We Keep Coding

automating / overriding / extending prefix in console.log for debugging

Anyone have a good solution to extending console.log so that it auto prints class name and method as a prefix? I'm using web components and use strict is turned on.
someFunction() {
let varA = "hello"
console.log(this.constructor.name, "someFunction", {varA})
}
Would like to automate this part: this.constructor.name, "someFunction", ...
arguments.callee.name will print the function name, but no longer works with strict mode turned on.
Extending console.log in a centralized location via:
export var log = function(){
var args = Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments);
args.unshift(this.constructor.name + ": ");
console.log.apply(console, args);
}
does not work as this.constructor.name does not print the correct context and if it's not in a web component, it doesn't work at all.
Extending console.log in each web component defeats the purpose (or half of it).
Could fold a function that extends console.log in the build for each web component but would still have the problem of not being able to call arguments.calleee.
Using lit-element, but this is a native javascript issue.

console.trace() may be of use here, instead of a custom console method.
Or, use the new Error()'s .stack property.
class A {
b() {
return function c() {
return function d() {
return (function e() {
return new Error().stack;
})();
}
}
}
}
console.log("here's the stack:\n", new A().b()()());

so based on sean-7777's answer, I suppose we could slice the stack output like this:
let funcname = new Error().stack.split('\n')[1];
funcname=funcname.slice(funcname.indexOf("at ")+3, funcname.indexOf(" ("));
console.log(debugline, 'debug text');
If you put it into a helper function, you could just grab line index 2 (since index 1 would give you the name of the helper function).
I was hoping for something a little more straightforward but hacking the output does work.
UPDATE:
export function prtfun() {
let debugline = new Error().stack.split('\n')[2];
return debugline.slice(debugline.indexOf("at ")+3, debugline.indexOf(" ("));
}
call it from anywhere like this:
console.log(prtfun(), 'log text...');
and it will print ClassName.FunctionName log text...
Works great. I'd disable this in production though.

Unexpected "double" namespace when using constructor function in submodule

I'm building my first real JS app (a tower defense game) and I've been struggling a little with my app structure. I've read about no littering the global namespace so I want to keep all my code in one single global variable while still being able to split my code in files (modules). I have managed to do this but I'm having doubts if I'm going the correct way with this.
The actual problem I'm having now is that when I create "entity" objects (through a constructor function which is actually a method of a submodule), the namespace is not app.entity.type_1 as I expected but app.entity.entity.type_1
/*
** file 1 (included first in html)
*/
var APP = (function (app) {
entity = app.entity || {};
entity.tracker = [];
app.init = function () {
entity.tracker.push(new app.entity.type_1(entity.tracker.length));
entity.tracker.push(new app.entity.type_2(entity.tracker.length));
console.log(entity.tracker[0]);
console.log(entity.tracker[1]);
};
return app;
})(APP || {});
/*
** file 2 (included after file 1 in html)
*/
APP.entity = (function (entity) {
entity.type_1 = function (id) {
this.type = "type 1";
this.id = id;
};
entity.type_2 = function (id) {
this.type = "type 2";
this.id = id;
};
return entity;
})(APP.entity || {});
APP.init();
Please check out the fiddle below.
http://jsfiddle.net/Percept/8stFC/13/
My question is, why does it repeat the "entity" namespace and how can I avoid this?

If you're referring to what Chrome thinks the class name is, that's just a best guess on its part. Since JavaScript has no first-class concept of namespaces, all the context it's really got is that the function that created it was assigned to a variable that was at the time called entity.type_1, and that that was within an IIFE whose result was assigned to APP.entity. Chrome thought the most helpful thing to do would be to concatenate those. You're not doing anything wrong, it's just that Chrome made a bad guess. For the record, Firefox just says [object Object].

Overriding methods using Javascript module pattern

I've got a browser addon I've been maintaining for 5 years, and I'd like to share some common code between the Firefox and Chrome versions.
I decided to go with the Javascript Module Pattern, and I'm running into a problem with, for example, loading browser-specific preferences, saving data, and other browser-dependent stuff.
What I'd like to do is have the shared code reference virtual, overrideable methods that could be implemented in the derived, browser-specific submodules.
Here's a quick example of what I've got so far, that I've tried in the Firebug console, using the Tight Augmentation method from the article I referenced:
var core = (function(core)
{
// PRIVATE METHODS
var over = function(){ return "core"; };
var foo = function() {
console.log(over());
};
// PUBLIC METHODS
core.over = over;
core.foo = foo;
return core;
}(core = core || {}));
var ff_specific = (function(base)
{
var old_over = base.over;
base.over = function() { return "ff_specific"; };
return base;
}(core));
core.foo();
ff_specific.foo();
Unfortunately, both calls to foo() seem to print "core", so I think I've got a fundamental misunderstanding of something.
Essentially, I'm wanting to be able to call:
get_preference(key)
set_preference(key, value)
load_data(key)
save_data(key, value)
and have each browser do their own thing. Is this possible? Is there a better way to do it?

In javascript functions have "lexical scope". This means that functions create their environment - scope when they are defined, not when they are executed. That's why you can't substitute "over" function later:
var over = function(){ return "core"; };
var foo = function() {
console.log(over());
};
//this closure over "over" function cannot be changed later
Furthermore you are "saying" that "over" should be private method of "core" and "ff_specific" should somehow extend "core" and change it (in this case the private method which is not intended to be overridden by design)

you never override your call to foo in the ff_specific code, and it refers directly to the private function over() (which never gets overridden), not to the function core.over() (which does).
The way to solve it based on your use case is to change the call to over() to be a call to core.over().
That said, you're really confusing yourself by reusing the names of things so much, imo. Maybe that's just for the example code. I'm also not convinced that you need to pass in core to the base function (just to the children).

Thanks for your help. I'd forgotten I couldn't reassign closures after they were defined. I did figure out a solution.
Part of the problem was just blindly following the example code from the article, which meant that the anonymous function to build the module was being called immediately (the reusing of names Paul mentioned). Not being able to reassign closures, even ones that I specifically made public, meant I couldn't even later pass it an object that would have its own methods, then check for them.
Here's what I wound up doing, and appears to work very well:
var ff_prefs = (function(ff_prefs)
{
ff_prefs.foo = function() { return "ff_prefs browser specific"; };
return ff_prefs;
}({}));
var chrome_prefs = (function(chrome_prefs)
{
chrome_prefs.foo = function() { return "chrome_prefs browser specific"; };
return chrome_prefs;
}({}));
var test_module = function(extern)
{
var test_module = {};
var talk = function() {
if(extern.foo)
{
console.log(extern.foo());
}
else
{
console.log("No external function!");
}
};
test_module.talk = talk;
return test_module;
};
var test_module_ff = new test_module(ff_prefs);
var test_module_chrome = new test_module(chrome_prefs);
var test_module_none = new test_module({});
test_module_ff.talk();
test_module_chrome.talk();
test_module_none.talk();
Before, it was running itself, then when the extension started, it would call an init() function, which it can still do. It's just no longer an anonymous function.

Does Javascript have something like Ruby's method_missing feature?

In Ruby I think you can call a method that hasn't been defined and yet capture the name of the method called and do processing of this method at runtime.
Can Javascript do the same kind of thing ?

method_missing does not fit well with JavaScript for the same reason it does not exist in Python: in both languages, methods are just attributes that happen to be functions; and objects often have public attributes that are not callable. Contrast with Ruby, where the public interface of an object is 100% methods.
What is needed in JavaScript is a hook to catch access to missing attributes, whether they are methods or not. Python has it: see the __getattr__ special method.
The __noSuchMethod__ proposal by Mozilla introduced yet another inconsistency in a language riddled with them.
The way forward for JavaScript is the Proxy mechanism (also in ECMAscript Harmony), which is closer to the Python protocol for customizing attribute access than to Ruby's method_missing.

The ruby feature that you are explaining is called "method_missing" http://rubylearning.com/satishtalim/ruby_method_missing.htm.
It's a brand new feature that is present only in some browsers like Firefox (in the spider monkey Javascript engine). In SpiderMonkey it's called "__noSuchMethod__" https://developer.mozilla.org/en/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Object/NoSuchMethod
Please read this article from Yehuda Katz http://yehudakatz.com/2008/08/18/method_missing-in-javascript/ for more details about the upcoming implementation.

Not at the moment, no. There is a proposal for ECMAScript Harmony, called proxies, which implements a similar (actually, much more powerful) feature, but ECMAScript Harmony isn't out yet and probably won't be for a couple of years.

You can use the Proxy class.
var myObj = {
someAttr: 'foo'
};
var p = new Proxy(myObj, {
get: function (target, methodOrAttributeName) {
// target is the first argument passed into new Proxy, aka. target is myObj
// First give the target a chance to handle it
if (Object.keys(target).indexOf(methodOrAttributeName) !== -1) {
return target[methodOrAttributeName];
}
// If the target did not have the method/attribute return whatever we want
// Explicitly handle certain cases
if (methodOrAttributeName === 'specialPants') {
return 'trousers';
}
// return our generic method_missing function
return function () {
// Use the special "arguments" object to access a variable number arguments
return 'For show, myObj.someAttr="' + target.someAttr + '" and "'
+ methodOrAttributeName + '" called with: ['
+ Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments).join(',') + ']';
}
}
});
console.log(p.specialPants);
// outputs: trousers
console.log(p.unknownMethod('hi', 'bye', 'ok'));
// outputs:
// For show, myObj.someAttr="foo" and "unknownMethod" called with: [hi,bye,ok]
About
You would use p in place of myObj.
You should be careful with get because it intercepts all attribute requests of p. So, p.specialPants() would result in an error because specialPants returns a string and not a function.
What's really going on with unknownMethod is equivalent to the following:
var unk = p.unkownMethod;
unk('hi', 'bye', 'ok');
This works because functions are objects in javascript.
Bonus
If you know the number of arguments you expect, you can declare them as normal in the returned function.
eg:
...
get: function (target, name) {
return function(expectedArg1, expectedArg2) {
...

I've created a library for javascript that let you use method_missing in javascript: https://github.com/ramadis/unmiss
It uses ES6 Proxies to work. Here is an example using ES6 Class inheritance. However you can also use decorators to achieve the same results.
import { MethodMissingClass } from 'unmiss'
class Example extends MethodMissingClass {
methodMissing(name, ...args) {
console.log(`Method ${name} was called with arguments: ${args.join(' ')}`);
}
}
const instance = new Example;
instance.what('is', 'this');
> Method what was called with arguments: is this

No, there is no metaprogramming capability in javascript directly analogous to ruby's method_missing hook. The interpreter simply raises an Error which the calling code can catch but cannot be detected by the object being accessed. There are some answers here about defining functions at run time, but that's not the same thing. You can do lots of metaprogramming, changing specific instances of objects, defining functions, doing functional things like memoizing and decorators. But there's no dynamic metaprogramming of missing functions as there is in ruby or python.

I came to this question because I was looking for a way to fall through to another object if the method wasn't present on the first object. It's not quite as flexible as what your asking - for instance if a method is missing from both then it will fail.
I was thinking of doing this for a little library I've got that helps configure extjs objects in a way that also makes them more testable. I had seperate calls to actually get hold of the objects for interaction and thought this might be a nice way of sticking those calls together by effectively returning an augmented type
I can think of two ways of doing this:
Prototypes
You can do this using prototypes - as stuff falls through to the prototype if it isn't on the actual object. It seems like this wouldn't work if the set of functions you want drop through to use the this keyword - obviously your object wont know or care about stuff that the other one knows about.
If its all your own code and you aren't using this and constructors ... which is a good idea for lots of reasons then you can do it like this:
var makeHorse = function () {
var neigh = "neigh";
return {
doTheNoise: function () {
return neigh + " is all im saying"
},
setNeigh: function (newNoise) {
neigh = newNoise;
}
}
};
var createSomething = function (fallThrough) {
var constructor = function () {};
constructor.prototype = fallThrough;
var instance = new constructor();
instance.someMethod = function () {
console.log("aaaaa");
};
instance.callTheOther = function () {
var theNoise = instance.doTheNoise();
console.log(theNoise);
};
return instance;
};
var firstHorse = makeHorse();
var secondHorse = makeHorse();
secondHorse.setNeigh("mooo");
var firstWrapper = createSomething(firstHorse);
var secondWrapper = createSomething(secondHorse);
var nothingWrapper = createSomething();
firstWrapper.someMethod();
firstWrapper.callTheOther();
console.log(firstWrapper.doTheNoise());
secondWrapper.someMethod();
secondWrapper.callTheOther();
console.log(secondWrapper.doTheNoise());
nothingWrapper.someMethod();
//this call fails as we dont have this method on the fall through object (which is undefined)
console.log(nothingWrapper.doTheNoise());
This doesn't work for my use case as the extjs guys have not only mistakenly used 'this' they've also built a whole crazy classical inheritance type system on the principal of using prototypes and 'this'.
This is actually the first time I've used prototypes/constructors and I was slightly baffled that you can't just set the prototype - you also have to use a constructor. There is a magic field in objects (at least in firefox) call __proto which is basically the real prototype. it seems the actual prototype field is only used at construction time... how confusing!
Copying methods
This method is probably more expensive but seems more elegant to me and will also work on code that is using this (eg so you can use it to wrap library objects). It will also work on stuff written using the functional/closure style aswell - I've just illustrated it with this/constructors to show it works with stuff like that.
Here's the mods:
//this is now a constructor
var MakeHorse = function () {
this.neigh = "neigh";
};
MakeHorse.prototype.doTheNoise = function () {
return this.neigh + " is all im saying"
};
MakeHorse.prototype.setNeigh = function (newNoise) {
this.neigh = newNoise;
};
var createSomething = function (fallThrough) {
var instance = {
someMethod : function () {
console.log("aaaaa");
},
callTheOther : function () {
//note this has had to change to directly call the fallThrough object
var theNoise = fallThrough.doTheNoise();
console.log(theNoise);
}
};
//copy stuff over but not if it already exists
for (var propertyName in fallThrough)
if (!instance.hasOwnProperty(propertyName))
instance[propertyName] = fallThrough[propertyName];
return instance;
};
var firstHorse = new MakeHorse();
var secondHorse = new MakeHorse();
secondHorse.setNeigh("mooo");
var firstWrapper = createSomething(firstHorse);
var secondWrapper = createSomething(secondHorse);
var nothingWrapper = createSomething();
firstWrapper.someMethod();
firstWrapper.callTheOther();
console.log(firstWrapper.doTheNoise());
secondWrapper.someMethod();
secondWrapper.callTheOther();
console.log(secondWrapper.doTheNoise());
nothingWrapper.someMethod();
//this call fails as we dont have this method on the fall through object (which is undefined)
console.log(nothingWrapper.doTheNoise());
I was actually anticipating having to use bind in there somewhere but it appears not to be necessary.

Not to my knowledge, but you can simulate it by initializing the function to null at first and then replacing the implementation later.
var foo = null;
var bar = function() { alert(foo()); } // Appear to use foo before definition
// ...
foo = function() { return "ABC"; } /* Define the function */
bar(); /* Alert box pops up with "ABC" */
This trick is similar to a C# trick for implementing recursive lambdas, as described here.
The only downside is that if you do use foo before it's defined, you'll get an error for trying to call null as though it were a function, rather than a more descriptive error message. But you would expect to get some error message for using a function before it's defined.

Javascript Prototype not Working

Hi I don't know whether this is my mistake in understanding Javascript prototype object ..
Well to be clear I'm new to the Javascript singleton concept and lack clear cut knowledge in that but going through some referral sites I made a sample code for my system but it's giving out some errors which I couldn't find why so I'm asking for your help. My code is:
referrelSystem = function(){
//Some code here
}();
Prototype function:
referrelSystem.prototype.postToFb = function(){
//Some Code here
};
I get an error saying prototype is undefined!
Excuse me i thought of this right now
EDIT
I have used like this:
referrelSystem = function(){
return{
login:getSignedIn,
initTwitter:initTw
}
};
Is this causing an issue?

A typical way to define a JavaScript class with prototypes would be:
function ReferrelSystem() {
// this is your constructor
// use this.foo = bar to assign properties
}
ReferrelSystem.prototype.postToFb = function () {
// this is a class method
};
You might have been confused with the self-executing function syntax (closures). That is used when you would like to have "private" members in your class. Anything you declare in this closure will only be visible within the closure itself:
var ReferrelSystem = (function () {
function doSomething() {
// this is a "private" function
// make sure you call it with doSomething.call(this)
// to be able to access class members
}
var cnt; // this is a "private" property
function RS() {
// this is your constructor
}
RS.prototype.postToFb = function () {
// this is a class method
};
return RS;
})();
I would recommend that you study common module patterns if you're looking into creating a library.

Update: Seeing your updated code, the return from referrelSystem won't work as expected, since return values are discarded when calling new referrelSystem().
Rather than returning an object, set those properties to this (the instance of referrelSystem that gets constructed):
var referrelSystem = function () {
// I assume you have other code here
this.login = getSignedIn;
this.initTwitter = initTw;
};

I don't think you intend to immediately execute the functions, change them to this:
var referrelSystem = function(){
//Some code here
};
(+var, -())
Same with the prototype function:
referrelSystem.prototype.postToFb = function(){
//Some Code here
};
(Here you don't need the var, because you're assigning to something that already exists.)

A function should return to work as
prototype
property.
Take a look at this example here