I know how to use forEach in general but today I hit a spot that puzzled me. I've googled it but didn't get anything that I didn't already know.
I'm starting with TypeScript because of Angular and I've accessed a set of controls from the DOM. Then, I pick one of them and get to its children.
#ViewChildren("marker") markers: QueryList<ElementRef>;
this.markers.forEach(item => {
let element = item.nativeElement;
//item.children.forEach(child => {child.classList.add("poof"); });
for (let child of element.children)
child.classList.add("poof");
});
According to the console, it looks like an array, as it's a list with brackets (although typeof tells me it's an object).
I'm confused about this and curious about why the commented out code doesn't work. Not sure what to google for, neither.
forEach is a method of an Array. TypeScript will only allow you to call methods it understands is available for that type.
If the type QueryList<> is not an array but rather an object that has the same behavior as an array at runtime TS will not know it.
You can either use the for..of loop or if you want to stick with forEach you can make QueryList<> extends Array<T>.
The forEach method belongs to the Array prototype (see here), therefore it can only be used on variables which are of type Array.
The QueryList type implements the Iterable interface (as per Angular docs here), therefore it allows looping with for ... of.
What the Google Chrome (or any other browser) console prints is different from what the object actually is.
you have to wait until markers are rendered in the view:
#ViewChildren("marker") markers: QueryList<ElementRef>;
ngAfterViewInit() {
this.markers.forEach(item => {
let element = item.nativeElement;
//item.children.forEach(child => {child.classList.add("poof"); });
for (let child of element.children)
child.classList.add("poof");
});
}
Related
A little background on the problem
I've built a custom system to automatically watch some "store" properties that comes from a JSON of a nosql database. Nothing too complicated except the nesting (required for several reasons not discussed here) of objects.
The data structure looks like this:
{
store: {
objA: {
objB: {
prop1: 'some value'
}
}
}
}
However, since it's a nosql database that provide that store property, objB can just be NOT present after the load from the database.
Example of the template used
I have custom components that have props bound directly to that data store
<my-selector :value.sync="store.objA.objB.prop1">
</my-selector>
However, it crashes when "objB" is not present with the usual javascript error saying that it cannot get "objB" of undefined, but that is normal.
I'm trying to find a vuejs way to prepare the data for me.
Ideas
In order to counter that crash :
I can NOT use v-if in that case to mask the selector. Because that selector can be used even if the data is not yet set (example: for optional data).
I could fix the "load" function that gets the data from the database so it initialize the required properties (like objB) before assigning data to the data store. However, that would imply that my initial VueJS data object would contain these required properties as well. It's probably that I will use if I can't find any alternative solution, but I don't think that's the easiest way around because I would have to fix any incoming data before assignment.
My preferred choice would be to create a directive (or any other thing built in the template) that would add them for me if they are missing.
VueJS always evaluates the bindings value
I thought of that solution:
<my-selector v-autocreate="'store.objA.objB.prop1'" :value.sync="store.objA.objB.prop1">
</my-selector>
However the directive binding "v-autocreate" is not picked up first (checked with the debugger).
I did not find documentation relative of the order of load of directives or attributes.
I was also hoping to get all bindings of a node with the directive "bind"
function in order to NOT repeat the string, but it seems we can't get that information (I'm used to knockoutjs where we can pick all bindings assigned to a node in order to behave differently).
I would like to reach that goal but I'm not sure that it's possible (I would need something like a pre-bind / beforeBind event on directive haha) :
<my-selector v-autocreate :value.sync="store.objA.objB.prop1">
</my-selector>
Where v-autocreate would assure to do the vm.$set of the missing properties.
You could create a method that checks each property in an object path, creates it if it doesn't exist, then returns the value of the last property.
Example (not tested):
get(object, path) {
path = path.split('.')
let index = 0
const length = path.length
let val
while (object != null && index < length) {
let key = path[index++]
if(object[key] == null) {
this.$set(object, key, {})
}
object = object[key]
}
return val
}
Usage:
<my-selector :value="get(store,'objA.objB.prop1')">
</my-selector>
You may be interested in lodash's get function, which is what the code example is based on.
https://github.com/lodash/lodash/blob/master/get.js
With something like the following how can I determine which of the three properties has changed without resorting to something tedious like printing out all the values each time, or creating three separate observers?
variableObserver: Ember.observer('variable.{name,value,type}', function() {
// which property changed?
}),
You can do using arguments array.
variableObserver : Ember.observer('variable.{name,value,type}',function(){
this.set("changedvalue",arguments[1]);
}),
Added an example Ember Twiddle
I'm using #ngrx/store for an Angular 2 app.
My store holds a list of say, Book objects. I want to update a field in one of those objects. I also happen to have an Observable of the Book instance I'm looking to update (say, selectedBook).
To do the update I intend on calling the reducer with an UpdateBookAction, and a payload of the new Book. So I make a deep copy of the existing Book object by subscribing to selectedBook and then calling Object.assign().
But when I try to write to one of the fields of the copy I get the following error. (It happens to be the same error I get if I were to try to write directly to the Book object in the store.)
Error
Cannot assign to read only property 'name' of object '#<Object>' at ViewWrappedError.BaseError [as constructor]
Code
ngOnInit() {
this.book$ = this.store.let(fromRoot.getSelectedBook);
//...
}
someFunction() {
//...
this.book$.subscribe(book => {
let updatedBook = Object.assign({}, book);
updatedBook.name = 'something else'; // <--- THIS IS WHAT THROWS
let action = new BookUpdateAction(updatedBook);
this.store.dispatch(action);
}
}
Clarification after Comments
I was under the assumption that I could have an action with a payload that was not the entire state of the store. (In fact that seems necessary, no?) I'm confident that this is the case given the documentation.
The action I'm looking to take is something like this:
Action = UPDATE, payload = {'id': 1234, 'name': 'something new'}
As mentioned, I intend on making that call like this:
this.store.dispatch(action);
Presumably under the hood, ngrx is passing my action to the reducer along with the (immutable) current state.
So from there, everything should work okay. My logic inside the reducer doesn't mutate the existing state, it simply creates a new one out of the existing state and the payload I've passed in.
The real question here is how I can reasonably build the new "objectToUpdate" such that I can pass that in as the payload.
I could do something like this:
this.book$.subscribe(book => {
let updatedBook = new Book();
updatedBook.id = book.id;
//set all other fields manually...
updatedBook.name = 'something else';
let action = new BookUpdateAction(updatedBook);
this.store.dispatch(action);
}
But we're not just talking about two fields here... what if my book has several fields? Do I have to manually build from scratch a new Book each time just to update one field?
My solution was to do a deep copy using Object.assign({}, book) (and not mutate the old one!) and subsequently make the update to solely the field I was looking to touch.
The idea of the ngrx store is to have one and only one single place of truth, which means all the objects are immutable, and the only way to change anything is to recreate everything as a whole. Also, you are probably using the ngrx freeze (https://github.com/codewareio/ngrx-store-freeze) which means that all of the objects will be created read-only so you wont be able to change any (This is good for development if you want to completely follow the redux pattern). If you remove the part where the store freezes the object, you will be able to change it, but thats not best practice.
What I would suggest you is the following: Use the ngrx observable with async pipe to put the data (in your case books) in a dumb component which can only get input and output some event. Than, inside of the dumb component you can "edit" that object by making a copy of it, and after you are done, you can emit back the changes to the smart component which is subscribed to the store and allow it to change the state via the store (commit). This way is best because it is not very common to change the whole state for a really small change (like two way binding, when user types..).
If you follow the redux pattern, than you will be able to add history, which means the store will keep a copies of the last X state recreations, so you can get UNDO functionality, easier to debug, timeline etc
Your problem is that you are directly editing the property instead of recreating the whole state.
I'll have to make an assumption about the actual scenario the OP is experiencing.
The problem
It's not possible to modify a member of a frozen object. Its the error being thrown.
The cause
ngrx-store-freeze is used as a meta-reducer to freeze any object that enters the store. On another place, when an object needs to be changed, a shallow copy is being made. Object.assign() doesn't do deep copy. A member of another object reached from the original object is being modified. This secondary object is also frozen, by it is not duplicated.
Solution
Use a deep copy like cloneDeep() from lodash. Or sent a bag of properties to be changed with a proper action. Process the changes on the reducer.
As already mentioned - the reason you are getting
Cannot assign to read only property 'name' of object
is because 'ngrx-store-freeze' freezes the state and prevents mutating it.
Object.assign will provide a new object as you expect, but it will copy the state's properties along with each property's own definition - such as the 'writable' definition (which 'ngrx-store-freeze' likely sets to false).
A different approach is described in this answer and explains how cloning objects with JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(yourObject)) as fastest, but this approach has flaws if you keep dates or methods etc' in your state.
using lodash's 'cloneDeep' is probably your best bet for deep cloning the state.
One way to accomplish this is a utility/helper method to make a new book from.
You could give it an existing book and the subset of properties you want to add to a new book (using Partial in typeScript if you want type safety).
createNewBook(oldBook: Book, newProps: Partial<Book>): Book {
const newBook = new Book();
for(const prop in oldBook) {
if(newProps[prop]) {
newBook[prop]=newProps[prop];
} else {
newBook[prop]=oldBook[prop];
}
}
return newBook
}
You could call it via newBook = createNewBook(new Book(), {title: 'first foo, then bar'});
and use this newBook to update your store.
i'm reading the book 'Secrets of the JavaScript Ninja' (http://jsninja.com/) and wonder why a certain code block from one of the examples is coded like it is.
The example (http://jsfiddle.net/3s5bopqe/3/) builds a custom array type (MyArray) and reuses a number of functions from the Array.prototype without actually inheriting from the 'Array' type.
In the example from the book a function with a certain name is reused in the prototype of the custom type using this code
MyArray.prototype[ name ] = function() {
return Array.prototype[ name ].apply(this, arguments);
};
I believe i understand what happens here. But it seems unnecessary to me to actually use a function literal and explicitly 'apply' a function from the Array.prototype. The following code works just as well in the test setting :
MyArray.prototype[ name ] = Array.prototype[ name ];
My question is whether there are any advantages of using the code from the book over the last code block ?
By using
MyArray.prototype[ name ] = Array.prototype[ name ];
you are actually copying method from Array into your object (MyArray).
In future, if Array method changes, your MyArray method wont be updated.
By using
MyArray.prototype[ name ] = function() {
return Array.prototype[ name ].apply(this, arguments);
};
you referred to Array method. Changes made in Array object methods are reflected in your MyArray methods. Why? Because you never copied that method, you just borrowed it (referred to its current implementation).
There's one major difference I can see. If any of the targeted methods on Array.prototype gets altered after you copied them (e.g. applying a polyfill that fixes behavior) the changes will not be reflected using MyArray.prototype[ name ] = Array.prototype[ name ]; while it would using the jsninja approach.
Depending on your point of view, you may find one or the other behavior more fitting.
I'm trying to get a list in JavaScript (not using jQuery) of all the elements on the page with a specific class name. I therefore employ the getElementsByClassName() function as follows:
var expand_buttons = document.getElementsByClassName('expand');
console.log(expand_buttons, expand_buttons.length, expand_buttons[0]);
Note that I have three anchor elements on my page with the class 'expand'. This console.log() outputs
[] 0 undefined
Next, for kicks, I threw expand_buttons into its own array as follows:
var newArray = new Array(expand_buttons);
console.log(newArray, newArray.length);
This suddenly outputs
[NodeList[3]] 1
and I can click through the nodelist and see the attributes of the three 'expand' anchor elements on the page. It's also worth noting that I was able to get my code working in a w3schools test page.
It may also be of note that my use of document.getElementsByName actually does output (to the console) an array of elements, but when I ask for its length, it tells me 0. Similarly, if I try to access an array element using array_name[0] as normal, it outputs 'undefined', despite there clearly being an element inside of an array when I print the object to the console.
Does anybody have any idea why this might be? I just want to loop through DOM elements, and I'm avoiding jQuery at the moment because I'm trying to practice coding with vanilla JavaScript.
Thanks,
ParagonRG
It's not so much a JavaScript thing as it is a web browser thing. That API is supplied by a native object (the document object), and by the DOM spec it returns a NodeList object. You can treat a NodeList like an array, and it's similar, but distinctly different (as you've noticed).
You can always copy a NodeList to a new array:
var nodeArr = Array.prototype.slice.call(theNodeList, 0);
or in modern ES2015 environments:
var nodeArr = Array.from(theNodeList);
JavaScript always exists in some runtime context, and the context can include all sorts of APIs that provide facilities to JavaScript code. A web browser is one of those contexts. The DOM is specified in a way that's not especially partial to JavaScript; it's a language-neutral interface definition.
I guess the short version of this answer would be, "because it just does."
It doesn't return an array because the object it returns is "live", specifically it is a live NodeList:
In most cases, the NodeList is a live collection. This means that changes on the DOM tree are going to be reflected on the collection.