We Keep Coding

Not able to move my inline JavaScript to an external file

I finished developing and testing my HTML intake form and it is working nicely with ajax, json, and validation, and mailing. To finalize the form for production, I attempted to move the JavaScript from the HTML page to an external file and provide a link to the file in the HTML page. The js file is called formjs.js, and the link to it was placed at the bottom of the HTML page as <script src="../js/formjs.js"></script>.
The way I moved the JavaScript is cutting the scripts and pasting to the new js page and same the page and linked to it in the HTML page as mentioned above.
Upon doing so, I received tons of error messages on the js page because many of the functions are looking for information that exists on the HTML and had no idea how to get it. For example, a document. For example, this following script:
var Server_response_value_failure = document.getElementById("server_response_value_failure");
gets the following error:this variable is assigned and value but was never used.
Another example:
end of function};
at the end of each function get the error message that unnecessary semicolon.
I am not sure how to link the formjs.js file back to the HTML. Otherwise, the form works perfectly fine if I leave the script on the HTML page.

its fine, its just eslint that gives these warnings. for example, it will complain if you declare a variable and assign a value but you dont use the variable later on.
or if you call a function that you declare "later down" in the file.

I don't know if this will help, but sometimes you want to put the entire body of your javascript file in round parenthesis like this
(function(...) {
...
})();
in the end, you put another round parenthesis. This basically acts like $.ready() in jQuery.
I don't know if this will help you. You might want to rewrite your code.

How do I include global styles/javascript in HTML files displayed as dialogs?

I am developing a Google App Script project that will be used right from within a Google Sheet, with HTML files as dialogs. My project will be a mix of .gs files as well as HTML files for data entry, etc. I am trying to use the methodology explained here:
https://developers.google.com/apps-script/guides/html/best-practices#separate_html_css_and_javascript
to create global JavaScript and CSS modules that I can include in my HTML files rather than cutting and pasting inline code all over the place. This will be mainly useful for the data-saving routines which capture form data, serialize it, then save it to Sheets via the methodology outlined here (and many other places): http://railsrescue.com/blog/2015-05-28-step-by-step-setup-to-send-form-data-to-google-sheets/.
The problem I am having is with trying to call the "include" statement from my HTML files, namely, lines like:
<?!= include('JavaScript'); ?>
It doesn't work when I create a menu on the spreadsheet to display my HTML file as a dialog -- the text of the include line just shows up as literal output on the dialog, and code does not appear to be getting included (not in scope).
I know the Google example is primarily for pages delpoyed via a web app, but I'd like to use my HTML files as dialogs right inside the spreadsheet (e.g. from a menu or sidebar) -- that feels nice and tidy to me. But if I can't get includes to work, my code base is going to be a nightmare and it will be really, really hard to standardize CSS across the whole app. I don't want to be cutting and pasting all the time.
So, what is the secret behind this <?! tag, and why won't it work in my HTML files when they are called as dialogs? It is clear those lines are different from the get-go (maybe not in a bad way, but they don't work), as the Google Scripting console displays those lines oddly, as depicted in the screenshot below:

Please try adding:
<?xml-stylesheet href="chrome://global/skin/" type="text/css"?>
More information can be found in Adding Style Sheets.

Figured it out. I was not properly understanding the way the HTML was being served up as a dialog. I was using this behind a custom menu option:
var html = HtmlService.createHtmlOutputFromFile(htmlFileName);
when I should have been using the more dynamic:
var html = HtmlService.createTemplateFromFile(htmlFileName).evaluate();
The latter generates a user interface object where the server-side script is executed and everything is included properly when I display the object with showModalDialog() (or showSidebar()).
I just had a complete misunderstanding of how the user interface object was being created, so now all scripting works inside my HTML files.

Managing page specific Javascript: 1 big file with conditionals or multiple files

In my project I have a load of functions that are used on every page, so I have put these in a single javascript file common.js and have included it in my footer template. My questions is, what is the best way to handle page-specific javscript?
For example, on one of my pages I have a google map. If my map js code is run on a page where I don't have an element with id map_canvas, I get an error.
Method 1: I could write some PHP which echos an additional script tag requesting map.js if and only if I'm on a map page.
Method 2: I could give the <body> of my map page an id of "map_page", then I could write a conditional clause in common.js along the lines of:
if (#map_page exists){
put contents of map.js here
}
The problem with method 1 is that it increases the number of requests to the server.
The problem with method 2 is that it bloats my common javascript file.
Please can somebody explain, which, if any would be the preferred method to do this, or if neither are suitable, what I should do instead?
I have approximately 10 page-specific javascript files to deal with.
Thanks

I would say that simpler is better. On every page, just add a script tag calling map.js. Or, in your common.js, you don't need to paste all of map.js's code. You can just create a new script tag with the js and call map.js like that. I would not recommend the php method. The easiest and simplest, therefore the least likely to be buggy method, is just to add another script tag to the pages that need it. Or if that is not an option, common.js could include this:
if(need map.js){
var mapjs=document.createElement("script");
mapjs.type="text/javascript";
mapjs.src="map.js";
document.body.appendChild(mapjs);
}

Using Components.utils.import in a firefox extension

I am trying to create some global variables in a firefox extension. In my content folder, I have two javascript files:
1) Main JS file that holds the functions for the different events, etc
2) A file that stores only an object with the pieces of state I want to maintain. Also, I set the array EXPORTED_SYMBOLS.
I am having issues with the following line found in my main JS file:
Components.utils.import("resource:///globalVariables.js");
When it is at the top of the file, nothing seems to work. If I move it into the function where I need the variable, the rest of my code works, but the function with this line does nothing. Any advice that would help me with this problem would be great. Thanks

Chances are resource:///globalVariables.js is not the right URI. Make sure you register it properly, and include the aliasname when you reference it.

Executing groovy statements in JavaScript sources in Grails

There are essentially 2 places to define JavaScript functions in Grails, directly in a element on the GSP, and within a separate javascript source file under /web-app/js (for example, application.js). We have defined a commonly reused javascript function within application.js, but we also need to be able to generate parts of the function dynamically using groovy code. Unfortunately, ${some groovy code} does not appear to be processed within separate javascript source files.
Is the only way to do this by defining the javascript function within a script tag on a GSP page, or is there a more general solution? Obviously we could define the javascript function in a script tag within a template GSP file which would be reused, but there is a lot of push to keep our javascript functions defined all together in one place (i.e. the external javascript source file). This has performance benefits as well (the javascript source files are usually just downloaded once by each client's browser, instead of reloading the same javascript functions within the source of every html page they visit). I have toyed around with the idea of breaking the function up into static and dynamic pieces, putting the static ones in the external source and putting the dynamic ones in the template GSP, then gluing them together, but this seems like an unnecessary hack.
Any ideas?
(edit: It may sound like the idea of dynamically generating parts of a JavaScript function, which is then downloaded once and used over and over again by the client, would be a bad idea. However, the piece which is "dynamic" only changes perhaps once a week or month, and then only very slightly. Mostly we just want this piece generated off the database, even if only once, instead of hard coded.)

An easy solution to keep your JavaScript unobtrusive is to create a JavaScriptController and map its actions "/js/*" by adding this to your UrlMappings.groovy file:
"/js/$action"{
controller = "javascript"
}
then just create an action for each dynamic JS file you want, include in in your layout <HEAD>, and presto, you've got a JS file that you can insert Grails snippets into! :)
Note: I've found that there's currently a bug in Grails that doesn't map file extensions to content-types properly, so you'll need to include <%# page contentType="text/javascript; UTF-8" %> at the top of your view files.

This is a great solution. I would like to offer a suggestion to use somthing other then a mapping of "/js/$action" because this is no longer going to allow you to access you javascript files in /web-app/js/. All your javascript files would have to be moved to a the directory your controller would point to.
I would use something like
"/dynjs/$action"
This way you still can point to files in the /web-app/js/ files with out conflict and enjoy the benifits of gsp tags in javascript files
Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Or this... have a tag/service/dynamic method that lets tags write out their JS+CSS+whatever else, to a "cache" which is used to build the JS+CSS resources by a different controller.
Full concept here: [http://www.anyware.co.uk/2005/2009/01/19/an-idea-to-give-grails-tags-esp/][1]

If you want to use models created by the controller (that rendered HTML page which reference the Javascript in which you intend to use groovy code) in the Javascript code, then you can use this technique:
This technique does not need to change URL mappings and does not require you to create extra controller.
In your view GSP add javascript as follows:
<script type="text/javascript">
<g:render template="/javascript/yourJavascriptFile"/>
</script>
In views folder create a "javascript" folder. And create a file named:
_yourJavascriptFile.gsp
You can not only use all the GSP code in your _yourJavascriptFile.gsp file, but you can also use all the models created in your controller (that is rendering the view).
NOTE: There is nothing special about javascript folder. You can name it anything you want OR use an existing view folder. This is just a matter of organizing and identifying your HTML spitting GSP from Javascript spitting GSPs. Alternatively, you can use some naming conventions like: _something.js.gsp etc.

Name your scripts like this
/wherever/the/js/files/are/thescript.js.gsp
The gsp code inside will be rendered correctly by grails. This works, but I have no idea if it's considered a Good Idea or not.

There is another way - pass in the generated code into a function that expects closures. Those closures is generated by the program of course. The generated code is of course inlined/script-tagged in the gsp page.
it may or may not work depending on the nature of the code being generated. But i suspect it will work, and if it doesnt, minor tweaking to the coding style of your javascript will definitely make it work. Though, if these 'generated' code doesnt change much, this quite overkill imo.