I just start learning JavaScript and I faced with problem: I don't know how to check what exactly I can do with my variables (for example, how I can manage string or array). In Python there are very useful methods dir() and help() that allow user to get list of all applicable methods and find out how to use them:
>>>my_number = 1
>>>dir(my_number)
This will return
['bit_length', 'conjugate', 'denominator', 'from_bytes', 'imag', 'numerator', 'real', 'to_bytes']
the list of methods I can apply to my_number variable
Then I can get description of each method:
>>>help(my_number.real)
Help on int object:
class int(object)
| int(x=0) -> integer
| int(x, base=10) -> integer
|
| Convert a number or string to an integer, or return 0 if no arguments
| are given. If x is a number, return x.__int__(). For floating point
| numbers, this truncates towards zero...
So is there any similar function in JavaScript so I can call it like console.log(getAllMethodsFor(myNumber)) ? This could significantly simplify process of language learning...
you can get the properties of a variable and check if the typeof property is a function
function getAllFunctions(myvar)
{
var allMethods = [];
for( var property in myvar)
{
if (typeof myvar[property] == "function")
{
allMethods.push(property);
}
}
return allMethods ;
}
Nothing built-in, but easy to write:
function dir(obj) {
if(obj === null)
return [];
var uniq = a => a.filter((x, i) => a.indexOf(x) === i);
return uniq(dir(Object.getPrototypeOf(obj)).concat(
Object.getOwnPropertyNames(obj).filter(p => typeof obj[p] === 'function')
));
}
document.write(dir(1))
document.write("<hr>");
document.write(dir("abc"))
Regarding help, there's no such thing either, but typing mdn <method name> in google usually does the trick.
There is no such thing by default, but you could write one simply by iterating the properties of the given object:
for (var prop in obj) {
if (typeof obj[prop] == 'function') {
console.log(prop);
}
}
Having said that, that's still missing the integrated docstrings for help(). Typically in Javascript development you're reading the (hopefully) accompanying documentation and/or use an interactive console like Chrome's Web Inspector to inspect objects in a more GUI-like manner.
Related
I have an object with lots of own and inherited methods. I need to make a simple snapshot of it with only primitive properties.
What's the most elegant way how to do it?
Javascript snippet
function copy(source) {
var target;
if (source) {
target = {};
for (var key in source) {
var prop = source[key],
type = typeof prop;
if (type === "string" || type === "number" || type === "boolean") {
target[key] = prop;
}
if (type == "object") {
target[key] = copy(prop);
}
}
}
return target;
}
With Underscore.js
function copy(source) {
var target;
if (source) {
target = {};
_.filter( _.keys(source), function( key ) {
var prop = source[key];
if (!_.isFunction(prop) && !_.isObject(prop)) {
target[key] = prop;
}
if (_.isObject(prop)) {
target[key] = copy(prop);
}
});
}
return target;
}
The problem here is that you are dealing with a mix of types that may or may not be what you want thanks to the loose typing that JavaScript offers. Specifically without walking any given array it is impossible to tell whether it only contains primitives and you might therefore want to keep it or whether it contains objects or functions that you want to filter out.
I realise library recommendations are the oldest hat, but I'm also going to strongly recommend that you use Underscore.js ( or a derivative such as Lodash ) which gives a whole lot of super-convenient functions that I use the whole time. In a very real sense these feel like the missing part of the core JavaScript language - in fact in some cases they are wrapping native functionality, but allowing you to avoid platform inconsistencies.
If you have Underscore included in your library then you can find the non-object property names of any given object like this:
var myObject = {
a: "hello",
b: "goodbye",
c: function() { console.log(this.b);}
d: { hello: "banana" }
};
_.filter( _.keys(myObject), function( key ) {
return ! _.isObject(myObject[key]);
}) // => ["a", "b"]
This could then be tidied into a function to clone the object, but of course it's unnecessary because Underscore offers us _.pick, which returns a copy of the object with only the whitelisted properties:
_.pick( myObject, _.filter( _.keys(myObject), function( key ) { return ! _.isObject(myObject[key]);}))
By flipping the !_.isObject you can retrieve all the properties which are objects, and perform a similar mapping on those if necessary. By wrapping both in a function you can call it recursively on the child objects you want to clone.
This answers your question, but be aware that this might not be the best way to perform undo/redo actions, which you mention in your comments is the use you plan to put this to. It may be easier to record actions and states onto a history stack recording only the actual changes any action performs, where they can be retrieved and reverted safely without needing to keep snapshots of your data.
I have an object (parse tree) that contains child nodes which are references to other nodes.
I'd like to serialize this object, using JSON.stringify(), but I get
TypeError: cyclic object value
because of the constructs I mentioned.
How could I work around this? It does not matter to me whether these references to other nodes are represented or not in the serialized object.
On the other hand, removing these properties from the object when they are being created seems tedious and I wouldn't want to make changes to the parser (narcissus).
Use the second parameter of stringify, the replacer function, to exclude already serialized objects:
var seen = [];
JSON.stringify(obj, function(key, val) {
if (val != null && typeof val == "object") {
if (seen.indexOf(val) >= 0) {
return;
}
seen.push(val);
}
return val;
});
http://jsfiddle.net/mH6cJ/38/
As correctly pointed out in other comments, this code removes every "seen" object, not only "recursive" ones.
For example, for:
a = {x:1};
obj = [a, a];
the result will be incorrect. If your structure is like this, you might want to use Crockford's decycle or this (simpler) function which just replaces recursive references with nulls:
function decycle(obj, stack = []) {
if (!obj || typeof obj !== 'object')
return obj;
if (stack.includes(obj))
return null;
let s = stack.concat([obj]);
return Array.isArray(obj)
? obj.map(x => decycle(x, s))
: Object.fromEntries(
Object.entries(obj)
.map(([k, v]) => [k, decycle(v, s)]));
}
//
let a = {b: [1, 2, 3]}
a.b.push(a);
console.log(JSON.stringify(decycle(a)))
This is kind of an alternate-answer, but since what a lot of people will come here for is debugging their circular objects and there's not really a great way to do that without pulling in a bunch of code, here goes.
One feature that's not as well-known as JSON.stringify() is console.table(). Simply call console.table(whatever);, and it will log the variable in the console in tabular format, making it rather quite easy and convenient to peruse the variable's contents.
Here is an example of a data structure with cyclic references:
function makeToolshed(){
var nut = {name: 'nut'}, bolt = {name: 'bolt'};
nut.needs = bolt; bolt.needs = nut;
return { nut: nut, bolt: bolt };
}
When you wish to KEEP the cyclic references (restore them when you deserialize, instead of "nuking" them), you have 2 choices, which I'll compare here. First is Douglas Crockford's cycle.js, second is my siberia package. Both work by first "decycling" the object, i.e., constructing another object (without any cyclic references) "containing the same information."
Mr. Crockford goes first:
JSON.decycle(makeToolshed())
As you see, the nested structure of JSON is retained, but there is a new thing, which is objects with the special $ref property. Let's see how that works.
root = makeToolshed();
[root.bolt === root.nut.needs, root.nut.needs.needs === root.nut]; // retutrns [true,true]
The dollar sign stands for the root. .bolt having $ref tells us that .bolt is an "already seen" object, and the value of that special property (here, the string $["nut"]["needs"]) tells us where, see first === above. Likewise for second $ref and the second === above.
Let's use a suitable deep equality test (namely Anders Kaseorg's deepGraphEqual function from accepted answer to this question) to see if cloning works.
root = makeToolshed();
clone = JSON.retrocycle(JSON.decycle(root));
deepGraphEqual(root, clone) // true
serialized = JSON.stringify(JSON.decycle(root));
clone2 = JSON.retrocycle(JSON.parse(serialized));
deepGraphEqual(root, clone2); // true
Now, siberia:
JSON.Siberia.forestify(makeToolshed())
Siberia does not try to mimic "classic" JSON, no nested structure. The object graph is described in a "flat" manner.
Each node of the object graph is turned into a flat tree (plain key value pair list with integer-only values), which is an entry in .forest. At index zero, we find the root object, at higher indices, we find the other nodes of the object graph, and negative values (of some key of some tree of the forest) point to the atoms array, (which is typed via the types array, but we'll skip the typing details here). All terminal nodes are in the atoms table, all non-terminal nodes are in the forest table, and you can see right away how many nodes the object graph has, namely forest.length. Let's test if it works:
root = makeToolshed();
clone = JSON.Siberia.unforestify(JSON.Siberia.forestify(root));
deepGraphEqual(root, clone); // true
serialized = JSON.Siberia.stringify(JSON.Siberia.forestify(root));
clone2 = JSON.Siberia.unforestify(JSON.Siberia.unstringify(serialized));
deepGraphEqual(root, clone2); // true
comparison
will add section later.
note
I'm currently refactoring the package. Central ideas and algorithms are staying the same, but the new version will be easier to use, the top level API will be different. I will very soon archive siberia and present the refactored version, which I'll call objectgraph. Stay tuned, it will happen this month (August 2020)
ah, and ultra short version for the comparison. For a "pointer", I need as much space as an integer takes, since my "pointers to already seen nodes" (as a matter of fact, to all nodes, already seen or not) are just integers. In Mr. Crockford's version, amount needed to store a "pointer" is bounded only by the size of the object graph. That makes the worst case complexity of Mr. Crockford's version extremely horrible. Mr. Crockford gave us "another Bubblesort". I'm not kidding you. It's that bad. If you don't believe it, there are tests, you can find them starting from the readme of the package (will transform them to be benchmark.js compliant also this month, Aug 2020)
much saver and it shows where an cycle object was.
<script>
var jsonify=function(o){
var seen=[];
var jso=JSON.stringify(o, function(k,v){
if (typeof v =='object') {
if ( !seen.indexOf(v) ) { return '__cycle__'; }
seen.push(v);
} return v;
});
return jso;
};
var obj={
g:{
d:[2,5],
j:2
},
e:10
};
obj.someloopshere = [
obj.g,
obj,
{ a: [ obj.e, obj ] }
];
console.log('jsonify=',jsonify(obj));
</script>
produces
jsonify = {"g":{"d":[2,5],"j":2},"e":10,"someloopshere":[{"d":[2,5],"j":2},"__cycle__",{"a":[10,"__cycle__"]}]}
I've created an GitHub Gist which is able to detect cyclic structures and also de- and encodes them: https://gist.github.com/Hoff97/9842228
To transform just use JSONE.stringify/JSONE.parse.
It also de- and encodes functions. If you want to disable this just remove lines 32-48 and 61-85.
var strg = JSONE.stringify(cyclicObject);
var cycObject = JSONE.parse(strg);
You can find an example fiddle here:
http://jsfiddle.net/hoff97/7UYd4/
I create too a github project that can serialize cyclic object and restore the class if you save it in the serializename attribute like a String
var d={}
var a = {b:25,c:6,enfant:d};
d.papa=a;
var b = serializeObjet(a);
assert.equal( b, "{0:{b:25,c:6,enfant:'tab[1]'},1:{papa:'tab[0]'}}" );
var retCaseDep = parseChaine(b)
assert.equal( retCaseDep.b, 25 );
assert.equal( retCaseDep.enfant.papa, retCaseDep );
https://github.com/bormat/serializeStringifyParseCyclicObject
Edit:
I have transform my script for NPM https://github.com/bormat/borto_circular_serialize and I have change function names from french to english.
the nodejs module serialijse provides a nice way to deal with any type of JSON objects containing cycles or javascript class instances.
const { serialize, deserialize } = require("serialijse");
var Mary = { name: "Mary", friends: [] };
var Bob = { name: "Bob", friends: [] };
Mary.friends.push(Bob);
Bob.friends.push(Mary);
var group = [ Mary, Bob];
console.log(group);
// testing serialization using JSON.stringify/JSON.parse
try {
var jstr = JSON.stringify(group);
var jo = JSON.parse(jstr);
console.log(jo);
} catch (err) {
console.log(" JSON has failed to manage object with cyclic deps");
console.log(" and has generated the following error message", err.message);
}
// now testing serialization using serialijse serialize/deserialize
var str = serialize(group);
var so = deserialize(str);
console.log(" However Serialijse knows to manage object with cyclic deps !");
console.log(so);
assert(so[0].friends[0] == so[1]); // Mary's friend is Bob
this serializer supports
cycle in the object definition
reconstruction of class's instance
support for Typed Array, Map, and Set
ability to filter properties to skip during the serialization process.
binary encoding of Typed Array (Float32Array etc ... ) for performance.
function stringifyObject ( obj ) {
if ( _.isArray( obj ) || !_.isObject( obj ) ) {
return obj.toString()
}
var seen = [];
return JSON.stringify(
obj,
function( key, val ) {
if (val != null && typeof val == "object") {
if ( seen.indexOf( val ) >= 0 )
return
seen.push( val )
}
return val
}
);
}
A precondition was missing, otherwise the integer values in array objects are truncated, i.e. [[ 08.11.2014 12:30:13, 1095 ]] 1095 gets reduced to 095.
When accessing nested objects using dot notation, I always have to make sure that the previous object exists, which gets pretty exhausting.
I basically want to avoid long if chains like
if (a && a.b && a.b.c && a.b.c[0] ... ) { v = a.b.c[0]; }
The only other thing I can think of is via the use of a try catch.
var v; try { v = a.b.c[0].d.e; } catch (e) {}
Is there a better pattern for this?
I think you've got the two prettiest solutions already.
But note that for something like, say, obj.obj.string.length your first solution will fail if string === "". Since an empty string is falsey, it'll trip the && guard.
But speaking of strings, you could do something like:
function getNestedProperty(obj, propChain) {
var props = propChain.slice(0), prop = props.shift();
if(typeof obj[prop] !== "undefined") {
if(props.length) {
return getNestedProperty(obj[prop], props);
} else {
return obj[prop];
}
}
}
var v = getNestedProperty(a, ["b", "c", 0, "d", "e"]);
Yeah... not too pretty :P
I'd say that, of the solutions proposed, try...catch is probably the simplest way to go
How about this one:
var hasProperty = function (object, property) {
var properties = property.split('.'),
temp = object;
while (temp && properties.length) {
temp = temp[properties.shift()];
}
return !!temp;
};
and then use it like:
if (a && hasProperty(a, 'b.c.0' ) { v = a.b.c[0]; }
The scenario you are referring to in your question is also called "optional chaining". Some languages already support it by now – for example C# has so called null-conditional operators which allow you to short-circuit your expressions:
var count = customers?[0]?.Orders?.Count();
Unfortunately, this feature has not yet made it into the current JS specifications.
There is an open Stage 1 proposol for "optional chaining" that can be tracked here.
This would allow you to write...
a?.b[3].c?.(x).d
...instead of:
a == null ? undefined : a.b[3].c == null ? undefined : a.b[3].c(x).d
If you want to take the risk and use it already at this early stage, you can target it via babel to include it in your project.
It's rather evil, but this should work and doesn't look too horrible:
var i = !a ? null : !a.b ? null : !a.b.c ? null : !a.b.c.d ? a.b.c.d.e;
The reason for the ! is to invert the test flag, to allow the success case to be the last expression in the ?:. That allows us to chain them together like this.
Do check the operator precedence if you want to do this for real (I did some very basic tests and I think I got it right). And do expect people to point and laugh if they see it in your code.
There seems to have many question asked similar on counting number of element already but I am failing to implement them with mine problem.
After jquery ajax I get JSON data returned which looks something like this
Object {0: Object, 1: Object , xxxx:"asdf" ,yyyy:"asdf", zzzz:"asdf"}
I want to get number of object between this { } braces ( not counting those xxx,yyy element )
I tried .length which doesn't work
I also tried using this Length of a JavaScript object but that return the number of element in each object. I just want the number of object
Thank You
Try this:
var json = { 0: {}, 1: {}, xxxx: "asdf", yyyy: "asdf", zzzz: "asdf" };
function typeOf( obj ) {
return ({}).toString.call( obj )
.match(/\s([a-zA-Z]+)/)[1].toLowerCase();
}
var total = 0;
for ( var o in json ) {
if ( typeOf( json[o] ) == 'object' ) {
total++;
}
}
console.log( total ); //=> 2
Everything is an object in JavaScript. The typeof operator is misleading and won't work in this case. You can use the typeOf function above that I extracted from this blog post: Fixing the JavaScript typeof operator (worth reading). There are other ways of doing it but this seems like the most straightforward.
If it's not just a coincidence that the objects are the ones with numeric property names, and the numeric properties count up sequentially, you could do something like this:
var obj = { /* your object here */ }
for (var i=0; i in obj; i++) {
// use obj[i] for something
}
// i is now equal to the number of numeric properties
This works because as soon as i is high enough that you've run out of properties the in operator will return false. Feel free to use .hasOwnProperty() instead if you prefer.
Obviously this is a specialised solution that doesn't test the type of the different properties at all. (To actually test the type see elclanrs' solution - and either way read the page he linked to.)
Say that the entire json is in a variable called json:
var total_objects = 0;
$.each(json, function () {
if (typeof this == 'object') {
total_objects++;
}
});
However, I am curious as to why you would need to know this.
You can use a customized version from the code of this question Length of Javascript Object (ie. Associative Array) and check for element's type using typeof operator and count only those which are an object (or an array).
Object.sizeObj = function(obj) {
var size = 0, key;
for (key in obj) {
if (typeof key[obj] === 'object' && obj.hasOwnProperty(key)) size++;
}
return size;
};
// Get the count of those elements which are an object
var objectsCount = Object.sizeObj(myArray);
I have an object (parse tree) that contains child nodes which are references to other nodes.
I'd like to serialize this object, using JSON.stringify(), but I get
TypeError: cyclic object value
because of the constructs I mentioned.
How could I work around this? It does not matter to me whether these references to other nodes are represented or not in the serialized object.
On the other hand, removing these properties from the object when they are being created seems tedious and I wouldn't want to make changes to the parser (narcissus).
Use the second parameter of stringify, the replacer function, to exclude already serialized objects:
var seen = [];
JSON.stringify(obj, function(key, val) {
if (val != null && typeof val == "object") {
if (seen.indexOf(val) >= 0) {
return;
}
seen.push(val);
}
return val;
});
http://jsfiddle.net/mH6cJ/38/
As correctly pointed out in other comments, this code removes every "seen" object, not only "recursive" ones.
For example, for:
a = {x:1};
obj = [a, a];
the result will be incorrect. If your structure is like this, you might want to use Crockford's decycle or this (simpler) function which just replaces recursive references with nulls:
function decycle(obj, stack = []) {
if (!obj || typeof obj !== 'object')
return obj;
if (stack.includes(obj))
return null;
let s = stack.concat([obj]);
return Array.isArray(obj)
? obj.map(x => decycle(x, s))
: Object.fromEntries(
Object.entries(obj)
.map(([k, v]) => [k, decycle(v, s)]));
}
//
let a = {b: [1, 2, 3]}
a.b.push(a);
console.log(JSON.stringify(decycle(a)))
This is kind of an alternate-answer, but since what a lot of people will come here for is debugging their circular objects and there's not really a great way to do that without pulling in a bunch of code, here goes.
One feature that's not as well-known as JSON.stringify() is console.table(). Simply call console.table(whatever);, and it will log the variable in the console in tabular format, making it rather quite easy and convenient to peruse the variable's contents.
Here is an example of a data structure with cyclic references:
function makeToolshed(){
var nut = {name: 'nut'}, bolt = {name: 'bolt'};
nut.needs = bolt; bolt.needs = nut;
return { nut: nut, bolt: bolt };
}
When you wish to KEEP the cyclic references (restore them when you deserialize, instead of "nuking" them), you have 2 choices, which I'll compare here. First is Douglas Crockford's cycle.js, second is my siberia package. Both work by first "decycling" the object, i.e., constructing another object (without any cyclic references) "containing the same information."
Mr. Crockford goes first:
JSON.decycle(makeToolshed())
As you see, the nested structure of JSON is retained, but there is a new thing, which is objects with the special $ref property. Let's see how that works.
root = makeToolshed();
[root.bolt === root.nut.needs, root.nut.needs.needs === root.nut]; // retutrns [true,true]
The dollar sign stands for the root. .bolt having $ref tells us that .bolt is an "already seen" object, and the value of that special property (here, the string $["nut"]["needs"]) tells us where, see first === above. Likewise for second $ref and the second === above.
Let's use a suitable deep equality test (namely Anders Kaseorg's deepGraphEqual function from accepted answer to this question) to see if cloning works.
root = makeToolshed();
clone = JSON.retrocycle(JSON.decycle(root));
deepGraphEqual(root, clone) // true
serialized = JSON.stringify(JSON.decycle(root));
clone2 = JSON.retrocycle(JSON.parse(serialized));
deepGraphEqual(root, clone2); // true
Now, siberia:
JSON.Siberia.forestify(makeToolshed())
Siberia does not try to mimic "classic" JSON, no nested structure. The object graph is described in a "flat" manner.
Each node of the object graph is turned into a flat tree (plain key value pair list with integer-only values), which is an entry in .forest. At index zero, we find the root object, at higher indices, we find the other nodes of the object graph, and negative values (of some key of some tree of the forest) point to the atoms array, (which is typed via the types array, but we'll skip the typing details here). All terminal nodes are in the atoms table, all non-terminal nodes are in the forest table, and you can see right away how many nodes the object graph has, namely forest.length. Let's test if it works:
root = makeToolshed();
clone = JSON.Siberia.unforestify(JSON.Siberia.forestify(root));
deepGraphEqual(root, clone); // true
serialized = JSON.Siberia.stringify(JSON.Siberia.forestify(root));
clone2 = JSON.Siberia.unforestify(JSON.Siberia.unstringify(serialized));
deepGraphEqual(root, clone2); // true
comparison
will add section later.
note
I'm currently refactoring the package. Central ideas and algorithms are staying the same, but the new version will be easier to use, the top level API will be different. I will very soon archive siberia and present the refactored version, which I'll call objectgraph. Stay tuned, it will happen this month (August 2020)
ah, and ultra short version for the comparison. For a "pointer", I need as much space as an integer takes, since my "pointers to already seen nodes" (as a matter of fact, to all nodes, already seen or not) are just integers. In Mr. Crockford's version, amount needed to store a "pointer" is bounded only by the size of the object graph. That makes the worst case complexity of Mr. Crockford's version extremely horrible. Mr. Crockford gave us "another Bubblesort". I'm not kidding you. It's that bad. If you don't believe it, there are tests, you can find them starting from the readme of the package (will transform them to be benchmark.js compliant also this month, Aug 2020)
much saver and it shows where an cycle object was.
<script>
var jsonify=function(o){
var seen=[];
var jso=JSON.stringify(o, function(k,v){
if (typeof v =='object') {
if ( !seen.indexOf(v) ) { return '__cycle__'; }
seen.push(v);
} return v;
});
return jso;
};
var obj={
g:{
d:[2,5],
j:2
},
e:10
};
obj.someloopshere = [
obj.g,
obj,
{ a: [ obj.e, obj ] }
];
console.log('jsonify=',jsonify(obj));
</script>
produces
jsonify = {"g":{"d":[2,5],"j":2},"e":10,"someloopshere":[{"d":[2,5],"j":2},"__cycle__",{"a":[10,"__cycle__"]}]}
I've created an GitHub Gist which is able to detect cyclic structures and also de- and encodes them: https://gist.github.com/Hoff97/9842228
To transform just use JSONE.stringify/JSONE.parse.
It also de- and encodes functions. If you want to disable this just remove lines 32-48 and 61-85.
var strg = JSONE.stringify(cyclicObject);
var cycObject = JSONE.parse(strg);
You can find an example fiddle here:
http://jsfiddle.net/hoff97/7UYd4/
I create too a github project that can serialize cyclic object and restore the class if you save it in the serializename attribute like a String
var d={}
var a = {b:25,c:6,enfant:d};
d.papa=a;
var b = serializeObjet(a);
assert.equal( b, "{0:{b:25,c:6,enfant:'tab[1]'},1:{papa:'tab[0]'}}" );
var retCaseDep = parseChaine(b)
assert.equal( retCaseDep.b, 25 );
assert.equal( retCaseDep.enfant.papa, retCaseDep );
https://github.com/bormat/serializeStringifyParseCyclicObject
Edit:
I have transform my script for NPM https://github.com/bormat/borto_circular_serialize and I have change function names from french to english.
the nodejs module serialijse provides a nice way to deal with any type of JSON objects containing cycles or javascript class instances.
const { serialize, deserialize } = require("serialijse");
var Mary = { name: "Mary", friends: [] };
var Bob = { name: "Bob", friends: [] };
Mary.friends.push(Bob);
Bob.friends.push(Mary);
var group = [ Mary, Bob];
console.log(group);
// testing serialization using JSON.stringify/JSON.parse
try {
var jstr = JSON.stringify(group);
var jo = JSON.parse(jstr);
console.log(jo);
} catch (err) {
console.log(" JSON has failed to manage object with cyclic deps");
console.log(" and has generated the following error message", err.message);
}
// now testing serialization using serialijse serialize/deserialize
var str = serialize(group);
var so = deserialize(str);
console.log(" However Serialijse knows to manage object with cyclic deps !");
console.log(so);
assert(so[0].friends[0] == so[1]); // Mary's friend is Bob
this serializer supports
cycle in the object definition
reconstruction of class's instance
support for Typed Array, Map, and Set
ability to filter properties to skip during the serialization process.
binary encoding of Typed Array (Float32Array etc ... ) for performance.
function stringifyObject ( obj ) {
if ( _.isArray( obj ) || !_.isObject( obj ) ) {
return obj.toString()
}
var seen = [];
return JSON.stringify(
obj,
function( key, val ) {
if (val != null && typeof val == "object") {
if ( seen.indexOf( val ) >= 0 )
return
seen.push( val )
}
return val
}
);
}
A precondition was missing, otherwise the integer values in array objects are truncated, i.e. [[ 08.11.2014 12:30:13, 1095 ]] 1095 gets reduced to 095.