I'm experiencing an odd behavior (maybe it isn't odd at all but just me not understanding why) with an javascript array containing some objects.
Since I'm no javascript pro, there might very well be clear explanation as to why this is happening, I just don't know it.
I have javascript that is running in a document. It makes an array of objects similar to this:
var myArray = [{"Id":"guid1","Name":"name1"},{"Id":"guid2","Name":"name2"},...];
If I print out this array at the place it was created like JSON.stringify(myArray), I get what I was expecting:
[{"Id":"guid1","Name":"name1"},{"Id":"guid2","Name":"name2"},...]
However, if I try to access this array from a child document to this document (a document in a window opened by the first document) the array isn't an array any more.
So doing JSON.stringify(parent.opener.myArray) in the child document will result in the following:
{"0":{"Id":"guid1","Name":"name1"},"1":{"Id":"guid2","Name":"name2"},...}
And this was not what I was expecting - I was expecting to get the same as I did in teh parent document.
Can anyone explain to me why this is happening and how to fix it so that the array is still an array when addressed from a child window/document?
PS. the objects aren't added to the array as stated above, they are added like this:
function objTemp()
{
this.Id = '';
this.Name = '';
};
var myArray = [];
var obj = new ObjTemp();
obj.Id = 'guid1';
obj.Name = 'name1';
myArray[myArray.length] = obj;
If that makes any difference.
Any help would be much appreciated, both for fixing my problem but also for better understanding what is going on :)
The very last line might be causing the problem, have you tried replacing myArray[myArray.length] = obj; with myArray.push(obj);? Could be that, since you're creating a new index explicitly, the Array is turned into an object... though I'm just guessing here. Could you add the code used by the child document that retrieves myArray ?
Edit
Ignore the above, since it won't make any difference. Though, without wanting to boast, I was thinking along the right lines. My idea was that, by only using proprietary array methods, the interpreter would see that as clues as to the type of myArray. The thing is: myArray is an array, as far as the parent document is concerned, but since you're passing the Array from one document to another, here's what happens:
An array is an object, complete with it's own prototype and methods. By passing it to another document, you're passing the entire Array object (value and prototype) as one object to the child document. In passing the variable between documents, you're effectively creating a copy of the variable (the only time JavaScript copies the values of a var). Since an array is an object, all of its properties (and prototype methods/properties) are copied to a 'nameless' instance of the Object object. Something along the lines of var copy = new Object(toCopy.constructor(toCopy.valueOf())); is happening... the easiest way around this, IMO, is to stringency the array withing the parent context, because there, the interpreter knows it's an array:
//parent document
function getTheArray(){ return JSON.stringify(myArray);}
//child document:
myArray = JSON.parse(parent.getTheArray());
In this example, the var is stringified in the context that still treats myArray as a true JavaScript array, so the resulting string will be what you'd expect. In passing the JSON encoded string from one document to another, it will remain unchanged and therefore the JSON.parse() will give you an exact copy of the myArray variable.
Note that this is just another wild stab in the dark, but I have given it a bit more thought, now. If I'm wrong about this, feel free to correct me... I'm always happy to learn. If this turns out to be true, let me know, too, as this will undoubtedly prove a pitfall for me sooner or later
Check out the end of this article http://www.karmagination.com/blog/2009/07/29/javascript-kung-fu-object-array-and-literals/ for an example of this behavior and explanation.
Basically it comes down to Array being a native type and each frame having its own set of natives and variables.
From the article:
// in parent window
var a = [];
var b = {};
//inside the iframe
console.log(parent.window.a); // returns array
console.log(parent.window.b); // returns object
alert(parent.window.a instanceof Array); // false
alert(parent.window.b instanceof Object); // false
alert(parent.window.a.constructor === Array); // false
alert(parent.window.b.constructor === Object); // false
Your call to JSON.stringify actually executes the following check (from the json.js source), which seems to be failing to specify it as an Array:
// Is the value an array?
if (Object.prototype.toString.apply(value) === '[object Array]') {
//stringify
Related
In an answer, #Tushar suggested the syntax corresponding to the following.
Array.apply(null, Array(3).fill(10))
.map(function (item, index) {
return item + index;
});
I do understand what's going on here and I'm satisfied. However, it bugs me a bit that there's this null valued argument doing seemingly nothing. So I went off and started researching. According to the wisdom on the web, it's a reference to this. Now, that gave me very little clarity and despite of putting in cucumbers, arrays, and objects into that, it didn't affect jack, as far I could tell. In fact, I'm curious why the following wouldn't be equivalent, let alone suffice.
Array(3).fill(10)
.map(function (item, index) {
return item + index;
});
Further on, I read something about Cr an IE not accepting array-like objects, which tells me even less. Also, it's a bit hard to verify the age of the article so the validity of its claim's hard to assess. I got as far as to the talk about prototype constructors and gave up, not being sure if I'm on the right path.
The first argument of apply is only important if you're using a function that uses this.
Running the following snippet should make it a little clearer:
var o = {value: 1};
var fn = function(a) {
console.log(a + this.value);
}
value = "something else";
fn("an argument ");
fn.apply(o, [20]);
// the above prints:
// an argument something else
// 21
https://jsfiddle.net/f2zw8edd/
Array(number) creates an array of the given size, however it does not populate any of its data points. Calling map or fill or pretty much anything else on it therefore won't do anything useful.
Array(item1, item2, item...) on the other hand creates an array with the given items as elements of the array. You can call map, fill, whatever you want on this and it will work.
So how can you use this to create an array of a given size that you can call map on? Exactly the way you see.
What Array.apply(null,Array(3)) does is create an unpopulated array of size 3, then passes those 3 undefined items as arguments to Array, thus resulting in
Array(undefined,undefined,undefined), which gives you a mappable array. It's important to note that you're creating two arrays here, but the Array(3) is discarded after use.
So why null? That would be because when creating an array, there is no place where this is relevant. Since the context is irrelevant, you can pass literally anything you want as the context and it will run just fine, but it's easiest to understand that context doesn't matter if you pass it null.
I've defined an enumerable property in the prototype object and would like it to appear when I convert a prototyped object to JSON.
My first idea was to set it in toJSON but because I don't really want to keep it in the object afterwards I'll have to more or less clone the whole object in the function and set the necessary property.
Redefining the property in the target object and just proxying with the context of the current object doesn't seem to be an option as well, since I can't really use apply or call when getting dynamic properties.
Working solutions I could come up with so far seem to require quite an amount of code and aren't flexible and concise enough, so I'm wondering if there are any best practices of solving this task.
Here is an example which could seem a bit synthetic but still, I believe, conveys the idea:
function ProjectFolder() {
this.files = [];
Object.defineProperty(this, 'size', {enumerable: true, get: function() {
return this.files.length;
}});
}
function GithubProjectFolder() {
this.files = ['.gitignore', 'README.md'];
}
GithubProjectFolder.prototype = new ProjectFolder();
var project1 = new ProjectFolder();
JSON.stringify(project1);
// output: {"files":[],"size":0}
// size is present
var project = new GithubProjectFolder();
JSON.stringify(project);
// output: {"files":[".gitignore","README.md"]}
// size is absent
I'll have to more or less clone the whole object in the function and set the necessary property.
Yes, and there's nothing wrong with that. That's how .toJSON is supposed to work:
ProjectFolder.prototype.toJSON = function toJSON() {
var obj = {};
for (var p in this) // all enumerable properties, including inherited ones
obj[p] = this[p];
return obj;
};
However, there are two other points I'd like to make:
The size of a folder doesn't really need to be stored separately in the JSON when it already is encoded in the length of the files array. This redundant data seems to be superfluous, and can confuse deserialisation. Unless something requires this property to be present, I'd recommend to simply omit it.
In ProjectFolders, the .size is an own property of each instance - in GithubProjectFolders it is not. This suggest that you're doing inheritance wrong. Better:
function GithubProjectFolder() {
ProjectFolder.call(this);
this.files.puhs('.gitignore', 'README.md');
}
GithubProjectFolder.prototype = Object.create(ProjectFolder.prototype);
If you'd fix that alone, the size will appear in the serialisation of your project.
Experiencing a weird Javascript bug it'd be great to get some insight to. I've managed to debug it to know what the issue is, I just haven't been able to figure out the why yet and a non-hackey way to resolve it.
I'm trying to create a new instance of an array as a variable inside a function, so I can manipulate it without affecting the main array. Instead I'm getting some kind of reference, so doing operations on my new variable ids also affects the array that ids equals.
I've simplified my code to demonstrate the issue more clearly:
var defence = {
selectedIDs: new Array(),
toggleTerm: function(term, id) {
// add to the main array
this.selectedIDs.push(5);
// adds to this.selectedIDs
this.showTweet();
},
showTweet: function() {
// copy the array as a new variable in the scope of the function
var ids = this.selectedIDs;
if (ids.length == 1) {
ids.push(10); // this pushes to 'ids' AND 'this.selectedIDs'
}
console.log(this.selectedIDs); // outputs [5, 10]
}
}
Also in JSFiddle
It's always been my understand that var ids = this.selectedIDs would effectively copy the contents of this.selectedIDs into that new instance - however this doesn't seem to be the case.
Any ideas on why this is happening, and the best way to get around it (beyond manually recreating it through something like a for loop)?
It's always been my understand that var ids = this.selectedIDs would
effectively copy the contents
OK, but your understanding is wrong. It's an assignment.
Consider this instead:
var ids = this.selectedIDs.slice()
It's always been my understand that var ids = this.selectedIDs would
effectively copy the contents of this.selectedIDs into that new
instance - however this doesn't seem to be the case.
I don’t know how to describe this except “no, that doesn’t happen at all”. JavaScript isn’t C++; when you assign something to a variable, it is never copied. You always get a reference, except in the case of primitives, which are immutable, making the point moot. (Heh.)
You could use concat, but if this isn’t the actual situation, there might be something more appropriate.
showTweet: function() {
var ids = this.selectedIDs;
if (ids.length === 1) {
ids = ids.concat(10); // Array.prototype.concat returns a new array
}
console.log(this.selectedIDs); // outputs [5]
}
I was trying to define an array (including other arrays as values) in a single javascript statement, that I can loop through to validate a form on submission.
The function I wrote to (try to) create inline arrays follows:
function arr(){
var inc;
var tempa = new Array(Math.round(arguments.length/2));
for(inc=0; inc<arguments.length; inc=inc+2) {
tempa[arguments[inc]]=arguments[inc+1];
}
return tempa;
}
This is called three times here to assign an array:
window.validArr = arr(
'f-county',arr('maxlen',10, 'minlen',1),
'f-postcode',arr('maxlen',8, 'minlen',6)
);
However in the javascript debugger the variable is empty, and the arr() function is not returning anything. Does anyone know why my expectations on what this code should do are incorrect?
(I have worked out how to create the array without this function, but I'm curious why this code doesn't work (I thought I understood javascript better than this).)
Well from what your code does, you're not really making arrays. In JavaScript, the thing that makes arrays special is the management of the numerically indexed properties. Otherwise they're just objects, so they can have other properties too, but if you're not using arrays as arrays you might as well just use objects:
function arr(){
var inc;
var tempa = {};
for(inc=0; inc<arguments.length; inc=inc+2) {
tempa[arguments[inc]]=arguments[inc+1];
}
return tempa;
}
What you're seeing from the debugger is the result of it attempting to show you your array as a real array should be shown: that is, its numerically indexed properties. If you call your "arr()" function as is and then look at (from your example) the "f-county" property of the result, you'll see something there.
Also, if you do find yourself wanting a real array, there's absolutely no point in initializing them to a particular size. Just create a new array with []:
var tempa = [];
Your code works. Just inspect your variable, and you will see that the array has the custom keys on it. If not expanded, your debugger shows you just the (numerical) indixed values in short syntax - none for you.
But, you may need to understand the difference between Arrays and Objects. An Object is just key-value-pairs (you could call it a "map"), and its prototype. An Array is a special type of object. It has special prototype methods, a length functionality and a different approach: to store index-value-pairs (even though indexes are still keys). So, you shouldn't use an Array as an associative array.
Therefore, their literal syntax differs:
var array = ["indexed with key 0", "indexed with key 1", ...];
var object = {"custom":"keyed as 'custom'", "another":"string", ...};
// but you still can add keys to array objects:
array.custom = "keyed as 'custom'";
I have a situation, where I need to create a new JavaScript object that is inherited from Array. I am using the following code:
// Create constructor function.
var SpecialArray = function () {};
// Create intermediate function to create closure upon Array's prototype.
// This prevents littering of native Array's prototype.
var ISpecialArray = function () {};
ISpecialArray.prototype = Array.prototype;
SpecialArray.prototype = new ISpecialArray();
SpecialArray.prototype.constructor = SpecialArray;
// Use Array's push() method to add two elements to the prototype itself.
SpecialArray.prototype.push('pushed proto 0', 'pushed proto 1');
// Use [] operator to add item to 4th position
SpecialArray.prototype[4] = 'direct [] proto to 4';
// Create new instance of Special Array
var x = new SpecialArray();
// Directly add items to this new instance.
x.push('pushed directly on X');
x[9] = 'direct [] to 9'
console.log(x, 'length: ' + x.length);
Quite interestingly, the [] operation seem to be useless and the console output is:
["pushed proto 0", "pushed proto 1", "pushed directly on X"] length: 3
What am I missing here?
It is not possible to subclass the Array class and use t this way.
The best solution for you is to extend just the array class and use it as it is.
There are two other options that I do not like but they exist
http://ajaxian.com/archives/another-trick-to-allow-array-subclasses
http://dean.edwards.name/weblog/2006/11/hooray/
This is one of those that always trips people up. The length property only applies to the ordered elements. You can't extend an array then insert an arbitrary non-sequitous key and expect it to work. This is because the relationship between the length property and the array contents is broken once you extend the array. Pointy's link above does a very good job of explaining this in more detail.
To prove this add this to the end of your example:
console.log(x[4]);
As you can see your entry is present and correct, it's just not part of the ordered array.
Like everything else in javascript the Array object is just a Associative Array with string keys. Non numerical, non sequitous keys are hidden to fool you into thinking it's a 'proper' numerically indexed array.
This strange mixed design of the Array object does mean you can do some strange and wonderful things like storing ordered and unordered information in the same object. I'm not saying this is a good idea, I'm just saying it's possible.
As you will have noticed by now when iterating structures like this the non sequitous keys don't appear which makes sense for the general use case of arrays for ordered information. It's less useful, or in fact useless when you want to get keyed info. I would venture that if ordering is unimportant you should use an object not an array. If you need both ordered and unordered store an array as a property in an object.
The best way I have found to create a child prototype of an "Array" is to not make a child prototype of "Array" but rather create a child of an "Array-Like" prototype. There are many prototypes floating around that attempt to mimic the properties of an "Array" while still being able to "inherit" from it, the best one I've found is Collection because it preserves the ability to use brackets []. The major downfall is that it doesn't work well with non-numeric keys (i.e. myArray["foo"] = "bar") but if you're only using numeric keys it works great.
You can extend this prototype like this:
http://codepen.io/dustinpoissant/pen/AXbjxm?editors=0011
var MySubArray = function(){
Collection.apply(this, arguments);
this.myCustomMethod = function(){
console.log("The second item is "+this[1]);
};
};
MySubArray.prototype = Object.create(Collection.prototype);
var msa = new MySubArray("Hello", "World");
msa[2] = "Third Item";
console.log(msa);
msa.myCustomMethod();