Ok, I wouldn't think to do this in C#, but javascript is designed with much more flexibility in access.
there's a plugin like this
(function($)
{
...more stuff
var results={a:1,b:2} //this I need to modify
var someData={x:1}
send = function(){
//send results ajax
};
if(typeof beforeSend=='function')
beforeSend(someData) //hook to use results
})(jQuery)
So, in my own code, I have the function window.beforeSend = function(d){}
and it does have the someData which is in the scope I need to modify. But here's the question:
How can I modify the results var that's within the closure before it sends it.
I need to add
window.beforeSend = function(d){
window.quantumTunnelThroughScope.results['c']=1
}
The reason I need to do this is because I cannot modify the code of the plugin. Of course if I add the beforeSend within the closure, it works, but then I'm modifying the library which I'm not allowed to do in this case.
I've seen some awesome eval('this.xx' =function ) etc etc but I can't make it work.
EDIT: I clarified that actually it's a different var in the same scope that needs to be edited
No, there's no reasonable way for beforeSend to reach into that closure and modify results. results in the code presented is entirely private to code within that closure.
The unreasonable way to try to do it is to decompile and recompile the plugin function, via eval, and insert a call to a function before the beforeSend that lets us modify results:
(function($) {
$.run = function() {
// You mentioned "ajax," so let's make this
// asynchronous
setTimeout(function() {
var results = {
a: 1,
b: 2
};
var someData = { // Need to modify this
x: 1
};
send = function() {
//send results ajax
};
if (typeof beforeSend == 'function') {
beforeSend(someData); //hook to use results
}
console.log("in plugin, results = ", results);
}, 10);
};
})(jQuery)
window.modifyResults = function(d) {
return ["new", "results"];
};
window.beforeSend = function(r) {
r.c = 1;
};
jQuery.run = (function() {
// Function#toString, on nearly all browsers, returns the source
// code of he function (or something near to it) except on functions
// implemented in native code. We take that string and replace
// the "beforeSend(someData);" call with two calls, the first of
// which lets us modify the `results` variable. Then we use eval
// to turn that back into a function, and assign the result to
// where the plugin put its function originally.
return eval("(" + jQuery.run.toString().replace(
"beforeSend(someData);",
"results = modifyResults(results); beforeSend(someData);"
) + ")");
})();
jQuery.run();
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.1.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
But may or may not work, depending on how the plugin is written, as it lifts it out of its original scope and recompiles it in the scope of our function updating jQuery.run.
I think I'd prefer to take the hit of modifying the plugin. :-)
Note: In the above, I've used a "static" jQuery function. If the plugin you're replacing provides an instance function, the kind you can call on jQuery instances, e.g. the bar in $(".foo").bar(), you'll find it on jQuery.fn instead of jQuery:
jQuery.fn.pluginFunction = eval(...);
Related
I am writing a simple library that will read values from an object given a string property.
Is it possible to read the property but have a function execute without actually invoking the function?
something like:
var obj = {
fn : (function malicious(){ deleteLotsOfFiles();
})()
}
if I do
var foo = obj.fn;
is there a way just by reading the property to execute a (malicious) function?
The malicious function would have already executed anyway before you even referenced it. Once the function is parsed by the engine, it is executed straight away (self-invoking).
var obj = {
get fn() { deleteLotsOfFiles(); }
};
// later
var o = obj; // deleteLotsOfFiles has not been executed
console.log(o.fn); // you just deleted lots of files
An alternative
var o = Object.defineProperty(o, 'baz', {
get: function(){
console.log("Delete Everything!");
}
});
Then access o.baz and they are deleted
More Information on getters from MDN
Sometimes it is desirable to allow access to a property that returns a
dynamically computed value, or you may want to reflect the status of
an internal variable without requiring the use of explicit method
calls.
Seems pretty much like what you want to do.
I am newbie in js and I want to override/overwrite some fullcalendar functions from another script (my-fullcalendar.js) to make some changes in it for myself. for example function names are :
formatRange and oldMomentFormat.
formatRange is accessible from this.$.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 have a simple javascript error logging mechanism in place and it looks somewhhat like this:
window.onerror = function (ErrorMsg, Url, LineNumber, Col, Error) {
// ajax these to the server, including Error.stack}
The problem is that I'd also like to get the value of the local variables and function parameters when the error occurred. Is this even possible?
I'm thinking about modifying the Function prototype so that each time a function runs, its arguments are stored in a global array of strings and then the error handler would just add this array to the ajax call. Can JavaScript do this?
#1 Can local scope be recovered in onerror() without black magic?
Without this being bound in the scope of window.onerror() or the surrounding variables being directly accessible, it's impossible to regain access to the variables you had set.
What you're mostly wanting access to is this.arguments or arguments or the equivalent, but that's destroyed. Any hope of obtaining a key-value associative array or hash-like object would involve meta-programming ( i.e. reading the function definition to obtain the variable names, and obtaining an exception report to attempt to salvage data ).
See this answer for more on something similar:
Getting All Variables In Scope
But this "lacking functionality" is a good thing:
If you could gain access to what you're asking for, that would likely be a fault in the Javascript engine. Why? Because the variable states and contents themselves are what caused the exception/error, assuming bad code wasn't the issue to begin with.
In other words, if you could get access to a faulty variable, that might be a door into an infinite loop:
Failure due to variable contents.
Error handler triggered.
Trace contents of variable.
Failure due to variable contents.
Error handler triggered.
Trace contents of variable.
Etc.
#2 Can Javascript store all arguments of every function call by voodoo?
Yes. It can. This is probably a really bad idea ( see #1 ) but it is possible. Here is a pointer on where to start:
Is there a way to wrap all JavaScript methods with a function?
From there, what you're wanting to do is push this.arguments or equivalent to a stack of function calls. But again, this is approaching insanity for many reasons. Not the least of which is the need to duplicate all the values, lest you reference mutated variables, or be unable to access the data at all... and like I said above, the problem of bad data in general. But still, it is possible.
Is this even possible?
No. A stack trace is proof that the stack has unwound, all stack frames and all the local variables they contained are gone. As for getting the name of a variable, that is not even possible at run time.
To start off i accept #Tomalak completely.
I was also put in your situation where i needed to debug a remote running app in case of crash.
As a work around I have forked my code for you in a fiddler. Please modify according to your need.
Caveat: You have to wrap the function body with try{..}catch(e){..} as illustrated in the fiddler code.
Please read the inline comments for understanding.
window.onerror = function (errorMsg, url, lineNumber, column, errorObj) {
console.log(errorObj);
}
window.addEventListener("reportOnError", function(e){
console.log(e.detail);
/*Send to the server or any listeners for analysis.*/
//Http.send(e.detail);
});
function ExceptionReport(ex, args, scope) {
var self = {};
self.message = ex.message;
self.stack = ex.stack;
self.name = ex.name;
self.whoCalled = args.callee.caller.name == "" ? "Window": args.callee.caller.name;
self.errorInFunction = args.callee.name;
self.instanceOf = scope.constructor;
self.KeyPairValues = getParamNames(arguments.callee.caller.toString(), Array.prototype.slice.call(args)); //Contains the parameters value set during runtime
window.dispatchEvent(new CustomEvent('reportOnError', {'detail':self}));
}
//Utilties
function getParamNames(fnBody, values) {
var STRIP_COMMENTS = /((\/\/.*$)|(\/\*[\s\S]*?\*\/))/mg,
ARGUMENT_NAMES = /([^\s,]+)/g,
result = fnBody.slice(fnBody.indexOf('(')+1, fnBody.indexOf(')')).match(ARGUMENT_NAMES),
obj={};
fnBody.replace(STRIP_COMMENTS, '');
if(result !== null){
for(var i=0; i < result.length; i++){
obj[result[i]] = values.length !==0 ? values[i] : null;
}
}else{
obj = null;
}
return obj;
}
/*
This is a testing/sample function that throws the error
*/
function testing(a,b,c){
try{
dummy(1,2) ; //This line throws the error as reference error.
}catch(e){
ExceptionReport(e, arguments, this);
}
}
//Class Emulation: For instanceof illustration.
function testingClass(){
this.testing = testing;
}
//Named self executing function: This calls the function
var myvar = (function myvar(){
testing(1,2,3);
})();
//Illustrating instanceof in exception
var myVar2 = new testingClass();
myVar2.testing(1,2,3);
//Calling from global scope this is Window
testing(1,2,3);
//Without variables
testing();
I have used examples to illustrate the behavior of functions called in different circumstances.
Below signifies the varialble used for
self.KeyPairValues : Used to store the function parameter set/passed during runtime
self.errorInFunction : This stores the name of the function error was caused in.
self.whoCalled : This stores the function name that invoked the defective function
self.instanceOf : This stores the name of the instance is called creating a new instance.
Other variables are same as in Error object
The others answers here are spot on, but I might be able to offer a suggestion for a slightly different way to accomplish this. Instead of trying to track all scope in your program, why not add a tagging function that tracks the scope of one function's parameters without affecting the runtime of the function. For for example:
var globalRecord = {};
function record(name, fn) {
return function () {
var args = [].slice.call(arguments);
var record = globalRecord[name] = {
args: args,
arg: {}
};
args.unshift(function (name, value) {
return record[name] = value;
});
fn.apply(args, arguments);
}
}
// Then, you track variables like this
var func = record("func", function (record, a, b, c) {
record("a", a); // named parameters are accessible now
record("b", b); // if some error occurs in the function body
return a + b + c;
});
// Calling func still behaves as before.
func(1, 2, 3);
// Errors handled like this:
window.onerror = function () {
globalRecord.func.args; // ==> last set of arguments past to function
globalRecord.func.arg.a; // specific arguments recorded with names
};
You could even use this method to track scope without using a function by anonymously calling the recorded function.
record("test", function (record) {
var a = record("a", /* whatever */);
var b = record("b", /* ... */ );
// do scope specific stuff that might fail
})();
Of course, this isn't a polished implementation by any stretch, but with a little work, I think you might be able to get the behavior you're looking for without any seriously black magic. By selectively adding and removing record calls as the need presents itself, you can have precise control over what is logged without any intrusive hacks.
You can find your answer in this link.
Before taking bundles from the server, you must modify them. For example, to solve your problem, you can do changes in the mentioned link as follows. In the BuildBundleContent Class make this change:
contents.Insert(blockContentIndex,
string.Format("if(customErrorLogging)customErrorLogging({0}, this){1}",
errVariable, hasContent ? ";" : ""));
If in the modules you have to use something like:
var self = this;
You can use:
contents.Insert(blockContentIndex,
string.Format("if(customErrorLogging)customErrorLogging({0}, self ? self : this){1}",
errVariable, hasContent ? ";" : ""));
And in added js file:
"use strict";
var customErrorLogging = function (ex, module) {
console.log(module);
//do something...
};
I hope help you.
I want to create a simple to use API into some of these functions but with out being able to bind a function into a new scope I.E the scope it belongs in! I can not figure out a way to do it other then that crazy eval nonsense or doing crazy things with this that make things much much more confusing.
Conceptually I am losing my mind because the filter paramater should be run in the context of done callback. I guess that is my issue the filter parameter is not a callback it is a parameter and should have the scope of where it is running not where it is defined.
Some one please tell me that I am just missing something silly.
Are there any languages that support binding the scope of a lambda to where it is called and not where it is defined?
var scrape = function(selector, filter) {
jsdom.env({
html: data,
src: [ jQuery ],
done: function(errors, window) {
var $ = window.$;
eval('filter=' + filter.toString());
debugger;
var entries = $(selector).filter(filter);
console.log('spo');
debugger;
}
});
};
scrape('p',function(index) {
debugger;
if(this.children.length == 3) {
return $(this.children[0]).is('a') &&
$(this.children[1]).is('font') &&
$(this.children[2]).is('span');
} else {
return false;
}
});
Not completely sure what your code does, but by your description, you're searching for $.proxy. It binds a callback to a specific context. If you were using underscore, you would look at _.bind
Documentation: http://api.jquery.com/jQuery.proxy/
Problem & Reason
One of my team mate ended up in messy situtaion implementing function hooking in javascript. this is the actual code
function ActualMethod(){
this.doSomething = function() {
this.testMethod();
};
this.testMethod = function(){
alert("testMethod");
};
}
function ClosureTest(){
var objActual= new ActualMethod();
var closeHandler = objActual.doSomething;
closeHandler();
closeHandler.apply(objActual,arguments); //the fix i have added
this.ActualTest = function() {
alert("ActualTest");
};
}
In the above code, var closeHandler is created in the context of ClosureTest(), but it holds the handler of the ActualMethod.doSomething. Whenever calling the closeHandler() ended up in "object doesnt support this method" error.
This is because doSomething() function calls another method inside called this.testMethod();. Here this refers to the context of the caller not callee.so i assume the closeHandler is bound to the environment(ClosureTest) actually created.Even though it holds the handler to the another context, it just exposes the properties of its own context.
Solution
To avoid this i suggest to use apply to specify the conext in which it needs to execute.
closeHandler.apply(objActual,arguments);
Questions
is it perfect scenario for closures..??
What are the intersting places you have encountered closures in javascript..?
UPDATE
Yes its simple i can call the method directly. but the problem is, in a particular scenario I need to intercept the call to actuall method and run some code before that, finally execute the actual method..
say for an example, am using 3rd party aspx grid library, and all the mouseclick events are trapped by their controls. In particular group by mouse click i need to intercept the call to their ilbrary method and hook my mthod to execute instead and redirect the call to actual library method
hope this helps
Update: Because you probably left out some details in your code, it is difficult to adapt it into something workable without missing the point of your actual code. I do think I understand your underlying problem as you describe it. I hope the following helps.
Suppose the following simple example:
// Constructor function.
function Example() {
// Method:
this.method = function() {
alert("original method");
}
}
// You would use it like this:
var obj = new Example();
obj.method(); // Calls original method.
To intercept such a method call, you can do this:
function wrap(obj) {
var originalMethod = obj.method;
obj.method = function() {
alert("intercepted call");
originalMethod.apply(this, arguments);
}
return obj;
}
var obj = wrap(new Example());
obj.method(); // Calls wrapped method.
Unfortunately, because method() is defined in the constructor function, not on a prototype, you need to have an object instance to wrap the object.
Answer to original question: The doSomething() function is used as a method on objects created with ActualMethod(). You should use it as a method, not detach it and use it as a function in a different context. Why don't you just call the method directly?
function ClosureTest(){
var objActual = new ActualMethod();
// Call method directly, avoid messy apply() calls.
objActual.doSomething();
this.ActualTest = function() {
alert("ActualTest");
};
}
If you assign a method (a function on some object) to a local variable in Javascript and call it, the context will be different (the value of this changes). If you don't want it to happen, don't do it.
When I want to hook a function, I use the following Function method which is also a fine piece of Closure demonstration:
Function.prototype.wrap = function (wrapper) {
var __method = this;
return function() {
var __obj = this;
var args = [ __method.bind(__obj) ];
for(var i=0; i<arguments.length; i++) args.push(arguments[i]);
return wrapper.apply(__obj, args);
}
};
Then do something like:
ActualMethod = ActualMethod.wrap(function (proceed, option) {
// ... handle option
proceed(); // calls the wrapped function
});
proceed is bound to its initial object, so you can safely call it.