We Keep Coding

OnChange function not defined when I reference my script as a module? [duplicate]

I have my HTML setup like this:
<script type="module" src="main.js"></script>
and all the ES6 modules work fine. The only problem is I now can't refer to anything from within DevTools (like using the Console and typing in a variable to see it's value or using a function manually).
How do I import modules whilst being able to use the DevTools? Thanks!

One way to make a variable accessable within DevTools is to create it on the window object:
// Variable in your module
var importantNumber = 1;
window.importantNumber = importantNumber;
This method works fine if you just have a couple of variables, but if you need to have access to a lot more variables within DevTools, I would recommend you go to the sources-tab in DevTools, search for your module and adding a breakpoint. When the execution pauses, you have access to all the variables within that module on the DevTools console.

If you want to be able to refer to variables created within the module from the console's global scope, you'll have to deliberately expose each such variable that you want to be visible from the console. Either assign each variable to window (probably not a good idea - the whole point of modules is to make things more modular, without global pollution), or perhaps assign a single object to window, to which you assign module variables. For example:
// in the console:
setTimeout(() => {
window.myModule.foo();
console.log(window.myModule.bar);
});
<script type="module">
function foo() {
console.log('doing foo');
}
const bar = 'a string bar';
const thisModule = { foo, bar };
window.myModule = thisModule;
// If you ever reassign variables, you'll have to reassign them on thisModule too
// or, only reference and reassign properties of thisModule, rather than create independent variables
</script>

For anyone else interested, if you're comfortable with it, use a bundler like Webpack. I don't believe (at least at this point) that the browser will by itself be able to use the DevTools on modules (the other solutions are quite janky, and aren't fantastic to work with).
Hopefully in the future, when all major browsers will be able to support ES6 modules without a bundler, we'll be able to use DevTools.

Using a Helper
I personally use a little helper function in development that allows me to expose a bunch a variables in a single expression. For example, it makes the following two blocks equivalent:
window.playerOne = playerOne;
window.someClass = someClass;
window.localData = localData;
globalize({playerOne, someClass, localData});
The helper looks like this:
const globalize = function(variables) {
Object.entries(variables).forEach(([name, value]) => window[name] = value);
};

Why wrap your angular controller code with anonymous function?

I've been seeing a number of people wrapping their controllers with:
function(){
//CODE
}();
What's the benefit / goal there?

That isn't really anything related directly to Angular, it is a JS pattern know as an Immediately Invoked Function Expression.
It is one of the most useful patterns in JavaScript, primarily because of:
Code Encapsulation
Since functions have closures in JS, we can use this pattern to create private data very easily:
var index = (function iife() {
var counter = 0; // <-- this is private, only available inside the closure of inner()
return function inner() {
return counter++;
};
})();
console.log(index()); // 0
console.log(index()); // 1
console.log(index()); // 2
console.log(index.counter) // undefined
We can also pass arguments into an IIFE, which allows us to control how we access the outside context of our IIFE. For example, to make sure $ is actually the jQuery object within your code:
(function ($) {
// here have access to the global jQuery as $ regardless of what window.$ is and
// how many libraries are trying to use $
})(jQuery);
By combining the two ideas above, IIFEs can also be used to implement the module pattern, which is the basis for how RequireJS and NodeJS separate code:
var myModule = (function iife(initData) {
// we can use initData here to initialize our module if necessary
var module = {};
// private vars ...
var privateVar1, privateVar2;
// private methods ...
function privateMethod() {
console.log('yeeey');
}
module.somePublicProperty = 1;
module.somePublicMethod = function() {
privateMethod();
};
return module;
})(/* pass initialization data */);
myModule.somePublicMethod(); // 'yeeey'

The reason you'll find a lot of JavaScript code wrapped in an anonymous function is to isolate it from other code on the page.
The following code will declare a variable called name on a global scope:
var name = "Hello World";
By using that code, any other script on the page attempting to use a variable called name could potentially get an unexpected value of "Hello World" because your script declared it as "Hello World".
By wrapping that code in an anonymous function, you keep the code from conflicting with other variables called name:
(function() {
var name = "Hello World";
})();
In the example above, name is now only available inside of the scope of the anonymous function. It is not global, and therefore cannot conflict with other code on the page.
By wrapping your Angular module in an anonymous function, you prevent your code from conflicting with other code.
Additionally, other people who may use your code won't have to worry about it changing their global scope.

IMHO it's not necessary, even superfluous, as most controllers are already functions:
'use strict';
angular.module('MyApp').controller('AboutController', ['$scope'
function ($scope) {
$scope.title = 'About Us';
}
]);

Everything #nem035 and #tcasey said is correct but it also have another side effect.
If you use tools like Grunt or Gulp it also allow you to have working dists to put in production.
If you do not use Immediate Invoke Pattern you'll most likely have minification problems like:
State X is already defined!
Unknown provider
. . .
I suggest you to wrap all your js modules with this pattern.
I hope I've been helpful.

There are many benefits of you immediately-invoked-function-expression short IIFE and it's best practice to use it. This way each of angular service or controller become isolate and you don't run into global variables as it can happened if you don't use IIFE.
read more about it

use `module` as namespace

I've been using a pattern in my node.js modules that seems so obvious to me that I assume there must be something wrong with it or I would see more people doing it. To keep private variables that are global to the module, I simply attach them as properties on the module object. Like so:
module.exports = {
init: function() {
module.someClient = initializeSomethingHere()
},
someMethod: function(done) {
module.someClient.doSomething(done)
}
}
This seems preferable to me than something like this...
var someClient;
module.exports = {
init: function() {
someClient = initializeSomethingHere()
},
someMethod: function(done) {
someClient.doSomething(done)
}
}
...because in the second example you need to go searching for var someClient at the top of the file to make sure that the omission of the var keyword is intentional within the init method. I've never seen this pattern used elsewhere though, so I wonder if I'm missing something that makes it less than ideal.
Thoughts?

There are a couple of possible downsides that come to mind.
1) It's technically possible for those properties to be accessed and modified outside the module, but only if a reference to the module itself is available outside it. Something that makes the module available through its own exports (module.exports = module; being the simplest example) would expose them.
2) You could have a naming conflict with a builtin property or a future builtin property that doesn't exist yet (which would cause your code to break in future versions of node.js). This could be very problematic and very hard to debug. Currently the built-in properties on a module object are: children, exports, filename, id, loaded, paths, and parent.
because in the second example you need to go searching for var someClient at the top of the file to make sure that the omission of the var keyword is intentional within the init method.
If that is the reason, you could just use a namespace that isn't module. For instance by adding var private = {}; to the top of each file and then using private.someClient instead of module.someClient.
Also 'use strict'; so that the accidental omission of var is an error and not an accidental global.

Drawbacks
Option 1: This practice is prone to naming conflict with a builtin property or a future builtin property that doesn't exist yet, as #paulpro stated in his answer.
Option 2: If you miss var keyword and expose the someClient globally. Besides you need to go searching for var someClient at the top of the file all the time.
Alternative
As JavaScript has function scope it's better to define everything within a function. Creating private and public members within a function. Below is a design pattern which one can follow:
'use strict';
module.exports = (function(){
//private
var someClient;
//public properties
var that={};
that.init = function() {
someClient = initializeSomethingHere()
},
that.someMethod: function(done) {
someClient.doSomething(done)
}
//expose only the required methods
return that;
})();
Here only exposed methods are those which are attached to that object. And all rest are private to the function scope. Even if you miss the var keyword in someClient it won't be accessible out side of the function, which won't ever happen if you use 'use strict' at the top.
Logic is first time when you require the xyz.js file it will return the that object rather than the function.

Replacing anonynomous function while keeping all others from module

I'm fairly new to node.js, prototypical inheritance and the CommonJS module patterns.
Maybe this question was answered a million times, but I couldn't find it, so even a link to the answer is considered an answer.
I have to wrap a module that has both named and unnamed functions, like this:
// a.js
function a(data) {
console.log(data, 'A')
}
function b() {
a('B');
}
module.exports = a;
module.exports.b = b;
Given OOP background I would like to somehow 'inherit' all the functions of the module while I want to override the anonymous function (I'd like to add some fields to the data).
It is very important that after overriding function a in the new module function b should use the overridden method and not the original one.
// 'inherited.js'
var a = require('./a');
function overriddenA(data) {
data.myAddedValue = 'an important addition';
a(data);
}
// I would like to export all other functions and properties of the original module
[magic that overrides the anonymous function while keeping all other functions as they are]
From where I use it should look like this:
var decoratedA = require('./inherited');
decoratedA('stuff'); // it calls overridden function
decoratedA.b(); // it calls the original a.b() which in turn calls the overridden function
Solved our original problem
Check out this: https://stackoverflow.com/a/31459267/2018771 - still if you have any comment on the abstract problem, please answer the question. We are curious :).

I would like to somehow 'inherit' all the functions of the module while I want to override the anonymous function
Wanna use some dark magic? Then __proto__ is the way to go:
var a = require('./a');
function overriddenA(data) {
data.myAddedValue = 'an important addition';
a(data);
}
overriddenA.__proto__ = a;
module.exports = overriddenA;
The cleaner method, without actual inheritance, would be to just copy over all properties from a to overriddenA. You can use Object.assign (or a shim), _.extend, or a simple for in loop for that.

Meanwhile we have solved our original problem which was adding a special header to every calls of request library. In that implementation there were functions like get(), put(), post(), etc. that used one function: function request(...) which was exported module.exports = request
My understanding was that I had to replace that request(...) with our own, adding our header and then calling the original function.
But we were lucky because request(...) returned an object which we could modify according our needs:
Request.prototype.__originalInit = Request.prototype.init;
requestPromise.Request.prototype.init = function(options){
console.log('adding our stuff');
this.__originalInit(options);
};
So this solved the problem for us, but not the original question.

simple Constructor Pattern

I have worked with oop style scripting before and trying to get some kind of system with javascript. I wanted to try the most basic pattern, Constructor Pattern.
So I setup one js file called ImageView with a constructor matching the name of the js file.
function ImageView(){
alert( 'this is working');
}
Then I set up another js file called Main.js which will be the main instantiation class.
$(document).ready(function(){
var imageViewer = new ImageView();
//ImageView();
});
Now what I don't get is I can call this object ImageView without even the new constructor call. For example ImageView(). From what I gather this is just another global function and not a encapsulated class. I'm trying to get away from global crap and separate my methods and properties to their own class. What am I missing her.

Others have already answered what the difference is between using new and not using it, so I'll answer your entirely separate question: how do I avoid globals in JS?
The answer is that you can't entirely. You will always have at least one, in which you can stuff your other stuff. So for example if you wanted a "namespace" of xyz, you would do:
// global:
var xyz = {}; // or, window.xyz = {} if you are in a browser and want to be more explicit.
// "encapsulated" within the xyz "namespace":
xyz.ImageView = function () { alert("This is working"); };
There is a better solution: use the emerging concept of JavaScript modules. These are not language features (at least not in the current version of JavaScript), so they are really just hacks introduced by very clever libraries that overwrite a couple of global variables to let you avoid creating any more than the ones provided by those libraries. A good example is RequireJS, where you could do something like the following:
// In xyz.js, define the xyz module (name automatically derived from filename).
// Whatever is returned from the function you pass to define is "the xyz module"
define(function () {
return {
ImageView: function () { alert("This is working"); }
};
});
// In other code, in a different file, you can say "I require the xyz module
// to do my work," and pass require a function saying "once you've got the xyz module
// for me, here's the work I will do with it".
require(["xyz"], function (xyz) { // dependency array maps to callback arguments
// I got the xyz module, including the ImageView function it exported. Use it!
var imageViewer = new xyz.ImageView();
});
Here the clever globals RequireJS introduces are the functions define and require, but if you use them right, you can avoid ever introducing any further globals beside those two.

Inside of ImageView, the value of this will be different if you call it with new. Without, it's just another function. With new it will create a new ImageView instance and bind it to the variable this.

First off JavaScript doesn't have built in namespaces. It can only be simulated. You must also include each javascript file you plan on using.
Your right about just calling ImageView() that basically invokes the constructor on this which is next level of scope.
Using new ImageView() creates a new Object of constructor ImageView and this points to the new instance.
JavaScript is a prototype language with loose typing.