Let's say you have a website of 100 pages and there is a div with an id of #unique-div that only appears in page-5.html, but not in the other 99 pages and to be extra simple with the example you have a JS file that is loaded on all pages, and inside it there is this:
var uniqueDiv = $('#unique-div');
uniqueDiv.addClass('random-class');
does that have any negative impact in any possible way (for instance, performance)? Would it better to do a length check first?
var uniqueDiv = $('#unique-div');
if ( uniqueDiv.length ) {
uniqueDiv.addClass('random-class');
}
If so, why?
Or what about if you are chaining objects like this:
var uniqueDiv = $('#unique-div');
someVar.add(moreVars).add(uniqueDiv).addClass('random-class');
If the object doesn't exist, what happens?
I tried looking this up, but I have always wondered this.
It is the responsibility of ANY jQuery method to have a "proper" behavior whether there are 0, 1 or more than 1 DOM objects in the current jQuery object that they are called on. So, as long as you aren't using some broken jQuery plug-in methods, you do not have to test the length before calling a method and this includes situations where you are using chaining.
So, in your case this would be perfectly fine, even if you had no idea whether #unique-div actually existed:
$('#unique-div').addClass('random-class');
If the div didn't exist, then the .addClass() method would just do nothing.
Note: that some methods that retrieve a value such as .val() are coded to only operate on the first DOM element in a jQuery object and you will have to check with an individual method like that what they are coded to return if there are no DOM objects in the jQuery object. For example, .val() will return undefined when there are no DOM objects in the jQuery object.
There might be some infinitesimal amount of performance saving, but it's really negligible. There are probably going to be plenty of times in your code you'll do a for-loop through an array, acknowledging the length might be zero.
JQuery objects always have some size to them, and all methods I know of (ie, addClass) are equipped for empty sets, so I don't see any issue with skipping the length check.
Related
I wonder... Let's imagine I have a code something like that:
$('#specific-element').change(some_long_and_ajax_function);
Element with binded ID doesn't exist on all of my pages. On some of them only. I do check whether this element exists like this:
if($('#specific-element').length > 0){
$('#specific-element').change(some_long_and_ajax_function);
// There can be more stuff related to this specific element
}
My question: is it worth it? Is there any performance impact for binding handlers for non-existing elements or checking length is worse than it? Or is it basically same and I have two useless rows? What would you recommend? The first one keeps code nice and clear but I'm not sure if this will be "healthy" for jQuery with dozens of examples like that. Thanks.
jQuery fails gracefully if the element doesn't exist, internally it does it's own check to see if the element exists, and if it doesn't the event handler isn't attached etc.
jQuery() calls jQuery.fn.init wich checks if the passed argument is a string, which in your case it is, it then calls jQuery.fn.find with the right context, and inside that it does
var i, ret = [],
self = this,
len = self.length;
... code
for (i = 0; i < len; i++) {
// add event handlers
}
so the loop never runs if there are no elements to run it on, so there's no need to do your own check, just let jQuery handle it.
EDIT:
When you call $('#specific-element').length you're already calling $(), and it does all the usual things internally and returns an array-like jQuery object that has a length property, and that's exactly what $('#specific-element').change... does as well, and jQuery's on() also returns rather quickly if no elements exists in the collection, so there really is no difference.
If you're really concerned about speed, you'd do something like
var el = document.getElementById('specific-element');
if ( el !== null ) {
el.addEventListener('change', fn, false);
}
but there's really no reason, just add event handler with jQuery the usual way, without checking it the element exists, it's what almost every website in existance does, and it works just fine.
As said in the comment, jQuery check if the element exist before binding events. But there is a speed difference wether you check or not.
When checking before binding, you save time if the element doesn't exist because getting a property (.length) is way faster than calling a function (which will probably call other functions) and failing gracefully.
But if the element exist, it will be slower since you add a condition before binding. Hence, it add 1 more step than if you did not check before and directly binded the event.
Just interpret those test results : http://jsperf.com/check-before-binding1
You can see that if the element exist, the difference between the check before is only 4000 operations / second more. It is not a lot... On the other hand, when you check if the element exist and it doesn't, it save 1,000,000 operations / second because it doesn't call the function .change().
Conclusion
I'd say checking before is better if that really matter, but mostly, it doesn't. If the element is most often present than missing on different pages, i'd directly bind the event. If the element is mostly missing than present, i'd check before binding.
In the end, we are talking about 0.0000001ms...
1I have slightly changed to code to optimise your. Caching the element sure is important is you want better performances.
I have some divs with partial views in them. Why would a reference to a div that doesn't exist not show some kind of error? For example, I only have one taskN div right now:
<div id="task1">
#Html.Partial("~/Views/PartialViews/TaskDosCommand.cshtml")
</div>
This is my jQuery to show the div:
$('#task' + task.PrestoTaskType).show();
When task.PrestoTaskType is 1, the task1 div correctly displays. However, when task.PrestoTaskType is anything but 1, like 2, then nothing displays (which is good), but there is no error; no error shows on the web page, and nothing displays in the Chrome developer tools console:
Shouldn't some kind of error display when accessing a DOM element that doesn't exist?
No, because what jQuery does is .show() all elements that the jQuery object wraps. If that's no elements at all, then so be it.
That's precisely a monad-like aspect of jQuery that makes it so useful: imagine the code you 'd have to write if things didn't work that way:
var $whatever = $(...);
if ($whatever.length) $.doSomething();
This is simply worse: you need to introduce a variable (in order to avoid waste) and a conditional... for what gain exactly?
If you want to see what jQuery matched you can do that very easily with .length as above, perhaps also using .filter in the process.
One of the nice things about jQuery is that all jQuery elements return a collection, whether that is 0, 1, or many elements. This is convenient because you don't need to check the size of the collection or wrap it in an array yourself when you want to call methods on it (each for example doesn't break for 0-1 elements).
While what you're talking about is frustrating in this particular case, it is better for jQuery to work this way so you don't have to do those sorts of checks everywhere else.
If you want to branch code based on the existence of such an element, you can do this:
var task = $('#task' + task.PrestoTaskType);
if (task[0]) {
task.show();
} else {
// task not found
// take appropriate steps
}
The [0] accessor will return the first DOM element in the jQuery object or undefined if the jQuery object is empty. Since your jQuery object was constructed with an ID selector, it either contains exactly one DOM element or it's empty.
Hello this seems to be working on IE8 :
var clsName = link.parents("div.fixed_column").attr("class").split(" ");
if($.inArray("column_one", clsName)
While this one reports error (Object expected errror in jquery).
var clsName = link.parents("div.fixed_column").attr("class");
What is the right way to do this? I thought purpose of inArray was that jquery will handle cross browser issues.
Unfortunately, this is indirectly answering your question, but... You seem to be looking to detect if an element has a class, and since you're already using jQuery, just use the hasClass method - http://api.jquery.com/hasClass/
For your specific code, try:
if (link.parents("div.fixed_column").hasClass("column_one")) {
// It has the "column_one" class
}
The more immediate answer to your question is that link.parents("div.fixed_column").attr("class") returns a single string. When the jQuery selector (div.fixed_column) returns multiple elements, which is very possible when using classes, using jQuery methods that get information (like .attr, using one parameter...to "get" the value) return the first matched element's value only.
So say the selector matches 3 elements:
["<div id='div30' class='fixed_column div30_class'></div>",
"<div id='div2' class='fixed_column div2_class'></div>",
"<div id='div17' class='fixed_column div17_class'></div>"]
Then the value returned from .attr("class") will be: fixed_column div30_class because it's the first matched element.
I'm not sure, but I think you're expecting jQuery to return an array of all the matched elements' values, which it just doesn't. So that doesn't mean jQuery isn't handling cross-browser issues, it just means you need to look up what the method does/returns.
I could've sworn that jQuery 2.0 has options for doing what you want - directly from calling the getters (or something similar), but I can't find it anymore :( Maybe I'm remembering incorrectly. Anyways, you could easily use $.each and/or $.map to look at every matched element, but it depends on what you were really trying to do with it.
You can't read the attributes of multiple elements into an array with .attr("class"). But why don't you just target the desired class in the selector like this?
var cols = link.parents("div.fixed_column.column_one");
Then change your conditional to check for an empty set:
if(cols.length) { ...
I'm trying to get a list in JavaScript (not using jQuery) of all the elements on the page with a specific class name. I therefore employ the getElementsByClassName() function as follows:
var expand_buttons = document.getElementsByClassName('expand');
console.log(expand_buttons, expand_buttons.length, expand_buttons[0]);
Note that I have three anchor elements on my page with the class 'expand'. This console.log() outputs
[] 0 undefined
Next, for kicks, I threw expand_buttons into its own array as follows:
var newArray = new Array(expand_buttons);
console.log(newArray, newArray.length);
This suddenly outputs
[NodeList[3]] 1
and I can click through the nodelist and see the attributes of the three 'expand' anchor elements on the page. It's also worth noting that I was able to get my code working in a w3schools test page.
It may also be of note that my use of document.getElementsByName actually does output (to the console) an array of elements, but when I ask for its length, it tells me 0. Similarly, if I try to access an array element using array_name[0] as normal, it outputs 'undefined', despite there clearly being an element inside of an array when I print the object to the console.
Does anybody have any idea why this might be? I just want to loop through DOM elements, and I'm avoiding jQuery at the moment because I'm trying to practice coding with vanilla JavaScript.
Thanks,
ParagonRG
It's not so much a JavaScript thing as it is a web browser thing. That API is supplied by a native object (the document object), and by the DOM spec it returns a NodeList object. You can treat a NodeList like an array, and it's similar, but distinctly different (as you've noticed).
You can always copy a NodeList to a new array:
var nodeArr = Array.prototype.slice.call(theNodeList, 0);
or in modern ES2015 environments:
var nodeArr = Array.from(theNodeList);
JavaScript always exists in some runtime context, and the context can include all sorts of APIs that provide facilities to JavaScript code. A web browser is one of those contexts. The DOM is specified in a way that's not especially partial to JavaScript; it's a language-neutral interface definition.
I guess the short version of this answer would be, "because it just does."
It doesn't return an array because the object it returns is "live", specifically it is a live NodeList:
In most cases, the NodeList is a live collection. This means that changes on the DOM tree are going to be reflected on the collection.
Is this:
var contents = document.getElementById('contents');
The same as this:
var contents = $('#contents');
Given that jQuery is loaded?
Not exactly!!
document.getElementById('contents'); //returns a HTML DOM Object
var contents = $('#contents'); //returns a jQuery Object
In jQuery, to get the same result as document.getElementById, you can access the jQuery Object and get the first element in the object (Remember JavaScript objects act similar to associative arrays).
var contents = $('#contents')[0]; //returns a HTML DOM Object
No.
Calling document.getElementById('id') will return a raw DOM object.
Calling $('#id') will return a jQuery object that wraps the DOM object and provides jQuery methods.
Thus, you can only call jQuery methods like css() or animate() on the $() call.
You can also write $(document.getElementById('id')), which will return a jQuery object and is equivalent to $('#id').
You can get the underlying DOM object from a jQuery object by writing $('#id')[0].
Close, but not the same. They're getting the same element, but the jQuery version is wrapped in a jQuery object.
The equivalent would be this
var contents = $('#contents').get(0);
or this
var contents = $('#contents')[0];
These will pull the element out of the jQuery object.
A note on the difference in speed. Attach the following snipet to an onclick call:
function myfunc()
{
var timer = new Date();
for(var i = 0; i < 10000; i++)
{
//document.getElementById('myID');
$('#myID')[0];
}
console.log('timer: ' + (new Date() - timer));
}
Alternate commenting one out and then comment the other out. In my tests,
document.getElementbyId averaged about 35ms (fluctuating from 25ms up to 52ms on about 15 runs)
On the other hand, the
jQuery averaged about 200ms (ranging from 181ms to 222ms on about 15 runs).
From this simple test you can see that the jQuery took about 6 times as long.
Of course, that is over 10000 iterations so in a simpler situation I would probably use the jQuery for ease of use and all of the other cool things like .animate and .fadeTo. But yes, technically getElementById is quite a bit faster.
No. The first returns a DOM element, or null, whereas the second always returns a jQuery object. The jQuery object will be empty if no element with the id of contents was matched.
The DOM element returned by document.getElementById('contents') allows you to do things such as change the .innerHTML (or .value) etc, however you'll need to use jQuery methods on the jQuery Object.
var contents = $('#contents').get(0);
Is more equivilent, however if no element with the id of contents is matched, document.getElementById('contents') will return null, but $('#contents').get(0) will return undefined.
One benefit on using the jQuery object is that you won't get any errors if no elements were returned, as an object is always returned. However you will get errors if you try to perform operations on the null returned by document.getElementById
No, actually the same result would be:
$('#contents')[0]
jQuery does not know how many results would be returned from the query. What you get back is a special jQuery object which is a collection of all the controls that matched the query.
Part of what makes jQuery so convenient is that MOST methods called on this object that look like they are meant for one control, are actually in a loop called on all the members int he collection
When you use the [0] syntax you take the first element from the inner collection. At this point you get a DOM object
In case someone else hits this... Here's another difference:
If the id contains characters that are not supported by the HTML standard (see SO question here) then jQuery may not find it even if getElementById does.
This happened to me with an id containing "/" characters (ex: id="a/b/c"), using Chrome:
var contents = document.getElementById('a/b/c');
was able to find my element but:
var contents = $('#a/b/c');
did not.
Btw, the simple fix was to move that id to the name field. JQuery had no trouble finding the element using:
var contents = $('.myclass[name='a/b/c']);
var contents = document.getElementById('contents');
var contents = $('#contents');
The code snippets are not the same. first one returns a Element object (source).
The second one, jQuery equivalent will return a jQuery object containing a collection of either zero or one DOM element. (jQuery documentation). Internally jQuery uses document.getElementById() for efficiency.
In both the cases if more than one element found only the first element will be returned.
When checking the github project for jQuery I found following line snippets which seems to be using document.getElementById codes (https://github.com/jquery/jquery/blob/master/src/core/init.js line 68 onwards)
// HANDLE: $(#id)
} else {
elem = document.getElementById( match[2] );
Just like most people have said, the main difference is the fact that it is wrapped in a jQuery object with the jQuery call vs the raw DOM object using straight JavaScript. The jQuery object will be able to do other jQuery functions with it of course but, if you just need to do simple DOM manipulation like basic styling or basic event handling, the straight JavaScript method is always a tad bit faster than jQuery since you don't have to load in an external library of code built on JavaScript. It saves an extra step.
One other difference: getElementById returns the first match, while $('#...') returns a collection of matches - yes, the same ID can be repeated in an HTML doc.
Further, getElementId is called from the document, while $('#...') can be called from a selector. So, in the code below, document.getElementById('content') will return the entire body but $('form #content')[0] will return inside of the form.
<body id="content">
<h1>Header!</h1>
<form>
<div id="content"> My Form </div>
</form>
</body>
It might seem odd to use duplicate IDs, but if you are using something like Wordpress, a template or plugin might use the same id as you use in the content. The selectivity of jQuery could help you out there.
All the answers are old today as of 2019 you can directly access id keyed filds in javascript simply try it
<p id="mytext"></p>
<script>mytext.innerText = 'Yes that works!'</script>
Online Demo!
- https://codepen.io/frank-dspeed/pen/mdywbre
jQuery is built over JavaScript. This means that it's just javascript anyway.
document.getElementById()
The document.getElementById() method returns the element that has the ID attribute with the specified value and Returns null if no elements with the specified ID exists.An ID should be unique within a page.
Jquery $()
Calling jQuery() or $() with an id selector as its argument will return a jQuery object containing a collection of either zero or one DOM element.Each id value must be used only once within a document. If more than one element has been assigned the same ID, queries that use that ID will only select the first matched element in the DOM.
All the answers above are correct. In case you want to see it in action, don't forget you have Console in a browser where you can see the actual result crystal clear :
I have an HTML :
<div id="contents"></div>
Go to console (cntrl+shift+c) and use these commands to see your result clearly
document.getElementById('contents')
>>> div#contents
$('#contents')
>>> [div#contents,
context: document,
selector: "#contents",
jquery: "1.10.1",
constructor: function,
init: function …]
As we can see, in the first case we got the tag itself (that is, strictly speaking, an HTMLDivElement object). In the latter we actually don’t have a plain object, but an array of objects. And as mentioned by other answers above, you can use the following command:
$('#contents')[0]
>>> div#contents