We Keep Coding

ensure undefined in accessing object don't break the enitre app

One annoying thing about writing js app is that nested object can caused error and break down the entire app.
if(result.applicant._id === null || applicant_id !== result.applicant._id.toString()){
console.log('redirect user');
}
Given above code, it can be dangerous, what if result.applicant._id is null? then toString will be invalid because it can't be undefined.toString(). How to ensure toString() work in this case? I can do
if(result.applicant._id === null || applicant_id !== (result.applicant._id && result.applicant._id.toString())){}
but that's so unclean. I found that I'll have many duplication just for the sake of checking something exist using js.

Your version works without ever hitting undefined.toString() because the if condition will be short-circuited (short-circuitted?) as result.applicant._id === null would evaluate as true and never evaluate applicant_id !== result.applicant._id.toString().
The test is already there no need to add extra checks in this case.
Update Just realised the === will not match undefined.
Just change the first part to result.applicant._id == null which will match undefined and null.
if (result.applicant._id == null || applicant_id !== result.applicant._id.toString()){
console.log('redirect user');
}
I know you may end with linting warnings but in this case that's exactly what you want.

A bit of short-handing might give you the cleaner code you're looking for.
As long as 0 is not a valid application id:
const id = result.application._id || 0;
if(!id || applicant_id !== id.toString()){
// redirect
}
Edit: To explain - the || in the variable declaration assigns the value to the first truthy value - or the second. Therefore, if the value is undefined, it will fall to the second value (0) which is still falsey and will fail the check, but can still have .toString() called on it.
Edit 2: If your ids are just numbers (which is what it looks like) then you actually don't need to convert it to a string - just let JavaScript's coercion to the work for you by using != instead of !==
const id = result.application._id || 0;
if(!id || applicant_id != id){
// redirect
}
In JavaScript, 12 == '12' is true. 12 === '12' is false. Generally the advice is to use === unless you consciously want to take advantage of coercion, and this seems like a good case for it :)

🏄 The shortest way could be this:
.: UPDATED :.
const applicant = result.applicant || {}
if (applicant_id !== `${applicant._id}`) {
console.log('redirect user');
}

In ES2015 is there a way to directly access object properties without checking for undefined?

In ES5 whenever I want to get some property I need to first check that it exists like this:
if (typeof floob.flib !== 'undefined') {
// do something
}
even worse is that for nested properties you have to manually check for the existence of every property down the dotted path.
Is there a better way to do this in ES2015?

If it is just a single depth property name - you don't need typeof, you may just compare the value with undefined.
Your solution is prone to false negatives: it may think there is no a property with a given name, while there is one. Example: var o = { foo: undefined };
If you need to check if the path exists in the nested objects - you still need to implement recursion/loop/or use any library that does either for you.
ES2015 did not bring anything new to solve this problem easier.

If you have lodash available, you can use _.get(obj, path, defaultValue) (https://lodash.com/docs#get)

By using typeof,
typeof floob.flib === 'undefined'
equals to,
floob.flib === undefined
I assume you want to check whether floob.flib has a value, and if it does, you want to perform an operation with it.
However, in JS, there's almost simpler way to achieve this.
E.g.
if (floob.flib) {
// 'floob.flib' is NOT 'null', 'empty string', '0', false or 'undefined'
}
This also works well if you want to assign variable with ternary ( ?: ) operators.
var str = floob.flib ? 'exists' : 'does not exist';
Or even using logical OR ( || )
var str = floob.flib || '<= either null, empty, false, 0 or undefined';
Note that unless floob.flib does not produce ReferenceError exception, the code above should work just fine.

JavaScript variable assignment with OR vs if check [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
What does the construct x = x || y mean?
(12 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
In JavaScript I recently realized you could use the OR || logical operator for assignment, and I want to know if it's considered bad practice.
In particular I have some functions that have optional array input, if the input is null or undefined I should just set it to an empty array [], if it has content it should take the content.
I found that using the assignment using the OR operator handles that perfectly in a single line, it's clean. However, it feels like the kind of thing that might be considered bad practice, or may have some horrible pitfalls I'm not considering.
Another approach is a simple if check, which is fairly safe in general.
I want to know if using the || approach seen below has any pitfalls I'm not considering, although it works in this scenario I would appreciate knowing if it works well to keep using this in the future, or to stop using it altogether.
https://jsbin.com/nozuxiwawa/1/edit?js,console
var myArray = ['Some', 'Strings', 'Whatever'];
// Just assign using OR
var pathOne = function(maybeAnArray) {
var array = maybeAnArray || [];
console.log(array);
}
// Assign using IF
var pathTwo = function(maybeAnArray) {
var array = [];
// Covers null and undefined
if (maybeAnArray != null) {
array = maybeAnArray;
}
console.log(array);
}
console.log('Path one:');
pathOne(myArray); // ['Some', 'Strings', 'Whatever']
pathOne(null); // []
console.log('\nPath two:');
pathTwo(myArray); // ['Some', 'Strings', 'Whatever']
pathTwo(null); // []

IMHO the use of the OR || for the purposes of assignment is perfectly valid and is good practice. We certainly use it in our projects and I've seen it used in lots of 3rd party projects that we use.
The thing you need to be aware of is how certain JavaScript objects can be coerced to be other values. So for example, if you're ORing values such as "", false or 0 then they are treated as false... this means that when you have the following:
function f(o) {
var x = o || -1;
return x;
}
Calling:
f(0)
...will return -1... but calling
f(1)
Will return 1 ... even though in both cases you passed a number - because 0 is treated as false -1 is assigned to x.
...that said, as long as you're aware of how the OR operator will treat the operands that you use with it - then it is good JavaScript practice to use it.

i prefer the first option, it's clear for my eyes, but when i need to share my code with others will think about to use second, will be more clear for any.
Now i'm using sonar, and prefer the second option too, will more easy to comprend for machine in inegration works.
Last idea is to use
if(maybeAnArray !== void(0))
Two reasons:
use cast and type conditionals
void(0) will works same for all browsers
Expect it helps yopu

When given the option, I prefer concise code (which must still be readable).
I would say || is common enough that it is considered good practice. Once one has seen it a few times it reads just fine.

In my opinion there are few reasons why you should rather use the second option:
First of all it's much more readable - new developers that are still learning can have problems with understanding notation like var myArray = someArrayArg || [];
If you are using some kind of code checkers like JSLint, they will return warnings and/or errors like Expected a conditional expression and instead saw an assignment. for the statement with var myArray = someArrayArg || [];
We already have something like var myArray = someArrayArg ? someArrayArg : []; that works pretty well

How to check if javascript variable exist, empty, array, (array but empty), undefined, object and so on

How to check if javascript variable exist, empty, array, (array but empty), undefined, object and so on
As mentioned in the title, I need a general overview how to check javascript variables in several cases without returning any error causing the browser to stop processing the pageload.
(now I have several issues in this topic.
For example IE stops with error in case _os is undefined, other browsers doesnt:
var _os = fbuser.orders;
var o =0;
var _ret = false;
for (var i = 0; i < _os.length; i++){
...
Furthermore i also need a guide of the proper using operators like == , ===.

As mentioned in the title, I need a general overview how to check
javascript variables in several cases without returning any error
causing the browser to stop processing the pageload.
To check whether or not variables is there, you can simply use typeof:
if (typeof _os != 'undefined'){
// your code
}
The typeof will also help you avoid var undefined error when checking that way.
Furthermore i also need a guide of the proper using operators like ==
, ===.
Both are equality operators. First one does loose comparison to check for values while latter not only checks value but also type of operands being compared.
Here is an example:
4 == "4" // true
4 === "4" // false because types are different eg number and string
With == javascript does type cohersion automatically. When you are sure about type and value of both operands, always use strict equality operator eg ===.
Generally, using typeof is problematic, you should ONLY use it to check whether or not a variables is present.
Read More at MDN:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en/JavaScript/Reference/Operators/typeof

The typeof operator is very helpful here:
typeof asdf
// "undefined"
Perhaps you want something like this in your case:
// Handle cases where `fbuser.orders` is not an array:
var _os = fbuser.orders || []

When to check for undefined and when to check for null

[Bounty Edit]
I'm looking for a good explanation when you should set/use null or undefined and where you need to check for it. Basically what are common practices for these two and is really possible to treat them separately in generic maintainable codee?
When can I safely check for === null, safely check for === undefined and when do I need to check for both with == null
When should you use the keyword undefined and when should one use the keyword null
I have various checks in the format of
if (someObj == null) or if (someObj != null) which check for both null and undefined. I would like to change all these to either === undefined or === null but I'm not sure how to guarantee that it will only ever be one of the two but not both.
Where should you use checks for null and where should you use checks for undefined
A concrete example:
var List = []; // ordered list contains data at odd indexes.
var getObject = function(id) {
for (var i = 0; i < List.length; i++) {
if (List[i] == null) continue;
if (id === List[i].getId()) {
return List[i];
}
}
return null;
}
var deleteObject = function(id) {
var index = getIndex(id) // pretty obvouis function
// List[index] = null; // should I set it to null?
delete List[index]; // should I set it to undefined?
}
This is just one example of where I can use both null or undefined and I don't know which is correct.
Are there any cases where you must check for both null and undefined because you have no choice?

Functions implicitly return undefined. Undefined keys in arrays are undefined. Undefined attributes in objects are undefined.
function foo () {
};
var bar = [];
var baz = {};
//foo() === undefined && bar[100] === undefined && baz.something === undefined
document.getElementById returns null if no elements are found.
var el = document.getElementById("foo");
// el === null || el instanceof HTMLElement
You should never have to check for undefined or null (unless you're aggregating data from both a source that may return null, and a source which may return undefined).
I recommend you avoid null; use undefined.

Some DOM methods return null. All properties of an object that have not been set return undefined when you attempt to access them, including properties of an Array. A function with no return statement implicitly returns undefined.
I would suggest making sure you know exactly what values are possible for the variable or property you're testing and testing for these values explicitly and with confidence. For testing null, use foo === null. For testing for undefined, I would recommend using typeof foo == "undefined" in most situations, because undefined (unlike null) is not a reserved word and is instead a simple property of the global object that may be altered, and also for other reasons I wrote about recently here: variable === undefined vs. typeof variable === "undefined"

The difference between null and undefined is that null is itself a value and has to be assigned. It's not the default. A brand new variable with no value assigned to it is undefined.
var x;
// value undefined - NOT null.
x = null;
// value null - NOT undefined.

I think it's interesting to note that, when Windows was first written, it didn't do a lot of checks for invalid/NULL pointers. Afterall, no programmer would be dumb enough to pass NULL where a valid string was needed. And testing for NULL just makes the code larger and slower.
The result was that many UAEs were due to errors in client programs, but all the heat went to Microsoft. Since then, Microsoft has changed Windows to pretty much check every argument for NULL.
I think the lesson is that, unless you are really sure an argument will always be valid, it's probably worth verifying that it is. Of course, Windows is used by a lot of programmers while your function may only be used by you. So that certainly factors in regarding how likely an invalid argument is.
In languages like C and C++, you can use ASSERTs and I use them ALL the time when using these languages. These are statements that verify certain conditions that you never expect to happen. During debugging, you can test that, in fact, they never do. Then when you do a release build these statements are not included in the compiled code. In some ways, this seems like the best of both worlds to me.

If you call a function with no explicit return then it implicitly returns undefined. So if I have a function that needs to say that it did its task and there is nothing result, e.g. a XMLHTTPRequest that returned nothing when you normally expect that there would be something (like a database call), then I would explicitly return null.

Undefined is different from null when using !== but not when using the weaker != because JavaScript does some implicit casting in this case.
The main difference between null and undefined is that undefined can also mean something which has not been assigned to.
undefined false
(SomeObject.foo) false false
(SomeObject.foo != null) false true
(SomeObject.foo !== null) true true
(SomeObject.foo != false) true false
(SomeObject.foo !== false) true false
This is taken from this weblog

The problem is that you claim to see the difference, but you don't. Take your example. It should really be:
var List = []; // ordered list contains data at odd indexes.
var getObject = function(id) {
for (var i = 1; i < List.length; i+=2) {
if (id === List[i].getId()) {
return List[i];
}
}
// returns undefined by default
}
Your algorithm is flawed because you check even indexes (even though you know there's nothing there), and you also misuse null as a return value.
These kind of functions should really return undefined because it means: there's no such data
And there you are in the heart of the problem. If you don't fully understand null and undefined and may use them wrongly sometimes, how can you be so sure that others will use it correctly? You can't.
Then there are Host objects with their nasty behavior, if you ask me, you better off checking for both. It doesn't hurt, in fact, it saves you some headaches dealing with third party code, or the aformentioned non-native objects.
Except for these two cases, in your own code, you can do what #bobince said:
Keep undefined as a special value for signalling when other languages might throw an exception instead.

When to set/use them...
Note that a method without a return statement returns undefined, you shouldn't force this as an expected response, if you use it in a method that should always return a value, then it should represent an error state internally.
Use null for an intentional or non-match response.
As for how/when to check...
undefined, null, 0, an empty string, NaN and false will be FALSE via coercion. These are known as "falsy" values... everything else is true.
Your best bet is coercion then testing for valid exception values...
var something; //undefined
something = !!something; //something coerced into a boolean
//true if false, null, NaN or undefined
function isFalsish(value) {
return (!value && value !== "" && value !== 0);
}
//get number or default
function getNumber(val, defaultVal) {
defaultVal = isFalsish(defaultVal) ? 0 : defaultVal;
return (isFalsish(val) || isNaN(val)) ? defaultVal : +val;
}
Numeric testing is the real bugger, since true, false and null can be coerced into a number, and 0 coerces to false.

I would treat them as 2 completely different values, and check for the one you know might occur.
If you're checking to see if something has been given a value yet, check against undefined.
If you're checking to see if the value is 'nothing,' check against 'null'
A slightly contrived example:
Say you have a series of ajax requests, and you're morally opposed to using callbacks so you have a timeout running that checks for their completion.
Your check would look something like this:
if (result !== undefined){
//The ajax requests have completed
doOnCompleteStuff();
if (result !== null){
//There is actually data to process
doSomething(result);
}
}
tldr; They are two different values, undefined means no value has been given, null means a value has been given, but the value is 'nothing'.