Related
I have following structure for Javascript in my Rails 6 app using Webpacker.
app/javascript
+ packs
- application.js
+ custom
- hello.js
Below shown is the content in the above mentioned JS files
app/javascript/custom/hello.js
export function greet(name) {
console.log("Hello, " + name);
}
app/javascript/packs/application.js
require("#rails/ujs").start()
require("jquery")
require("bootstrap")
import greet from '../custom/hello'
config/webpack/environment.js
const { environment } = require('#rails/webpacker')
const webpack = require('webpack')
environment.plugins.prepend('Provide',
new webpack.ProvidePlugin({
$: 'jquery',
jQuery: 'jquery',
Popper: ['popper.js', 'default']
})
)
module.exports = environment
Now in my Rails view I am trying to use the imported function greet like shown below
app/views/welcome/index.html.haml
- name = 'Jignesh'
:javascript
var name = "#{name}"
greet(name)
When I load the view I am seeing ReferenceError: greet is not defined error in browser's console.
I tried to search for a solution to this problem and found many resources on web but none turned out to help me. At last when I was drafting this question in the suggestions I found How to execute custom javascript functions in Rails 6 which indeed is close to my need however the solution shows a workaround but I am looking for a proper solution for the need because I have many views which needs to pass data from Rails view to JS functions to be moved custom files under app/javascript/custom folder.
Also I would highly appreciate if anybody can help me understand the cause behind the ReferenceError I am encountering.
Note:
I am not well-versed in Javascript development in Node realm and also new to Webpacker, Webpack, Javascript's modules, import, export, require syntax etc so please bear with me if you find anything silly in what I am asking. I have landed up in above situation while trying to upgrade an existing Rails app to use version 6.
Webpack does not make modules available to the global scope by default. That said, there are a few ways for you to pass information from Ruby to JavaScript outside of an AJAX request:
window.greet = function() { ... } and calling the function from the view as you have suggested is an option. I don't like have to code side effects in a lot of places so it's my least favorite.
You could look at using expose-loader. This would mean customizing your webpack config to "expose" selected functions from selected modules to the global scope. It could work well for a handful of cases but would get tedious for many use cases.
Export selected functions from your entrypoint(s) and configure webpack to package your bundle as a library. This is my favorite approach if you prefer to call global functions from the view. I've written about this approach specifically for Webpacker on my blog.
// app/javascript/packs/application.js
export * from '../myGlobalFunctions'
// config/webpack/environment.js
environment.config.merge({
output: {
// Makes exports from entry packs available to global scope, e.g.
// Packs.application.myFunction
library: ['Packs', '[name]'],
libraryTarget: 'var'
},
})
// app/views/welcome/index.html.haml
:javascript
Packs.application.greet("#{name}")
Take a different approach altogether and attach Ruby variables to a global object in your controller, such as with the gon gem. Assuming you setup the gem per the instructions, the gon object would be available both as Ruby object which you can mutate server-side and in your JavaScript code as a global variable to read from. You might need to come up with some other way to selectively call the greet function, such as with a DOM query for a particular selector that's only rendered on the given page or for a given url.
# welcome_controller.rb
def index
gon.name = 'My name'
end
// app/javascript/someInitializer.js
window.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded', function() {
if (window.location.match(/posts/)) {
greet(window.gon.name)
}
})
#rossta Thanks a lot for your elaborate answer. It definitely should be hihghly helpful to the viewers of this post.
Your 1st suggestion I found while searching for solution to my problem and I did referenced it in my question. Like you I also don't like it because it is sort of a workaround.
Your 2nd and 3rd suggestions, honestly speaking went top of my head perhaps because I am novice to the concepts of Webpack.
Your 4th approach sounds more practical to me and as a matter of fact, after posting my question yesterday, along similar lines I tried out something and which did worked. I am sharing the solution below for reference
app/javascript/custom/hello.js
function greet(name) {
console.log("Hello, " + name)
}
export { greet }
app/javascript/packs/application.js
require("#rails/ujs").start()
require("bootstrap")
Note that in above file I removed require("jquery"). That's because it has already been made globally available in /config/webpack/environment.js through ProvidePlugin (please refer the code in my question). Thus requiring them in this file is not needed. I found this out while going through
"Option 4: Adding Javascript to environment.js" in http://blog.blackninjadojo.com/ruby/rails/2019/03/01/webpack-webpacker-and-modules-oh-my-how-to-add-javascript-to-ruby-on-rails.html
app/views/welcome/index.html.haml
- first_name = 'Jignesh'
- last_name = 'Gohel'
= hidden_field_tag('name', nil, "data": { firstName: first_name, lastName: last_name }.to_json)
Note: The idea for "data" attribute got from https://github.com/rails/webpacker/blob/master/docs/props.md
app/javascript/custom/welcome_page.js
import { greet } from './hello'
function nameField() {
return $('#name')
}
function greetUser() {
var nameData = nameField().attr('data')
//console.log(nameData)
//console.log(typeof(nameData))
var nameJson = $.parseJSON(nameData)
var name = nameJson.firstName + nameJson.lastName
greet(name)
}
export { greetUser }
app/javascript/packs/welcome.js
import { greetUser } from '../custom/welcome_page'
greetUser()
Note: The idea for a separate pack I found while going through https://blog.capsens.eu/how-to-write-javascript-in-rails-6-webpacker-yarn-and-sprockets-cdf990387463
under section "Do not try to use Webpack as you would use Sprockets!" (quoting the paragraph for quick view)
So how would you make a button trigger a JS action? From a pack, you add a behavior to an HTML element. You can do that using vanilla JS, JQuery, StimulusJS, you name it.
Also the information in https://prathamesh.tech/2019/09/24/mastering-packs-in-webpacker/ helped in guiding me to solve my problem.
Then updated app/views/welcome/index.html.haml by adding following at the bottom
= javascript_pack_tag("welcome")
Finally reloaded the page and the webpacker compiled all the packs and I could see the greeting in console with the name in the view.
I hope this helps someone having a similar need like mine.
I have a react-create-app project that links a proprietary library in my public index.html that lets me use a variable called "SingularPlayer".
<script src="https://www.something.com/libs/singularplayer.js"></script>
for example I'm supposed to be able to:
const previewObj = SingularPlayer(iframeId);
But I can't because I keep getting this error:
Line 67: 'SingularPlayer' is not defined no-undef
I've tried putting these in my package.json but these didn't work either:
"rules": {
"no-undef": 0
},
"globals": {
"SingularPlayer": false
},
"env": {
"SingularPlayer": true
}
EDIT: my project won't let me run (npm start) until I fix the error unfortunately
If 'SingularPlayer' isn't defined, it's not being included in the JS.
You'll need to import the singularplayer.js file in the JS files you want to access it from.
import SingularPlayer from '{url}/singularplayer.js'
You can't import a module from a URL in ES6, if you have to include the JS from another host, follow this questions answers: https://stackoverflow.com/a/44877953/4953804
You can bypass the error by using below check,
(typeof fn === "function") - return true only if it's function
const previewObj = ((typeof SingularPlayer === "function") && SingularPlayer(iframeId));
To avoid compile error, recommending to download the script and refer from local
I had a similar problem - global constant that was not accessible even through window.ConstantName.
I solved it thanks to this comment that guided me to create a new proxy file. The comment on the first line is the magic that solves the error.
// eslint-disable-next-line no-undef
const ConstantNameProxy = ConstantName;
export default ConstantNameProxy;
Then when I need to use the constant, I import and use the proxy such as:
import ConstantNameProxy from './path/to/proxy/file';
console.log(ConstantNameProxy);
You could of course just add the comment before every line where you'd use the global constant or disable the error more globally on file level for example, but that'd be unnecessary amount of garbage around the real code and could hide other real errors.
I'm trying to include IOUtil.js and ChannelReplacement.js in my add-on, using the Cu.import(...) function. These two both use xpcom_generateQI, which I'm trying to obtain from the XPCOM jsm, but the two scripts cant access it.
const {Cc, Ci, Cu, Cr} = require("chrome");
Cu.import("resource://gre/modules/XPCOMUtils.jsm");
const xpcom_generateQI = XPCOMUtils.generateQI;
Cu.import(self.data.url("IOUtil.js"));
Cu.import(self.data.url("ChannelReplacement.js"));
gives me xpcom_generateQI is not defined.
How do I access a function which is defined in main.js?
Issues
Don't use Cu.import for local SDK modules. Don't write JS code modules for SDK add-ons, the SDK uses CommonJS-style modules together with the require() facility which also comes with proper cleanup for free, which cannot be said for JS code modules and Cu.import (you'd need to properly Cu.unload everything and likely kill some references yourself).
That https-everywhere stuff are neither JS code modules nor SDK modules, but uses the subscript loader. Either convert it to SDK code modules, or use the subscript loader yourself.
It is OK to import built-in JS Code modules in different scopes/modules. There is not actually a need to make available xpcom_generateQI from main (although it can be done; well, get to that).
To be future proof, you should bind your xpcom_generateQI shortcut properly, as in XPCOMUtils.generateQI.bind(XPCOMUtils). Otherwise, if the implementation changes and requires a proper this, your stuff will break.
To export something from any CommonJS module, you need to put it into the exports module. See the first link.
To import something, use require() (first link again).
Be aware of circular references, where Module A imports Module B imports Module A. Right now this kinda works (but only kinda, because some stuff might not be available from Module A when Module B imports it like this, as Module A is not fully loaded). Better avoid it.
Example 1 (circular)
So here is a example with circular require (main imports modules imports main)
main.js
function someFunction() {
console.log("some function called");
}
exports.someFunction = someFunction;
var mod = require("./module");
mod.anotherFunction();
module.js
const { someFunction } = require("./main");
exports.anotherFunction = function() {
someFunction();
}
Now, because of circular references this is a fragile construct. If works right now, but when modules get more complex or the SDK changes, it might break... Better put someFunction into a third module.
Example 2 (avoiding circular imports)
main.js
var mod = require("./module");
mod.anotherFunction();
// Or call someFunction directly
var { someFunction } = require("./utils");
someFunction();
module.js
const { someFunction } = require("./utils");
exports.anotherFunction = function() {
someFunction();
}
utils.js
function someFunction() {
console.log("some function called");
}
exports.someFunction = someFunction;
There are no circles anymore. If you wanted to reuse xpcom_generateQI, you'd put it as a property of exports in utils.js (in this example) and later require it with require("./utils").
https-everywhere
The https-everywhere stuff needs to be either converted or loaded using the subscript loader. I would recommend against the subscript loader, because in all likelihood the verbatim https-everywhere code does not clean up after itself. I'd actually also recommend against just converting it by throwing some stuff in (exports.xzy = ...). This code is not meant to be run in the SDK. Better create your own implementation and just borrow ideas from https-everywhere where needed.
What is the purpose of Node.js module.exports and how do you use it?
I can't seem to find any information on this, but it appears to be a rather important part of Node.js as I often see it in source code.
According to the Node.js documentation:
module
A reference to the current
module. In particular module.exports
is the same as the exports object. See
src/node.js for more information.
But this doesn't really help.
What exactly does module.exports do, and what would a simple example be?
module.exports is the object that's actually returned as the result of a require call.
The exports variable is initially set to that same object (i.e. it's a shorthand "alias"), so in the module code you would usually write something like this:
let myFunc1 = function() { ... };
let myFunc2 = function() { ... };
exports.myFunc1 = myFunc1;
exports.myFunc2 = myFunc2;
to export (or "expose") the internally scoped functions myFunc1 and myFunc2.
And in the calling code you would use:
const m = require('./mymodule');
m.myFunc1();
where the last line shows how the result of require is (usually) just a plain object whose properties may be accessed.
NB: if you overwrite exports then it will no longer refer to module.exports. So if you wish to assign a new object (or a function reference) to exports then you should also assign that new object to module.exports
It's worth noting that the name added to the exports object does not have to be the same as the module's internally scoped name for the value that you're adding, so you could have:
let myVeryLongInternalName = function() { ... };
exports.shortName = myVeryLongInternalName;
// add other objects, functions, as required
followed by:
const m = require('./mymodule');
m.shortName(); // invokes module.myVeryLongInternalName
This has already been answered but I wanted to add some clarification...
You can use both exports and module.exports to import code into your application like this:
var mycode = require('./path/to/mycode');
The basic use case you'll see (e.g. in ExpressJS example code) is that you set properties on the exports object in a .js file that you then import using require()
So in a simple counting example, you could have:
(counter.js):
var count = 1;
exports.increment = function() {
count++;
};
exports.getCount = function() {
return count;
};
... then in your application (web.js, or really any other .js file):
var counting = require('./counter.js');
console.log(counting.getCount()); // 1
counting.increment();
console.log(counting.getCount()); // 2
In simple terms, you can think of required files as functions that return a single object, and you can add properties (strings, numbers, arrays, functions, anything) to the object that's returned by setting them on exports.
Sometimes you'll want the object returned from a require() call to be a function you can call, rather than just an object with properties. In that case you need to also set module.exports, like this:
(sayhello.js):
module.exports = exports = function() {
console.log("Hello World!");
};
(app.js):
var sayHello = require('./sayhello.js');
sayHello(); // "Hello World!"
The difference between exports and module.exports is explained better in this answer here.
Note that the NodeJS module mechanism is based on CommonJS modules which are supported in many other implementations like RequireJS, but also SproutCore, CouchDB, Wakanda, OrientDB, ArangoDB, RingoJS, TeaJS, SilkJS, curl.js, or even Adobe Photoshop (via PSLib).
You can find the full list of known implementations here.
Unless your module use node specific features or module, I highly encourage you then using exports instead of module.exports which is not part of the CommonJS standard, and then mostly not supported by other implementations.
Another NodeJS specific feature is when you assign a reference to a new object to exports instead of just adding properties and methods to it like in the last example provided by Jed Watson in this thread. I would personally discourage this practice as this breaks the circular reference support of the CommonJS modules mechanism. It is then not supported by all implementations and Jed example should then be written this way (or a similar one) to provide a more universal module:
(sayhello.js):
exports.run = function() {
console.log("Hello World!");
}
(app.js):
var sayHello = require('./sayhello');
sayHello.run(); // "Hello World!"
Or using ES6 features
(sayhello.js):
Object.assign(exports, {
// Put all your public API here
sayhello() {
console.log("Hello World!");
}
});
(app.js):
const { sayHello } = require('./sayhello');
sayHello(); // "Hello World!"
PS: It looks like Appcelerator also implements CommonJS modules, but without the circular reference support (see: Appcelerator and CommonJS modules (caching and circular references))
Some few things you must take care if you assign a reference to a new object to exports and /or modules.exports:
1. All properties/methods previously attached to the original exports or module.exports are of course lost because the exported object will now reference another new one
This one is obvious, but if you add an exported method at the beginning of an existing module, be sure the native exported object is not referencing another object at the end
exports.method1 = function () {}; // exposed to the original exported object
exports.method2 = function () {}; // exposed to the original exported object
module.exports.method3 = function () {}; // exposed with method1 & method2
var otherAPI = {
// some properties and/or methods
}
exports = otherAPI; // replace the original API (works also with module.exports)
2. In case one of exports or module.exports reference a new value, they don't reference to the same object any more
exports = function AConstructor() {}; // override the original exported object
exports.method2 = function () {}; // exposed to the new exported object
// method added to the original exports object which not exposed any more
module.exports.method3 = function () {};
3. Tricky consequence. If you change the reference to both exports and module.exports, hard to say which API is exposed (it looks like module.exports wins)
// override the original exported object
module.exports = function AConstructor() {};
// try to override the original exported object
// but module.exports will be exposed instead
exports = function AnotherConstructor() {};
the module.exports property or the exports object allows a module to select what should be shared with the application
I have a video on module_export available here
When dividing your program code over multiple files, module.exports is used to publish variables and functions to the consumer of a module. The require() call in your source file is replaced with corresponding module.exports loaded from the module.
Remember when writing modules
Module loads are cached, only initial call evaluates JavaScript.
It's possible to use local variables and functions inside a module, not everything needs to be exported.
The module.exports object is also available as exports shorthand. But when returning a sole function, always use module.exports.
According to: "Modules Part 2 - Writing modules".
the refer link is like this:
exports = module.exports = function(){
//....
}
the properties of exports or module.exports ,such as functions or variables , will be exposed outside
there is something you must pay more attention : don't override exports .
why ?
because exports just the reference of module.exports , you can add the properties onto the exports ,but if you override the exports , the reference link will be broken .
good example :
exports.name = 'william';
exports.getName = function(){
console.log(this.name);
}
bad example :
exports = 'william';
exports = function(){
//...
}
If you just want to exposed only one function or variable , like this:
// test.js
var name = 'william';
module.exports = function(){
console.log(name);
}
// index.js
var test = require('./test');
test();
this module only exposed one function and the property of name is private for the outside .
There are some default or existing modules in node.js when you download and install node.js like http, sys etc.
Since they are already in node.js, when we want to use these modules we basically do like import modules, but why? because they are already present in the node.js. Importing is like taking them from node.js and putting them into your program. And then using them.
Whereas Exports is exactly the opposite, you are creating the module you want, let's say the module addition.js and putting that module into the node.js, you do it by exporting it.
Before I write anything here, remember, module.exports.additionTwo is same as exports.additionTwo
Huh, so that's the reason, we do like
exports.additionTwo = function(x)
{return x+2;};
Be careful with the path
Lets say you have created an addition.js module,
exports.additionTwo = function(x){
return x + 2;
};
When you run this on your NODE.JS command prompt:
node
var run = require('addition.js');
This will error out saying
Error: Cannot find module addition.js
This is because the node.js process is unable the addition.js since we didn't mention the path. So, we have can set the path by using NODE_PATH
set NODE_PATH = path/to/your/additon.js
Now, this should run successfully without any errors!!
One more thing, you can also run the addition.js file by not setting the NODE_PATH, back to your nodejs command prompt:
node
var run = require('./addition.js');
Since we are providing the path here by saying it's in the current directory ./ this should also run successfully.
A module encapsulates related code into a single unit of code. When creating a module, this can be interpreted as moving all related functions into a file.
Suppose there is a file Hello.js which include two functions
sayHelloInEnglish = function() {
return "Hello";
};
sayHelloInSpanish = function() {
return "Hola";
};
We write a function only when utility of the code is more than one call.
Suppose we want to increase utility of the function to a different file say World.js,in this case exporting a file comes into picture which can be obtained by module.exports.
You can just export both the function by the code given below
var anyVariable={
sayHelloInEnglish = function() {
return "Hello";
};
sayHelloInSpanish = function() {
return "Hola";
};
}
module.export=anyVariable;
Now you just need to require the file name into World.js inorder to use those functions
var world= require("./hello.js");
The intent is:
Modular programming is a software design technique that emphasizes
separating the functionality of a program into independent,
interchangeable modules, such that each contains everything necessary
to execute only one aspect of the desired functionality.
Wikipedia
I imagine it becomes difficult to write a large programs without modular / reusable code. In nodejs we can create modular programs utilising module.exports defining what we expose and compose our program with require.
Try this example:
fileLog.js
function log(string) { require('fs').appendFileSync('log.txt',string); }
module.exports = log;
stdoutLog.js
function log(string) { console.log(string); }
module.exports = log;
program.js
const log = require('./stdoutLog.js')
log('hello world!');
execute
$ node program.js
hello world!
Now try swapping ./stdoutLog.js for ./fileLog.js.
What is the purpose of a module system?
It accomplishes the following things:
Keeps our files from bloating to really big sizes. Having files with e.g. 5000 lines of code in it are usually real hard to deal with during development.
Enforces separation of concerns. Having our code split up into multiple files allows us to have appropriate file names for every file. This way we can easily identify what every module does and where to find it (assuming we made a logical directory structure which is still your responsibility).
Having modules makes it easier to find certain parts of code which makes our code more maintainable.
How does it work?
NodejS uses the CommomJS module system which works in the following manner:
If a file wants to export something it has to declare it using module.export syntax
If a file wants to import something it has to declare it using require('file') syntax
Example:
test1.js
const test2 = require('./test2'); // returns the module.exports object of a file
test2.Func1(); // logs func1
test2.Func2(); // logs func2
test2.js
module.exports.Func1 = () => {console.log('func1')};
exports.Func2 = () => {console.log('func2')};
Other useful things to know:
Modules are getting cached. When you are loading the same module in 2 different files the module only has to be loaded once. The second time a require() is called on the same module the is pulled from the cache.
Modules are loaded in synchronous. This behavior is required, if it was asynchronous we couldn't access the object retrieved from require() right away.
ECMAScript modules - 2022
From Node 14.0 ECMAScript modules are no longer experimental and you can use them instead of classic Node's CommonJS modules.
ECMAScript modules are the official standard format to package JavaScript code for reuse. Modules are defined using a variety of import and export statements.
You can define an ES module that exports a function:
// my-fun.mjs
function myFun(num) {
// do something
}
export { myFun };
Then, you can import the exported function from my-fun.mjs:
// app.mjs
import { myFun } from './my-fun.mjs';
myFun();
.mjs is the default extension for Node.js ECMAScript modules.
But you can configure the default modules extension to lookup when resolving modules using the package.json "type" field, or the --input-type flag in the CLI.
Recent versions of Node.js fully supports both ECMAScript and CommonJS modules. Moreover, it provides interoperability between them.
module.exports
ECMAScript and CommonJS modules have many differences but the most relevant difference - to this question - is that there are no more requires, no more exports, no more module.exports
In most cases, the ES module import can be used to load CommonJS modules.
If needed, a require function can be constructed within an ES module using module.createRequire().
ECMAScript modules releases history
Release
Changes
v15.3.0, v14.17.0, v12.22.0
Stabilized modules implementation
v14.13.0, v12.20.0
Support for detection of CommonJS named exports
v14.0.0, v13.14.0, v12.20.0
Remove experimental modules warning
v13.2.0, v12.17.0
Loading ECMAScript modules no longer requires a command-line flag
v12.0.0
Add support for ES modules using .js file extension via package.json "type" field
v8.5.0
Added initial ES modules implementation
You can find all the changelogs in Node.js repository
let test = function() {
return "Hello world"
};
exports.test = test;
I'm using Requirejs to load the JavaScript in our web app. The issues is that I'm getting an undefined object being passed to a module which, when used in other modules, is instantiated perfectly fine.
OK, here's the setup. My main.js file which requirejs runs on startup:
require.config({
baseUrl: "/scripts",
paths: {
demographics: "Demographics/demographics",
complaints: "Complaints/complaints",
}
});
require(["templates", "demographics", "complaints", "crossDomain"], function (templates, demographics, complaints) {
"use strict";
console.log("0");
console.log(demographics === undefined);
demographics.View.display();
});
A lot of the config has been stripped to just the core files in this problem.
Here's Demographics.js:
define(["ko", "templates", "complaints", "globals", "underscore"], function (ko, templates, complaints, globals) {
// Stuff removed.
return {
View: view
};
});
and Complaints.js
define([
"demographics",
"ko",
"templates",
"complaints",
"visualeffects",
"globals",
"webservice",
"underscore",
"typewatcher",
"imagesloaded"],
function (demographics, ko, templates, complaints, visualeffects, globals, webservice) {
"use strict";
console.log("1");
console.log(demographics === undefined);
return {
View: view
};
});
The problem is this - in Complaints.js the demographics parameter passed via the define config is undefined. The console log out tells me that "demographics === undefined" is true.
However, when the main.js file executes, the demographics parameter passed to it is not undefined, it is, as expected, an instantiated object.
Now I'm stuck since I can't see why in complaints.js that demographics variable is undefined. Can anyone spot what I'm missing please?
You have a circular dependency. The demographics module depends on complaints and complaints depends on demographics. As per the documentation:
If you define a circular dependency (a needs b and b needs a), then in this case when b's module function is called, it will get an undefined value for a.
The solution, if you can't remove the circular dependency, is to asynchronously require one of the two modules within the other on demand (say when the view is instantiated instead of when the module that defines the view is executed). Again, the docs cover this topic fairly well.
Another case is when you accidentally type require instead of define when defining a module, took me some time to notice this.
I had a similar problem. In my case, when defining a module, I'd written:
define('some_dependency', ...
instead of
define(['some_dependency'], ...
Another possible reason is implementing the module's interface (AMD, CommonJS), but forgetting to return anything. I just did that.
I just encountered another reason:
define(function () {
return {};
}()); // <-- notice the '()' typo.
This "typo" causes no JS errors for this one and can make it confusing to figure out especially in a complicated application with many potential circular dependancies.
The reason, of course, is the "typo" is valid JS that simply calls the function you define thereby passing its result to define() rather then the function as intended.
One other possible reason that may look obvious in hindsight is an error in your module's code. In my case, I was trying to get an attribute from an undefined variable. The error is logged in the console, but for some reason I was not seeing it/mistaking it for the undefined module error.