I have this object, a 3rd party tracking tool similar to google analytics. I want to extend it with my own "caching" function that saves the data from the previous tracking call so that I can reference stuff on the next tracking call if needed.
This is what I have so far, and it works:
// Current 3rd party tool, can't really mess with this.
// It is loaded from an external script
window.someTool={/* stuff */};
// my code
someTool._cache=someTool._cache||{};
someTool._cache._get=function(variabl) {
var length,index,variabl=(variabl||'').split('.'),
cache=someTool&&someTool._cache&&someTool._cache._dataLayer||{};
for (index=0,length=var.length;index<length;index++){
cache=cache[variabl[index]];
if (!cache) break;
}
return cache;
};
So then I have/do the following
// data layer output on initial page that gets wiped later
var dataLayer = {
'page' : {
'name' : 'foo',
'lang' : 'en'
},
'events' : {
'pageView' : true,
'search' : true
}
}
// I grab the initial data layer and save it here
someTool._cache._dataLayer = dataLayer;
This then allows me to do stuff like
someTool._cache._get('page'); // returns {'page':{'name':'foo','lang':'en'}
someTool._cache._get('page')['name']; // returns 'foo'
someTool._cache._get('page.lang'); // returns 'en'
So this works for me, but here comes the question/goal: I want to improve my _get function. Namely, I don't like that I have to hardcode someTool, or really even _cache, and if I can somehow swing it, _dataLayer.
Ideally, I'd like a reference of someTool._cache._dataLayer passed/exposed to _get (e.g. a parent type reference) so that if someTool,_cache, or _dataLayer were to change namespaces, I don't have to update _get. But I am not sure how to do that.
This is what I have so far:
(function(tool, cache, dataLayer) {
var tool = tool || {},
cache = cache || '_cache',
dataLayer = dataLayer || '_dataLayer';
dataLayer = tool[cache][dataLayer] || {};
tool[cache]._get = function(property) {
var length, index, property = (property || '').split('.');
for (index = 0, length = property.length; index < length; index++) {
dataLayer = dataLayer[property[index]];
if (!dataLayer) break;
}
return dataLayer;
};
})(someTool, '_cache', '_dataLayer');
This seems to work the first time I call it, e.g.
someTool._cache._get('page')['name']; // returns 'foo'
But after that, I get an error:
TypeError: someTool._cache._get(...) is undefined
I feel like it has something to do with dataLayer losing its reference or something, I dunno (though I'm not sure how it's working first time around..). Is what I am doing even possible, and if so, where am I going wrong? Or is what I originally have the best I can do?
I feel like it has something to do with dataLayer losing its reference or something, I dunno (though I'm not sure how it's working first time around..).
The reason this is happening is because you are using the same dataLayer you initialize in the closure of _get to:
store information, and
to use as a temporary loop variable
If you look at your code:
(function(tool, cache, dataLayer) {
// ...
// Here you are initializing (or looking up) the dataLayer
dataLayer = tool[cache][dataLayer] || {};
tool[cache]._get = function(property) {
// ...
for (index = 0, length = property.length; index < length; index++) {
// here you are overwriting the same dataLayer
dataLayer = dataLayer[property[index]];
if (!dataLayer) break;
}
return dataLayer;
};
})(someTool, '_cache', '_dataLayer');
You can see that your loop will overwrite dataLayer on each iteration which means every lookup after the first will most likely be wrong.
Eventually, dataLayer will be overwritten with undefined, and then any further lookups will now break the code.
What you can do is use another variable for the loop iteration:
var temp;
for (index = 0, length = property.length; index < length; index++) {
temp = dataLayer[property[index]];
if (!temp) break;
}
return temp;
This will leave your dataLayer object intact.
Although your code is so obsfucated (one-character variable names, abuse of the comma operator, etc.) that its hard to tell for sure, it seems that you need to fix a few things before moving on.
Properties prefixed with an underscore are meant to be private. They are subject to change, and by change I mean your app randomly breaking. Use the public API.
Parsing strings out by hand is a lot of work for seemingly little gain. Is the use case for get('page.id') over get('page').id really so compelling?
Your code is incomprehensible. This is the kind of output one would expect of a minifier: it makes it hard to understand what any of it does/is supposed to do.
Unless a third-party API is so integral to your application that replacing it would require a rewrite no matter what (e.g. google maps) or so well-known that it has umpteen clones (jquery), its is generally a good idea to wrap third-party library calls so you can change the library later.
I realize this does not answer your question, but its way too long for a comment and it would be remiss of me to not point out the bright red targets (plural) you've painted on your feet prior to polishing your firearm.
As for your actual question (post-edit), you're on the right track. But I'd make it a curried function so that you can dynamically access different properties. We're going to ignore for one minute the huge mistake that is accessing private properties just to get the point across:
function accessDataCache(cache) {
return function(dataLayer) {
return function(namespaceObj) {
return function(property) {
return namespaceObj[cache][dataLayer][property];
};
};
};
};
var getFn = accessDataCache('_cache')('_dataLayer')(someTool);
getFn('page');
You can now also mix and match if you need other stuff:
var getSomeOtherCachedThing = accessDataCache('_cache')('_someOtherThing')(someTool);
All of that is quite tedious to write out by hand, so I recommend using something like lodash or Ramda and .curry to achieve the effect:
var accessCacheData = R.curry(function(cache, dataLayer, namespaceObj, property) {
return namespaceObj[cache][dataLayer][property];
});
Related
In a chrome extension, I store some variables in chrome.storage.local like this: chrome.storage.local.set({["name" + counter]: ""}, function() {}); (many thanks to Xan's answer regarding ES6 computed property names here), where counter is basically an incremented number.
How can I use chrome.storage.local.remove to remove all the variables starting with "name" that were previously stored, when I don't need them anymore?
Note: I use this type of storage ("name0", "name1", ...) as I can't store them as an array and update it on the fly in chrome.storage.local (I have to first get the array, update it, then store it back, which is unsuitable for large amounts of data). Also, in the case of a new extension execution, I don't know the maximum counter value, so I'm not able to use it within a for loop.
I was trying to put this on a comment since things are outside my capability. But since this gives proper formatting, so.
I looked at chrome.storage that if you pass null to first parameter, you'll get the entire values. So by provide a callback to it, it becomes
chrome.storage.local.get(null, function (items) {
for (var key in items) {
if (key.startsWith('name')) { // or key.includes or whatever
chrome.storage.local.remove(key)
}
}
})
Since items stored might big enough, storing keys inside another key name would work perhaps.
Example of wrapper functions
function set(key, value) {
var collectionOfKeys = chrome.storage.local.get('collection_of_keys') || []
collection_of_keys.push(key)
chrome.storage.local.set('collection_of_keys', collection_of_keys)
chrome.storage.local.set('name' + key, value)
}
To remove
chrome.storage.local.remove(chrome.storage.local.get('collection_of_keys'))
Well, dumb enough if the size of keys is still big.
In case you keep it in sequence, maybe track the length of it will do.
function set(key, value) {
var collectionOfKeyLength = chrome.storage.local.get('collection_of_key_length') || 0
chrome.storage.local.set('collection_of_key_length', collectionOfKeyLength + 1)
chrome.storage.local.set('name' + key, value)
}
function remove () {
for (var i = 0; i < chrome.storage.local.get('collection_of_key_length'); i++) {
chrome.storage.local.remove('name' + i)
}
}
First of all, I'm aware there are many questions about closures in JavaScript, especially when it comes to loops. I've read through many of them, but I just can't seem to figure out how to fix my own particular problem. My main experience lies with C#, C++ and some ASM and it is taking some getting used to JavaScript.
I'm trying to populate a 3-dimensional array with new instances of a class (called Tile) in some for loops. All I want to do is pass along a reference to some other class (called Group) that gets instantiated in the first loop (and also added to another array). As you might have guessed, after the loops are done, every instance of the Tile class has a reference to the same Group object, namely the last one to be created.
Apparently instead of passing a reference to the Group object, a reference to some variable local to the function is passed along, which is updated in every iteration of the loop. My assumption is that solving this problem has something to do with closures as this appears to be the case with many similar problems I've come across while looking for a solution.
I've posted some trimmed down code that exposes the core of the problem on jsFiddle:
//GW2 namespace
(function( GW2, $, undefined ) {
//GW2Tile class
GW2.Tile = function(globalSettings, kineticGroup)
{
//Private vars
var tilegroup = kineticGroup;
// console.log(tilegroup.grrr); //Shows the correct value
var settings = globalSettings;
this.Test = function(){
console.log(tilegroup.grrr);
}
this.Test2 = function(group){
console.log(group.grrr);
}
} //Class
}( window.GW2 = window.GW2 || {}, jQuery ));
var zoomGroups = [];
var tiles = [];
var settings = {};
InitArrays();
tiles[0,0,0].Test(); //What I want to work, should give 0
tiles[0,0,0].Test2(zoomGroups[0]); //How I'd work around the issue
function InitArrays(){
var i, j, k, zoomMultiplier, tile;
for(i = 0; i <= 2; i++){
zoomGroups[i] = {};
zoomGroups[i].grrr = i;
tiles[i] = [];
zoomMultiplier = Math.pow(2, i);
for(j = 0; j < zoomMultiplier; j++){
tiles[i,j] = [];
for(k = 0; k < zoomMultiplier; k++){
tile = new GW2.Tile(settings, zoomGroups[i]);
tiles[i,j,k] = tile;
}
}
}
}
Up till now when working with JavaScript, I've generally fiddled with the code a bit to make it work, but I'm tired of using work-arounds that look messy as I know there should actually be some fairly simple solution. I'm just not fond of asking for help, but this is really doing my head in. Any help is very much appreciated.
Multidimensional arrays
The problem
The first issue with your code above is how you are attempting to create multidimensional arrays.
The syntax you are using is:
tiles[0,0,0]
However, the way JavaScript will interpret this is:
tiles[0]
Accessing a multidim array
If you wish to access a multidim array you have to use:
tiles[0][0][0]
And to create a multidim array you would need to do the following:
tiles = [];
tiles[0] = [];
tiles[0][0] = [];
tiles[0][0][0] = 'value';
or:
tiles = [[['value']]];
With respect to your code
In your code you should be using:
tiles[i][j][k] = tile;
But you should also make sure that each sub array actually exists before setting it's value, otherwise you'll get undefined or illegal offset errors.
You can do this by way of:
(typeof tiles[i] === 'undefined') && (tiles[i] = []);
(typeof tiles[i][j] === 'undefined') && (tiles[i][j] = []);
tiles[i][j][k] = tile;
Obviously the above can be optimised depending on how you are traversing your loops i.e. it would be best to make sure the tiles[i] level exists as an array before stepping in to the the [j] loop, and then not worry about checking it's existence again whilst stepping j.
Other options
Depending on what your dataset is, or at least what you hope to do with the tiles array it can be worth considering using an object instead:
/// set up
tiles = {};
/// assignment
tiles[i+','+j+','+k] = 'value';
However this method is likely to be slower, although I've been proved wrong a number of times by my assumptions and differing JavaScript interpreters. This would probably be were jsPerf would be your friend.
Optimisation
One benefit of using the tiles[i][j][k] approach is that it gives you the chance to optimise your references. For example, if you were about to process a number of actions at one level of your multidimensional array, you should do this:
/// set up
var ij = tiles[i][j];
/// use in loops or elsewhere
ij[k] = 'value'
This is only of benefit if you were to access the same level more than once however.
var obj = {};
obj.a = 1; // fire event, property "a" added
This question is different from this one, where ways to detect when an already declared property is changed, being discussed.
this is possible, technically, but since all current JS implementations that I know of are single threaded it won't be very elegant. The only thing I can think of is a brute force interval:
var checkObj = (function(watchObj)
{
var initialMap = {},allProps = [],prop;
for (prop in watchObj)
{
if (watchObj.hasOwnProperty(prop))
{//make tracer object: basically clone it
initialMap[prop] = watchObj[prop];
allProps.push(prop);//keep an array mapper
}
}
return function()
{
var currentProps = [];
for (prop in watchObj)
{
if (watchObj.hasOwnProperty(prop))
{//iterate the object again, compare
if (watchObj[prop] !== initialMap[prop])
{//type andvalue check!
console.log(initialMap[prop] + ' => ' watchObj[prop]);
//diff found, deal with it whichever way you see fit
}
currentProps.push(prop);
}
}
//we're not done yet!
if (currentProps.length < allProps.length)
{
console.log('some prop was deleted');
//loop through arrays to find out which one
}
};
})(someObjectToTrack);
var watchInterval = setInterval(checkObj,100);//check every .1 seconds?
That allows you to track an object to some extent, but again, it's quite a lot of work to do this 10/sec. Who knows, maybe the object changes several times in between the intervals, too.All in all, I feel as though this is a less-then-ideal approach... perhaps it would be easier to compare the string constants of the JSON.stringify'ed object, but that does mean missing out on functions, and (though I filtered them out in this example) prototype properties.
I have considered doing something similar at one point, but ended up just using my event handlers that changed the object in question to check for any changes.
Alternatively, you could also try creating a DOMElement, and attach an onchange listener to that... sadly, again, functions/methods might prove tricky to track, but at least it won't slow your script down as much as the code above will.
You could count the properties on the object and see if has changed from when you last checked:
How to efficiently count the number of keys/properties of an object in JavaScript?
this is a crude workaround, to use in case you can't find a proper support for the feature in the language.
If performance matters and you are in control of the code that changes the objects, create a control class that modifies your objects for you, e.g.
var myObj = new ObjectController({});
myObj.set('field', {});
myObj.set('field.arr', [{hello: true}]);
myObj.set('field.arr.0.hello', false);
var obj = myObj.get('field'); // obj === {field: {arr: [{hello: false}]}}
In your set() method, you now have the ability to see where every change occurs in a pretty high-performance fashion, compared with setting an interval and doing regular scans to check for changes.
I do something similar but highly optimised in ForerunnerDB. When you do CRUD operations on the database, change events are fired for specific field paths, allowing data-bound views to be updated when their underlying data changes.
Scenario: I'm searching for a specific object in a deep object. I'm using a recursive function that goes through the children and asks them if I'm searching for them or if I'm searching for their children or grandchildren and so on. When found, the found obj will be returned, else false. Basically this:
obj.find = function (match_id) {
if (this.id == match_id) return this;
for (var i = 0; i < this.length; i++) {
var result = this[i].find(match_id);
if (result !== false) return result;
};
return false;
}
i'm wondering, is there something simpler than this?:
var result = this[i].find(match_id);
if (result) return result;
It annoys me to store the result in a variable (on each level!), i just want to check if it's not false and return the result. I also considered the following, but dislike it even more for obvious reasons.
if (this[i].find(match_id)) return this[i].find(match_id);
Btw I'm also wondering, is this approach even "recursive"? it isn't really calling itself that much...
Thank you very much.
[edit]
There is another possibility by using another function check_find (which just returns only true if found) in the if statement. In some really complicated cases (e.g. where you don't just find the object, but also alter it) this might be the best approach. Or am I wrong? D:
Although the solution you have is probably "best" as far as search algorithms go, and I wouldn't necessarily suggest changing it (or I would change it to use a map instead of an algorithm), the question is interesting to me, especially relating to the functional properties of the JavaScript language, and I would like to provide some thoughts.
Method 1
The following should work without having to explicitly declare variables within a function, although they are used as function arguments instead. It's also quite succinct, although a little terse.
var map = Function.prototype.call.bind(Array.prototype.map);
obj.find = function find(match_id) {
return this.id == match_id ? this : map(this, function(u) {
return find.call(u, match_id);
}).filter(function(u) { return u; })[0];
};
How it works:
We test to see if this.id == match_id, if so, return this.
We use map (via Array.prototype.map) to convert this to an array of "found items", which are found using the recursive call to the find method. (Supposedly, one of these recursive calls will return our answer. The ones which don't result in an answer will return undefined.)
We filter the "found items" array so that any undefined results in the array are removed.
We return the first item in the array, and call it quits.
If there is no first item in the array, undefined will be returned.
Method 2
Another attempt to solve this problem could look like this:
var concat = Function.prototype.call.bind(Array.prototype.concat),
map = Function.prototype.call.bind(Array.prototype.map);
obj.find = function find(match_id) {
return (function buildObjArray(o) {
return concat([ o ], map(o, buildObjArray));
})(this).filter(function(u) { return u.id == match_id })[0];
};
How it works:
buildObjArray builds a single, big, 1-dimensional array containing obj and all of obj's children.
Then we filter based on the criteria that an object in the array must have an id of match_id.
We return the first match.
Both Method 1 and Method 2, while interesting, have the performance disadvantage that they will continue to search even after they've found a matching id. They don't realize they have what they need until the end of the search, and this is not very efficient.
Method 3
It is certainly possible to improve the efficiency, and now I think this one really gets close to what you were interested in.
var forEach = Function.prototype.call.bind(Array.prototype.forEach);
obj.find = function(match_id) {
try {
(function find(obj) {
if(obj.id == match_id) throw this;
forEach(obj, find);
})(obj);
} catch(found) {
return found;
}
};
How it works:
We wrap the whole find function in a try/catch block so that once an item is found, we can throw and stop execution.
We create an internal find function (IIFE) inside the try which we reference to make recursive calls.
If this.id == match_id, we throw this, stopping our search algorithm.
If it doesn't match, we recursively call find on each child.
If it did match, the throw is caught by our catch block, and the found object is returned.
Since this algorithm is able to stop execution once the object is found, it would be close in performance to yours, although it still has the overhead of the try/catch block (which on old browsers can be expensive) and forEach is slower than a typical for loop. Still these are very small performance losses.
Method 4
Finally, although this method does not fit the confines of your request, it is much, much better performance if possible in your application, and something to think about. We rely on a map of ids which maps to objects. It would look something like this:
// Declare a map object.
var map = { };
// ...
// Whenever you add a child to an object...
obj[0] = new MyObject();
// .. also store it in the map.
map[obj[0].id] = obj[0];
// ...
// Whenever you want to find the object with a specific id, refer to the map:
console.log(map[match_id]); // <- This is the "found" object.
This way, no find method is needed at all!
The performance gains in your application by using this method will be HUGE. Please seriously consider it, if at all possible.
However, be careful to remove the object from the map whenever you will no longer be referencing that object.
delete map[obj.id];
This is necessary to prevent memory leaks.
No there is no other clear way, storing the result in a variable isn't that much trouble, actually this is what variables are used for.
Yes, that approach is recursive:
you have the base case if (this.id==match_id) return this
you have the recursive step which call itself obj.find(match_id) { ... var result = this[i].find(match_id); }
I don't see any reason, why storing the variable would be bad. It's not a copy, but a reference, so it's efficient. Plus the temporary variable is the only way, that I can see right now (I may be wrong, though).
With that in mind, I don't think, that a method check_find would make very much sense (it's most probably basically the same implementation), so if you really need this check_find method, I'd implement it as
return this.find(match_id) !== false;
Whether the method is recursive is hard to say.
Basically, I'd say yes, as the implementations of 'find' are all the same for every object, so it's pretty much the same as
function find(obj, match_id) {
if (obj.id == match_id) return obj;
for (var i = 0; i < obj.length; ++i) {
var result = find(obj[i], match_id);
if (result !== false) return result;
}
}
which is definitely recursive (the function calls itself).
However, if you'd do
onesingleobjectinmydeepobject.find = function(x) { return this; }
I'm not quite sure, if you still would call this recursive.
I'm looking for patterns which have been found acceptable when working with instances of js objects on the same page. (If there is a thread already covering this, a link will be appreciated.)
The issue is one of reference. After an object/feature is instantiated, it has to be referenced at some point later.
I've seen jQuery people store a reference to the object on the target DOM element using data(). However, I'm interested in a framework agnostic option if possible.
This could be accomplished if there was a clean, viable way to generate an unique id for a DOM element. Alas, I have not found one yet.
So my question is: What is the best way to store reference to an object, via a DOM element, so that you can reference it at a future arbitrary time?
Hopefully this makes sense, and I'm not just rambling. :)
Thanks.
There is nothing stopping you from maintaining your own cache:
var cache = [];
function locate(el) {
// search for the element within our cache.
for (var i=0;i<cache.length;i++) {
if (cache[i].elem === el) {
return cache[i].data;
};
};
// if we get this far, it isn't in the cache: add it and return it.
return cache[cache.push({
elem: el,
data: {}
}) - 1].data;
};
// used to add data to an element and store it in our cache.
function storeData(el, data) {
var store = locate(el);
for (var x in data) {
store[x] = data[x];
};
};
// used to retrieve all data stored about the target element.
function getData(el) {
return locate(el);
};
and then use as follows:
storeData(document.getElementById("foo"), {
something: 4,
else: "bar"
});
var data = getData(document.getElementById("foo"));
alert(data.something); // "4";
Objects in JavaScript (unlike classical OOP languages) can be augmented. There's nothing wrong with that; that's the way JavaScript was designed to be used:
Write:
document.getElementById( 'foo' ).customAttribute = 5;
Read:
alert( document.getElementById( 'foo' ).customAttribute );
If you don't want to alter the original object, the only way to point at it is using a dictionary as pointed out in one of the previous answers; however, you don't need to do a linear search to find the object: it can be done in logarithmic time providing you use an ID per element (potentially not its HTML ID but a custom one)