We Keep Coding

How to check if a function does anything? [duplicate]

Let's have a function call
function doSomethingAndInvokeCallback(callback){
// do something
callback();
}
I can check if given argument is function if(typeof callback == 'function')
How can I discover, if given callback function is function and isn't empty?
like
doSomethingAndInvokeCallback(function(){
//nothing here
})

There is no totally reliable way to know if a function is empty because there are multiple kinds of functions in JS, some implemented with JS and some implemented with native code and you can't know for sure whether the function passed in does anything or not. If you want to limit the passed in function to only very simple JS functions, you could use the mechanisms outlined by other answers here (examining the source of the function). But, I would not recommend doing that in anything but a tightly controlled situation because there are lots of legal javascript ways to break that.
I would suggest that you should change the contract of your function arguments and have the caller pass null or not pass anything (which will make the argument undefined) rather than an empty function. Then, it will be very clear whether they intend to have a function called or not. If they then pass an empty function instead of null or undefined, they are getting the behavior that the interface of the function specifies. The caller can choose the desired behavior and you can implement your function in a more failsafe manner.
Also, one of your main suppositions in your question is not quite right. You cannot safely use typeof x == "function" to determine if something is a function as that will not work reliably in some older versions of IE for some types of functions. If you want to learn how to detect if something is a function at all, you can learn from jQuery here (even if you're not using it). jQuery has a function it uses internally all the time called jQuery.isFunction() that returns a bool. It uses that mostly for testing arguments to see if a function was passed.
Internally, it calls:
Object.prototype.toString.call(o)
and then examines the result. If the result has "Function" in it, then test test parameter is a function.
So, using the same technique used in jQuery, you could build your own simple little isFunction routine like this:
function isFunction(test) {
return(Object.prototype.toString.call(test).indexOf("Function") > -1);
}
Of course, if you have jQuery available, you could just use it's own version:
jQuery.isFunction(o)
When there are questions with potential cross browser compatibility issues, I find it instructional to look at how one of the big libraries solves the issue, even if you aren't going to be using that library. You can be sure that the libraries have been vetted against many browsers so a technique they are using is safe. You sometimes have to unwrap all their own internal routines they may use to figure out what they're really doing (which was the case for this function), but you can save yourself a lot of legwork.
You can see a working test bed for this here: http://jsfiddle.net/jfriend00/PKcsM/
In modern browsers typeof fn === "function", but in older versions of IE, some functions give a typeof === "object" which is probably why jQuery uses this other method which does work in those older versions of IE.

It seems that you can define a function to retrieve the body of a function(1). I wrote a small (non-definitive) test of this:
http://jsfiddle.net/6qn5P/
Function.prototype.getBody =
function() {
// Get content between first { and last }
var m = this.toString().match(/\{([\s\S]*)\}/m)[1];
// Strip comments
return m.replace(/^\s*\/\/.*$/mg,'');
};
function foo() {
var a = 1, b = "bar";
alert(b + a);
return null;
}
console.log(foo.getBody());
console.log(foo.getBody().length);

One possibility is matching the .toString result against a regexp to get the function body, and then trim to check whether it has become an empty string:
var f = function foo() {
};
/^function [^(]*\(\)[ ]*{(.*)}$/.exec(
f.toString().replace(/\n/g, "")
)[1].trim() === ""; // true
That ugly regexp does take care of spaces aroung named functions as well as extraneous spaces before the name and the opening brace. Spaces like in foo () do seem to be removed, so there is no reason to check for those.

You might be able to get this from .toString():
var blank = function(){};
var f = function(){};
var f2 = function() { return 1; };
f.toString() == blank.toString(); // true
f2.toString() == blank.toString(); // false
but this is really prone to error:
var blank = function(){};
var f = function(){ }; // extra space!
f.toString() == blank.toString(); // false
You could munge the strings a bit to try to overcome this, but I suspect this is very browser-dependent. I wouldn't actually try to do this in a production environment if I were you. Even if you normalize the whitespace, it still won't catch other no-op lines, including comments, useless var statements, etc. To actually address these issues, you'd probably need a whole tokenizer system (or a crazy regex).

You can't do it for a host function, but for others, you can fairly reliably do
function isEmpty(f) {
return typeof f === "function" &&
/^function[^{]*[{]\s*[}]\s*$/.test(
Function.prototype.toString.call(f));
}
This isn't efficient, but major interpreters implement toString for functions in such a way that it works, though it will not work on some interpreters for some empty-ish functions
function () { /* nothing here */ }
function () { ; }
function () { return; }

In some implementation you can just do a toString() on the function and get it's content. Though it contains comments etcetera.
var foo = function(){ /* Comment */ };
alert(foo.toString());

How to determine what (if) there are jQuery events tied to an object

I need to determine if a jQuery object has the jQuery .click() event, if not I need to use the JavaScript one: $("#Call")[0].click()
Basically I need a way to this (this is pseudo code):
if ($("Call").click() == valid){
$("Call").click()
} else {
$("Call")[0].click()
}

Not sure why you would need to do it, but to answer your question would mean you need to look up where jQuery stores it's events. if there is an event for that type, there will be an array, if there is no event, than it is undefined.
var evtData = $._data($("#Call").get(0)).events;
var hasClickAttached = evtData && evtData.click !== undefined;

How i can simplify my if condition in jQuery

I'm looking for a way to do the following:
$("#a" || "#b").val() === ""
as opposed to:
$("#a").val() === "" || $("#b").val() === ""
Any ideas?
Thanks in advance!

For two elements, I believe your example is about as short as you can make it and its meaning is clear. However, if you wish to repeat such logic or evaluate more elements, you might be able to improve upon it by creating a simple function to evaluate if any items in a set match a condition.
Extending jQuery
$.fn.any = function (evaluator) {
var items = $(this);
for (var i = 0; i < items.length; i++) {
if (evaluator(items[i]) === true) {
return true;
}
}
return false;
};
Demo: http://jsfiddle.net/xE76y/1/
This is similar to the Any() method implemented in the .Net LINQ library* (and I'm sure is implemented in other libraries, especially those geared towards functional programming). In c#, you would call such a method:
enumerable.Any( o => o.Value == "" );
JavaScript's syntax (sadly) isn't as concise; you end up with something like:
array.any( function(o){ return o.value === ""; } );
So far, this hasn't saved you anything. However, if you want to iterate over a large number of elements, it becomes much more elegant.
// there could be zero inputs or 100 inputs; it doesn't matter
var result = $("input").any(function (o) {
return o.value === "";
});
Native Solution
Note that we aren't relying on jQuery in our any() method. You could also consider a native JavaScript solution such as the Array.some() method.
some() executes the callback function once for each element present in
the array until it finds one where callback returns a true value. If
such an element is found, some immediately returns true.
Demo: http://jsfiddle.net/xE76y/2/
var result = jQuery.makeArray($("input")).some(function (o) {
return o.value === "";
});
Since this is an array method, it only works on an array. This unfortunately means that document.getElementsByTagName("input").some(...) will not work since getElementsByTagName() returns a NodeList.
Of course, you could push whatever you wanted into an array and call some() on that array. The call to jQuery.makeArray() in the example is just for convenience.
Abstracting the Evaluation Functions
Demo: http://jsfiddle.net/xE76y/3/
Perhaps the evaluation functions (such as testing for an empty string) will be reused. These can be abstracted further.
// ideally, this should NOT be left in global scope
function isEmpty(input) {
return input.value === "";
}
// the check now fits nicely in one line.
if ($("input").any(isEmpty)) {
alert("At least one input is empty.");
}
The resulting method calls are quite clean: $("#a, #b").any(isEmpty) and $("input").any(isEmpty)
* Also worth noting that LINQ has been recreated for JavaScript.

Try like this instead:
if ($('#a,#b').is(':empty'))
{
alert("Either a or b is Empty!");
}
Try my demo
Edit:
If it is an input type like a textbox then it would be a little bit bulky but will achieve the same effect:
if ($.inArray("",[ $("#a").val(), $("#b").val() ])>=0)
{
alert("Either a or b is Empty!");
}
See another Demo

If you want to avoid duplication of the empty string "", you could do this:
if ($.inArray([ $("#a").val(), $("#b").val() ], ""))
Or if you only want to select once with jQuery:
if ($.inArray($("#a, #b").map(function() { return this.value; }), ""))
But I wouldn't use either of these myself. They are arguably both less efficient, more contrived, and certainly less readable than the "easy" way!

I'm not an expert in javaScript, but have you cross checked with :
http://api.jquery.com/multiple-selector/
jQuery selector regular expressions
Also, one way would be using the .each function as in
jQuery Multiple ID selectors

My JQuery exist function: does it make sense or not?

I'm a bit confused the last couple a days. I use my JQUERY selectors whenever I like... but I didn't check whether a selector exist or not, instead I used the .each function.
var exist = function(obj){
var returnObject ={};
for(var key in obj){
if(obj[key].length){
returnObject[key] = obj[key];
}else {
return false;
}
}
return returnObject;
}
//define all your selectors that would be needed for core functionality.
var activeSelectors = exist({
selList : $('div.selectorone'),
selTag : $('a#tagtwo'),
selFloat : $(div.float) /*etc etc*/
})
if (activeSelectors) {
console.log('all my core selectors are here!');
/* do Stuff*/
}
I know this looks a bit much, especially if you need only one selector, but I can't figure out a better way (except a lame if statement at every selector). I saw people using
$('div#mySelector').each(function(){ /* do stuff*/});
but I don't agree that it's nice. Notice that #mySelector (because it's an id) is only once allowed.
I would love the feedback. Please consider the performance vs Nice programming.
for more info please comment below or contact me!

If I really wanted to avoid just using a plain if statement, then I'd probably just go with a simple function like this:
var exists = function()
{
for (var i in arguments)
{
if ($(arguments[i]).length == 0)
{
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
And invoke it like this:
var list = $('div.selectorone');
var tag = $('a#tagtwo');
var float = $('div.float');
if (exists(list, tag, float))
{
// Do some stuff.
}
Or:
if (exists('div.selectorone', 'a#tagtwo', 'div.float'))
{
// Do some stuff.
}
I do think you're over-engineering the problem though. All you really need to do is check the length property on each of the selections you've made (i.e. the list, tag, float variables).
Also, performance is a complete non-issue here; is the method of checking whether the elements exist actually going to affect the user experience for your site? As Donald Knuth said:
We should forget about small
efficiencies, say about 97% of the
time: premature optimization is the
root of all evil.

In Javascript, what's better than try/catch for exiting an outer scope?

In Javascript, I sometimes want to return a value from a scope that isn't the current function. It might be a block of code within the function, or it might be an enclosing function as in the following example, which uses a local function to recursively search for something. As soon as it finds a solution, the search is done and the outer function should just exit. Unfortunately, I can't think of a simpler way to do this than by hacking try/catch for the purpose:
function solve(searchSpace) {
var search = function (stuff) {
var solution = isItSolved(stuff);
if (solution) {
throw solution;
} else {
search(narrowThisWay(stuff));
search(narrowThatWay(stuff));
};
};
try {
return search(searchSpace);
} catch (solution) {
return solution;
};
};
I realize one could assign the solution to a local variable and then check it before making another recursive call, but my question is specifically about transfer of control. Is there a better way than the above? Perhaps involving label/break?
Edit: since the answers to date are variations of "ew that's bad
you're not supposed to do that", let me add some necessary
context. I'm hacking on an open-source compiler that targets
Javascript. No one is going to write this code by hand, so please
don't tell me "this is a bad programming technique". What I want is a
better code generation technique. The question is whether anyone has
any clever hack for exploiting Javascript to get more flexible control
transfer.
The reason assigning the result to a local variable and checking it is
ruled out is because that requires understanding the code in a way
that is hard for a compiler to do.

It seems I stand corrected on the intent of the question. If statements are are a useful and readable way to structure code and make it flow however you want to. There's a reason goto was taken out of so many languages, because you don't need it. And it seems like, based on your example code, you're using a try-catch block as a form of goto. If you don't want certain things to run then use if statements or equivalents:
function solve(searchSpace) {
function search = function (stuff) {
//|| will only return the first value if that value is truthy, subsequent values will be ignored
return isItSolved(stuff) || (search(narrowThisWay(stuff)) || search(narrowThatWay(stuff)));
};
return search(searchSpace);
};
I know of no way to break out of function calls like you want. You can break out of loops using labels, but it doesn't seem that's much help to your situation. Other than that, I don't think JavaScript has any such ability beyond your use of exceptions

function solve(stuff) {
return isItSolved(stuff) || solve(narrowThisWay(stuff)) || solve(narrowThatWay(stuff));
}
Bob's way is good... exept that he uses twice the function statement (and that he uses ; after a function delaration without an assignment)... and that as we can do it that way, function solve actually is function search.
PS : This code will epically fail if the isItSolved, narrowThisWay or narrowThatWay functions can return a value evaluated to false as a positive result. In this cas, you would have to use ? : statement in order to check if all responses are !== undefined.
PS2: And of ourse, if these function can send an error, you have to catch it...

It looks like you're doing a fairly straightforward recursive search in your example. Why not just use "return"?
function solve(searchSpace) {
var search = function (stuff) {
var solution = isItSolved(stuff);
if (solution) {
return solution;
} else {
solution = search(narrowThisWay(stuff));
if (solution) {
return solution;
}
return search(narrowThatWay(stuff));
};
};
return search(searchSpace);
};
I suppose it could be that there are other constraints you haven't mentioned, but it's in general possible to turn any control flow into a set of nested (or recursive) functions, with appropriate return values.

The cleanest way would be to use a continuation, but you don't have that efficiently in JS (a few JS engines support continuations, but for the rest there's only CPS, which cries out for tail calls). In C, you could use setjmp/longjmp. In Common Lisp, you could use conditions (which include the functionality of exceptions plus much more). In JS, exceptions are the only non-local control flow option you have available.
You can programmatically transform a program into another that uses CPS.
function solve(searchSpace, isItSolved, isBase, narrowThisWay, narrowThatWay) {
function search(stuff, k) {
solution = isItSolved(stuff);
if (solution) {
return solution;
} else if (isBase(stuff)) {
return k();
} else {
return search(narrowThisWay(stuff), function() {
return search(narrowThatWay(stuff), k);
});
};
};
return search(searchSpace, function(val) {return val});
};
var arr=[1, 2,9,72,0,34,5,33,24,62,89,90,30,54,590,23,59,62,73];
solve(arr, function(a) {return (a.length==1 && a[0] == 5) ? a[0] : false;},
function (a) {return a.length < 2; },
function (a) {return a.slice(0, a.length / 2);},
function (a) {return a.slice(a.length / 2);}
);