I've subscribed to the common idiom:
for(var key in obj){
if(obj.hasOwnPropery(key)){
// do stuff
}
}
but if I do something like:
var obj = {a: 'a', b: 'b'};
Do I need to worry about obj having properties other than "a" and "b" when I loop?
Or is the above idiom primarily for objects that you the developer did not create?
Technically yes, the Object.prototype can be modified (for a good or bad reason). These show up as enumerable properties (which will show up while enumerating).
When the Object.prototype is modified, it affects all instances of objects, so your obj is included in that. For example, if some other script/library executes this:
Object.prototype.keyLength = function () {
var count = 0;
for (var key in this) {
if (this.hasOwnProperty(key)) count++;
}
return count;
};
Then this will be the results of iterating over your obj (without using hasOwnProperty):
a
b
keyLength
(not necessarily in that order)
If you used hasOwnProperty, you'd only see "a" and "b".
It's not ideal to modify the Object prototype (for several reasons), but a "safer" way to do so is with Object.defineProperty - https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Object/defineProperty . You are able to describe it as enumerable or not. It's a newer method, so it's not globally available in browsers. Of course, you can't force other libraries to use this as you don't have control over them. But if you can, it's advisable for your own use.
Your use of hasOwnProperty is to make sure the key you're looking at is an actual property and not a property on the prototype chain and isn't enumerable. Which does solve the prototype "problem". Just for reference - https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Object/hasOwnProperty
Related
I'm trying to implement a dictionary much like Python. So, I would like to have a keys() method that returns keys added to the subclass Dict, but not properties such as the Object's method "keys"
EDIT AGAIN
Basically, I'm making a class to pass settings to a function like function(arg1, arg2, myObj) where my object is {map: texMap, alphaMap: aTexMap}. It's for Three.js, and I have to wait on images to download before I can create settings on 3D objects. So, interface like one would expect with d in var d = { a: aData b: bData }, but hide the methods etc that are not added by the user.
ie don't return this.prototype.propertyName when own is passedHere's what I have so far:
function Dict(){
this.prototype = {};
var _keys = this.prototype.keys;
this.keys = function(own){
if(typeof own === 'undefined') { return _keys(); }
var ownKeys = [];
for(var key in _keys()){
if(this.hasOwnProperty(key)) {
ownKeys.push(key);
}
}
return ownKeys;
}
}
Will this work as follows? Is there a better or already existent way to do it?
save the overloaded keys() method to a private var
return everything as usual, unless own is something that resolves to true.
if own == true, get the usual keys and filter out those
belonging to the superclass.
On the subject, I'm likely most concerned about saving back the prototype method as a way to get all of the keys and filter out proto keys.
Also, I've read overloading isn't built into Javascript. But, much of what I've found deals with standalone functions such as this Q&A on best practices. I don't need a built in way, but I'll take advantage of whatever's available (Hence, using Object as a Dict).
Any feedback is appreciated!
EDIT
In Python, we get this:
In[2]: d = {}
In[3]: 'has_key' in d.keys()
Out[3]: False
In[7]: 'has_key' in d.__class__.__dict__.keys()
Out[7]: True
In[8]: d.has_key('has_key')
Out[8]: False
In[9]: d['newKey'] = 5
In[10]: d.newKey # ERROR
Python has a dict attribute contained in its class where the functions are accessed via a dot (see In[8]...). So, those standard {} or dict() functions and operators are hidden (not private) while keys/data are added to the user's dict are accessed via []. d['newKey'] = 5 adds a new key or overwrites the old and sets the data to 5.
I don't need all of that to work, though it would be great. keys() returning Python-like keys would be fine for now.
There seem to be multiple issues here.
You seem to want to pass variable arguments to a function:
I'm making a class to pass settings to a function like function(arg1, arg2, myObj) where my object is {map: texMap, alphaMap: aTexMap}.
JS function arguments are very flexible.
You can either set up names for every one of them:
function foo(arg1, arg2, map, alphaMap)
and pass values directly. This style is preferred for functions that work on a fixed set of arguments.
Or you can set up an "options" object that collects keys and values:
function foo(options)
and pass {arg1: val1, arg2: val2, map: valMap, alphaMap: valAlphaMap}. This style often occurs on constructor functions that initialize objects with a certain set configuration options.
Or you can set up an empty function signature
function foo()
and work with the arguments collection inside the function. This is found in functions that work with a variable number of uniform arguments (imagine add(1, 2, 3, 4, 6)) or strictly positional arguments instead of named ones.
In any case, passing arguments to a function is optional in JavaScript, even when there is an argument list in the function signature. You are free to pass none, less or more arguments. Of course all these approaches can be combined if it suits you.
It's for Three.js, and I have to wait on images to download before I can create settings on 3D objects.
This is a problem caused by the asynchronous nature of the web. The solution is to use event handlers. These are either callbacks or - as an abstraction over callbacks - promises.
So, interface like one would expect with d in var d = { a: aData b: bData }, but hide the methods etc that are not added by the user.
This can be solved by not adding methods etc to data objects, or at least not directly. Add them to the prototype if your data objects must have behavior.
The direct equivalent to a Python Dict is a plain object in JavaScript.
var dict = {};
The direct equivalent of Python's keys() method is the Object.keys() static method in JavaScript.
var keys = Object.keys(dict);
To iterate the keys you can either use an imperative approach:
var i, key;
for (i = 0; i < keys.length; i++) {
key = keys[i];
doSomething(key, dict[key]);
}
or a functional one
keys.forEach(function (key) {
doSomething(key, dict[key]);
});
The direct equivalent of Python's in is .hasOwnProperty() in JavaScript:
if ( dict.hasOwnProperty('foo') ) ...
or, if it is a pure data object with no prototype chain, you can use in as well.
if ('foo' in dict)
Using in in for loops is not recommendable because it iterates the prototype properties as well. The way to guard against this is by using Object.keys() instead or by combining it with .hasOwnProperty(), as you did.
var key;
for (key in dict) {
if ( dict.hasOwnProperty(key) ) ...
}
Your question indicates that you are missing basic puzzle pieces about JS and try to substitute them with more familiar Python constructs. I would recommend not doing that.
I also suspect that you try to shoehorn Python's class-based inhertiance pattern into JS' prototype-based inheritance pattern. I strongly recommend that you don't do that, either.
http://speakingjs.com/es5/ch28.html#_obstacle_1_instances_with_internal_properties
Most built-in constructors have instances with so-called internal
properties (see Kinds of Properties), whose names are written in
double square brackets, like this: [[PrimitiveValue]]. Internal
properties are managed by the JavaScript engine and usually not
directly accessible in JavaScript.
Furthermore, adding internal properties to an existing instance (1) is
in general impossible, because they tend to fundamentally change the
instance’s nature.
The work around proposed in order to add internal properties. http://speakingjs.com/es5/ch28.html#_workaround_for_obstacle_1
function MyArray(/*arguments*/) {
var arr = [];
// Don’t use Array constructor to set up elements (doesn’t always work)
Array.prototype.push.apply(arr, arguments); // (1)
copyOwnPropertiesFrom(arr, MyArray.methods);
return arr;
}
MyArray.methods = {
get size() {
var size = 0;
for (var i=0; i < this.length; i++) {
if (i in this) size++;
}
return size;
}
}
function copyOwnPropertiesFrom(target, source) {
Object.getOwnPropertyNames(source) // (1)
.forEach(function(propKey) { // (2)
var desc = Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(source, propKey); // (3)
Object.defineProperty(target, propKey, desc); // (4)
});
return target;
};
Interaction
> > var a = new MyArray('a', 'b')
> a.length = 4;
> a.length
4
> a.size
2
1º I understand, by adding only a getter to the property size, there's no way to set a.size
2º I also understand that we are defining a new property in an array by MyArray.methods, but I don't see in which kind of way it's been added "a new internal property". As far as I am concerned, internal properties are a kind of property not directly accessible by Javascript.
Could "size" be considered an internal property itself?
Greetings
I don't see in which kind of way it's been added "a new internal property". As far as I am concerned, internal properties are a kind of property not directly accessible by Javascript.
Yes, the point of an internal property is that you can't manually create it. So instead of constructing our object and adding the internal property that we want, we need to use an object which already has that internal property, and copy our methods onto it - basically as a mixin, because we cannot use prototypical inheritance.
The one we're after is the internal instance method [[DefineOwnProperty]] of arrays which treats integer properties specially, and we also want to have the special behaviour of the .length property (that is not internal, but cannot be manually constructed either). So we use var arr = [] to get these, and put our size custom property on it.
Could "size" be considered an internal property itself?
No. "internal" means that it cannot be accessed via the means of the language, and are only used to describe the behaviour in the specification.
I have many functional methods i need to use it and i need to publish a library with this methods to share it with JavaScript developers it helps very much so for instance i need to add a Method named duplicates will return to me the duplicates of the Array
as you can see this method is not officially published by ECMA so i dont know the best form to put the script
1-
Array.prototype.duplicate = function (){
//script here its usefull to use `this` refer to the Array
}
Using it like
[1,2,2].duplicates();
2-
var Ary = function(a){
if(!(this instanceOf Ary))
return new Ary(a)
if(Object.prototype.toString.call(a) != '[object Array]')
return new Error(a + 'is not an Array')
else
{
for(var i =0 ; i<a.length; i++)
{
this.push(a[i]);
}
}
}
Ary.prototype = new Array();
Ary.prototype.constructor = Ary;
Ary.prototype.duplicates = function(){
//script here its usefull to use `this` refer to the Array
};
Using it like
Ary([1,2,2]).duplicates();
i need to know is it more like it to use prototype directly to Array JavaScript Class to add functionality if it is not officialy published with ECMA and instead we do inherit from Array Class and then play with it ???
or its ok do prototype it ??
and whats the consequences
Regards
For your own code, it's fine to add a duplicates method to Array.prototype but you do need to be prepared for what may happen if you use code (either your own, or something you're using) that incorrectly uses for..in to loop through arrays like this:
for (var i in myArray) { // <==== Wrong without safeguards
}
...because i will get the value "duplicates" at some point, since for..in loops through the enumerable properties of an object and its prototype(s), it does not loop through array indexes. It's fine to use for..in on arrays if you handle it correctly, more in this other answer on SO.
If you're only going to work in an ES5-enabled environment (modern browsers, not IE8 and earlier), you can avoid that by adding your duplicates via Object.defineProperty, like this:
Object.defineProperty(Array.prototype, "duplicates", {
value: function() {
// ...the code for 'duplicates' here
}
});
A property defined that way is not enumerable, and so does not show up in for..in loops, so code that fails to correctly handle for..in on arrays isn't impacted.
Unfortunately, it's currenty impossible in JavaScript to correctly derive from Array.prototype (your second option), because Array has special handling of properties whose names are all digits (called "array indexes") and a special length property. Neither of these can currently be correctly provided in a derived object. More about those special properties in my blog article A Myth of Arrays.
As a general rule: don't monkey patch the native Javascript object prototypes. It may appear harmless, but if you're including third party code in your site/application, it can cause all kinds of subtle bugs.
Modifying Array prototype is particularly evil, because the internet is rife with buggy, incorrect code that iterates arrays using the for ... in construct.
Check it out:
for(var i in [1,2,3]) {
console.log(i);
}
Outputs:
1
2
3
But if you've modified the Array prototype as follows:
Array.prototype.duplicates = function() { }
It outputs
1
2
3
duplicates
See for yourself.
This is more of a general practices question.
The language I am working with is Javascript. I have a function that is getting an object with many variables (okay, just 10 variables). What is the best way to make sure this function is getting all the required variables and that they are all set?
I know, I know, why not just use a if statement. That's a big chunk of if statements! As I grow as a programmer, I know that may not be the best method for this. I'm looking for a shortcut actually. How would you check a large sum of variables for existence and non-blank values?
This is a pretty neat way of handling validation, I usually use this when checking for required fields in form inputs.
var theObj = { /* object loaded from server */ }
function checkTheObj(testObj)
{
var requiredKeys = ['key1', 'key2', 'key3'];
for(var keyPos = 0; keyPos < requiredKeys.length; keyPos++)
{
if(typeof(testObj[requiredKeys[keyPos]]) == 'undefined')
{
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
if(checkTheObj(theObj))
{
//do stuff
}
You can of course tweak this to return or throw an exception telling the first missing field (or use an internal array to return a list of all missing fields).
function objectHas(obj, properties) {
var len = properties.length
for (var i=0; i<len; i++) {
if (i in properties) {
if((!obj.hasOwnProperty(properties[i])) || (!obj.propertyIsEnumerable(properties[i]))) {
return false;
}
}
}
return true;
}
Usage:
if(objectHas(user, ["email", "password", "phone"])) {
console.log("awesome");
}
It's simple, but does the job.
Edit: On an ideal world you could extend the Object prototype for an even neater syntax such as if(object.has(["a", "b", "c"])), but apparently extending the Object prototype is the incarnation of evil so a function will have to do :)
First of all, you need to improve your understanding of these languages and learn the correct terminology.
There is no (single) language named "Javascript" at all. You are implicitly using several languages here (depending on the runtime environment), all of which are ECMAScript implementations, and one of which is Netscape/Mozilla JavaScript (in Mozilla-based software like Firefox).
An object does not have variables, it has properties (not: keys). Global code, function code, and eval code can have variables; that is a different (but similar) concept.
The function is not getting an object, it is being passed a reference to an object as argument.
As a programmer, you should already know that you can do repetitive tasks in a loop; the associated statements in ECMAScript implementations are for, for-in, while and do. So you do not have to write several if statements.
You can access the properties of an object in two ways, where property is the property name:
Dot notation: obj.property
Bracket notation: obj["property"]
The second one is equivalent to the first if the property name is an identifier, i.e. if it follows certain naming rules. If the property name is not an identifier or if it is variable, you have to use the second one. This also shows that all property names are string values. So you can store the name of a property as value of a variable or another property, and then access the variable or property in the property accessor. In the following, a property name (property) is stored in and used from a variable:
var propertyName = "property";
obj[propertyName]
Combining that with a loop allows you to iterate over certain properties of an object. Unfortunately, the solutions presented so far are flawed in two respects: A for-in statement iterates only over the enumerable properties of an object, and it does so in arbitrary order. In addition, it also iterates over the enumerable inherited properties (which is why one solution requires the hasOwnProperty() call).
A simple, sure and efficient way to iterate only over certain properties of an object in a defined order looks as follows:
var propertyNames = ['name1', 'name2', 'name3'];
for (var i = 0, len = propertyNames.length; i < len; ++i)
{
/* … */ myObject[propertyNames[i]] /* … */
}
This works because propertyNames refers to an Array instance, which encapsulates an array data structure. The elements of an array are the properties of the Array instance that have integer indexes from 0 to 65535 (232−1). Because indexes are not identifiers (they start with a decimal digit), you have to use the bracket property accessor syntax (some people misunderstand this and refer to all ECMAScript objects as "arrays", even call them "associative arrays" and […] the "Array operator"). Therefore, propertyNames[i] evaluates to the values of the elements of the array in each iteration as i is increased by 1 each time. As a result, myObject[propertyNames[i]] accesses the property with that name in each loop.
Now, to find out whether the property is set, you need to define what that means. Accessing a property that does not exist results in the undefined value (not in an error). However an existing property may also have the undefined value as its value.
If "not set" means that the object does not have the property (but may inherit it), then you should use hasOwnProperty() as used in Mahn's solution.
If "not set" means that the object does not have the property and does not inherit it, then you should use the in operator, provided that the object is not a host object (because the in operator is not specified for them):
if (propertyNames[i] in obj)
If "not set" means that the object either has or inherits the property, but the property has the undefined value, or the object neither has nor inherits the property, then you should use the typeof operator as used in Bob Davies' and aetaur's solutions (but the latter approach using Array.prototype.every() is less compatible as-is; that method was not specified before ECMAScript Edition 5, and is not available in IE/JScript < 9).
There is a third option with ECMAScript Edition 5.x, the Object.keys() method which (despite its name) returns a reference to an Array instance that holds the names of all not-inherited properties of the argument:
var propertyNames = Object.keys(obj);
/* continue as described above */
It is a good idea to emulate Object.keys() if it is not built-in, as this algorithm is frequently useful.
This expression returns true, if all variables from variableNameList (list of required variable names) set in object o:
variableNameList.every(function(varName){ return typeof o[varName] !== 'undefined'; });
You can use underscore _.all function instead of native every, and underscore _.isUndefined instead of typeof ....
I faced a strange behaviour in Javascript. I get
"Object doesn't support this property or method"
exception for the removeAttribute function in the following code:
var buttons = controlDiv.getElementsByTagName("button");
for ( var button in buttons )
button.removeAttribute('disabled');
When I change the code with the following, the problem disappears:
var buttons = controlDiv.getElementsByTagName("button");
for ( var i = 0; i < buttons.length; i++ )
buttons[i].removeAttribute('disabled');
What is the value of button inside the for...in?
Don't use for..in for Array iteration.
It's important to understand that Javascript Array's square bracket syntax ([]) for accessing indicies is actually inherited from the Object...
obj.prop === obj['prop'] // true
The for..in structure does not work like a more traditional for..each/in that would be found in other languages (php, python, etc...).
Javascript's for..in is designed to iterate over the properties of an object. Producing the key of each property. Using this key combined with the Object's bracket syntax, you can easily access the values you are after.
var obj = {
foo: "bar",
fizz: "buzz",
moo: "muck"
};
for ( var prop in obj ) {
console.log(prop); // foo / fizz / moo
console.log(obj[prop]); // bar / buzz / muck
}
And because the Array is simply an Object with sequential numeric property names (indexes) the for..in works in a similar way, producing the numeric indicies just as it produces the property names above.
An important characteristic of the for..in structure is that it continues to search for enumerable properties up the prototype chain. It will also iterate inherited enumerable properties. It is up to you to verify that the current property exists directly on the local object and not the prototype it is attached to with hasOwnProperty()...
for ( var prop in obj ) {
if ( obj.hasOwnProperty(prop) ) {
// prop is actually obj's property (not inherited)
}
}
(More on Prototypal Inheritance)
The problem with using the for..in structure on the Array type is that there is no garauntee as to what order the properties are produced... and generally speaking that is a farily important feature in processing an array.
Another problem is that it usually slower than a standard for implementation.
Bottom Line
Using a for...in to iterate arrays is like using the butt of a screw driver to drive a nail... why wouldn't you just use a hammer (for)?
for...in is to be used when you want to loop over the properties of an object. But it works the same as a normal for loop: The loop variable contains the current "index", meaning the property of the object and not the value.
To iterate over arrays, you should use a normal for loop. buttons is not an array but a NodeList (an array like structure).
If iterate over buttons with for...in with:
for(var i in a) {
console.log(i)
}
You will see that it output something like:
1
2
...
length
item
because length and item are two properties of an object of type NodeList. So if you'd naively use for..in, you would try to access buttons['length'].removeAttribute() which will throw an error as buttons['length'] is a function and not a DOM element.
So the correct way is to use a normal for loop. But there is another issue:
NodeLists are live, meaning whenever you access e.g. length, the list is updated (the elements are searched again). Therefore you should avoid unnecessary calls to length.
Example:
for(var i = 0, l = buttons.length; i < l, i++)
for(var key in obj) { } iterates over all elements in the object, including those of its prototypes.
So if you are using it and cannot know nothing extended Object.prototype you should always test obj.hasOwnProperty(key) and skip the key if this check returns false.
for(start; continuation; loop) is a C-style loop: start is executed before the loop, continuation is tested and the loop only continues while it's true, loop is executed after every loop.
While for..in should not generally be used for Arrays, however prior to ES5 there was a case for using it with sparse arrays.
As noted in other answers, the primary issues with for..in and Arrays are:
The properties are not necessarily returned in order (i.e. not 0, 1, 2 etc.)
All enumerable properties are returned, including the non–index properties and those on the [[Prototype]] chain. This leads to lower performance as a hasOwnProperty test is probably required to avoid inherited properties.
One reason to use for..in prior to ES5 was to improve performance with sparse arrays, provided order doesn't matter. For example, in the following:
var a = [0];
a[1000] = 1;
Iterating over a using for..in will be much faster than using a for loop, as it will only visit two properties whereas a for loop will try 1001.
However, this case is made redundant by ES5's forEach, which only visits members that exist, so:
a.forEach();
will also only iterate over two properties, in order.