I have question about the fundamentals of JS.
So, in JS we all agree that a function is an object. So lets suppose this:
const mainFunction = () => { //Do stuff };
mainFunction.nested = () => { //Do other stuff };
So I have two functions:
a main function which I can call like this: mainFunction()
and a nested function I can call like this: mainFunction.nested()
I quite understand that I can access to the nested function, because she is inside an object and I'm accessing it with . like JS syntax wants to.
But I'm wondering how can JS understand which code to run when I just call mainFunction() ?
Let me know if I'm clear enough, Its kind of a silly question...
Thanks
and a nested function I can call like this: mainFunction.nested()
It's not a nested function. This is a nested function:
function example() {
function nested() {
}
}
It's just a function assigned to a property.
But I'm wondering how can JS understand which code to run when I just call mainFunction() ?
Because there's no ambiguity, you're referring to mainFunction. If you wanted to use the other function, you'd refer to it itself (the way you showed, mainFunction.nested()). It's exactly how there's no ambiguity between obj and obj.prop; the former refers to the object, the latter refers to the object's property.
Related
I need to write tests for legacy JavaScript script which runs from node.js. It has a global object which is initialised in one function and then accessed from another. I mean script.js looks like:
var object;
function first() {
object = Initialise.object();
...
}
function second() {
object.doSomething();
...
}
I need to write a unit test for the second() function. We are using a jasmine test framework and I am struggling to create a mock (stub) for the object. It is because I don't know how can I access it from script-spec.js. I have tried
var script = require("../src/script.js");
var testObject = script.object;
but testObject is undefined.
My knowledge of JavaScript is limited which doesn't help me as well (I have Java background).
How can I test second() function? I understand that I might need to refactor/redesign script.js which I am OK with.
I would rewrite the code to be more functional:
function first() {
return Initialise.object();
}
function second(object) {
object.doSomething();
...
}
Then later when the code is used:
var object = first()
second(object)
Then mocking becomes pretty trivial, because you can control what gets passed as an argument to second in the test.
Check out Avoid Side Effects in the Clean Code Javascript repo for some more info about this.
It would be easier if it was a global variable, you could just do a global.object = mockObject. What it really is a module level variable, modules are really just functions. The only way to reassign object is from a function defined inside script.js such as
function injectMockObject (mockObject) {
object = mockObject;
}
which you would need to add to script.js
I am newbie in js and I want to override/overwrite some fullcalendar functions from another script (my-fullcalendar.js) to make some changes in it for myself. for example function names are :
formatRange and oldMomentFormat.
formatRange is accessible from this.$.fullCalendar.formatRange but oldMomentFormat is not accessible via this kind of chain. But even when I do something like this in my-fullcalendar.js:
;(function () {
function MyformatRange(date1, date2, formatStr, separator, isRTL) {
console.log( "MyformatRange");
//other parts is exactly the same
// ...
}
this.$.fullCalendar.formatRange=MyformatRange;
console.log(this);
})();
nothing happens because no log is generated and even line by line tracing does not pass from here. but when observing "this" in console log MyformatRange replaced by original formatRange.
another problem is how can I override/overwrite oldMomentFormat function which is not in window hierarchy to access (or I can not find it) ??
OK, let's simplify the problem. In essence, you have this situation:
var makeFunObject = function () {
var doSomething = function (msg) {
console.log(msg);
};
var haveFun = function () {
doSomething( "fun!");
};
return {
doSomething : doSomething,
haveFun : haveFun
};
};
In other words you have a function that is creating a closure. Inside that closure are two "private" functions, one of which calls the other. But both functions seem to be "exposed" in the returned object.
You write some code:
var myFunObject = makeFunObject();
myFunObject.haveFun(); // fun!
Yep, seems to work just fine. Now let's replace the doSomething function in that returned object and call haveFun again:
myFunObject.doSomething = function (msg) {
console.log("My new function: " + msg);
};
myFunObject.haveFun(); // fun! <== wait what?
But wait! The new replacement function is not being called! That's right: the haveFun function was expressly written to call the internal function. It in fact knows nothing about the exposed function in the object at all.
That's because you cannot replace the internal, private function in this way (you cannot replace it at all, in fact, not without altering the original code).
Now draw back to the FullCalendar code: you are replacing the external function in the object, but the internal function is the one that is called by every other function inside FullCalendar.
I realize this is an old question, but I was butting my head against this same problem when I wanted to override the getEventTimeText function.
I was able to accomplish this, from inside my own JS file, like so:
$.fullCalendar.Grid.mixin({
getEventTimeText: function (range, formatStr, displayEnd) {
//custom version of this function
}
});
So, in terms of the function you were trying to override, you should be able to do it with:
$.fullCalendar.View.mixin({
formatRange: function (range, formatStr, separator) {
//custom formatRange function
}
});
Note: Make sure this runs before where you actually create the calendar. Also note that you need to make sure to override the function in the right place. For example, getEventTimeText was in $.fullCalendar.Grid, while formatRange is in $.fullCalendar.View.
Hopefully this helps other people who end up on this question.
I'm trying to create a javascript object that can call other methods within itself. However, I'm running into a weird problem that I just can't seem to figure out.
I have the following code
myObjectDef = function() {
this.init = function() {
//do some stuff
this.doSecondInit();
}
this.doSecondInit = function() {
//do some more stuff
}
}
myObject = new myObjectDef();
myObject.init();
I am getting an error that states "Message: Object doesn't support this property or method". And it ends at this.doSecondInit();. I can't quite figure out why it's doing this. My code runs great up to the call to the second method. How do I make this work?
There's an extra set of parenthesis here:
this.doSecondInit() = function() {
You can't assign to the result of a function call, let alone to the result of a function that doesn't even exist.
After your edit, your thing seems to work fine:
http://jsfiddle.net/nabVN/
You sure you didn't have the same typo in your actual code? Better start getting used to not putting that () after every function call, which is probably a bad habit carried over from languages where functions aren't values.
I'm working with a tabbed interface and have the following jQuery function set up to handle the click events of my tabs.
$(document).ready(function () {
$('a#foo').click(function() {
//content, various calls
return false;
});
});
The above is an example of one of my tabs, the others are also within the same document ready block. What I needed to do was make it so the currently selected tab could not be re-clicked and that in some other cases I could manually disable tabs if needed. I achieved this via the following:
$('a#play').unbind('click');
This works fine, and it certainly disables the tabs but the problem then becomes rebinding the click action that was once there. I achieved this via the bind function:
$('a#foo').bind('click', function() {
//the same content and calls as before
return false;
});
This also works fine, but it has become exceedingly cluttered as I have added tabs to my UI. The immediate solution appears to be to create the function as a variable and then pass it into the initial click creation and into the binding event. Like so:
var Foo = new function() {
//same content and calls as before
return false;
}
$('a#foo').click(Foo());
$('a#foo').bind(Foo());
This, for one reason or another, seems to be causing browser crashing issues. Is it not possible to pass a function as a var in this case or am I just doing it wrong? Alternatively, is there a better way to achieve the results I'm looking for? Thanks.
$('a#foo').click(Foo());
$('a#foo').bind(Foo());
The Foo gives you the function, but adding ()'s after it means you are calling the function instead of passing the function itself. Since you're calling the function, false ends up getting passed to click and bind, obviously not doing anything. Some of your other problems might result from the fact that you simulating switching to that tab twice (calling the event handler twice).
var Foo = function() {
//same content and calls as before
return false;
}
$('a#foo').click(Foo);
$('a#foo').bind(Foo);
^^ should do what you want.
Alternatively, is there a better way to achieve the results I'm looking for?
Currently all we really know about your design is that you are calling using a click event handler to switch tabs. That part is awesome, but we'll need more info to give you the deeper answer you really want. If you post the code inside Foo we should be able to help a bit more. :D
EDIT: credit to SLaks♦ for noticing the new in the function declaration that I missed. I'll add a little more detail to his explanation:
When you write var foo = new
function(...) { ... }, you're making a
function literal, then calling it as a
constructor.
It's equivalent to
var SomeClass = function(...) { ... };
var foo = new SomeClass;
without the SomeClass dummy variable.
The function() {} is an anonymous function as you would expect. new in javascript is a little more confusing. When you call a function and precede it with new, you are using that function to instantiate an instance of a class defined in the function. In JS, unlike most other languages, the entire definition of a class is in one constructor function, from which you set all the instance variables, like so:
Foo = function() {
this.a = "lala";
this.b = 5;
}
To make instance methods of the 'class', you use the prototype attribute. However I just realized I've gotten super off-topic. Read more on that here and here. :D
You need to remove new from the function definition and stop calling the function when using it.
When you write var foo = new function(...) { ... }, you're making a function literal, then calling it as a constructor.
It's equivalent to
var SomeClass = function(...) { ... };
var foo = new SomeClass;
without the SomeClass dummy variable.
You need to simply assign the function literal to the variable.
When you write .click(foo()), you're calling foo, and passing the result to click.
Unless foo returns a function, that's not what you want to do.
You need to pass foo itself by removing the parentheses.
So firstly, click accepts a function, but you call without the () as click runs the function when ready. By adding the () you call it straight up.
Secondly, bind takes a string (what event you are binding to) AND a function (as above)...
Use the following:
function Foo() {
//same content and calls as before
return false;
}
$('a#foo').click(Foo);
$('a#foo').bind('click', Foo);
Hope that helps :)
Try:
var foo = function() // not "new function", as this creates an object!
{
return false;
}
$("a#foo").click(foo); // not "Foo()", as you can't call an object!
As for a better way to achieve the result you're looking for, you could have a class on every tab, such as .tab. That way, you can just do:
$("a.tab").click(function() { return false; });
... without having to fluff around with a lot of ids.
Take a different approach, and do not unbind().
I assume the tabs are all in a common container. If so, just use the delegate()(docs) method to place a handler on the container.
Here's a generic code example:
$('#container').delegate('.tab:not(.selected)', 'click', function() {
$(this).addClass('selected')
.siblings('selected').removeClass('selected');
// rest of the tab code
});
This will only trigger clicks on .tab elements that do not have the .selected class. You'll need to modify for your specific code.
Adding the parenthesis calls the function, but if you wanted to make it cool and stuff, you could make it so that Foo returned the function to be bound.
function Foo(){
return function(){
//your onclick event handler here.
};
}
$('a#bar').bind(Foo())
This makes use of one on javascript's function programming aspects, closures, which is cool, but not as efficient as some of the other answers. You should do some research about closures, as they can be used to make some cool stuff.
http://www.javascriptkit.com/javatutors/closures.shtml
Consider this:
window.onload = function () {
myObj.init();
};
var myObj = {
init: function () {
console.log("init: Let's call the callMe method...");
//callMe is not defined...
callMe();
//Works fine!
this.callMe();
},
callMe: function () {
console.log('callMe');
}
};
Since the init function gets called this way (myObj.init), I expect this to be myObj in the init function. And if that is the case, why the callMe function fails? How am I supposed to call the callMe function without using the this context in the init body? (Actually, it's too annoying to call the object methods using this over and over again through the functions. So what's the point of having a single object?)
I would like to know how can I fix this so that the callMe method gets called using the first invocation in the code above?
this is never implicit in JavaScript as it is in some other languages. Although there are ways to do it, like this using the with statement:
init: function () {
console.log("init: Let's call the callMe method...");
// Make `this` implicit (SEE BELOW, not recommended)
with (this) {
// Works
callMe();
}
},
...it's generally a bad idea. Douglas Crockford probably wrote one of the better descriptions of why it's a bad idea, which you can find here. Basically, using with makes it nearly impossible to tell what the code's going to do (and slows the code down, if you do anything else in that with statement that doesn't come from the this object).
This isn't the only way that JavaScript's this is not the same as it is in some other languages. In JavaScript, this is defined entirely by how a function is called, not where the function is defined. When you do this.callMe() (or the equivalent this["callMe"](), or of course foo.callMe(), etc.), two things happen: The function reference is retrieved from the property, and the function is called in a special way to set this to be the object that property came from. If you don't call a function through a property that way, the call doesn't set any particular this value and you get the default (which is the global object; window on browsers). It's the act of making the call that sets what this is. I've explored this in depth in a couple of articles on my blog, here and here.
This (no pun) can be made even clearer if you look at JavaScript's call and apply functions, which are available on all function objects. If I do this:
callMe.call({});
...it'll call the callMe function with a blank object ({}) as this.
So basically, just get used to typing this. :-) It's still useful to have properties and methods associated with an object, even without the syntactic convenience (and confusion!) of an implicit this.
You can also use the module pattern, which captures all private variables inside a closure, so you are free to use them without this, as they're in the same scope. You then pick and choose which methods/variables you want to make public:
var myObj = (function () {
var init = function () {
callMe(); // This now works
};
var callMe = function () {
...
};
// Now choose your public methods (they can even be renamed):
return {
init: init, // Same name
callMyName: callMe // Different name
};
}) ();
Now:
myObj.init(); // Works
myObj.callMyName(); // Works
myObj.callMe(); // Error