browser executes a script on a web page, as long as the web site is valid -- i.e. really yours, and not a malware site pretending to be yours trying to trick your users -- you can be reasonably sure that every bit of code the browser is running is written by yourself.
Hacker's heaven -- script injection attacks
Now, if you are passing data from the server to your web application, and that data contains executable functions, you're asking for trouble. In the long, twisted journey of that data going from your server to your client's browser, it goes through the wild west called the Internet, perhaps through multiple layers of proxies and filters and converters, most of which you do not control.
Now, if a hacker is hiding somewhere in the middle, takes your data from the server, modify the code to those functions to something really bad, and sends it away to your client, then your client browser takes the data and executes the code. Voila! Bad things happen. The worse is: you (at the server side) will never know that your clients are hacked.
This is called a "script injection attack" and is a serious sercurity risk.
Therefore, the rule is: Never execute functions returned from a server.
Only pass data from server
If you only accept data from a server, the most that can happen whan a hacker tempers with it is that your client will see strange data coming back, and hopefully your scripts will filter them out or handle them as incorrect data. Your client's browser will not be running any arbitrary code written by the hacker with glee.
In your client-side script, of course you're sticking to the Golden Rule: Do not trust ANY data coming through the Internet. Therefore you'd already be type-check and validating the JSON data before using it, and disallowing anything that looks suspicious.
Don't do it -- pass functions from server and execute on client
So, to make a long story short: DON'T DO IT.
Think of another way to specify pluggable functionalities on the browser -- there are multiple methods.
I've had this same question, and I fixed it this way:
File: functions.js.php?f=1,3
$functions=array(
'showMessage' => 'function(msg){ alert(msg); }',
'confirmAction' => 'function(action){
return confirm("Are you sure you want to "+action+"?");
}',
'getName' => 'function getName(){
return prompt("What is your name?");
}'
);
$queried = explode($_REQUEST['f']);
echo 'var FuncUtils = {'; // begin javascript object
$counter=1;
foreach($functions as $name=>$function){
if(in_array($counter, $queried))
echo '"'.$name.'":,'.$function.',';
$counter++;
}
echo '"dummy":null };'; // end javascript object
File: data5.json
{
"action" : ['confirmAction','exit']
}
File: test.js
$(document).ready(function(){
$.getScript('functions.js.php?f=1,3');
});
function onBeforeExit(){
$.getJSON('data5.json', function(data) {
var func = data.action.shift();
FuncUtils[func].apply(null, data.action);
});
}