Hoe to removeAll on Ext.query('.classname')-EXTJS - javascript

I want to remove all the elements from the array using:
Ext.query('.classname') // gets me array of elements
the Ext.query('.classname').removeall() is not a function it supports, how to achieve this?
thanks

guess it should be something alike this:
Ext.ComponentQuery.query('panel[cls=classname]').each(function(cmp) {
cmp.destroy();
});
Ext.query is actually Ext.dom.query, therefore it will not return the component
... alike Ext.ComponentQuery does.
explanation: the question does not indicate against what the code shall run; therefore I'd assume it to be ExtJS components - and not the HTML content within a ExtJS panel (which would have no representation within the framework). the point is, that when removing DOM nodes, without destroying the associated components, this will leave orphaned references behind. therefore destroying them properly is suggested, so that those won't needlessly occupy RAM anymore, eg. in case removing DOM nodes and then adding new ExtJS components, over and over again - this would lead to sluggish behavior.

Use Ext.select, which wraps the return elements so that you can call Ext.dom.Element methods as though they were a group:
Ext.select('.even').remove();
Fiddle.

Related

Why can't I use element.remove() on an element created with createElement() if I do something in between in the DOM? [duplicate]

When creating elements via code, I have encountered an issue where modifying the innerHTML property of an element breaks any references to other elements that are injected into the modified element prior to the modification.
I have a test case here: http://jsfiddle.net/mJ7bF/1/ in which I would expect the link1 reference to behave exactly as link2 does.
This second test case is the same code, but instead of using the innerHTML property to add the <br> tag, I create the line break with an object. This test behaves as expected: http://jsfiddle.net/K4c9a/2/
My question is not regarding this specific code, but the concept behind it: what happens to the link1 reference in that first test case? If it doesn't refer to the HTML/DOM node that is visible when the cont node is injected into the document, what DOES it refer to, and how does this fit in with the ByReference nature of javascript objects?
few things here.
first of all. strings are immutable hence doing element.innerHTML += "<br>" acts as a complete read and rewrite.
second, why that is bad:
aside from performance, mootools (and jquery, for that matter) assigns special unique sequential uids to all referenced elements. you reference an element by calling a selector on it or creating it etc.
then consider that SPECIFIC element with uid say 5. the uid is linked to a special object called Storage that sits behind a closure (so its private). it has the uid as key.
element storage then works on a element.store("key", value") and element.retrieve("key")
and finally, why that matters: events are stored into element storage (eg, Storage[5]['events']) - do element.retrieve("events") and explore that in fireBug if you're curious.
when you rewrite the innerHTML the old element stops existing. it is then recreated but the event handler AND the reference to the function that you bound earlier will no longer work as it will now get a NEW uid.
that's about it, hope it makes sense.
to add a br just do new Element("br").inject(element) instead or create a templated fragment for the lot (fastest) and add in 1 big chunk, adding events after.
HTML is represented internally by a DOM object structure. Kind of like a Tree class in traditional programming languages. If you set innerHTML, the previous nodes in the parent node are destroyed, the new innerHTML is parsed, and new objects are created. The references are no longer the same.
div
|-- a..
The div object above contains an Anchor object as a child. Now set a variable link1 as a reference to the address of this Anchor object. Then the .innerHTML is += "<br />", which means all of the nodes of div are removed, and recreated dynamically based on the parsed result of the new value of .innerHTML. Now the old reference is no longer valid because the Anchor tag was re-created as a new object instance.

LitElement rendering template without values

I've got a simple example demonstrating what I'm seeing: https://stackblitz.com/edit/lit-element-example-3pdnwk?file=index.js.
Basically when the first child element renders, the text property is set correctly. However on the second render, the text property is undefined first and then updated to be the correct value.
This breaks being able to depend on _firstRendered() to have the correct values assigned to the properties.
Am I doing something really off here?
Update: Here is a better example using a similar method provided in the lit-html documentation: https://stackblitz.com/edit/lit-element-issue?file=index.js
Am I doing something really off here?
maybe? :) Hopefully you can help me to understand why you chose your implementation and I can look into it further.
The part I'm stuck on is why you create and replace the child element inside the parent element like this:
this._child = html`<child-element text="${text1}"></child-element>`;
From what I understand so far, that code uses a lit-html helper function to create a lit-html TemplateResult. You then replace it with another one in the timeout callback:
this._child = html`<child-element text="${text2}"></child-element>`;
So instead of just re-drawing only the stuff that changed (a string), your code creates a new TemplateResult and redraws that. This also calls the child element constructor again and causes the text node to go undefined for a moment as you noted. Here is console output added to your impl to show when the constructor and render functions get called for parent and child:
https://stackblitz.com/edit/lit-element-example-ftlbz7?file=index.js
From inspecting the DOM tree, your example produces this DOM structure:
<parent-element>
#shadow-root
<div>
<child-element>
#shadow-root
<div>
Suppose I need to produce that same DOM structure and have the same text node update in response to the timeout callback, I would probably handle it in the parent render function:
_render({ parenttext }) {
return html`<div><child-element text="${parenttext}"></child-element></div>`;
}
which ensures that the child constructor is only called once, and only the data that actually changes gets redrawn.
If I understand correctly, that's how lit-element is designed to be used (expressing an app or element's render as a function of its data). That way we can rely on the browser to just redraw any changes to the data. This should theoretically be faster (altho I haven't tested it).
Code sample here:
https://stackblitz.com/edit/lit-element-example-exrlxw?file=parent-element.js
Lmk what I'm missing from your tests and I can look into it more.
Edited to add:
I noticed that overriding _shouldRender to prevent the element from rendering with undefined props prevented the element from rendering with undefined props, but it didn't fix _firstRendered, which was still firing when props were undefined.
_firstRendered, unlike _didRender, is not specifically called as a result of _render; it is called from the ready() callback, which is inherited from Polymer's properties-changed mixin. In Polymer, ready() fires when the element is added to the DOM. I thought properties should be initialized by then, so this is still pretty weird.
Anyways, this means it is possible to create an element that never renders (i.e _shouldRender always returns false), but _firstRendered still fires. Lol. Sample: https://stackblitz.com/edit/lit-element-first-rendered?file=index.js.
I'm not honestly sure what to make of any of this. I'll raise an issue on the lit-element github when I've read a few more things from the documentation (or you can, if you get there first).
This is no longer an issue as of 0.6.0-dev.5

Understanding how document.getElementByClassName works - Javascript

I've read the this and this, but I'm trying to figure out how document.getELementbyClassName works so that I can re-implement it as an exercise. Obviously, I don't wan to just imitate the source code; my version will probably be much slower and more crude. I have a few questions, but any insight provided beyond my questions is appreciated.
When called on the document object, the complete document is searched, including the root node.
How does it search the entire document? Does this use some sort of regular expression?
document.getElementsByClassName('red test'); This is supposed to return all elements that have both red and test classes. But doesn't each element only have one class? Or is this to mean something like red orange test?
Is it correct that the elements are returned in an array? Something like [element1, element2, ...]. I'm not sure what is meant by "array-like."
Note: I'm new to JavaScript and have even less exerpeince with HTML, CSS, and jQuery.
To answer your questions:
Probably recursively. Otherwise there are plenty of different ways to traverse n-ary trees which is what the DOM is. Depth-first, breadth-first, however-you-want-first-really, they can all be implemented recursively, or alternatively use some data structure like a stack or a queue. How it does it really isn't important, what matters is how YOU think it should be done.
A simple algorithm for recursively identifying elements with those classes would be something like this
getByClassName(class, root) {
ret = []
if (root has class) {
ret.push(root);
}
for (each child of root) {
append getByClassName(class, child) to ret;
}
return ret;
}
Elements can have multiple classes. <a class="foo bar baz"> has classes foo,bar, and baz
All the Javascript methods like this operate on the DOM, not the HTML source code. When the HTML is loaded, the browser parses the HTML into the DOM, which is a data structure containing objects that represent the document contents. So it doesn't need to do pattern matching, it simply searches through the data structure for elements whose class list contains the specified class.
ELements can have more than one class, and this is very common. For instance, you might have a button class for all buttons, and an active class for active elements. The active button might then be <span class="button active">contents</span>.
The elements are returned in an HTMLCollection. This is an array-like object, so you can use elements.length to get the number of elements, and elements[i] to access a specific element in the collection. It's also a "live" collection, which means that if you change the DOM, the collection will automatically be updated to reflect the changes (e.g. if you remove the class from the object, it will no longer be in the collection).

Why no error when accessing a DOM element that doesn't exist?

I have some divs with partial views in them. Why would a reference to a div that doesn't exist not show some kind of error? For example, I only have one taskN div right now:
<div id="task1">
#Html.Partial("~/Views/PartialViews/TaskDosCommand.cshtml")
</div>
This is my jQuery to show the div:
$('#task' + task.PrestoTaskType).show();
When task.PrestoTaskType is 1, the task1 div correctly displays. However, when task.PrestoTaskType is anything but 1, like 2, then nothing displays (which is good), but there is no error; no error shows on the web page, and nothing displays in the Chrome developer tools console:
Shouldn't some kind of error display when accessing a DOM element that doesn't exist?
No, because what jQuery does is .show() all elements that the jQuery object wraps. If that's no elements at all, then so be it.
That's precisely a monad-like aspect of jQuery that makes it so useful: imagine the code you 'd have to write if things didn't work that way:
var $whatever = $(...);
if ($whatever.length) $.doSomething();
This is simply worse: you need to introduce a variable (in order to avoid waste) and a conditional... for what gain exactly?
If you want to see what jQuery matched you can do that very easily with .length as above, perhaps also using .filter in the process.
One of the nice things about jQuery is that all jQuery elements return a collection, whether that is 0, 1, or many elements. This is convenient because you don't need to check the size of the collection or wrap it in an array yourself when you want to call methods on it (each for example doesn't break for 0-1 elements).
While what you're talking about is frustrating in this particular case, it is better for jQuery to work this way so you don't have to do those sorts of checks everywhere else.
If you want to branch code based on the existence of such an element, you can do this:
var task = $('#task' + task.PrestoTaskType);
if (task[0]) {
task.show();
} else {
// task not found
// take appropriate steps
}
The [0] accessor will return the first DOM element in the jQuery object or undefined if the jQuery object is empty. Since your jQuery object was constructed with an ID selector, it either contains exactly one DOM element or it's empty.

Wrapping a DOM element inside a JavaScript object

I've noticed a common pattern in the JavaScript I've been writing and was wondering if there is already a pattern out there that defines something similar as best practice? Essentially, it's how to get a DOM element and wrap it inside / associate it with a JavaScript object. Take this example, where you need a filter in your web app. Your page looks like this:
<html>
<head></head>
<body>
<div id="filter"></div>
</body>
</html>
You'd then wrap the element like so:
var myFilter = new Filter({
elem: document.getElementById('filter'),
prop: 'stacks-test',
someCallback: function() {
// specify a callback
}
});
And the JavaScript (where spec is an object passed to the constructor):
var Filter = function(spec) {
this.elem = spec.elem;
this.prop = spec.prop;
this.callback = spec.someCallback;
this.bindEvents();
};
Filter.prototype.bindEvents = function() {
var self = this;
$(this.elem).click(function(e) {
self.updateFeed();
};
};
Filter.prototype.updateFeed = function() {
this.prop; // 'stacks-test'
this.callback();
// ...
// code to interact with other JavaScript objects
// who in turn, update the document
};
What is this kind of approach called, and what are the best practices and caveats?
You might be interested in Dojo's widget library, Dijit - if I'm understanding your question correctly, it essentially does what you're asking, and a whole lot more.
In Dijit, a widget essentially encapsulates a DOM node, its contents, any JavaScript that defines its behavior, and (imported separately) CSS to style its appearance.
Widgets have their own lifecycle, registry, and events (including many which simply map to DOM events on a node within the widget, e.g. myWidget.onClick could effectively call myWidget.domNode.onclick).
Widgets can (but don't have to) have their initial contents defined in a separate HTML template file, through which it's also possible to bind events on nodes within the template to widget methods, as well as set properties on the widget that reference particular nodes in the template.
I'm barely scratching the surface here. If you want to read more on this, you can start with these reference pages:
http://dojotoolkit.org/reference-guide/dijit/info.html
http://dojotoolkit.org/reference-guide/dijit/_Widget.html (the base that all widgets extend)
http://dojotoolkit.org/reference-guide/dijit/_Templated.html (RE the HTML templating)
http://dojotoolkit.org/reference-guide/quickstart/writingWidgets.html (useful information when starting to write your own widgets)
http://dojotoolkit.org/reference-guide/dijit/ (for a bunch more info)
All said, I don't know what you're ultimately aiming for, and maybe this is all a bit much for your purposes (considering I'm throwing an entire other library at you), but figured it might pique your interest at least.
Continuing from my comment on the question, jQuery is a potential tool for the job, as it already provides some of the foundations for what you're after. However, having said that, it does introduce complexities of its own, and further, not all "jQuery ways" are equal. I'll suggest one way of using jQuery as your "object model", but it may or may not suit your needs.
First things first. The philosophy of jQuery is that you start everything by selecting the element first, using $(), or equivalently jQuery(). All operations conceptually begin with this. This is a slightly different way of thinking compared to creating an object that wraps an element and keeping a reference to that wrapper, but essentially this is what jQuery does for you. A call to $('#some-id') grabs the element with id of "some-id" and wraps it in a jQuery object.
One way: Write "Filter" plugins.
Replace your constructor with a initFilter() jQuery method. You can do this by modifying the jQuery prototype and using the jQuery object as your wrapper. jQuery's prototype is referenced by jQuery.fn, so:
jQuery.fn.initFilter = function (prop, callback) {
// Save prop and callback
this.data('filter-prop', prop);
this.data('filter-callback', callback);
// Bind events (makes sense to do this during init)
this.click(function () {
$(this).updateFeed();
});
};
Then do a similar thing for updateFeed():
jQuery.fn.updateFeed = function () {
this.data('filter-prop');
this.data('filter-callback')();
});
And use it like this:
$('#filter').initFilter(prop, callback);
Note that updateFeed can simply be in-lined into the click handler to prevent unnecessary pollution of the jQuery namespace. However, one advantage of using jQuery like this is that you do not need to keep a reference to the object if you need to invoke some function on it later, since jQuery ties all references to actual elements. If you'd like to call updateFeed programmatically, then:
$('#filter').updateFeed();
will then be invoked on the correct object.
Some things to consider
There are certainly downsides to this method. One is that all properties, which we've saved against the element using .data(), are shared between all jQuery functions that act on that element. I've attempted to alleviate this by prefixing the property names with "filter-", but depending on the complexity of your object(s), this may not be suitable.
Further, this exact method may not be so suitable for objects that require a lot of manipulation (i.e. objects with many functions) since all of these functions become common to all jQuery objects. There are ways to encapsulate all this which I won't go into here, but jQuery-ui does this with their widgets, and I'm experimenting with yet another alternative in a library I'm creating.
However, pulling back a bit, the only reason I suggested using jQuery in the first place is that your Filter object appears to be heavily tied to the DOM. It binds events to the DOM, it modifies the DOM based on user interaction, basically it appears to live in the DOM, so use something DOM-based, i.e. jQuery.

Categories