I've frequently seen JavaScript files with an extra file extension (I think "extension" is the proper term; if not, someone correct me because I've failed to find a resource that labels them) such as:
someFile.bundle.js
^^^^^^
I remember reading that adding file extensions like that can be used a naming convention (.bundle would refer to a file that bundles a collection of other files).
I've recently seen more file extensions such as:
someFile.spec.js
^^^^
and now I'm questioning the behavior behind these extensions; are they just used for convention? Are the names of these types of extensions arbitrary (as in someone can put any old extension there and it wouldn't affect anything)? When should these be used? Are there certain extensions that you should use (and maybe some your shouldn't)?
They aren't extensions, really. A file extension is (at least typically) the last . though the end of the filename. Those are just .js files. The rest is purely the name.
People do this to categorize things. For instance, in your example, I suspect the first file is generated automatically based on several input files; e.g., it's a bundle. The second probably contains test code, to ensure that something's external API works correctly. In both cases I'm speculating, but the point is that it's just a naming convention. It could be someFile-bundle.js and someFile-spec.js just as easily.
For a while I used the convention somefile.es6.js to indicate that a file contained ES2015 (ES6) syntax and needed transpiling before being used on the web, but a client of mine does the same thing with somefile-es6.js (which I think is more common than mine). This makes it easy to pick them out in build scripts and such (either the .es6.js or -es6.js).
Aside from just javascript files, filename extensions can be used for all kinds of processing directives. For instance, I have taken to naming many of my php files like file.ajax.php or file.process.php that include common header files that contain logic that check the filename extensions to determine whether or not to serve up html, such as common navs.
I'm also reminded of Laravel's blade templating engine that uses the .blade.php "file extension", as it's syntax contains operations above and beyond normal php.
Related
I am trying to integrate Sonarqube analysis into the JavaScript sources of my project. It is a project using Spring components for the back-end, and as a first step, we did the integration of Java sources, without problem at that point.
We are using Sonarqube v5.6.3
The problem I am finding comes with the sonar.exclusions property. Apparently, that property can't exclude a folder that has already been added as sources (see question and answer explaining that exact issue).
I have the following lines in my pom.xml, which are not working properly; and that's understandable according to the aforelinked question:
<sonar.sources>src/main/java,src/main/docker,js-sources</sonar.sources>
<sonar.tests>src/test</sonar.tests>
<sonar.exclusions>**/target/*</sonar.exclusions>
The problem is: the front-end is made of several modules which are compiled one by one under their own /target sub-folder before being deployed all together into src/main/webapp. (They work as regular target folders: when a new compilation is launched, those folders get deleted/recreated.)
Those js-sources/moduleA/target, js-sources/moduleB/target, js-sources/moduleC/target folders are being automatically included as sources, and thus ignored by the exclusions directive. Those target folder still contain a /src subfolder, which makes it hard to use the limited Sonar patterns (full xpath-like selectors are not allowed) to include or exclude only certain paths.
As I don't think that the Sonarqube team was expecting everyone to add each little subfolder one by one (that's why they made patterns in the first term), I am looking for help: How do I exclude those per-module target folders living down the folder-tree inside my sources?
Another possibility would be that it is kind of a bug forcing us to store this config at a Jenkinsfile or even directly in the Jenkins config (at a job level), but I remain unsure and still think that something can be fixed in the way I am declaring the sources and exclusions.
Try
<sonar.exclusions>**/target/**/*</sonar.exclusions>
EDIT : while inclusions are useful in other cases, the accepted answer above is the correct one. I'm leaving mine, which follows, for the record and just as an example of using inclusions.
Try using inclusions rather than exclusions, I've setup a project as close to yours as I could guess from your description and I was able to ignore the target folders of the js-sources modules :
<properties>
<sonar.sources>src/main/java,js-sources</sonar.sources>
<sonar.inclusions>**/*.java, **/src/**/*.js</sonar.inclusions>
</properties>
You can read this as : 'scan all java files no matter where they are, scan only the javascript files that are found within the src of a subfolder of root'
What would I use to find which resources are required by a NodeJS file?
For example, if I had a file called "file.js" containing this:
import x from './x';
const y = require('./y');
// Some more code
How do I parse that file and extract './x' and './y'?
Why would you do this?
I'm playing with the idea of an architectural tool. To do this, I want to know which files are being required by the targeted source code.
I know that Webpack follows this information when it creates bundles, so that it can stack the required files in an appropriate order in a single concatenated (well, minified) file.
I don't need to do the concatenation, but I want to find which files would be used.
When I find out which files are being used by which files, I plan to assist a user in organising them in an orderly manner (e.g. by pointing out circular dependencies).
For trivial cases, you could try feeding the source to some JS parser and search the AST for calls to require(); as long as require() is called with a string constant as a parameter, it shouldn't be hard to determine the dependencies. More complex situations could cause problems, though.
I have a background in coding in languages that have a concept of "classes". Now that I am coding JavaScript, I would like to code in a similar way so that each object oriented "class" I create is its own separate file.
see Accessing "Public" methods from "Private" methods in javascript class
see http://phrogz.net/JS/classes/OOPinJS.html
In other languages, I would create import statements at the top of the class file to ensure other custom classes that were used within a class file so that the other custom classes were compiled into the final binary.
Of course JavaScript is not a compiled language; however, I would still like to be able to be include some kind of "import" statement at the top of custom class files so I could ensure the imported JS "class" file was available for the user's browser to download.
It would be ideal if there were a 3rd party tool that combined all of my separate class files into one JS file so the browser only had to make one HTTP request for a single JS file instead of many calls for each indicidual JS "class". Does anyone know if such a tool exists where it would do the following:
allowed me to choose which JS files that I wanted to include in a single JS file
crawled thru the files I selected in step 1 and found all the "import" statements at the top of each custom "class" file. These "import" statements could simply be specially formatted comments in the code that the 3rd party recognizes as import statements.
The 3rd party would then create the single JS file with all of the files that were selected from step 1 and from all of the imported files that were found in step 2.
Some popular JavaScript frameworks seem to do just that. For example, jQueryUI allows you to customize the download of a single jQueryUI source file by allowing the user to check off which objects you want to use. If you uncheck an element that is needed for an item that you checked off, then the form tells you that there is a dependency you need to rectify before being able to proceed to download the file.
see http://jqueryui.com/download/
So is there a 3rd party tool that allows a developer to use some kind of "import" statement comment to ensure that many dependent JS files (and only the ones that the developer needs) to be combined into a single JS file?
RequireJS was built for exactly this purpose.
Have a look at Require.js. It lets you import various javascript files in a modularized fashion and add the required dependencies between them. Also at the end you can minify them all into one single JS file using r.js
A trivial batch file can do this for you:
#for %i in (classes/*.js) type %i >> build.js
This works best if your JS source files are all in one folder, and this example assumes that folder is named classes. It gets a bit more complicated if you have subfolders, but a similar principle can be applied.
Have a look at GruntJS, JQuery uses it for building. If you don't care for HTTP requests, you can use already mentioned RequireJS, which also has nice async methods to load files, which can improve perfomance in some situations.
Check out this class https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnQfGXrRoPM
This allows for importing on the fly within classes. also it allows
for importing all classes within an folder and all of its sub folders.
and its really simple because it is just a prototype function added to String.
just by adding the importer class you will call in classes like "com.project.Classfile.js".import();
or "com.project.*".import() to get all sub-classes.
fork on - https://github.com/jleelove/Utils
I've been reading about the module pattern, but everything I read assumes that the entire contents of the module will be in a single file. I want to have one file per class.
I've resorted to doing this at the top of every file:
if(window.ModuleName === undefined) { window.ModuleName = {}; }
ModuleName.ClassName = function () { ... }
But this allows files to be included without their dependencies, which is also annoying. For example, lets say there is ClassA which uses ClassB, and "ClassB.js" is left out of the HTML, then ClassA will throw up errors. As far as I'm aware Javascript lacks an import statement, so in this case I actually want everything to be in a single file.
I assume that large javascript projects are broken up into multiple files, so there has to be a way around this. How is it generally done? Is there some tool that will combine multiple class files into a single module file?
This is a big topic but let me explain as much as I can. Javascript requires that you have preloaded anything you intended to use, which is why your module pattern has all the "things" in the same file. But if you plan to separate them in different files then you have to manage it before using. I suggest the following approaches
Concatenate them before serving them in the server. For example in jsp, you can create a servlet that returns contenttype = "text/javascript", inside that servlet you can append all the scripts you need in one dynamically generated script then return it to the client.
In your ant or maven builds etc, there are configurations where in you can concatenate them the files you want together. This is a common practice therefore you should find many reference in the internet.
Lazy-load javascripts. This is my preferred way. I use Lazyload javascript library. Basically I declare the dependencies of certain codes much like "import" in Java, then before i call any of them i load their dependencies. This allows for optimized dependency loading without scripts redundancies. The problem is you need to write some fairly complicated scripts to do this.
Hope to help.
Using VS2008 and ASP.NET 3.5 (or VS 2010 / .NET 4.0?), how can I include a bit of dynamic ASP.NET server-side code in mostly-static JavaScript and CSS files?
I want to do this to avoid cloning entire JS or CSS files to vary just a small part of them multi-tenant sites. Later, I want to extend the solution to handle localization inside javascript/CSS, dynamic debugging/tracing support, and other cool things you can get by injecting stuff dynamically into JavaScript and CSS.
The hard part is that I don't want to lose all the cool things you get with static files, for example:
JS/CSS code coloring and intellisense
CSS-class "go to definition" support in the IDE
automatic HTTP caching headers based on date of underlying file
automatic compression by IIS
The server-side goodness of static files (e.g. headers/compression) can be faked via an HttpHandler, but retaining IDE goodness (intellisense/coloring/etc) has me stumped.
An ideal solution would meet the following requirements:
VS IDE provides JS/CSS intellisense and code coloring. Giving up server-code intellisense is OK since server code is usually simple in these files.
"go to defintion" still works for CSS classes (just like in static CSS files)
send HTTP caching headers, varying by modified date of the underlying file.
support HTTP compression like other static files
support <%= %> and <script runat=server> code blocks
URL paths (at least the ones that HTTP clients see) end with .JS or .CSS (not .ASPX). Optionally, I can use querystring or PathInfo to parameterize (e.g. choosing a locale), although in most cases I'll use vdirs for this. Caching should vary for different querystrings.
So far the best (hacky) solution I've come up with is this:
Switch the underlying CSS or JS files to be .ASPX files (e.g. foo.css.aspx or foo.js.aspx). Embed the underlying static content in a STYLE element (for CSS) or a SCRIPT element (for JS). This enables JS/CSS intellisense as well as allowing inline or runat=server code blocks.
Write an HttpHandler which:
looks at the URL and adds .aspx to know the right underlying ASPX to call
uses System.Net.HttpWebRequest to call that URL
strips out the containing STYLE or SCRIPT tags, leaving only the CSS or JS
adds the appropriate headers (caching, content type, etc.)
compresses the response if the client suports compression
Map *.CSS and *.JS to my handler.
(if IIS6) Ensure .JS and .CSS file extensions are mapped to ASP.NET
I'm already using a modified version of Darick_c's HttpCompression Module which handles almost all of above for me, so modifying it to support the solution above won't be too hard.
But my solution is hacky. I was wondering if anyone has a more lightweight approach for this problem which doesn't lose Visual Studio's static-file goodness.
I know I can also hack up a client-side-only solution where I split all JS and CSS into "vary" and "won't vary" files, but there's a performance and maintenance overhead to this kind of solution that I'd like to avoid. I really want a server-side solution here so I can maintain one file on the server, not N+1 files.
I've not tried VS10/.NET 4.0 yet, but I'm open to a Dev10/.net4 solution if that's the best way to make this scenario work.
Thanks!
I have handled a similar problem by having a master page output a dynamic generated JSON object in the footer of each page.
I needed to have my js popup login dialog box support localization. So using JSON.NET for serialization, I created a public key/value collection property of the master page that pages could access in order place key/values into such as phrase key/localized phrase pairs. The master page then renders a dynamic JSON object that holds these values so that static js files could reference these dynamic values.
For the js login box I have the masterpage set the localized values. This made sense because the masterpage also includes the login.js file.
I do commend you on your concern over the number of http requests being made from the client and the payload being returned. Too many people I know and work with overlook those easy optimizations. However, any time I run into the same issue you're having (which is actually quite often), I have found I've usually either taken a wrong turn somewhere or am trying to solve the problem the wrong way.
As far as your JS question goes, I think Frank Schwieterman in the comments above is correct. I'd be looking at ways to expose the dynamic parts of your JS through setters. A really basic example would be if you have want to display a customized welcome message to users on login. In your JS file, you can have a setMessage(message) method exposed. That method would then be called by the page including the script. As a result, you'd have something like:
<body onLoad="setMessage('Welcome' + <%= user.FirstName %>);">
This can obviously be expanded by passing objects or methods into the static JS file to allow you the functionality you desire.
In response to the CSS question, I think you can gain a lot from the approach Shawn Steward from the comments makes a good point. You can define certain static parts of your CSS in the base file and then redefine the parts you want to change in other files. As a result, you can then dictate the look of your website by which files you're including. Also, since you don't want to take the hit for extra http requests (keep in mind, if you set those files to be cached for a week, month, etc. it's a one time request), you can do something like combining the CSS files into a single file at compilation or runtime.
Something like the following links may be helpful in pointing you in the right direction:
http://geekswithblogs.net/rashid/archive/2007/07/25/Combine-Multiple-JavaScript-and-CSS-Files-and-Remove-Overheads.aspx
http://www.asp.net/learn/3.5-SP1/video-296.aspx?wwwaspnetrdirset=1
http://dimebrain.com/2008/04/resourceful-asp.html
By utilizing the combining at run or compile time you can gain the best of both world by allowing you to logically separate CSS and JS files, yet also gaining the reduction of payload and requests that comes with compressing and combining files.