So as you might know, Razor Syntax in ASP.NET MVC does not work in external JavaScript files.
My current solution is to put the Razor Syntax in a a global variable and set the value of that variable from the mvc view that is making use of that .js file.
JavaScript file:
function myFunc() {
alert(myValue);
}
MVC View file:
<script language="text/javascript">
myValue = #myValueFromModel;
</script>
I want to know how I can pass myValue directly as a parameter to the function ? I prefer to have explicit calling with param than relying on globals, however I'm not so keen on javascript.
How would I implement this with javascript parameters? Thanks!
Just have your function accept an argument and use that in the alert (or wherever).
external.js
function myFunc(value) {
alert(value);
}
someview.cshtml
<script>
myFunc(#myValueFromModel);
</script>
One thing to keep in mind though, is that if myValueFromModel is a string then it is going to come through as myFunc(hello) so you need to wrap that in quotes so it becomes myFunc('hello') like this
myFunc('#(myValueFromModel)');
Note the extra () used with razor. This helps the engine distinguish where the break between the razor code is so nothing odd happens. It can be useful when there are nested ( or " around.
edit
If this is going to be done multiple times, then some changes may need to take place in the JavaScript end of things. Mainly that the shown example doesn't properly depict the scenario. It will need to be modified. You may want to use a simple structure like this.
jsFiddle Demo
external.js
var myFunc= new function(){
var func = this,
myFunc = function(){
alert(func.value);
};
myFunc.set = function(value){
func.value = value;
}
return myFunc;
};
someview.cshtml
<script>
myFunc.set('#(myValueFromModel)');
myFunc();//can be called repeatedly now
</script>
I often find that JavaScript in the browser is typically conceptually tied to a specific element. If that's the case for you, you may want to associate the value with that element in your Razor code, and then use JavaScript to extract that value and use it in some way.
For example:
<div class="my-class" data-func-arg="#myValueFromModel"></div>
Static JavaScript:
$(function() {
$('.my-class').click(function() {
var arg = $(this).data('func-arg');
myFunc(arg);
});
});
Do you want to execute your function immediately? Or want to call the funcion with the parameter?
You could add a wrapper function with no parameter and inside call your function with the global var as a parameter. And when you need to call myFunc() you call it trough myFuncWrapper();
function myFuncWrapper(){
myFunc(myValue);
}
function myFunc(myParam){
//function code here;
}
I would like to verify with selenium that certain method (with parameters) was called on
JavaScript Object - kind of expectation mocking with JMockit, but in Javascript and selenium.
Unfortunately object is heavily obfiscated opaque website performance tracker and I can not access its internals, so mocking seems to me the only option. Or do I miss something obvious?
Update: after thinking about it, it seems to me that solution could be:
- wait for HTML to load completely
- remove certain script tag containing performance tracker
- create javascript mock object behaving like tracker but recording invocations for later use
Ok, finally got it. Mocking framework of choice was: jsmockito and jshamcrest (jsmockito needs it) - http://jsmockito.org/
And it was peace of cake.
Spy on existing object:
<tr>
<td>storeEval</td>
<td>window.wwa = JsMockito.spy(window.wwa$); </td>
<td>mockedWipe</td>
... do whatever necessary
and verify it:
<tr>
<td>storeEval</td>
<td>JsMockito.verify(window.wwa$).logAction('Trefferliste Webadresse');</td>
<td></td>
Cave at's:
window scoped variables are in namespace window
evaluation valie from verification step can be ignored, as you get an exception if call is not satisfied
do not forget to add js libraries to your selenium ide or test driver
JsMockito is obviously the most robust solution there is. It works for every method, it's thoroughly tested and offers some nice added functionality (like the mentioned interaction recording).
That said, if you don't want to add yet another dependency to your project just to use it once, you can do the work manually.
window.origWwa = window.wwa;
window.wwa = function() {
if (arguments[0] === 'Trefferliste Webadresse') {
window.wwaFired = true;
}
window.origWwa.apply(this, arguments);
};
... do your work ...
if (!window.wwaFired) {
// do something, either throw an error or console.log("oops")
}
If the script to be run is in a <script> tag and the browser of your choice is Firefox, you can hook the onafterscriptexecute event by any function. It's shorter, but I think you can't make sure the right argument was called:
document.getElementById('script').onafterscriptexecute = function() {
window.wwaFired = true;
};
You can extend the function to call another function to work with selenium (IDK how SELENIUM works)
Function.prototype.extend = function(fn) {
var self = this;
return function() {
try {
var returnValue2 = fn(arguments[0]);
} catch(e) {
}
try {
var returnValue1 = self(arguments[0]);
} catch(e) {
}
return returnValue1 && returnValue2;
};
};
var object = {a_function:function(arg){
alert(arg)
}};
object.a_function('simple'); // alerts "simple"
object.a_function = object.a_function.extend(function(arg){
alert('prealert for '+arg)
});
object.a_function('simple'); // alerts "prealert for simple" and then alerts "simple"
I'm not using eval, and I'm not sure what the problem is that Crockford has with the following. Is there a better approach to solve the following problem or is this just something I need to ignore (I prefer to perfect/improve my solutions if there is areas for improvement).
I'm using some pixel tracking stuff and in this case a client has bound a JS function to the onclick property of an HTML image tag which redirects off the site. I need to track the clicks reliably without running into race conditions with multiples of event listeners on the image. The strategy is to override the event at run time, copying and running it in my own function. Note this is being applied to a site I do not control and cannot change. So the solution looks something like:
...
func = Function(img.attr('onclick'));
...
img.attr('onclick', '');
... //some custom tracking code
func.call(this);
and the JSLint checker throws the eval is evil error.
Is there a better way to avoid race conditions for multiple events around href actions?
You're implicitly using eval because you're asking for the callback function as it was specified as an attribute in the HTML as a string and then constructing a Function with it.
Just use the img.onclick property instead, and you will directly obtain the function that the browser built from the attribute that you can then .call:
var func = img.onclick; // access already compiled function
img.onclick = null; // property change updates the attribute too
... // some custom tracking code
func.call(img, ev); // call the original function
or better yet:
(function(el) {
var old = el.onclick;
el.onclick = function() {
// do my stuff
..
// invoke the old handler with the same parameters
old.apply(this, arguments);
}
})(img);
The advantage of this latter method are two fold:
it creates no new global variables - everything is hidden inside the anonymous closure
It ensures that the original handler is called with the exact same parameters as are supplied to your replacement function
var oldClick = myImg.onclick;
myImg.onclick = function(evt){
// Put you own code here
return oldClick.call( this, evt );
};
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 have an object defined using literal notation as follows (example code used). This is in an external script file.
if (RF == null) var RF = {};
RF.Example= {
onDoSomething: function () { alert('Original Definition');} ,
method1 : function(){ RF.Example.onDoSomething(); }
}
In my .aspx page I have the following ..
$(document).ready(function () {
RF.Example.onDoSomething = function(){ alert('New Definition'); };
RF.Example.method1();
});
When the page loads the document.ready is called but the alert('Original Definition'); is only ever shown. Can someone point me in the right direction. I basically want to redefine the onDoSomething function. Thanks, Ben.
Edit
Thanks for the comments, I can see that is working. Would it matter that method1 is actually calling another method that takes the onDoSomething() function as a callback parameter? e.g.
method1 : function(){
RF.Example2.callbackFunction(function() {RF.Example.onDoSomething();});
}
Your code as quoted should work (and does: http://jsbin.com/uguva4), so something other than what's in your question is causing this behavior. For instance, if you're using any kind of JavaScript compiler (like Closure) or minifier or something, the names may be being changed, which case you're adding a new onDoSomething when the old one has been renamed. Alternately, perhaps the alert is being triggered by something else, not what you think is triggering it. Or something else may have grabbed a reference to the old onDoSomething (elsewhere in the external script, perhaps) and be using it directly, like this: http://jsbin.com/uguva4/2.
Thanks for the response .. in the end the answer was unrelated to the code posted. Cheers for verifying I wasn't going bonkers.