I am a little bit confused on how this works, let me post you an example code:
someClass = function() {
this.a = 10;
this.Foo = function() {
console.log(this.a); // will output "10"
setTimeout(this.Bar, 1);
}
this.Bar = function() {
console.log(this.a); // undefined
}
}
var instance = new someClass();
instance.Foo();
My understanding is that this.a is not visible in function Bar if it is called from setTimeout (or some other "handler" type of thing.)
What is the common/correct way of solving that?
(I am trying this in Node.js btw)
Thank you.
The problem is that the scope (this) is lost when you pass a function to setTimeout.
Here's the easiest way to fix it, store this as a reference through a closure and use that instead.
// This uses _me_ everywhere for consistency, but the only place that really needs it
// is within the Bar method. But consistency in this case makes your code more change-
// proof, say if someone calls setTimeout(instance.Foo, 1)
someClass = function() {
var me = this;
me.a = 10;
me.Foo = function() {
console.log(me.a); // will output "10"
// setTimeout will cause me.Bar to be called with window as the context
setTimeout(me.Bar, 1);
}
me.Bar = function() {
// so we avoid using _this_ in here
console.log(me.a); // 10
}
}
A slightly more elegant way is to use Function.bind
someClass = function() {
this.a = 10;
this.Foo = function() {
console.log(this.a); // will output "10"
// the bind call will force it to use the first argument as `this`
setTimeout(this.Bar.bind(this), 1);
}
this.Bar = function() {
console.log(this.a); // undefined
}
}
When passing the function this.Bar as an argument to another function, you need to bind this.Bar to the context you'd like it to be executed with.
If you're using a JS library like jQuery or Underscore.js they already come with that functionality:
setTimeout(_.bind(this.Bar, this), 1);
Here's a simple implementation of a bind function:
var bind = function(scope, fn) {
return function() {
return fn.apply(scope, arguments);
};
}
Update:
As #generalhenry pointed out, node.js already comes with a bind function in (Function.prototype.bind), so you can do this without adding a custom bind function nor an external library:
setTimeout(this.Bar.bind(this), 1);
Related
I have read this answer and IIFE but I can't seem to find the correct solution to my problem.
I have a simple class here:
define(['jquery'], function($) {
// Need 'self' because someCallback() is being called with .call() and 'this' changes
var self;
function Foo(number) {
self = this;
this.someNumber = number;
}
Foo.prototype = {
someCallback: function () {
//Use self because 'this' changes to a DOM element
var num = self.someNumber;
//Do something with the num
return num * 2;
}
};
return Foo;
});
and someCallBack() is being called by a jQuery plugin using .call(). Because of this, the context changed, hence the use of the self variable.
However, this is wrong because:
define(['foo'], function(Foo) {
describe('context question', function () {
var foo1 = new Foo(1);
var foo2 = new Foo(2);
it('"this" should work', function () {
var call1 = foo1.someCallback.call(this); // 4
var call2 = foo2.someCallback.call(this); // 4
expect(call2).toBe(4); // Only works because it is 'new' last
expect(call1).toBe(2); // Fails because 'self' is taken from foo2
});
});
});
How exactly should I wrap the self variable to make this code work?
You could probably just use the revealing module pattern and declare it as a "global" variable (local to the module):
define(['jquery'], function($) {
var someNumber;
function Foo(number) {
someNumber = number;
}
Foo.prototype = {
someCallback: function () {
return someNumber * 2;
}
};
return Foo;
});
Two ways of calling an object method which stores its own this value include
Define the method as a nested function which references its this value in a closure which stores this value in a variable. The function defined could be anonymous or declared with a name but must be evaluated each time a class instance is created, so as to create a new Function object capturing different values of self in function scope.
Take a statically defined function object and bind its this value using bind. Bind creates a new wrapper function object each time it is called.
The first method looks like (without Jquery or Jasmine):
function Foo(number)
{ var self = this;
this.num = number;
this.someCallback = function() // method with new Foo object stored as self in function scope
{ // something with num:
return self.num * 2;
}
}
and the second method could look like
function Foo(number)
{ this.num = number
this.someCallback = this.someCallback.bind(this); // bind prototypical method as local method.
}
Foo.prototype = {
someCallback: function () {
// this value is bound by constructor;
//Do something with the num
return this.num * 2;
}
};
I have a class where I bind a method on initialization as follows -
function MyClass() {
this.onHttpCallback = _.bind(onHttpCallback, this);
}
function onHttpCallback(){
//...
}
How do I test if the onHttpCallback when called, is always called with an object of MyClass as context?
I am using sinon.js to mock and the following code doesn't work -
it('should be binded', function () {
//ctrl is an object of MyClass
var dummy_obj = {};
var spy = sinon.spy(ctrl.onHttpCallback);
spy.call(dummy_obj);
spy.alwaysCalledOn(ctrl).should.be.ok;
});
Update
As per the comments in the following answer, it seems like it is impossible to test the binding for a method.
My Take on the problem
//Source.js
function MyClass() {
}
MyClass.prototype.init = function(){
this.onHttpCallback = _.bind(MyClass.onHttpCallback, this);
}
MyClass.onHttpCallback(){
//...
}
//Test.js
it('should bind onHttpCallback', function () {
sinon.spy(_, 'bind');
ctrl.init();
_.bind.calledWith(ctrl.constructor.onHttpCallback, ctrl).should.be.ok;
_.bind.restore();
});
Works like a charm!
In case you wonder why this changes even though you clearly bound it to be MyClass before, that's because you use call with dummy_obj on the spy.
The spy wraps the original function, so it has no concept of that function's binding. It will still accept a different binding on the wrapper function, then try to call the original with that this, which is then ignored by the original function.
var context = {foo: 'bar'};
var original = _.bind(function () { console.log(this); }, context);
var spy = function (original) {
var spyFn = function () {
var _this = this;
spyFn.calledOn = function (ctx) { return ctx === _this; };
return original.apply(this, arguments);
};
return spyFn;
};
var originalSpy = spy(original);
// Will call the spyFn with a different `this`, but will not affect the original binding
originalSpy.call({something: 'else'});
>> {foo: 'bar'}
// Since the spy cannot know the original binding, it will think the assumption is false.
originalSpy.calledOn(context) === false;
I have a class-like function
var myapp = function() {
this.method = function() {
//Do something...
}
}
To reference myapp from within methods, the first line in the myapp function is
var self = this;
So a method in myapp can reference the "class" safely
this.anothermethod = function() {
self.method();
}
The full code:
var myapp = function() {
var self = this;
this.dosomething = function(Callback) {
Callback();
}
this.anothermethod = function() {
//Pass a callback ("self" is required here)...
this.dosomething(function() {
self.complete();
)};
}
this.complete = function() {
console.log('All done!');
}
}
My question is: can I assign var self = this; from outside the declaration of myapp? I don't want to set self every single time I write a "class".
Kind of like this:
var library = function() {
this.loadclass = function(Name) {
var tempclass = window[Name];
library[Name] = new tempclass();
library[Name].self = library[Name];
}
}
var myapp = new library();
myapp.loadclass('myapp');
myapp.myapp.dosomething();
It doesn't work as expected. self equals window for some reason.
I know it's a little abnormal programming, but can it be done?
Note about using self: I remember why I started using it. I wanted to reference the base class (this) from within callbacks inside methods. As soon as you try to use this within a function within a method, it then references the method, not the base class.
Unless you are detaching the methods from the object and calling them as plain functions, you don't need a self variable at all. The method can reach its object using the this keyword:
var myapp = function() {
this.method = function() {
//Do something...
}
this.anothermethod = function() {
this.method();
}
}
No, you can't really; not the way you're creating objects at least.
You can sort of do this, by enumerating all the functions on the object and binding them to the object itself. Something like this:
Object.keys(obj)
.filter(function(n) { return typeof obj[n] == "function" })
.forEach(function(n) { obj[n] = obj[n].bind(obj) })
This function will go over the public, enumerable properties of obj and make sure that any functions on it are bound to obj; i.e. this is now bound to obj.
A primer on this
When you call new, this within the constructor gets bound to the newly created object. If you do need a reference to this as it was bound at constructor time, you do need to keep away a reference to it.
Functions in JavaScript are bound to wherever it is called. Here's an example:
var foo = new function() {
this.bar = function() {
return 'bar'
}
this.baz = function() {
return this.bar()
}
}
console.log(foo.bar()) // bar
console.log(foo.baz()) // bar
var bar = function() {
return "window"
}
var baz = foo.baz
console.log(baz()) // window
When we call foo.baz() it'll look to foo for the implementation of bar, but when calling foo.baz through a "detached" reference, it'll look to whatever the global object is (in this case the browser window object) and call bar from there. Because we defined bar in the global context, it then returns window.
The practice of assign a variable called self is so that it doesn't matter how you call your methods, because you always reference the this at the time of creation through the self variable. You don't have to write things this way, but then you should understand that references to this may change under your feet.
I have the following code example to use an object that receives the action from the callback. Doesn't seem like this is a good design pattern. Or is it?
When setTimeOut() fires on the function after 1 second, it uses the objInstance global variable (DOM scope) to access the ClassExample object instance. Can someone recommend a better way to utilize callbacks within an object oriented design?
The whole idea is so I can use the callback to update data within my object instance (increment a variable for example).
function ClassExample{
this.initiate = function() {
setTimeOut(objInstance.afterTimeOut,1000); //using the objects global handle
}
this.afterTimeOut = function() {
alert("Received!");
}
}
var objInstance = new ClassExample(); //instance
objInstance.initiate();
No, you're not. You'll want to do this:
this.initiate = function() {
setTimeOut(objInstance.afterTimeOut,1000); //using the objects global handle
}
Now, if "afterTimeout" needs the proper object context, you could do this:
this.initiate = function() {
var instance = this;
setTimeout(function() { instance.afterTimeOut(); }, 1000);
}
OK well you changed the question considerably with that little edit :-) If I were you, I'd just do this (like my original second example):
this.initiate = function() {
var instance = this;
setTimeout(function() { instance.afterTimeOut(); }, 1000);
}
Then you don't need any ugly global variables around at all.
edit — Stackoverflow user #Christoph comments that this isn't particularly pretty. One thing that might help would be to use a "bind" facility, as provided by newer browsers natively (as a method on the Function prototype) or by some libraries (Prototype or Functional for example). What "bind" lets you do is create a little wrapper function like I've got above:
this.initiate = function() {
setTimeout(this.afterTimeOut.bind(this), 1000);
}
That call to "bind" returns a function that is effectively the same sort of thing as the little wrapper I coded explicitly in the example.
function ClassExample{
this.afterTimeOut = function() {
alert("Received!");
}; // Don't forget these
setTimeOut(afterTimeOut, 1000); // Don't use () if you're passing the function as an argument
}
var objInstance = new ClassExample(); //instance
That way you don't need the initiate() method.
If you really want the initiate() method, I'd do it like this:
function ClassExample{
var self = this;
self.afterTimeOut = function() {
alert("Received!");
};
self.initiate = function() {
setTimeOut(self.afterTimeOut, 1000);
};
}
var objInstance = new ClassExample(); //instance
objInstance.initiate();
This is how I'd do it to allow timer reuse and minimize the number of closures:
function Timer(timeout, callback) {
this.timeout = timeout;
this.callback = callback;
}
Timer.prototype.run = function(thisArg /*, args... */) {
var argArray = Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments, 1);
var timer = this;
setTimeout(function() {
timer.callback.apply(thisArg, argArray);
}, timer.timeout);
};
var timer = new Timer(1000, alert);
timer.run(null, 'timer fired!');
And just for fun, a golfed version which is functionally equivalent, but replaces the object with a closure:
function delay(func, timeout) {
return function() {
var self = this, args = arguments;
setTimeout(function() { func.apply(self, args); }, timeout);
};
}
delay(alert, 1000).call(null, 'timer fired!');
You are right it is not the optimal way of doing what you are aiming for. however i have to wonder why you need to break the callstack as part of the initiation, it seems very academic.
apart from that if i had to do that, i'd probably use a closure like so:
function ClassExample{
this.initiate = function() {
setTimeOut((function(self) { return function() { self.afterTimeout();}})(this),1000); //using the objects global handle
}
this.afterTimeOut = function() {
alert("Received!");
}
}
var objInstance = new ClassExample(); //instance
objInstance.initiate()
this.initiate = function() {
var instance = this;
setTimeOut(function() {
instance.afterTimeOut();
}, 1000);
};
By saving this to a local variable, you can avoid using the global handle at all. Also this prevent the afterTimeout() from losing it's this.
Building on Znarkus answer...
I really don't know in which environment his code is running but for me the first approach just do not works. I got: 'ReferenceError: afterTimeOut is not defined'...
The second one, nevertheless, is really cool... I just changed setTimeOut for setTimeout (using lowercase 'o') and included parenthesis after the class name definition turning the first line of code into 'function ClassExample(){'; solved my problem.
My snippet of example code:
Oop with private behaviour, intern callback calling and etc.
function MyTry (name){
// keep this object pointer... that's the trick!
var self = this;
// create private variable
var d = new Date()toJSON().slice(0, 10);
// create a private function
function getName(){return name}
// create public access method
self.hello = function(){alert('Hello '+getName()+'!\nToday is: '+d)}
// note instance method hello passed as a callback function!
self.initiate = function(){setTimeout(self.hello, 3000)}
}
I am having a JavaScript namespace say
A={
CA: function() {
this.B();
},
B: function() {
var test='test';
var result='t1';
C: function() {
this.test='test1';
.....
.....
return 'test1';
}
result=this.C();
return result;
}
}
Now when I am executing such code it is giving that TypeError: this.C is not a function. Can somebody tell me why it is so. I know it is something related with lexical scoping but am unable to understand this.
You have to be careful when you use this to identify anything in Javascript because each time you change scope "this" changes.
Assigning the 'this' reference to it's own variable helps get around this.
var a = new function() {
var self = this;
self.method = function() { alert('hiya'); };
var b = function() {
this.method(); // this isn't 'a' anymore?
self.method(); // but 'self' is still referring to 'a'
};
};
I think the problem is that when this.C() is executed inside the function referred to by B, this refers to the object that contains B, that is, object A. (This assumes B() is called within the context of A)
The problem is, C does not exist on the object A, since it's defined within B. If you want to call a local function C() within B, just use C().
EDIT:
Also, I'm not sure what you've posted is valid JavaScript. Specifically, B should be defined this way, since you can't use the object:property syntax within a function.
B: function()
{
var test='test';
var result='t1';
var C = function()
{
this.test='test1';
return 'test1';
}
result=C();
return result;
}
I am actually surprised that your code doesn't give you error on the 'C:' line.
Anyway, your syntax to define a function is not correct. Define it using the var keyword. Also, notice that I created the 'closure' so that the function C can access 'this'. See the code below:
A={
CA: function()
{
this.B();
},
B: function()
{
var test='test';
var result='t1';
var self = this;
var C = function()
{
self.test='test1';
.....
.....
return 'test1';
}
result=C();
return result;
}
}
If you want to assign C to 'this' object, you can also do:
A={
CA: function()
{
this.B();
},
B: function()
{
var test='test';
var result='t1';
var self = this;
this.C = function()
{
self.test='test1';
.....
.....
return 'test1';
};
result= this.C();
return result;
}
}
Solution for calling methods from another method. (Essentially the pointer "this" must be assigned to a variable and the new variable used in place of this.)
function myfunction(){
var me = this;
me.method1 = function(msg){ alert(msg); }
me.method2 = function(){
me.method1("method1 called from method2");
}
}
var f as new myfunction();
f.method2();
This example shows how one can call a method from within another method or from outside using an instance of the function.