We Keep Coding

Assigning value to module.exports

I am reading about module.exports in Node.js Design Patterns. In this book, it is mentioned that:
Reassigning the exports variable doesn't have any effect, because it doesn't change the contents of module.exports, it will only reassign the variable itself.
The following code is therefore wrong:
exports = function() {
console.log('Hello');
};
I am not able to understand why the above assignment is wrong?

You are overwriting the local exports variable by doing this. Which is local to the wrapper function around each Node.js file. There is no way for V8 to know what modification you made to the original exports object as you are using a new object.
What you want to do is overwrite the exports key in the module object.
module.exports = function() {
console.log('Hello');
};
For more convenience you could also assign to the exports variable so that you can leverage it locally: module.exports = exports = .... That really what exports is, a faster way to access module.exports.

Is it preferable to add properties to a Node module.exports object, or replace the object entirely?

Which of these patterns is preferable in Node, and why?
Replacing the module.exports object entirely;
module.exports = {
myFuncOne = function(thing) {
console.log(thing);
},
myFuncTwo = function(stuff) {
console.log(stuff);
}
}
Or, adding properties to the existing module.exports object;
module.exports.myFuncOne = function(thing){
console.log(thing);
};
module.exports.myFuncTwo = function(stuff){
console.log(stuff);
}
Are both the same for all intents and purposes other than preference, or is there a more significant difference that could have implications here?

There is no one-true way of doing it, my advice is simple: Be consistent.
In node.js docs, all examples are just adding properties to existing exports object: https://nodejs.org/docs/latest/api/modules.html
The exception is a case, when you want to export just a function (a constructor perhaps) - then you are forced to use module.exports = ...
Some argument about extending existing exports instead of overriding it may be less work for Garbage Collector. Node.js module system will create an empty exports object for you anyway. So when you are overwriting it, GC has to collect the unused object created by module system.
The main difference is, that "exports" is just an alias for existing module.exports = {} object.
When you are adding properties to exports, you modify existing object. When you assign new value to exports the exports alias is no longer pointing to module.exports (it is now pointing to the value/object you have assigned to it and this will not be exported).

What is a module and difference between module.exports vs exports?

I have been reading about this topic for several hours and just haven't found anything to help make this stick.
a module is just an object in node with a few properties, one is an exports property that references an object.
the 'exports' variable is
var exports = module.exports
It is a var pointing to the object that module.exports is referencing.
What I am struggling with is visualize what the module is. I know it's an object, but is there only one?
I know this isn't the exact way node implements a module but I am visualizing it looking something like this:
var module = {}
module.exports = {}
// now module has a property module.exports
var exports = module.exports
Now, from everything I have been reading, if you were to assign something to module.export = 'xyz'
It would hold the value 'xyz'. Does it lose the original object? On top of that, if I assigned something else to module.exports in the same file, would it be replaced with the new value?
EX:
// file = app.js
module.export = 'hello'
module.export = 'bye'
// file = newApp.js
require(./app);
what is the value of the module? Am I overriding the same module object or are there multiple?

Before we continue, it's important that you understand how modules are actually loaded by node.
The key thing to take away from node's module loading system is that before it actually runs the code you require (which happens in Module#_compile), it creates a new, empty exports object as a property of the Module. (In other words, your visualization is correct.)
Node then wraps the text in the required file with an anonymous function:
(function (exports, require, module, __filename, __dirname) {
// here goes what's in your js file
});
...and essentially evals that string. The result of evaling that string is a function (the anonymous wrapper one), and node immediately invokes the function, passing in the parameters like this:
evaledFn(module.exports, require, module, filename, dirname);
require, filename, and dirname are a reference to the require function (which actually isn't a global), and strings containing the loaded module's path information. (This is what the docs mean when they say "__filename isn't actually a global but rather local to each module.")
So we can see that inside a module, indeed exports === module.exports. But why do modules get both a module and a exports?
Backward compatibility. In the very early days of node, there was no module variable inside of modules. You simply assigned to exports. However, this meant you could never export a constructor function as the module itself.
A familiar example of a module exporting a constructor function as the module:
var express = require('express');
var app = express();
This works because Express exports a function by reassigning module.exports, overwriting the empty object that node gives you by default:
module.exports = function() { ... }
However, note that you can't just write:
exports = function { ... }
This is because JavaScript's parameter passing semantics are weird. Technically, JavaScript might be considered "pure pass-by-value," but in reality parameters are passed "reference-by-value".
This means that you when you pass an object to a function, it receives a reference to that object as a value. You can access the original object through that reference, but you cannot change the caller's perception of the reference. In other words, there's no such thing as an "out" param like you might see in C/C++/C#.
As a concrete example:
var obj = { x: 1 };
function A(o) {
o.x = 2;
}
function B(o) {
o = { x: 2 };
}
Calling A(obj); will result in obj.x == 2, because we access the original object passed in as o. However, B(obj); will do nothing; obj.x == 1. Assigning a completely new object to B's local o only changes what o points to. It does nothing to the caller's object obj, which remains unaffected.
Now it should be obvious why it was thus necessary to add the module object to node modules' local scope. In order to allow a module to completely replace the exports object, it must be available as the property an object passed in to the module anonymous function. And obviously no one wanted to break existing code, so exports was left as a reference to module.exports.
So when you're just assigning properties to your exports object, it doesn't matter whether you use exports or module.exports; they are one and the same, a reference pointing to the exact same object.
It's only when you want to export a function as the top-level export where you must use module.exports, because as we've seen, simply assigning a function to exports would have no effect outside of the module scope.
As a final note, when you are exporting a function as the module, it's a good practice to assign to both exports and module.exports. That way, both variables remain consistent and work the same as they do in a standard module.
exports = module.exports = function() { ... }
Be sure to do this near the top of your module file, so that no one accidentally assigns to an exports that ends up getting overwritten.
Also, if that looks strange to you (three =s?), I'm taking advantage of the fact that an expression containing the assignment operator returns the assigned value, which makes it possible to assign a single value to multiple variables in one shot.

You're overriding the module — exports is a single object gets pulled in with require. Typically, when doing this kind of modular JavaScript using require, your export will be a constructor rather than a primitive like a string in your example. That way, you can create new instances of functionality that's defined in the module. Example:
// module.js
var MyConstructor = function(prop) {
this.prop = prop;
});
module.exports = MyConstructor;
// app.js
var MyConstructor = require('module');
var instance = new MyConstructor('test');
console.log(instance.prop) // 'test'

Modules in Node.js are just files. Each file is a module and each module is a file. If you have more than one file, you can have more than one module (one in each file).
As per module.exports: the Node.js API documentation will shed some light on the topic:
The module.exports object is created by the Module system. Sometimes
this is not acceptable; many want their module to be an instance of
some class. To do this assign the desired export object to
module.exports. Note that assigning the desired object to exports will
simply rebind the local exports variable, which is probably not what
you want to do.
and
The exports variable that is available within a module starts as a
reference to module.exports. As with any variable, if you assign a new
value to it, it is no longer bound to the previous value. ... As a guideline,
if the relationship between exports and module.exports
seems like magic to you, ignore exports and only use module.exports.
So, what does this all mean? In your particular example, module.exports would be equal to it's last assigned value ('bye').

How do you share constants in NodeJS modules?

Currently I'm doing this:
foo.js
const FOO = 5;
module.exports = {
FOO: FOO
};
And using it in bar.js:
var foo = require('foo');
foo.FOO; // 5
Is there a better way to do this? It feels awkward to declare the constant in the exports object.

In my opinion, utilizing Object.freeze allows for a DRYer and more declarative style. My preferred pattern is:
./lib/constants.js
module.exports = Object.freeze({
MY_CONSTANT: 'some value',
ANOTHER_CONSTANT: 'another value'
});
./lib/some-module.js
var constants = require('./constants');
console.log(constants.MY_CONSTANT); // 'some value'
constants.MY_CONSTANT = 'some other value';
console.log(constants.MY_CONSTANT); // 'some value'

Technically, const is not part of the ECMAScript specification. Also, using the "CommonJS Module" pattern you've noted, you can change the value of that "constant" since it's now just an object property. (not sure if that'll cascade any changes to other scripts that require the same module, but it's possible)
To get a real constant that you can also share, check out Object.create, Object.defineProperty, and Object.defineProperties. If you set writable: false, then the value in your "constant" cannot be modified. :)
It's a little verbose, (but even that can be changed with a little JS) but you should only need to do it once for your module of constants. Using these methods, any attribute that you leave out defaults to false. (as opposed to defining properties via assignment, which defaults all the attributes to true)
So, hypothetically, you could just set value and enumerable, leaving out writable and configurable since they'll default to false, I've just included them for clarity.
Update - I've create a new module (node-constants) with helper functions for this very use-case.
constants.js -- Good
Object.defineProperty(exports, "PI", {
value: 3.14,
enumerable: true,
writable: false,
configurable: false
});
constants.js -- Better
function define(name, value) {
Object.defineProperty(exports, name, {
value: value,
enumerable: true
});
}
define("PI", 3.14);
script.js
var constants = require("./constants");
console.log(constants.PI); // 3.14
constants.PI = 5;
console.log(constants.PI); // still 3.14

ES6 way.
export in foo.js
const FOO = 'bar';
module.exports = {
FOO
}
import in bar.js
const {FOO} = require('foo');

You can explicitly export it to the global scope with global.FOO = 5. Then you simply need to require the file, and not even save your return value.
But really, you shouldn't do that. Keeping things properly encapsulated is a good thing. You have the right idea already, so keep doing what you're doing.

From previous project experience, this is a good way:
In the constants.js:
// constants.js
'use strict';
let constants = {
key1: "value1",
key2: "value2",
key3: {
subkey1: "subvalue1",
subkey2: "subvalue2"
}
};
module.exports =
Object.freeze(constants); // freeze prevents changes by users
In main.js (or app.js, etc.), use it as below:
// main.js
let constants = require('./constants');
console.log(constants.key1);
console.dir(constants.key3);

import and export (prob need something like babel as of 2018 to use import)
types.js
export const BLUE = 'BLUE'
export const RED = 'RED'
myApp.js
import * as types from './types.js'
const MyApp = () => {
let colour = types.RED
}
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Statements/import

I found the solution Dominic suggested to be the best one, but it still misses one feature of the "const" declaration. When you declare a constant in JS with the "const" keyword, the existence of the constant is checked at parse time, not at runtime. So if you misspelled the name of the constant somewhere later in your code, you'll get an error when you try to start your node.js program. Which is a far more better misspelling check.
If you define the constant with the define() function like Dominic suggested, you won't get an error if you misspelled the constant, and the value of the misspelled constant will be undefined (which can lead to debugging headaches).
But I guess this is the best we can get.
Additionally, here's a kind of improvement of Dominic's function, in constans.js:
global.define = function ( name, value, exportsObject )
{
if ( !exportsObject )
{
if ( exports.exportsObject )
exportsObject = exports.exportsObject;
else
exportsObject = exports;
}
Object.defineProperty( exportsObject, name, {
'value': value,
'enumerable': true,
'writable': false,
});
}
exports.exportObject = null;
In this way you can use the define() function in other modules, and it allows you to define constants both inside the constants.js module and constants inside your module from which you called the function. Declaring module constants can then be done in two ways (in script.js).
First:
require( './constants.js' );
define( 'SOME_LOCAL_CONSTANT', "const value 1", this ); // constant in script.js
define( 'SOME_OTHER_LOCAL_CONSTANT', "const value 2", this ); // constant in script.js
define( 'CONSTANT_IN_CONSTANTS_MODULE', "const value x" ); // this is a constant in constants.js module
Second:
constants = require( './constants.js' );
// More convenient for setting a lot of constants inside the module
constants.exportsObject = this;
define( 'SOME_CONSTANT', "const value 1" ); // constant in script.js
define( 'SOME_OTHER_CONSTANT', "const value 2" ); // constant in script.js
Also, if you want the define() function to be called only from the constants module (not to bloat the global object), you define it like this in constants.js:
exports.define = function ( name, value, exportsObject )
and use it like this in script.js:
constants.define( 'SOME_CONSTANT', "const value 1" );

I think that const solves the problem for most people looking for this anwwer. If you really need an immutable constant, look into the other answers.
To keep everything organized I save all constants on a folder and then require the whole folder.
src/main.js file
const constants = require("./consts_folder");
src/consts_folder/index.js
const deal = require("./deal.js")
const note = require("./note.js")
module.exports = {
deal,
note
}
Ps. here the deal and note will be first level on the main.js
src/consts_folder/note.js
exports.obj = {
type: "object",
description: "I'm a note object"
}
Ps. obj will be second level on the main.js
src/consts_folder/deal.js
exports.str = "I'm a deal string"
Ps. str will be second level on the main.js
Final result on main.js file:
console.log(constants.deal);
Ouput:
{ deal: { str: 'I\'m a deal string' },
console.log(constants.note);
Ouput:
note: { obj: { type: 'object', description: 'I\'m a note object' } }

As an alternative, you can group your "constant" values in a local object, and export a function that returns a shallow clone of this object.
var constants = { FOO: "foo" }
module.exports = function() {
return Object.assign({}, constants)
}
Then it doesn't matter if someone re-assigns FOO because it will only affect their local copy.

Since Node.js is using the CommonJS patterns, you can only share variables between modules with module.exports or by setting a global var like you would in the browser, but instead of using window you use global.your_var = value;.

I ended up doing this by exporting a frozen object with anonymous getter functions, rather than the constants themselves. This reduces the risk of nasty bugs introduced due to a simple typo of the const name, as a runtime error will be thrown in case of a typo. Here's a full example that also uses ES6 Symbols for the constants, ensuring uniqueness, and ES6 arrow functions. Would appreciate feedback if anything in this approach seems problematic.
'use strict';
const DIRECTORY = Symbol('the directory of all sheets');
const SHEET = Symbol('an individual sheet');
const COMPOSER = Symbol('the sheet composer');
module.exports = Object.freeze({
getDirectory: () => DIRECTORY,
getSheet: () => SHEET,
getComposer: () => COMPOSER
});

I recommend doing it with webpack (assumes you're using webpack).
Defining constants is as simple as setting the webpack config file:
var webpack = require('webpack');
module.exports = {
plugins: [
new webpack.DefinePlugin({
'APP_ENV': '"dev"',
'process.env': {
'NODE_ENV': '"development"'
}
})
],
};
This way you define them outside your source, and they will be available in all your files.

I don't think is a good practice to invade the GLOBAL space from modules, but in scenarios where could be strictly necessary to implement it:
Object.defineProperty(global,'MYCONSTANT',{value:'foo',writable:false,configurable:false});
It has to be considered the impact of this resource. Without proper naming of those constants, the risk of OVERWRITTING already defined global variables, is something real.

What do "module.exports" and "exports.methods" mean in NodeJS / Express?

Looking at a random source file of the express framework for NodeJS, there are two lines of the code that I do not understand (these lines of code are typical of almost all NodeJS files).
/**
* Expose `Router` constructor.
*/
exports = module.exports = Router;
and
/**
* Expose HTTP methods.
*/
var methods = exports.methods = require('./methods');
I understand that the first piece of code allows the rest of the functions in the file to be exposed to the NodeJS app, but I don't understand exactly how it works, or what the code in the line means.
What do exports and module.exports actually mean?
I believe the 2nd piece of code allows the functions in the file to access methods, but again, how exactly does it do this.
Basically, what are these magic words: module and exports?

To be more specific:
module is the global scope variable inside a file.
So if you call require("foo") then :
// foo.js
console.log(this === module); // true
It acts in the same way that window acts in the browser.
There is also another global object called global which you can write and read from in any file you want, but that involves mutating global scope and this is EVIL
exports is a variable that lives on module.exports. It's basically what you export when a file is required.
// foo.js
module.exports = 42;
// main.js
console.log(require("foo") === 42); // true
There is a minor problem with exports on it's own. The _global scope context+ and module are not the same. (In the browser the global scope context and window are the same).
// foo.js
var exports = {}; // creates a new local variable called exports, and conflicts with
// living on module.exports
exports = {}; // does the same as above
module.exports = {}; // just works because its the "correct" exports
// bar.js
exports.foo = 42; // this does not create a new exports variable so it just works
Read more about exports

To expand on Raynos's answer...
exports is basically an alias for module.exports - I recommend just not using it. You can expose methods and properties from a module by setting them on module.exports, as follows:
//file 'module1.js'
module.exports.foo = function () { return 'bar' }
module.exports.baz = 5
Then you get access to it in your code:
var module1 = require('module1')
console.log(module1.foo())
console.log(module1.baz)
You can also override module.exports entirely to simply provide a single object upon require:
//glorp.js
module.exports = function () {
this.foo = function () { return 'bar' }
this.baz = 5
return this // need to return `this` object here
}
Now you've got a nice prototype:
var g1 = new require('glorp')()
console.log(g1.foo())
console.log(g1.baz)
There are myriad other ways to play with module.exports and require. Just remember, require('foo') always returns the same instance even if you call it multiple times.
Note
For the following to work,
var g1 = new require('glorp')()
console.log(g1.foo())
console.log(g1.baz)
this has to be returned in the function that is assigned to module.exports. Otherwise, you'll get a TypeError:
console.log(g1.foo())
^
TypeError: Cannot read property 'foo' of undefined

You can find the best answer in node.js source code.
If someone is requiring your js module,
your script turns into a function by node as follows (see src/node.js).
// require function does this..
(function (exports, require, module, __filename, __dirname) {
... your javascript contents...
});
Node will wrap your script. Then above script will be executed as follows:
//module.js
var args = [self.exports, require, self, filename, dirname];
return compiledWrapper.apply(self.exports, args);
So in your script,
exports is just module.exports.
In your script, you can add something to this exports object (functions..).
require function will return this object. This is node.js's module system (commonJS specification).
But be careful not to modify module.exports. Otherwise your current exports will be meaningless.

module is an object that represents what that particular source file would like to publicly expose. Instead of having something akin to header files in the c/c++ world, you describe what the module exports by defining this object. the node runtime then uses this object to determine what about your module is 'public.'
its a similar concept to exporting functions from a dll in the compiled world. you have to define explicitly what functions can be accessed by the outside world. this helps with encapsulation and lets your organize your libraries in a clean way.

Module's code is wrapped in module.exports (The module, maybe composed by other module).
There are many ways to build a module, but this is one very common (and my personal favorite).
// Dependencies
// const module = require('module');
// Module object
var foo = {}
// Internal property
foo._a = 'a';
// "Public" property
foo.b = 'b';
// Method
foo.fu = function() { return 'fu' };
// Export
module.exports = foo;