How can I pass a parameter to the JavaScript in a content script file which is injected using:
chrome.tabs.executeScript(tab.id, {file: "content.js"});
There's not such a thing as "pass a parameter to a file".
What you can do is to either insert a content script before executing the file, or sending a message after inserting the file. I will show an example for these distinct methods below.
Set parameters before execution of the JS file
If you want to define some variables before inserting the file, just nest chrome.tabs.executeScript calls:
chrome.tabs.executeScript(tab.id, {
code: 'var config = 1;'
}, function() {
chrome.tabs.executeScript(tab.id, {file: 'content.js'});
});
If your variable is not as simple, then I recommend to use JSON.stringify to turn an object in a string:
var config = {somebigobject: 'complicated value'};
chrome.tabs.executeScript(tab.id, {
code: 'var config = ' + JSON.stringify(config)
}, function() {
chrome.tabs.executeScript(tab.id, {file: 'content.js'});
});
With the previous method, the variables can be used in content.js in the following way:
// content.js
alert('Example:' + config);
Set parameters after execution of the JS file
The previous method can be used to set parameters after the JS file. Instead of defining variables directly in the global scope, you can use the message passing API to pass parameters:
chrome.tabs.executeScript(tab.id, {file: 'content.js'}, function() {
chrome.tabs.sendMessage(tab.id, 'whatever value; String, object, whatever');
});
In the content script (content.js), you can listen for these messages using the chrome.runtime.onMessage event, and handle the message:
chrome.runtime.onMessage.addListener(function(message, sender, sendResponse) {
// Handle message.
// In this example, message === 'whatever value; String, object, whatever'
});
There are five general ways to pass data to a content script injected with tabs.executeScript()(MDN):
Set the data prior to injecting the script
Use chrome.storage.local(MDN) to pass the data (set prior to injecting your script).
Inject code prior to your script which sets a variable with the data (see detailed discussion for possible security issue).
Set a cookie for the domain in which the content script is being injected. This method can also be used to pass data to manifest.json content scripts which are injected at document_start, without the need for the content script to perform an asynchronous request.
Send/set the data after injecting the script
Use message passing(MDN) to pass the data after your script is injected.
Use chrome.storage.onChanged(MDN) in your content script to listen for the background script to set a value using chrome.storage.local.set()(MDN).
Use chrome.storage.local (set prior to executing your script)
Using this method maintains the execution paradigm you are using of injecting a script that performs a function and then exits. It also does not have the potential security issue of using a dynamic value to build executing code, which is done in the second option below.
From your popup script:
Store the data using chrome.storage.local.set()(MDN).
In the callback for chrome.storage.local.set(), call tabs.executeScript()(MDN).
var updateTextTo = document.getElementById('comments').value;
chrome.storage.local.set({
updateTextTo: updateTextTo
}, function () {
chrome.tabs.executeScript({
file: "content_script3.js"
});
});
From your content script:
Read the data from chrome.storage.local.get()(MDN).
Make the changes to the DOM.
Invalidate the data in storage.local (e.g. remove the key with: chrome.storage.local.remove() (MDN)).
chrome.storage.local.get('updateTextTo', function (items) {
assignTextToTextareas(items.updateTextTo);
chrome.storage.local.remove('updateTextTo');
});
function assignTextToTextareas(newText){
if (typeof newText === 'string') {
Array.from(document.querySelectorAll('textarea.comments')).forEach(el => {
el.value = newText;
});
}
}
See: Notes 1 & 2.
Inject code prior to your script to set a variable
Prior to executing your script, you can inject some code that sets a variable in the content script context which your primary script can then use:
Security issue:
The following uses "'" + JSON.stringify().replace(/\\/g,'\\\\').replace(/'/g,"\\'") + "'" to encode the data into text which will be proper JSON when interpreted as code, prior to putting it in the code string. The .replace() methods are needed to A) have the text correctly interpreted as a string when used as code, and B) quote any ' which exist in the data. It then uses JSON.parse() to return the data to a string in your content script. While this encoding is not strictly required, it is a good idea as you don't know the content of the value which you are going to send to the content script. This value could easily be something that would corrupt the code you are injecting (i.e. The user may be using ' and/or " in the text they entered). If you do not, in some way, escape the value, there is a security hole which could result in arbitrary code being executed.
From your popup script:
Inject a simple piece of code that sets a variable to contain the data.
In the callback for chrome.tabs.executeScript()(MDN), call tabs.executeScript() to inject your script (Note: tabs.executeScript() will execute scripts in the order in which you call tabs.executeScript(), as long as they have the same value for runAt. Thus, waiting for the callback of the small code is not strictly required).
var updateTextTo = document.getElementById('comments').value;
chrome.tabs.executeScript({
code: "var newText = JSON.parse('" + encodeToPassToContentScript(updateTextTo) + "');"
}, function () {
chrome.tabs.executeScript({
file: "content_script3.js"
});
});
function encodeToPassToContentScript(obj){
//Encodes into JSON and quotes \ characters so they will not break
// when re-interpreted as a string literal. Failing to do so could
// result in the injection of arbitrary code and/or JSON.parse() failing.
return JSON.stringify(obj).replace(/\\/g,'\\\\').replace(/'/g,"\\'")
}
From your content script:
Make the changes to the DOM using the data stored in the variable
if (typeof newText === 'string') {
Array.from(document.querySelectorAll('textarea.comments')).forEach(el => {
el.value = newText;
});
}
See: Notes 1, 2, & 3.
Use message passing(MDN)(send data after content script is injected)
This requires your content script code to install a listener for a message sent by the popup, or perhaps the background script (if the interaction with the UI causes the popup to close). It is a bit more complex.
From your popup script:
Determine the active tab using tabs.query()(MDN).
Call tabs.executeScript()(MDN)
In the callback for tabs.executeScript(), use tabs.sendMessage()(MDN)(which requires knowing the tabId), to send the data as a message.
var updateTextTo = document.getElementById('comments').value;
chrome.tabs.query({active: true, currentWindow: true}, function(tabs) {
chrome.tabs.executeScript(tabs[0].id, {
file: "content_script3.js"
}, function(){
chrome.tabs.sendMessage(tabs[0].id,{
updateTextTo: updateTextTo
});
});
});
From your content script:
Add a listener using chrome.runtime.onMessage.addListener()(MDN).
Exit your primary code, leaving the listener active. You could return a success indicator, if you choose.
Upon receiving a message with the data:
Make the changes to the DOM.
Remove your runtime.onMessage listener
#3.2 is optional. You could keep your code active waiting for another message, but that would change the paradigm you are using to one where you load your code and it stays resident waiting for messages to initiate actions.
chrome.runtime.onMessage.addListener(assignTextToTextareas);
function assignTextToTextareas(message){
newText = message.updateTextTo;
if (typeof newText === 'string') {
Array.from(document.querySelectorAll('textarea.comments')).forEach(el => {
el.value = newText;
});
}
chrome.runtime.onMessage.removeListener(assignTextToTextareas); //optional
}
See: Notes 1 & 2.
Note 1: Using Array.from() is fine if you are not doing it many times and are using a browser version which has it (Chrome >= version 45, Firefox >= 32). In Chrome and Firefox, Array.from() is slow compared to other methods of getting an array from a NodeList. For a faster, more compatible conversion to an Array, you could use the asArray() code in this answer. The second version of asArray() provided in that answer is also more robust.
Note 2: If you are willing to limit your code to Chrome version >= 51 or Firefox version >= 50, Chrome has a forEach() method for NodeLists as of v51. Thus, you don't need to convert to an array. Obviously, you don't need to convert to an Array if you use a different type of loop.
Note 3: While I have previously used this method (injecting a script with the variable value) in my own code, I was reminded that I should have included it here when reading this answer.
You can use the args property, see this documentation
const color = '#00ff00';
function changeBackgroundColor(backgroundColor) {
document.body.style.backgroundColor = backgroundColor;
}
chrome.scripting.executeScript(
{
target: {tabId},
func: changeBackgroundColor,
args: [color],
},
() => { ... });
Edit: My mistake - This only applies to injected functions, not files as the question specifies.
#RobW's answer is the perfect answer for this. But for you to implement this you need to initiate global variables.
I suggest an alternative for this, which is similar to #RobW's answer. Instead of passing the variable to the file, you load a function from the content.js file and then initiate the function in your current context using the code: and pass variables from current context.
var argString = "abc";
var argInt = 123;
chrome.tabs.executeScript(tabId, { file: "/content.js" }).then(() => {
chrome.tabs.executeScript(tabId, {
allFrames: false,
code: "myFunction('" + argString + "', " + argInt + "); ",
});
});
This is inspired from #wOxxOm's answer here. This method is really going to be helpful to write a common source code for Manifest v2 & v3
Related
Hopefully, the title is self-explanatory. Basically I'm injecting two scripts on my popup.js and I want to expose a variable defined on one of them so the other script can use it.
This is the way I'm injecting the scripts:
let sortFunction = function (goSortParam) {
if (goSortParam) {
chrome.tabs.executeScript(
null,
{ code: 'var goSortParam=true;' },
function () {
chrome.tabs.executeScript(null, { file: 'scripts/ajaxCalls.js' });
chrome.tabs.executeScript(null, { file: 'scripts/frontEndDev.js' });
}
);
} else {
chrome.tabs.executeScript(
null,
{ code: 'var goSortParam=false;' },
function () {
chrome.tabs.executeScript(null, { file: 'scripts/frontEndDev.js' });
}
);
}
};
This is the ajaxCalls.js:
const CONFIG_URL = chrome.extension.getURL('./data/config.json');
const promise = fetch(CONFIG_URL);
promise
.then(function (response) {
const processingPromise = response.json();
return processingPromise;
})
.then(function (processedResponse) {
const configData = processedResponse;
console.log(configData.tags);
});
The variable I want to expose is "configData" so "frontEndDev.js" can use it. Any ideas will be very welcome.
Safe approach
Use a special dedicated global variable, which you must define in a common script that runs first, for example:
chrome.tabs.executeScript({ code: 'var globalData = {foo: true}' });
chrome.tabs.executeScript({ file: 'scripts/ajaxCalls.js' });
chrome.tabs.executeScript({ file: 'scripts/frontEndDev.js' });
Then use globalData.whatever to access the data and globalData.whatever = 'anything' to set it. Since this is a standard JS object you can set a key inside even if it wasn't defined initially.
To make it even safer you can use the built-in function that converts objects into proper strings: 'var globalData = ' + JSON.stringify({ foo: true })
Unsafe approach
Share foo as window.foo = 'anything' then use it literally as foo or window.foo - both are the same, but the first one may require you to pacify your linting tool e.g. /* global foo */ in eslint.
It's unsafe in a content script because a web page can have an element with an id attribute containing the exact name of that variable, which historically creates an implicit global variable accessible both in the page context and in the isolated world of content scripts. Some pages may accidentally or intentionally break extensions by adding such an id and if they do it on the <html> element the variable will be created even for content scripts running at document_start.
The first approach was safe because it explicitly defined a global variable before running any dependent code (using a hardcoded name when defining, accessing, writing) thus overriding a possible implicit variable generated for a DOM element.
Some trivia
Such shared data can be used only by code that runs later in time (not simply the one that's "outside" the callback, more info)
All content scripts for the given page or frame run in the special "isolated world" of content scripts of this extension so they share globals like window or globalThis or any variables declared in the global scope of any script via var, let, const, class. For example, goSortParam in your code is a global variable so it's available in all content scripts directly. The isolated world is basically a standard JavaScript environment like that of any web page, but it's separate/isolated so variables (or DOM expandos) defined in one environment aren't visible in the other one. Every extension is assigned its own isolated world on every page/frame where its content scripts run.
I'm sending a GET request with jQuery
$.get("/index.html", /*Adding '?update' to the request*/ "update",
function (data) {/* Enter code here */}, "html");
where data is my server's response. I'm sending back a simple script like alert() so the 'data' variable equals <script> alert("Hello world!") </script>.
I need a way to automatically execute the script. I could just .append(data) to an element but I'm having multiple appends so that isn't really practical.
What is the easiest and the most practical way of executing the script?
Either .append it, like you said, or use eval(data), but then you'd have to get rid of the <script></script>. You can supply eval() a piece of Javascript code and it will execute that.
Please be aware that using eval should be avoided at all costs.
I did some crazy stuff in a case like this but you may think it is extreme. In my case I had to store some functions in localStorage and execute them by history state ( when user goes back/forth ). I have created a json object similar to
{obj:'myObject', fn: 'myfn', args: myArgs}
then stored this data base64 encoded. then when I need it back, I simply decoded content and
window.[data.fn].[data.obj].apply(null,data.args)`
did the trick without exposing too much data and not using eval. Eval comes from Evil so I would stay away. =)
UPDATE
So in my case all main core functions are json objects at window namespace similar to ( not actual content but an sample)
Member = {
initialize: function (){
//some process
},
render:function(memberId, selector){
//Some process
},
//...etc }
So when I store each item it, I used something similar to
var data = {obj: 'Member', fn: 'render', args: [1,'#member-block']}
then encoded version will be
localStorage.setItem('data', btoa(JSON.stringify(data)));
dmFyIGRhdGEgPSB7b2JqOiAnTWVtYmVyJywgZm46ICdyZW5kZXInLCBhcmdzOiB7bWVtYmVySWQ6MSwgc2VsZWN0b3I6ICcjbWVtYmVyLWJsb2NrJ319
Then when I need to call back
var data = JSON.parse(atob(localStorage.getItem('data'));
would return my original data object. Since the main functions in my case are in window namespace.
if (typeof window[data.obj]!=='undefined') { // same as window.Member
if (typeof window[data.obj][data.fn]!=='undefined' && typeof window[data.obj][data.fn]!=='function' ) { // make sure fn is defined and is a function
window[data.obj][data.fn].apply(null, data.args);
// we pass same arguments to function call with apply.
// `apply` will give us option to add arguments dynamically without knowing its size.
// it can be null any number of arguments that needed for that function.
}
}
I was trying to add an additional url attribute as a function to my page-object while using nightwatchjs.
Like:
module.exports = {
url: function() {
return this.api.launchUrl + '/content/site1.xhtml';
},
cancelUrl: function() {
return this.api.launchUrl + '/content/cancel_site1.xhtml';
}
}
Anyhow nightwatch is not able to get that 2nd attribute cancelUrl, ie undefined.
Why is that so? Shouldn't nightwatch be able to access that attribute as it is nothing more than a function call returning a string or am I misunderstanding a javascript or special page-object concept?
--
I am aware that there should be a page-object for each site so there should not be a 2nd site. Anyhow I would like to understand why this is not working technically.
Not sure I can answer the "why" (other than to say that when nightwatch loads up your page objects as globally available it must be wrapping your js file and filtering on 'known' functions) but I can offer a solution: add a command to your page object with the desired function. For example:
let pageCommands = {
cancelUrl: function() {
return this.api.launchUrl + '/content/cancel_site1.xhtml';
}
};
module.exports = {
commands: [pageCommands],
...
}
It's not the typical use of page commands, but your test would then be able to access the cancelUrl function on the page object instance.
More on page commands here
I want to make an ajax call that will return a json object. One of this JSON object's properties will be the string of a function to be executed in the client. I realise this can easily be solved by using eval, but seeing the many disadvantages of eval, I'd rather avoid it. My question is:
Can I in some way return from the server some js code and execute it without resorting to eval?
As requested, here's some example code:
Server (Node.js):
var testFunc = function() {
alert('h1');
};
app.get('/testPack', function(req, res) {
var template = jade.render('h1 hi');
res.send({
template : template,
entity : testFunc.toString(),
data : {
id: "OMG I love this"
}
});
});
Client:
$(document).ready(function() {
$.ajax({
url: '/testPack',
success: function(data) {
$('body').append($(data.template))
alert(data.data.id);
var entity = eval(data.entity);
entity();
}
})
})
Of course, the returned function called entity wouldn't do such a silly thing, it would expose an API of the returned widget.
Just to clarify, I'd like to avoid having to make a separate call for the javascript itself. I'd rather bundle it with the template and data to render.
Easiest way to do that, is not to call a server through an ajax, but instead to create a new script tag on the page with the url pointing to a RESTful web-service that would output pure JavaScript (not JSON). That way your output will be evaluated by the browser directly without the use of eval.
To expand a little on my answer:
To get around the problems of running script in the global context you could do some tricks. For example, when you are adding script tag to the head, you can bind onload event (or rather fake onload event, since IE doesn't support onload on the script tag) to it, and if your response from the server will be always wrapped in the the function with a known name, you could apply that function from within your object. Example code below (this is just an example though):
function test ()
{
this.init = function ()
{
var script = document.createElement("script");
script.type = "text/javascript";
script.language = "javascript";
script.src = "test.js";
var me = this;
window.callMe = function () { me.scriptReady(me); };
var head = document.getElementsByTagName("head")[0];
head.appendChild(script);
};
this.scriptReady = function (object)
{
serverResponse.call(object);
};
this.name = "From inside the object";
this.init();
}
var t=new test();
The server response should look something like this:
function serverResponse()
{
alert(this.name);
}
window.callMe();
In this case, everything inside serverResponse() will use your object as "this". Now if you modify your server response in this way:
function serverResponse()
{
this.serverJSONString = { "testVar1": "1", "testVar2": 2 };
function Test()
{
alert("From the server");
}
Test();
}
window.callMe();
You can have multiple things being returned from the server and with just one response. If you don't like just setting variables, then create a function in your main object to handle JSON string that you can supply by calling this function from your response.
As you can see, it's all doable, it really doesn't look pretty, but then again, what you are trying to do is not pretty to begin with.
P.S. Just inserting a string inside tag will not work for IE, it will not allow you to do that. If you don't have to support IE, then you could get away with just inserting server response inside a newly created script tag and be done with it.
P.P.S. Please don't use this code as is, cause I didn't spend too much time writting it. It's ugly as hell, but was just ment as an example:-)
No, you can't do this by definition, because JavaScript functions are not valid JSON. See the spec here:
http://www.json.org/
If you're returning a string, then that's what it is: just a string. You can't evaluate it without eval. You can call whatever else you're returning whatever you want, but please don't call it JSON.
Here's an example of how I think this could work.
The json object represents what is returned from the server. The c and d properties contain function names as strings. If those functions are properties of some other object which exists in your page, then you should be able to call them using the object["property"] accessor.
See it working on jsFiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/WUY4n/1/
// This function is a child of the window object
window.winScopedFunction = function() {
alert("ROCK THE WIN");
}
// This function is a child of another object
var myObject = {
myFunction : function() {
alert("ROCK ON");
}
};
// pretend that this json object was the result of an ajax call.
var jsonResultFromServer= {
a : 1,
b : 2,
c : "myFunction",
d : "winScopedFunction"
};
// you can call the local functions like so
myObject[jsonResultFromServer.c]();
window[jsonResultFromServer.d]();
Yes, there's a way, but it has the exact same disadvantages as eval.
You can use the Function constructor to create a new function, and then call it. For example:
new Function(code)();
http://code.google.com/p/json-sans-eval/ is a fast JSON parser that does not use eval, and JSON.parse is becoming increasing widely available in new browsers. Both are excellent alternatives to eval for parsing JSON.
You can use the trick that Google does with Google Charts.
<html>
<head>
<script>
function onWorkDone(data) {
console.log(data);
}
</script>
<script src="callback.js"></script>
</head>
</html>
Then your callback.js is:
function doWork(callback) {
callback({result: 'foo'});
}
doWork(onWorkDone);
Basically, your script will call onWorkDone when the doWork completed. You can see a working example here:
http://jsfiddle.net/ea9Gc/
Do you have some example cases? Some things I can think of is you that you can just have a regular function inside your js file, and your server will return some parameters for your function to execute. You can even specify what function to use! (Isn't that amazing?)
// your js file
var some_namespace = {
some_function : function(a, b){
// stuff
}
}
// your server output
{
some_other_data: "123",
execute: {
func: "some_namespace.some_function",
params: [1, 2]
}
}
// your ajax callback
function(r){
window[r.execute.func].apply(this, r.execute.params);
}
The reasons of not using eval
Well, you already said it yourself. Don't use eval. But you have a wrong picture regarding why.
It is not that eval is evil. You are getting the reason wrong. Performance considerations aside, using eval this way allows a sloppy programmer to execute code passed from server on the client. Notice the "passed from server" part.
Why never execute code passed from server
Why don't you want to execute code passed from the server (incidentally that's what you're planning to do)?
When a browser executes a script on a web page, as long as the web site is valid -- i.e. really yours, and not a malware site pretending to be yours trying to trick your users -- you can be reasonably sure that every bit of code the browser is running is written by yourself.
Hacker's heaven -- script injection attacks
Now, if you are passing data from the server to your web application, and that data contains executable functions, you're asking for trouble. In the long, twisted journey of that data going from your server to your client's browser, it goes through the wild west called the Internet, perhaps through multiple layers of proxies and filters and converters, most of which you do not control.
Now, if a hacker is hiding somewhere in the middle, takes your data from the server, modify the code to those functions to something really bad, and sends it away to your client, then your client browser takes the data and executes the code. Voila! Bad things happen. The worse is: you (at the server side) will never know that your clients are hacked.
This is called a "script injection attack" and is a serious sercurity risk.
Therefore, the rule is: Never execute functions returned from a server.
Only pass data from server
If you only accept data from a server, the most that can happen whan a hacker tempers with it is that your client will see strange data coming back, and hopefully your scripts will filter them out or handle them as incorrect data. Your client's browser will not be running any arbitrary code written by the hacker with glee.
In your client-side script, of course you're sticking to the Golden Rule: Do not trust ANY data coming through the Internet. Therefore you'd already be type-check and validating the JSON data before using it, and disallowing anything that looks suspicious.
Don't do it -- pass functions from server and execute on client
So, to make a long story short: DON'T DO IT.
Think of another way to specify pluggable functionalities on the browser -- there are multiple methods.
I've had this same question, and I fixed it this way:
File: functions.js.php?f=1,3
$functions=array(
'showMessage' => 'function(msg){ alert(msg); }',
'confirmAction' => 'function(action){
return confirm("Are you sure you want to "+action+"?");
}',
'getName' => 'function getName(){
return prompt("What is your name?");
}'
);
$queried = explode($_REQUEST['f']);
echo 'var FuncUtils = {'; // begin javascript object
$counter=1;
foreach($functions as $name=>$function){
if(in_array($counter, $queried))
echo '"'.$name.'":,'.$function.',';
$counter++;
}
echo '"dummy":null };'; // end javascript object
File: data5.json
{
"action" : ['confirmAction','exit']
}
File: test.js
$(document).ready(function(){
$.getScript('functions.js.php?f=1,3');
});
function onBeforeExit(){
$.getJSON('data5.json', function(data) {
var func = data.action.shift();
FuncUtils[func].apply(null, data.action);
});
}
I am writing a simple counter, and I would like to make installation of this counter very simple for users. One of the simplest counter code (for users who install it) I ever see was Google Analytics Code
So I would like to store main code in a file and user who will install my counter will need just to set websiteID like this:
<html><head><title></title></head><body>
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://counterhost.lan/tm.js">
var websiteId = 'XXXXX';
</script>
</body></html>
Here is my code:
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://counterhost.lan/tm.js">
var page = _gat.init('new');
</script>
and this is my JS file:
(function() {
var z = '_gat';
var aa = function init(data) { alert(data); alert(z);};
function na() {
return new z.aa();
}
na();
})();
I tried to understand Google Analytics javascript code but I failed to do this. Can anyone suggest how can I specify variable between tags and then read it in anonymous function which is located in a javascript file ?
Thanks.
In your example, websiteId is a global variable. So it is accessible everywhere including anonymous functions unless there is a local variable with the same name
<script> var websiteId = "something"; </script>
Later in the page or included js file...
(function() {
alert(websiteId); //this should work
})();
Can anyone suggest how can I specify variable between tags and then read it [...]
Not if your tag has both a SRC attribute and JS content.
<script type="text/javascript" src="http:/x.com/x.js"></script>
.. is different from,
<script type="text/javascript">
var x = 1;
</script>
One framework that optionally adds JS variables to SCRIPT tags is Dojo. So if you're using Dojo you can add variables to the global djConfig hash by writing,
<script type="text/javascript" src="mxclientsystem/dojo/dojo.js"
djConfig="
usePlainJson: true,
parseOnLoad: true
">
</script>
Dojo does this by running through the SCRIPT tags and evaluating the custom djConfig attribute.
This does not, however solve your problem.
You do really want two SCRIPT tags. One saying,
<script type="text/javascript">
var websiteId = '123456';
</script>
which will set a global variable websiteId and a second one,
<script type="text/javascript" src="http:/x.com/myreporter.js"></script>
which can load from anywhere and read out the websiteId variable and, I assume, report it back.
You can pass variables to an anonymous function like so:
(function(arg1, arg2, arg3) {
alert(arg1);
alert(arg2);
alert(arg3);
})("let's", "go", "redsox");
// will alert "let's", then "go", then "redsox" :)
I'm not entirely clear about what you're asking, but...
You can tag any HTML element with an id attribute, then use
document.getEntityById() to retrieve that specific element.
You can also give any HTML element user-defined attributes having names of your own choosing, then get and set them for that element within Javascript.
I think you've got a bit confused with how JS objects are called.
z is a String, '_gat'. You can't call aa() on it because a String has no member called aa. aa is a standalone function stored in a local variable. Even if you did call aa(), it doesn't return anything, so using the new operator on its results is meaningless. new can only be called on constructor-functions.
I guess you mean something like:
var _gat= function() {
// Private variable
//
var data= null;
// Object to put in window._gat
//
return {
// Set the private variable
//
init: function(d) {
data= d;
}
};
}();
Then calling _gat.init('foo') as in your second example would set the variable to website ID 'foo'. This works because the _gat object is the return {init: function() {...}} object defined inside the anonymous function, keeping a reference (a ‘closure’) on the hidden data variable.
If you specify a src attribute as part of a script element, any code within the script element tags themselves will not be executed. However, you can add this functionality with the following code. I got this technique from Crockford (I believe it was him), where he uses it in of his talks on the unrelated topic of rendering performance and asynchronously loading scripts into a page to that end.
JavaScript:
(function() {
// Using inner class example from bobince's answer
var _gat = (function() {
var data= null;
return {
init: function(d) {
console.info("Configuration data: ", d);
data = d;
}
}
})();
// Method 1: Extract configuration by ID (SEE FOOT NOTE)
var config = document.getElementById("my-counter-apps-unique-and-long-to-avoid-collision-id").innerHTML;
// Method 2: search all script tags for the script with the expected name
var scripts = document.getElementsByTagName("script");
for ( var i=0, l=scripts.length; i<l; ++i ) {
if ( scripts[i].src = "some-script.js" ) {
config = scripts[i].innerHTML;
break;
}
}
_gat.init( eval("(" +config+ ")") );
})();
HTML:
<script type="text/javascript" src="some-script.js" id="my-counter-apps-unique-and-long-to-avoid-collision-id">
{some: "foo", config: "bar", settings: 123}
</script>
Both methods have their draw backs:
Using a unique and non-colliding ID will make determining the proper script element more precise and faster; however, this is not valid HTML4/XHTML markup. In HTML5, you can define arbitrary attributes, so it wont be an issue at that time
This method is valid HTML markup; however, the simple comparison that I have shown can be easily broken if your url is subject to change (e.g.: http vs https) and a more robust comparison method may be in order
A note on eval
Both methods make use of eval. The typical mantra concerning this feature is that "eval is evil." However, that goes with say that using eval without knowing the dangers of eval is evil.
In this case, AFAIK, the data contained within the script tags is not subject to inject attack since the eval'ing script (the code shown) is executed as soon as that element is reached when parsing the HTML into the DOM. Scripts that may have been defined previously are unable to access the data contained within the counter's script tags as that node does not exist in the DOM tree at the point when they are executed.
It may be the case that a well timed setTimeout executed from a previously included script may be able to run at the time between the counter's script's inclusion and the time of the eval; however, this may or may not be the case, and if possible, may not be so consistently depending on CPU load, etc.
Moral of the story, if you're worried about it, include a non-eval'ing JSON parser and use that instead.