We Keep Coding

How can I get automatically numbered headings in confluence?

Currently it is not possible in confluence to have the headings of the document structure numbered automatically. I am aware that there are (paid) 3rd party plugins available.
How can I achieve continuous numbered headings?

TL;DR
Create a bookmark for the following javascript and click it in edit mode in confluence to renumber your headings.
javascript:(function()%7Bfunction%20addIndex()%20%7Bvar%20indices%20%3D%20%5B%5D%3BjQuery(%22.ak-editor-content-area%20.ProseMirror%22).find(%22h1%2Ch2%2Ch3%2Ch4%2Ch5%2Ch6%22).each(function(i%2Ce)%20%7Bvar%20hIndex%20%3D%20parseInt(this.nodeName.substring(1))%20-%201%3Bif%20(indices.length%20-%201%20%3E%20hIndex)%20%7Bindices%3D%20indices.slice(0%2C%20hIndex%20%2B%201%20)%3B%7Dif%20(indices%5BhIndex%5D%20%3D%3D%20undefined)%20%7Bindices%5BhIndex%5D%20%3D%200%3B%7Dindices%5BhIndex%5D%2B%2B%3BjQuery(this).html(indices.join(%22.%22)%2B%22.%20%22%20%2B%20removeNo(jQuery(this).html()))%3B%7D)%3B%7Dfunction%20removeNo(str)%20%7Blet%20newstr%20%3D%20str.trim()%3Bnewstr%20%3D%20newstr.replace(%2F%5B%5Cu00A0%5Cu1680%E2%80%8B%5Cu180e%5Cu2000-%5Cu2009%5Cu200a%E2%80%8B%5Cu200b%E2%80%8B%5Cu202f%5Cu205f%E2%80%8B%5Cu3000%5D%2Fg%2C'%20')%3Bif(IsNumeric(newstr.substring(0%2Cnewstr.indexOf('%20'))))%7Breturn%20newstr.substring(newstr.indexOf('%20')%2B1).trim()%3B%7Dreturn%20newstr%3B%7Dfunction%20IsNumeric(num)%20%7Bnum%20%3D%20num.split('.').join(%22%22)%3Breturn%20(num%20%3E%3D0%20%7C%7C%20num%20%3C%200)%3B%7DaddIndex()%7D)()
Result
How to use
After changes to the structure have been made, clicking the bookmarked javascript renumbers the document.
Limitations are that it only provides n.n.n. numbering, but for many cases that's sufficient. The script can also be customized as required.
Background, explanation and disclosure
I tried this TaperMonkey script that apparently resulted from this post, but it didn't work as is. So I took its source code and stripped it of the integration code, old version compatibility and made some minor adjustments to get this:
function addIndex() {
var indices = [];
jQuery(".ak-editor-content-area .ProseMirror").find("h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6").each(function(i,e) {
var hIndex = parseInt(this.nodeName.substring(1)) - 1;
if (indices.length - 1 > hIndex) {
indices= indices.slice(0, hIndex + 1 );
}
if (indices[hIndex] == undefined) {
indices[hIndex] = 0;
}
indices[hIndex]++;
jQuery(this).html(indices.join(".")+". " + removeNo(jQuery(this).html()));
});
}
function removeNo(str) {
let newstr = str.trim();
newstr = newstr.replace(/[\u00A0\u1680​\u180e\u2000-\u2009\u200a​\u200b​\u202f\u205f​\u3000]/g,' ');
if(IsNumeric(newstr.substring(0,newstr.indexOf(' ')))){
return newstr.substring(newstr.indexOf(' ')+1).trim();
}
return newstr;
}
function IsNumeric(num) {
num = num.split('.').join("");
return (num >=0 || num < 0);
}
addIndex();
(I'm not a JavaScript developer, I'm sure it can be written nicer/better)
Then I used bookmarklet to convert it into the javascript bookmark at the top, which can be clicked to trigger the functionality.

Twitter text js , not calculating the length from text which contains urls with #!

I am using Twitter text js to calculate length of text with urls containing #!.
eg:
"Some text http://domain.com#!/path/p/56319216 #tag1 #tag2".
In firefox debugger error generates on this line in twitter text js
twttr.txt.regexen.extractUrl.exec(text);
No specific error is logged instead my page freezes and alert me to stop the script, please help.

A pull request as been merged on the github repository on 2012-05-31 introducing the twttr.txt.getTweetLength(text, options) function that is taking consideration to t.co URLs and defined as follow :
twttr.txt.getTweetLength = function(text, options) {
if (!options) {
options = {
short_url_length: 22,
short_url_length_https: 23
};
}
var textLength = text.length;
var urlsWithIndices = twttr.txt.extractUrlsWithIndices(text);
for (var i = 0; i < urlsWithIndices.length; i++) {
// Subtract the length of the original URL
textLength += urlsWithIndices[i].indices[0] -urlsWithIndices[i].indices[1];
// Add 21 characters for URL starting with https://
// Otherwise add 20 characters
if (urlsWithIndices[i].url.toLowerCase().match(/^https:\/\//)) {
textLength += options.short_url_length_https;
} else {
textLength += options.short_url_length;
}
}
return textLength;
};
So your function will just become :
function charactersleft(tweet) {
return 140 - twttr.txt.getTweetLength(tweet);
}
Plus, regarding the best practices with t.co we should retrieve the short_url_length and short_url_length_https values from twitter and pass them as the options parameter in the twttr.txt.getTweetLength function :
Request GET help/configuration once daily in your application and cache the "short_url_length" (t.co's current maximum length value) for 24 hours. Cache "short_url_length_https" (the maximum length for HTTPS-based t.co links) and use it as the length of HTTPS-based URLs.
Especially knowing that some changes in the t.co urls length will be effective on 2013-02-20 as described in the twitter developer blog

Is it possible to highlight all words on a web page without destroying the layout?

I've written an extension for firefox which highlights all words on a web page (excluding some words in a given list).
What i've noticed is that (besides that my extension is terribly slow) some web pages get "destroyed", more specifically the layout gets destroyed (particularly websites with overlay advertising or fancy drop-down menus).
My code wraps <span> tags around every "word", or to be precise around every token, because i'm splitting the text nodes with a whitespace as seperator.
So is it possible anyway to realize this task without destroying the page's layout?
I'm iterating over all text nodes, split them, and iterate over every token.
When the token is in my list, i don't highlight it, else i wrap the <span> tag around it.
So any suggestions how this could be done faster would be helpful, too.
Here are some screenshots for a correctly highlighted and a not correctly highlighted web page:
right:
en.wikipedia.org before highlighting,
en.wikipedia.org after highlighting.
wrong:
developer.mozilla.org before highlighting,
developer.mozilla.org after highlighting.

OK. Study this code. It searches for all instances of "is" and highlights if it is not surrounded by word characters. Put this in your scratchpad while this tab is focused. You will see that words like "List" and other words containing "Is" are no highlighted, but all the "Is"'s are.
I basically made an addon here for you. You can now release this as an addon called RegEx FindBar and take all the credit....
var doc = gBrowser.contentDocument;
var ctrler = _getSelectionController(doc.defaultView);
var searchRange = doc.createRange();
searchRange.selectNodeContents(doc.documentElement);
let startPt = searchRange.cloneRange();
startPt.collapse(true);
let endPt = searchRange.cloneRange();
endPt.collapse(false);
let retRane = null;
let finder = Cc["#mozilla.org/embedcomp/rangefind;1"].createInstance().QueryInterface(Ci.nsIFind);
finder.caseSensitive = false;
var i = 0;
while (retRange = finder.Find('is', searchRange, startPt, endPt)) {
i++;
var stCont = retRange.startContainer;
var endCont = retRange.endContainer;
console.log('retRange(' + i + ') = ', retRange);
console.log('var txt = retRange.commonAncestorContainer.data',retRange.commonAncestorContainer.data);
//now test if one posiion before startOffset and one position after endOffset are WORD characters
var isOneCharBeforeStCharWordChar; //var that holds if the character before the start character is a word character
if (retRange.startOffset == 0) {
//no characters befor this characte so obviously not a word char
isOneCharBeforeStCharWordChar = false;
} else {
var oneCharBeforeStChar = stCont.data.substr(retRange.startOffset-1,1);
if (/\w/.test(oneCharBeforeStChar)) {
isOneCharBeforeStCharWordChar = true;
} else {
isOneCharBeforeStCharWordChar = false;
}
console.log('oneCharBeforeStChar',oneCharBeforeStChar);
}
var isOneCharAfterEndCharWordChar; //var that holds if the character before the start character is a word character
if (retRange.endOffset == endCont.length - 1) {
//no characters after this characte so obviously not a word char
isOneCharAfterEndCharWordChar = false;
} else {
var oneCharAferEndChar = endCont.data.substr(retRange.endOffset,1); //no need to subtract 1 from endOffset, it takes into account substr 2nd arg is length and is treated like length I THINK
if (/\w/.test(oneCharAferEndChar)) {
isOneCharAfterEndCharWordChar = true;
} else {
isOneCharAfterEndCharWordChar = false;
}
console.log('oneCharAferEndChar',oneCharAferEndChar);
}
if (isOneCharBeforeStCharWordChar == false && isOneCharAfterEndCharWordChar == false) {
//highlight it as surrounding characters are no word characters
_highlightRange(retRange, ctrler);
console.log('highlighted it as it was not surrounded by word charactes');
} else {
console.log('NOT hilte it as it was not surrounded by word charactes');
}
//break;
startPt = retRange.cloneRange();
startPt.collapse(false);
}
/*********************/
function _getEditableNode(aNode) {
while (aNode) {
if (aNode instanceof Ci.nsIDOMNSEditableElement)
return aNode.editor ? aNode : null;
aNode = aNode.parentNode;
}
return null;
}
function _highlightRange(aRange, aController) {
let node = aRange.startContainer;
let controller = aController;
let editableNode = this._getEditableNode(node);
if (editableNode)
controller = editableNode.editor.selectionController;
let findSelection = controller.getSelection(Ci.nsISelectionController.SELECTION_FIND);
findSelection.addRange(aRange);
if (editableNode) {
// Highlighting added, so cache this editor, and hook up listeners
// to ensure we deal properly with edits within the highlighting
if (!this._editors) {
this._editors = [];
this._stateListeners = [];
}
let existingIndex = this._editors.indexOf(editableNode.editor);
if (existingIndex == -1) {
let x = this._editors.length;
this._editors[x] = editableNode.editor;
this._stateListeners[x] = this._createStateListener();
this._editors[x].addEditActionListener(this);
this._editors[x].addDocumentStateListener(this._stateListeners[x]);
}
}
}
function _getSelectionController(aWindow) {
// display: none iframes don't have a selection controller, see bug 493658
if (!aWindow.innerWidth || !aWindow.innerHeight)
return null;
// Yuck. See bug 138068.
let docShell = aWindow.QueryInterface(Ci.nsIInterfaceRequestor)
.getInterface(Ci.nsIWebNavigation)
.QueryInterface(Ci.nsIDocShell);
let controller = docShell.QueryInterface(Ci.nsIInterfaceRequestor)
.getInterface(Ci.nsISelectionDisplay)
.QueryInterface(Ci.nsISelectionController);
return controller;
}

Oh edit my solution out, will update with proper solution, I see you want to highlight all words
This is the code how firefox highlights stuff without changing document: Finder.jsm - _highlight function. You will have to copy this and use it for the whole document, if you need help let me know and I'll do it.
Here was my solution to highlight all matches of single word: https://stackoverflow.com/a/22206366/1828637
Here man this is how you are going to highlight the whole document, I didn't finish the snippet but this is the start of it: Gist - HighlightTextInDocument

Here's the copy paste answer to highlight everything in the document. As you learn more about it share with us, like how you can highlight with a different color, right now its all pink O_O
function _getEditableNode(aNode) {
while (aNode) {
if (aNode instanceof Ci.nsIDOMNSEditableElement)
return aNode.editor ? aNode : null;
aNode = aNode.parentNode;
}
return null;
}
function _highlightRange(aRange, aController) {
let node = aRange.startContainer;
let controller = aController;
let editableNode = this._getEditableNode(node);
if (editableNode)
controller = editableNode.editor.selectionController;
let findSelection = controller.getSelection(Ci.nsISelectionController.SELECTION_FIND);
findSelection.addRange(aRange);
if (editableNode) {
// Highlighting added, so cache this editor, and hook up listeners
// to ensure we deal properly with edits within the highlighting
if (!this._editors) {
this._editors = [];
this._stateListeners = [];
}
let existingIndex = this._editors.indexOf(editableNode.editor);
if (existingIndex == -1) {
let x = this._editors.length;
this._editors[x] = editableNode.editor;
this._stateListeners[x] = this._createStateListener();
this._editors[x].addEditActionListener(this);
this._editors[x].addDocumentStateListener(this._stateListeners[x]);
}
}
}
function _getSelectionController(aWindow) {
// display: none iframes don't have a selection controller, see bug 493658
if (!aWindow.innerWidth || !aWindow.innerHeight)
return null;
// Yuck. See bug 138068.
let docShell = aWindow.QueryInterface(Ci.nsIInterfaceRequestor)
.getInterface(Ci.nsIWebNavigation)
.QueryInterface(Ci.nsIDocShell);
let controller = docShell.QueryInterface(Ci.nsIInterfaceRequestor)
.getInterface(Ci.nsISelectionDisplay)
.QueryInterface(Ci.nsISelectionController);
return controller;
}
var doc = gBrowser.contentDocument;
var searchRange = doc.createRange();
searchRange.selectNodeContents(doc.documentElement);
_highlightRange(searchRange,_getSelectionController(gBrowser.contentWindow))

#jervis, I can't make a comment on your comment under #Noitidart code as I don't have 50rep yet. So I have to post here.
Re:
I did it with 'gFindBar._highlightDoc(true, word)' now. I'm using firefox 17, so i dont know if gFindBar is state of the art. – jervis 40 mins ago
But I tested his code and and it works.
Don't use gFindBar.
Copy it and then paste it into your Scratchpad.
Why are you using gFindBar._highlightDoc(true, word) ? I thoght you wanted to highlight everything in the document? Where did you get _highlightDoc from? I don't see that anywhere in #Noitidart's code.
Regading yoru comment on iterate all words and use gFindBar._highlightDoc:
I did it with 'gFindBar._highlightDoc(true, word)' now. I'm using firefox 17, so i dont know if gFindBar is state of the art. – jervis 39 mins ago
Dude why do that.... I saw #Noitidart posted a per word solution on the linked topic: gBrowser.tabContainer.childNodes[0].linkedBrowser.finder.highlight(true, 'YOUR_WORD_HERE'); that is extremely easy, one line and no need to create text nodes spans or anything. You have to run this code on each tab you want to highlight in.

images.google appearing as referral traffic

I see a decent amount of traffic, around 100 visits a day, that comes from an images.google domain but shows as referral traffic rather than organic in Google Analytics. I have some custom code to pull keywords out and set an organic source for a few variations of what Google Image Search referrers look like, and it works for every referrer I can run it against from the server log.
var ref = document.referrer;
if (ref.search(/www.google/) != -1 && ref.search(/imgres/) != -1) {
var regex = new RegExp("www.google.([^\/]+).*");
var match = regex.exec(ref);
ref = 'http://images.google.' + match[1] + '?' + ref.split('?')[1];
_gaq.push(['_setReferrerOverride', ref]);
} else if (ref.search(/maps.google/) != -1 && ref.search(/q=/) == -1) {
var regex = new RegExp("maps.google.([^\/]+).*");
var match = regex.exec(ref);
ref = 'http://maps.google.' + match[1] + '?q=' + encodeURIComponent('(not provided)');
_gaq.push(['_setReferrerOverride', ref]);
}
function splitUrl(url) {
var vals = {};
var split = url.split('?');
vals.base = split[0];
if(split.length > 1) {
var vars = split[1].split('&');
vals.params = {};
for(var i = 0, len = vars.length; i < len; i++) {
var valSplit = vars[i].split('=', 2);
vals.params[valSplit[0]] = valSplit[1];
}
}
return vals;
}
function joinUrl(urlObj) {
var vars = [];
for(key in urlObj.params)
if(urlObj.params.hasOwnProperty(key))
vars.push(key + '=' + urlObj.params[key]);
return urlObj.base + '?' + vars.join('&');
}
//fix keyword for old google image search
if(ref.match(/^http:\/\/images\.google\./) || ref.match(/^http:\/\/images\.google$/)) {
var refUrl = splitUrl(ref);
if(refUrl.params.prev && !refUrl.params.q) {
var prev = decodeURIComponent(refUrl.params.prev);
if(prev.indexOf('?q=') !== -1 || prev.indexOf('&q=') !== -1) {
var prevUrl = splitUrl(prev);
refUrl.params.q = prevUrl.params.q;
if(!refUrl.params.q)
refUrl.params.q = encodeURIComponent('(not provided)');
delete prevUrl.params.q;
refUrl.params.prev = encodeURIComponent(joinUrl(prevUrl));
}
_gaq.push(['_setReferrerOverride', joinUrl(refUrl)]);
} else if(!refUrl.params.q) {
refUrl.params.q = encodeURIComponent('(not provided)');
_gaq.push(['_setReferrerOverride', joinUrl(refUrl)]);
}
}
_gaq.push(['_addOrganic', 'images.google', 'q']);
_gaq.push(['_addOrganic', 'maps.google', 'q', true]);
This handles all of the referres that look like:
http://images.google.com/?q=
and
http://www.google.com/?imgres=
I don't know where the referral traffic is coming from. Has anyone else seen this?

Well it is natural for Google to recognize this domain as a referral as GA only includes by default a certain number of domains as Search Engines.
To solve this problem you can include such domain as a Search Engine using the "addOrganic()" Method.
To use this method, you must specify not only the domain of the search engine, but also the query string parameter used for searches. In the case of images.google.com it's "q".
On your GA tracking code, add the line:
_gaq.push(['_addOrganic', 'images.google.com', 'q', true]);
You can get more info on the Ga Help Site.
Hope this info helps,
Augusto Roselli
Web Analytics - digitalcube
#_digitalcube
www.dp6.com.br

If someone clicks on an image that shows up on standard google search, not images.google, the url might be different. You should try some urls from there. But besides that, the google images links that popup on normal Google will not include the query string if the user is logged in into a Google Account. It happened on Oct 2011 here are a couple of links on the subject:
Official Google Statement
Avinash's, always worth reading, opinion.
On normal organic google links Google Analytics shows these visits as coming from a (not provided) keyword from an organic medium. But if you click on an image on the SERP it won't be identified as an organic medium. It will be identified as a Referral, and that's probably the ones you are seeing.
So what you need to do is to verify if the google images link has the q parameter or not. If it doesn't have than it's coming from a logged user and should be reported as (not provided) to be consistent with google organic keywords. Just append &q=(not provided) to the _setReferrerOverride url you got. Remember to url encode that before appending to the url.
I'm also posting here the code I use. It's from Google Forums. But it's very similar to yours and doesn't handle the (not provided) keywords issue yet.
Note that it's very similar to yours with a few notable differences.
You strip the whole path from the images url, while mine keeps the
path.
You don't use the "true" keyword on "_addOrganic", that
may cause Google Images to be reported as google instead of
images.google source on your reports.
Here's the code I currently use:
//handle google images referrer
var ref = document.referrer;
if ((ref.search(/google.*imgres/) != -1)) {
var regex = new RegExp("\.google\.([^\/]+)(.*)");
var match = regex.exec(ref);
_gaq.push(
['_setReferrerOverride', 'http://images.google.' + match[1] +
unescape(match[2])],
['_addOrganic', 'images.google', 'q', true]
);
}
I'll be updating my code to handle (not provided) google images links and will post here as soon as I have it.

Fastest way to search string in javascript

I have a hidden field on my page that stores space separated list of emails.
I can have maximum 500 emails in that field.
What will be the fastest way to search if a given email already exists in that list?
I need to search multiple emails in a loop
use RegEx to find a match
use indexOf()
convert the list to a
javascript dictionary and then
search
If this is an exact duplicate, please let me know the other question.
Thanks
EDIT:
Thanks everyone for your valuable comments and answers.
Basically my user has a list of emails(0-500) in db.
User is presented with his own contact list.
User can then choose one\more emails from his contact list to add to the list.
I want to ensure at client side that he is not adding duplicate emails.
Whole operation is driven by ajax, so jsvascript is required.

The answer is: It depends.
It depends on what you actually want to measure.
It depends on the relationship between how many you're searching for vs. how many you're searching.
It depends on the JavaScript implementation. Different implementations usually have radically different performance characteristics. This is one of the many reasons why the rule "Don't optimize prematurely" applies especially to cross-implementation JavaScript.
...but provided you're looking for a lot fewer than you have in total, it's probably String#indexOf unless you can create the dictionary once and reuse it (not just this one loop of looking for X entries, but every loop looking for X entries, which I tend to doubt is your use-case), in which case that's hands-down faster to build the 500-key dictionary and use that.
I put together a test case on jsperf comparing the results of looking for five strings buried in a string containing 500 space-delimited, unique entries. Note that that jsperf page compares some apples and oranges (cases where we can ignore setup and what kind of setup we're ignoring), but jsperf was being a pain about splitting it and I decided to leave that as an exercise for the reader.
In my tests of what I actually think you're doing, Chrome, Firefox, IE6, IE7 and IE9 did String#indexOf fastest. Opera did RegExp alternation fastest. (Note that IE6 and IE7 don't have Array#indexOf; the others do.) If you can ignore dictionary setup time, then using a dictionary is the hands-down winner.
Here's the prep code:
// ==== Main Setup
var toFind = ["aaaaa100#zzzzz", "aaaaa200#zzzzz", "aaaaa300#zzzzz", "aaaaa400#zzzzz", "aaaaa500#zzzzz"];
var theString = (function() {
var m, n;
m = [];
for (n = 1; n <= 500; ++n) {
m.push("aaaaa" + n + "#zzzzz");
}
return m.join(" ");
})();
// ==== String#indexOf (and RegExp) setup for when we can ignore setup
var preppedString = " " + theString + " ";
// ==== RegExp setup for test case ignoring RegExp setup time
var theRegExp = new RegExp(" (?:" + toFind.join("|") + ") ", "g");
// ==== Dictionary setup for test case ignoring Dictionary setup time
var theDictionary = (function() {
var dict = {};
var index;
var values = theString.split(" ");
for (index = 0; index < values.length; ++index) {
dict[values[index]] = true;
}
return dict;
})();
// ==== Array setup time for test cases where we ignore array setup time
var theArray = theString.split(" ");
The String#indexOf test:
var index;
for (index = 0; index < toFind.length; ++index) {
if (theString.indexOf(toFind[index]) < 0) {
throw "Error";
}
}
The String#indexOf (ignore setup) test, in which we ignore the (small) overhead of putting spaces at either end of the big string:
var index;
for (index = 0; index < toFind.length; ++index) {
if (preppedString.indexOf(toFind[index]) < 0) {
throw "Error";
}
}
The RegExp alternation test:
// Note: In real life, you'd have to escape the values from toFind
// to make sure they didn't have special regexp chars in them
var regexp = new RegExp(" (?:" + toFind.join("|") + ") ", "g");
var match, counter = 0;
var str = " " + theString + " ";
for (match = regexp.exec(str); match; match = regexp.exec(str)) {
++counter;
}
if (counter != 5) {
throw "Error";
}
The RegExp alternation (ignore setup) test, where we ignore the time it takes to set up the RegExp object and putting spaces at either end of the big string (I don't think this applies to your situation, the addresses you're looking for would be static):
var match, counter = 0;
for (match = theRegExp.exec(preppedString); match; match = theRegExp.exec(preppedString)) {
++counter;
}
if (counter != 5) {
throw "Error";
}
The Dictionary test:
var dict = {};
var index;
var values = theString.split(" ");
for (index = 0; index < values.length; ++index) {
dict[values[index]] = true;
}
for (index = 0; index < toFind.length; ++index) {
if (!(toFind[index] in dict)) {
throw "Error";
}
}
The Dictionary (ignore setup) test, where we don't worry about the setup time for the dictionary; note that this is different than the RegExp alternation (ignore setup) test because it assumes the overall list is invariant:
var index;
for (index = 0; index < toFind.length; ++index) {
if (!(toFind[index] in theDictionary)) {
throw "Error";
}
}
The Array#indexOf test (note that some very old implementations of JavaScript may not have Array#indexOf):
var values = theString.split(" ");
var index;
for (index = 0; index < toFind.length; ++index) {
if (values.indexOf(toFind[index]) < 0) {
throw "Error";
}
}
The Array#indexOf (ignore setup) test, which like Dictionary (ignore setup) assumes the overall list is invariant:
var index;
for (index = 0; index < toFind.length; ++index) {
if (theArray.indexOf(toFind[index]) < 0) {
throw "Error";
}
}

Instead of looking for the fastest solution, you first need to make sure that you’re actually having a correct solution. Because there are four cases an e-mail address can appear and a naive search can fail:
Alone: user#example.com
At the begin: user#example.com ...
At the end: ... user#example.com
In between: ... user#example.com ...
Now let’s analyze each variant:
To allow arbitrary input, you will need to escape the input properly. You can use the following method to do so:
RegExp.quote = function(str) {
return str.toString().replace(/(?=[.?*+^$[\]\\(){}-])/g, "\\");
};
To match all four cases, you can use the following pattern:
/(?:^|\ )user#example\.com(?![^\ ])/
Thus:
var inList = new RegExp("(?:^| )" + RegExp.quote(needle) + "(?![^ ])").test(haystack);
Using indexOf is a little more complex as you need to check the boundaries manually:
var pos = haystack.indexOf(needle);
if (pos != -1 && (pos != 0 && haystack.charAt(pos-1) !== " " || haystack.length < (pos+needle.length) && haystack.charAt(pos+needle.length) !== " ")) {
pos = -1;
}
var inList = pos != -1;
This one is rather quite simple:
var dict = {};
haystack.match(/[^\ ]+/g).map(function(match) { dict[match] = true; });
var inList = dict.hasOwnProperty(haystack);
Now to test what variant is the fastest, you can do that at jsPerf.

indexOf() is most probably the fastest just keep in mind you need to search for two possible cases:
var existingEmails = "email1, email2, ...";
var newEmail = "somethingHere#email.com";
var exists = (existingEmails.indexOf(newEmail + " ") >= 0) || (existingEmails.indexOf(" " + newEmail ) > 0);

You're asking a question with too many unstated variables for us to answer. For example, how many times do you expect to perform this search? only once? A hundred times? Is this a fixed list of emails, or does it change every time? Are you loading the emails with the page, or by AJAX?
IF you are performing more than one search, or the emails are loaded with the page, then you are probably best off creating a dictionary of the names, and using the Javascript in operator.
If you get the string from some off-page source, and you only search it once, then indexOf may well be better.
In all cases, if you really care about the speed, you're best off making a test.
But then I'd ask "Why do you care about the speed?" This is a web page, where loading the page happens at network speeds; the search happens at more or less local-processor speed. It's very unlikely that this one search will make a perceptible difference in the behavior of the page.

Here is a little explanation:
Performing a dictionary lookup is relatively complicated - very fast compared with (say) a linear lookup by key when there are lots of keys, but much more complicated than a straight array lookup. It has to calculate the hash of the key, then work out which bucket that should be in, possibly deal with duplicate hashes (or duplicate buckets) and then check for equality.
As always, choose the right data structure for the job - and if you really can get away with just indexing into an array (or List) then yes, that will be blindingly fast.
The above has been taken from one of the blog posts of #Jon Skeet.

I know this is an old question, but here goes an answer for those who might need in the future.
I made some tests and the indexOf() method is impossibly fast!
Tested the case on Opera 12.16 and it took 216µs to search and possibly find something.
Here is the code used:
console.time('a');
var a=((Math.random()*1e8)>>0).toString(16);
for(var i=0;i<1000;++i)a=a+' '+((Math.random()*1e8)>>0).toString(16)+((Math.random()*1e8)>>0).toString(16)+((Math.random()*1e8)>>0).toString(16)+((Math.random()*1e8)>>0).toString(16);
console.timeEnd('a');
console.time('b');
var b=(' '+a).indexOf(((Math.random()*1e8)>>0).toString(16));
console.timeEnd('b');
console.log([a,b]);
In the console you will see a huge output.
The timer 'a' counts the time taken to make the "garbage", and the timer 'b' is the time to search for the string.
Just adding 2 spaces, one before and one after, on the email list and adding 1 space before and after the email, you are set to go.
I use it to search for a class in an element without jQuery and it works pretty fast and fine.