I wont handled promise in other function, but after worked first callback variable not change. Please help me. See my code here:
this.handlerLocalDef = function(defer) {
var hash = {};
defer.then(
function(response) {
hash = response;
},
function(err) {
showPopup(err);
}
);
return hash;
};
var initialized = function() {
var localRegDef = Localization.getLocalizedDefer('regularform'),
localPaymDef = Localization.getLocalizedDefer('payment');
localizeRegForm = self.handlerLocalDef(localRegDef, localizeRegForm);
$timeout(function() {
console.log("localizeRegForm", localizeRegForm);
},5000);
}();
console log return me localizeRegForm: {}
By doing hash = response you are only setting the local variable to reference another object. The receiver of the original returned object still keeps that object. A quick solution is to do angular.extend(hash,response);. This will copy all members of respose into the object referenced by hash, which is the original returned object. So the receiver will suddenly see those members.
Caveat: will neither work for values (strings, numbers, booleans, undefined, null) nor for arrays.
This is a fiddle with the above suggestion that works: http://jsfiddle.net/sVRCg/3/
However I get the feelig that the entire setup is wrong. How will you know that the hash is actually extended with response? Polling (e.g. setTimeout) is an awkward solution. I suggest you returned the promise instead; this way you can find out exactly when the response is available.
Another way is how ngResource does it; this is quite complicated, check out the code.
That's not how you do async programming.
You do not set an arbitrary timeout and hope that you have data at that point, you must use the deferred object the way it was intended and use callbacks. This is one way of restructuring your code so that it will work. Depending on your specific circumstances, it may or may not serve your purpose:
this.handlerLocalDef = function(defer,callback) {
defer.then(
function(response) {
callback.apply(this,[response])
},
function(err) {
showPopup(err);
}
);
};
var initialized = function() {
var localRegDef = Localization.getLocalizedDefer('regularform'),
localPaymDef = Localization.getLocalizedDefer('payment');
self.handlerLocalDef(localRegDef,function(response) {
console.log(response);
});
}();
Related
Ok, I wouldn't think to do this in C#, but javascript is designed with much more flexibility in access.
there's a plugin like this
(function($)
{
...more stuff
var results={a:1,b:2} //this I need to modify
var someData={x:1}
send = function(){
//send results ajax
};
if(typeof beforeSend=='function')
beforeSend(someData) //hook to use results
})(jQuery)
So, in my own code, I have the function window.beforeSend = function(d){}
and it does have the someData which is in the scope I need to modify. But here's the question:
How can I modify the results var that's within the closure before it sends it.
I need to add
window.beforeSend = function(d){
window.quantumTunnelThroughScope.results['c']=1
}
The reason I need to do this is because I cannot modify the code of the plugin. Of course if I add the beforeSend within the closure, it works, but then I'm modifying the library which I'm not allowed to do in this case.
I've seen some awesome eval('this.xx' =function ) etc etc but I can't make it work.
EDIT: I clarified that actually it's a different var in the same scope that needs to be edited
No, there's no reasonable way for beforeSend to reach into that closure and modify results. results in the code presented is entirely private to code within that closure.
The unreasonable way to try to do it is to decompile and recompile the plugin function, via eval, and insert a call to a function before the beforeSend that lets us modify results:
(function($) {
$.run = function() {
// You mentioned "ajax," so let's make this
// asynchronous
setTimeout(function() {
var results = {
a: 1,
b: 2
};
var someData = { // Need to modify this
x: 1
};
send = function() {
//send results ajax
};
if (typeof beforeSend == 'function') {
beforeSend(someData); //hook to use results
}
console.log("in plugin, results = ", results);
}, 10);
};
})(jQuery)
window.modifyResults = function(d) {
return ["new", "results"];
};
window.beforeSend = function(r) {
r.c = 1;
};
jQuery.run = (function() {
// Function#toString, on nearly all browsers, returns the source
// code of he function (or something near to it) except on functions
// implemented in native code. We take that string and replace
// the "beforeSend(someData);" call with two calls, the first of
// which lets us modify the `results` variable. Then we use eval
// to turn that back into a function, and assign the result to
// where the plugin put its function originally.
return eval("(" + jQuery.run.toString().replace(
"beforeSend(someData);",
"results = modifyResults(results); beforeSend(someData);"
) + ")");
})();
jQuery.run();
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.1.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
But may or may not work, depending on how the plugin is written, as it lifts it out of its original scope and recompiles it in the scope of our function updating jQuery.run.
I think I'd prefer to take the hit of modifying the plugin. :-)
Note: In the above, I've used a "static" jQuery function. If the plugin you're replacing provides an instance function, the kind you can call on jQuery instances, e.g. the bar in $(".foo").bar(), you'll find it on jQuery.fn instead of jQuery:
jQuery.fn.pluginFunction = eval(...);
I just want to settle this longtime issue so that I can debug with a little bit more sanity.
Issue:
Maybe it's just me, and maybe I'm just having PTSD from console.log printouts screwing with me because of mutation issues.
But anyways, almost anytime I am debugging using printouts created by console.log I always have this little bit of doubt in the back of my head
whether my printouts could be misleading because of other factors(i.e a multiplex of asynchronous code and nested scope, or maybe the platform of execution like the browser or terminal).
Just wanted to put a nail in the coffin of my nagging doubts I have anytime I'm trying to use printouts to examine the flow of code at run-time.
Question:
What are the gotchas with printouts with console.log?
Yes, there are some gotchas. The biggest one is that console.log(someObject) will print something that is a reference to that object, so if the value of the object changes it's possible the console.log might show the newer state of the object rather than the object at the moment you wanted.
I personally get around this by making a deep copy of any object I log out. That way I know the state of the object being logged is the state of the object when I logged it. By far the easiest way to make a deep copy of an object is:
var newObject = jQuery.extend(true, {}, oldObject);
So, for log statements just do:
console.log(jQuery.extend(true, {}, oldObject));
Or make it a function:
function deepCopy(oldObject) {
return jQuery.extend(true, {}, oldObject);
}
console.log(deepCopy(someObject));
There are also things like circular references to worry about.
Moreover, some browsers don't even have a console to log to, so make sure to 1) never put debug code into production, and 2) shim the console.
Edit:
Per your comment, here is an example of how to handle async logging with jQuery:
Let's say you are getting lots of messages, and you want to log which message you are getting responses from. If you do this, you'll get confused real quick because the value of messsageId in the function will be changing.
for(var i = 0; i < 10; ++i) {
getMessage(i);
}
function getMessage(messageId) {
$.ajax({
url: 'myScript',
success: function(data) { console.log('Got data for ' + messageId, data); }
});
}
// This will most likely give you 10 log statements all with id = 9.
To get around this problem, we can create a closure. Understanding closures is outside the scope of this thread, but basically it will trap the value at the function level:
for(var i = 0; i < 10; ++i) {
getMessage(i);
}
function onSuccess(messageId) {
return function(data) {
console.log('Got data for ' + messageId, data);
}
}
function getMessage(messageId) {
$.ajax({
url: 'myScript',
success: onSuccess(messageId);
});
}
// This will give 10 log statements each with the correct id
This is an issue all JS developers face when debugging variables which behave as pointers to objects.. You can however clone it to store the then actual representation of the object.
var obj = {"a":0};
var objCloned = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj)); // <---
obj.a = 1;
console.log(obj);
console.log(objCloned);
By the way, yes - using JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(someObject)) is faster than using jQuery's .clone() method, if anyone wonders :)
I am writing a simple library that will read values from an object given a string property.
Is it possible to read the property but have a function execute without actually invoking the function?
something like:
var obj = {
fn : (function malicious(){ deleteLotsOfFiles();
})()
}
if I do
var foo = obj.fn;
is there a way just by reading the property to execute a (malicious) function?
The malicious function would have already executed anyway before you even referenced it. Once the function is parsed by the engine, it is executed straight away (self-invoking).
var obj = {
get fn() { deleteLotsOfFiles(); }
};
// later
var o = obj; // deleteLotsOfFiles has not been executed
console.log(o.fn); // you just deleted lots of files
An alternative
var o = Object.defineProperty(o, 'baz', {
get: function(){
console.log("Delete Everything!");
}
});
Then access o.baz and they are deleted
More Information on getters from MDN
Sometimes it is desirable to allow access to a property that returns a
dynamically computed value, or you may want to reflect the status of
an internal variable without requiring the use of explicit method
calls.
Seems pretty much like what you want to do.
I have a simple javascript error logging mechanism in place and it looks somewhhat like this:
window.onerror = function (ErrorMsg, Url, LineNumber, Col, Error) {
// ajax these to the server, including Error.stack}
The problem is that I'd also like to get the value of the local variables and function parameters when the error occurred. Is this even possible?
I'm thinking about modifying the Function prototype so that each time a function runs, its arguments are stored in a global array of strings and then the error handler would just add this array to the ajax call. Can JavaScript do this?
#1 Can local scope be recovered in onerror() without black magic?
Without this being bound in the scope of window.onerror() or the surrounding variables being directly accessible, it's impossible to regain access to the variables you had set.
What you're mostly wanting access to is this.arguments or arguments or the equivalent, but that's destroyed. Any hope of obtaining a key-value associative array or hash-like object would involve meta-programming ( i.e. reading the function definition to obtain the variable names, and obtaining an exception report to attempt to salvage data ).
See this answer for more on something similar:
Getting All Variables In Scope
But this "lacking functionality" is a good thing:
If you could gain access to what you're asking for, that would likely be a fault in the Javascript engine. Why? Because the variable states and contents themselves are what caused the exception/error, assuming bad code wasn't the issue to begin with.
In other words, if you could get access to a faulty variable, that might be a door into an infinite loop:
Failure due to variable contents.
Error handler triggered.
Trace contents of variable.
Failure due to variable contents.
Error handler triggered.
Trace contents of variable.
Etc.
#2 Can Javascript store all arguments of every function call by voodoo?
Yes. It can. This is probably a really bad idea ( see #1 ) but it is possible. Here is a pointer on where to start:
Is there a way to wrap all JavaScript methods with a function?
From there, what you're wanting to do is push this.arguments or equivalent to a stack of function calls. But again, this is approaching insanity for many reasons. Not the least of which is the need to duplicate all the values, lest you reference mutated variables, or be unable to access the data at all... and like I said above, the problem of bad data in general. But still, it is possible.
Is this even possible?
No. A stack trace is proof that the stack has unwound, all stack frames and all the local variables they contained are gone. As for getting the name of a variable, that is not even possible at run time.
To start off i accept #Tomalak completely.
I was also put in your situation where i needed to debug a remote running app in case of crash.
As a work around I have forked my code for you in a fiddler. Please modify according to your need.
Caveat: You have to wrap the function body with try{..}catch(e){..} as illustrated in the fiddler code.
Please read the inline comments for understanding.
window.onerror = function (errorMsg, url, lineNumber, column, errorObj) {
console.log(errorObj);
}
window.addEventListener("reportOnError", function(e){
console.log(e.detail);
/*Send to the server or any listeners for analysis.*/
//Http.send(e.detail);
});
function ExceptionReport(ex, args, scope) {
var self = {};
self.message = ex.message;
self.stack = ex.stack;
self.name = ex.name;
self.whoCalled = args.callee.caller.name == "" ? "Window": args.callee.caller.name;
self.errorInFunction = args.callee.name;
self.instanceOf = scope.constructor;
self.KeyPairValues = getParamNames(arguments.callee.caller.toString(), Array.prototype.slice.call(args)); //Contains the parameters value set during runtime
window.dispatchEvent(new CustomEvent('reportOnError', {'detail':self}));
}
//Utilties
function getParamNames(fnBody, values) {
var STRIP_COMMENTS = /((\/\/.*$)|(\/\*[\s\S]*?\*\/))/mg,
ARGUMENT_NAMES = /([^\s,]+)/g,
result = fnBody.slice(fnBody.indexOf('(')+1, fnBody.indexOf(')')).match(ARGUMENT_NAMES),
obj={};
fnBody.replace(STRIP_COMMENTS, '');
if(result !== null){
for(var i=0; i < result.length; i++){
obj[result[i]] = values.length !==0 ? values[i] : null;
}
}else{
obj = null;
}
return obj;
}
/*
This is a testing/sample function that throws the error
*/
function testing(a,b,c){
try{
dummy(1,2) ; //This line throws the error as reference error.
}catch(e){
ExceptionReport(e, arguments, this);
}
}
//Class Emulation: For instanceof illustration.
function testingClass(){
this.testing = testing;
}
//Named self executing function: This calls the function
var myvar = (function myvar(){
testing(1,2,3);
})();
//Illustrating instanceof in exception
var myVar2 = new testingClass();
myVar2.testing(1,2,3);
//Calling from global scope this is Window
testing(1,2,3);
//Without variables
testing();
I have used examples to illustrate the behavior of functions called in different circumstances.
Below signifies the varialble used for
self.KeyPairValues : Used to store the function parameter set/passed during runtime
self.errorInFunction : This stores the name of the function error was caused in.
self.whoCalled : This stores the function name that invoked the defective function
self.instanceOf : This stores the name of the instance is called creating a new instance.
Other variables are same as in Error object
The others answers here are spot on, but I might be able to offer a suggestion for a slightly different way to accomplish this. Instead of trying to track all scope in your program, why not add a tagging function that tracks the scope of one function's parameters without affecting the runtime of the function. For for example:
var globalRecord = {};
function record(name, fn) {
return function () {
var args = [].slice.call(arguments);
var record = globalRecord[name] = {
args: args,
arg: {}
};
args.unshift(function (name, value) {
return record[name] = value;
});
fn.apply(args, arguments);
}
}
// Then, you track variables like this
var func = record("func", function (record, a, b, c) {
record("a", a); // named parameters are accessible now
record("b", b); // if some error occurs in the function body
return a + b + c;
});
// Calling func still behaves as before.
func(1, 2, 3);
// Errors handled like this:
window.onerror = function () {
globalRecord.func.args; // ==> last set of arguments past to function
globalRecord.func.arg.a; // specific arguments recorded with names
};
You could even use this method to track scope without using a function by anonymously calling the recorded function.
record("test", function (record) {
var a = record("a", /* whatever */);
var b = record("b", /* ... */ );
// do scope specific stuff that might fail
})();
Of course, this isn't a polished implementation by any stretch, but with a little work, I think you might be able to get the behavior you're looking for without any seriously black magic. By selectively adding and removing record calls as the need presents itself, you can have precise control over what is logged without any intrusive hacks.
You can find your answer in this link.
Before taking bundles from the server, you must modify them. For example, to solve your problem, you can do changes in the mentioned link as follows. In the BuildBundleContent Class make this change:
contents.Insert(blockContentIndex,
string.Format("if(customErrorLogging)customErrorLogging({0}, this){1}",
errVariable, hasContent ? ";" : ""));
If in the modules you have to use something like:
var self = this;
You can use:
contents.Insert(blockContentIndex,
string.Format("if(customErrorLogging)customErrorLogging({0}, self ? self : this){1}",
errVariable, hasContent ? ";" : ""));
And in added js file:
"use strict";
var customErrorLogging = function (ex, module) {
console.log(module);
//do something...
};
I hope help you.
I use parse.comas backend service for my iOSapp. I was trying to do everything in objective-c since I don't have any experience with JavaScript, but turns out I will need to develop some Cloud Code Functions in JavaScript to complete my app.
A simple routine I'm trying to create:
User retrieves an object using a Cloud Function.
User saves another object in a different class.
An afterSavefunction runs in the cloud to update object first retrieved.
Now, here is my code:
var UserConfigOrientador = Parse.Object.extend("UserConfigOrientador");
var query = new Parse.Query(UserConfigOrientador);
Parse.Cloud.define('pegarOrientadorLivre', function(request, response) {
Parse.Cloud.useMasterKey();
query.greaterThan("entrevistasDisponibilidade", 0);
query.first({
success: function(results) {
response.success(results);
query = results;
},
error: function(error) {
response.error('Favor, checar rede e tentar novamente.');
}
});
});
// AfterSave
Parse.Cloud.afterSave("Agenda", function(request) {
Parse.Cloud.useMasterKey();
query.set("entrevistasDisponibilidade", 70);
query.save();
}
});
});
Now, the second function is not working, I'm getting the message that Object has no set method.
Basically, my questions are:
How can I share data between functions?
Should I keep everything in main.js or can I use another file?
I'm using webStorm for development. And the question about main.js is that after a while I will have a lot of functions and I am trying to figure out how to organize my code.
Your issue is one of scope, and poorly named variables that you're reusing for multiple purposes.
You define your query variable as a query, use it, but inside the success handler you set it to the result of the query (you now have a variable called query which is actually an instance of your UserConfigOrientador class).
When that Cloud Code finishes running, the result goes out of scope and is most likely set to undefined. You shouldn't be trying to share variables between multiple Cloud Code methods like that.
Is there something on the Agenda object that can let you know which UserConfigOrientador to update? Perhaps you could add a pointer property to the UserConfigOrientador? If you did, then you could use the following:
// AfterSave
Parse.Cloud.afterSave("Agenda", function(request) {
Parse.Cloud.useMasterKey();
var userConfigOrientadorQuery = new Parse.Query("UserConfigOrientador");
// read "userConfigOrientador" pointer property on "Agenda" object
var userConfigId = request.object.get("userConfigOrientador").id;
userConfigOrientadorQuery.get(userConfigId, {
success: function(userConfigOrientador) {
userConfigOrientador.set("entrevistasDisponibilidade", 70);
userConfigOrientador.save();
}
});
});
Mm.. I don't think it quite works the way you expect.
When your Cloud code runs, your initial var query declaration is indeed available within the scope of your cloud function and afterSave function. However, you're not passing it in correctly. As a matter of fact, I'm a little confused because your query seems to be requesting a UserConfigOrientador object while your afterSave is on an Agenda object.
So there are two different things going on here. Since you don't actually save an agenda object, I'm assuming that your response.success() returns a JSON of the UserConfigOrientador object back to client side at which point you do some manipulation then save the Agenda object based on that result.
At this point, when you save() the Agenda object now the afterSave() function will run but your query value will be the var query = new Parse.Query(UserConfigOrientador); which does not have a set method. This is why you get the error.
I'm not even sure your query = results; line will actually execute as you should be calling it at the END of your sub-routine and it signals to Parse that it is the end.
If you can tell me how you're saving the Agenda object I can probably complete the picture.
EDIT: --- abstracted but maybe this is the pattern you're looking for...
var ObjectA = Parse.Object.extend('ObjectA');
var queryObjectA = new Parse.Query('ObjectA');
Parse.Cloud.define('findObjectX', function(request, response) {
Parse.Cloud.useMasterKey();
// other query options here...
query.first({
// the first() function will return a Parse.Object
success: function(objectX) {
// Now you have objectX
// Now you want to save some other object
var otherObj = new ObjectA();
// Do things to otherObj
otherObj.save({
success: function(result) { // will be the saved otherObj
// Now you do stuff to your queried obj and save
objectX.set('something', result); // or whatever
// Note, it accomplishes what I think you want without afterSave()
}
}); // async... but we can just let this guy go
},
error: function(error) {
response.error('Favor, checar rede e tentar novamente.');
}
});
});