I want to create a simple to use API into some of these functions but with out being able to bind a function into a new scope I.E the scope it belongs in! I can not figure out a way to do it other then that crazy eval nonsense or doing crazy things with this that make things much much more confusing.
Conceptually I am losing my mind because the filter paramater should be run in the context of done callback. I guess that is my issue the filter parameter is not a callback it is a parameter and should have the scope of where it is running not where it is defined.
Some one please tell me that I am just missing something silly.
Are there any languages that support binding the scope of a lambda to where it is called and not where it is defined?
var scrape = function(selector, filter) {
jsdom.env({
html: data,
src: [ jQuery ],
done: function(errors, window) {
var $ = window.$;
eval('filter=' + filter.toString());
debugger;
var entries = $(selector).filter(filter);
console.log('spo');
debugger;
}
});
};
scrape('p',function(index) {
debugger;
if(this.children.length == 3) {
return $(this.children[0]).is('a') &&
$(this.children[1]).is('font') &&
$(this.children[2]).is('span');
} else {
return false;
}
});
Not completely sure what your code does, but by your description, you're searching for $.proxy. It binds a callback to a specific context. If you were using underscore, you would look at _.bind
Documentation: http://api.jquery.com/jQuery.proxy/
Related
Ok, I wouldn't think to do this in C#, but javascript is designed with much more flexibility in access.
there's a plugin like this
(function($)
{
...more stuff
var results={a:1,b:2} //this I need to modify
var someData={x:1}
send = function(){
//send results ajax
};
if(typeof beforeSend=='function')
beforeSend(someData) //hook to use results
})(jQuery)
So, in my own code, I have the function window.beforeSend = function(d){}
and it does have the someData which is in the scope I need to modify. But here's the question:
How can I modify the results var that's within the closure before it sends it.
I need to add
window.beforeSend = function(d){
window.quantumTunnelThroughScope.results['c']=1
}
The reason I need to do this is because I cannot modify the code of the plugin. Of course if I add the beforeSend within the closure, it works, but then I'm modifying the library which I'm not allowed to do in this case.
I've seen some awesome eval('this.xx' =function ) etc etc but I can't make it work.
EDIT: I clarified that actually it's a different var in the same scope that needs to be edited
No, there's no reasonable way for beforeSend to reach into that closure and modify results. results in the code presented is entirely private to code within that closure.
The unreasonable way to try to do it is to decompile and recompile the plugin function, via eval, and insert a call to a function before the beforeSend that lets us modify results:
(function($) {
$.run = function() {
// You mentioned "ajax," so let's make this
// asynchronous
setTimeout(function() {
var results = {
a: 1,
b: 2
};
var someData = { // Need to modify this
x: 1
};
send = function() {
//send results ajax
};
if (typeof beforeSend == 'function') {
beforeSend(someData); //hook to use results
}
console.log("in plugin, results = ", results);
}, 10);
};
})(jQuery)
window.modifyResults = function(d) {
return ["new", "results"];
};
window.beforeSend = function(r) {
r.c = 1;
};
jQuery.run = (function() {
// Function#toString, on nearly all browsers, returns the source
// code of he function (or something near to it) except on functions
// implemented in native code. We take that string and replace
// the "beforeSend(someData);" call with two calls, the first of
// which lets us modify the `results` variable. Then we use eval
// to turn that back into a function, and assign the result to
// where the plugin put its function originally.
return eval("(" + jQuery.run.toString().replace(
"beforeSend(someData);",
"results = modifyResults(results); beforeSend(someData);"
) + ")");
})();
jQuery.run();
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.1.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
But may or may not work, depending on how the plugin is written, as it lifts it out of its original scope and recompiles it in the scope of our function updating jQuery.run.
I think I'd prefer to take the hit of modifying the plugin. :-)
Note: In the above, I've used a "static" jQuery function. If the plugin you're replacing provides an instance function, the kind you can call on jQuery instances, e.g. the bar in $(".foo").bar(), you'll find it on jQuery.fn instead of jQuery:
jQuery.fn.pluginFunction = eval(...);
I am newbie in js and I want to override/overwrite some fullcalendar functions from another script (my-fullcalendar.js) to make some changes in it for myself. for example function names are :
formatRange and oldMomentFormat.
formatRange is accessible from this.$.fullCalendar.formatRange but oldMomentFormat is not accessible via this kind of chain. But even when I do something like this in my-fullcalendar.js:
;(function () {
function MyformatRange(date1, date2, formatStr, separator, isRTL) {
console.log( "MyformatRange");
//other parts is exactly the same
// ...
}
this.$.fullCalendar.formatRange=MyformatRange;
console.log(this);
})();
nothing happens because no log is generated and even line by line tracing does not pass from here. but when observing "this" in console log MyformatRange replaced by original formatRange.
another problem is how can I override/overwrite oldMomentFormat function which is not in window hierarchy to access (or I can not find it) ??
OK, let's simplify the problem. In essence, you have this situation:
var makeFunObject = function () {
var doSomething = function (msg) {
console.log(msg);
};
var haveFun = function () {
doSomething( "fun!");
};
return {
doSomething : doSomething,
haveFun : haveFun
};
};
In other words you have a function that is creating a closure. Inside that closure are two "private" functions, one of which calls the other. But both functions seem to be "exposed" in the returned object.
You write some code:
var myFunObject = makeFunObject();
myFunObject.haveFun(); // fun!
Yep, seems to work just fine. Now let's replace the doSomething function in that returned object and call haveFun again:
myFunObject.doSomething = function (msg) {
console.log("My new function: " + msg);
};
myFunObject.haveFun(); // fun! <== wait what?
But wait! The new replacement function is not being called! That's right: the haveFun function was expressly written to call the internal function. It in fact knows nothing about the exposed function in the object at all.
That's because you cannot replace the internal, private function in this way (you cannot replace it at all, in fact, not without altering the original code).
Now draw back to the FullCalendar code: you are replacing the external function in the object, but the internal function is the one that is called by every other function inside FullCalendar.
I realize this is an old question, but I was butting my head against this same problem when I wanted to override the getEventTimeText function.
I was able to accomplish this, from inside my own JS file, like so:
$.fullCalendar.Grid.mixin({
getEventTimeText: function (range, formatStr, displayEnd) {
//custom version of this function
}
});
So, in terms of the function you were trying to override, you should be able to do it with:
$.fullCalendar.View.mixin({
formatRange: function (range, formatStr, separator) {
//custom formatRange function
}
});
Note: Make sure this runs before where you actually create the calendar. Also note that you need to make sure to override the function in the right place. For example, getEventTimeText was in $.fullCalendar.Grid, while formatRange is in $.fullCalendar.View.
Hopefully this helps other people who end up on this question.
I have a simple javascript error logging mechanism in place and it looks somewhhat like this:
window.onerror = function (ErrorMsg, Url, LineNumber, Col, Error) {
// ajax these to the server, including Error.stack}
The problem is that I'd also like to get the value of the local variables and function parameters when the error occurred. Is this even possible?
I'm thinking about modifying the Function prototype so that each time a function runs, its arguments are stored in a global array of strings and then the error handler would just add this array to the ajax call. Can JavaScript do this?
#1 Can local scope be recovered in onerror() without black magic?
Without this being bound in the scope of window.onerror() or the surrounding variables being directly accessible, it's impossible to regain access to the variables you had set.
What you're mostly wanting access to is this.arguments or arguments or the equivalent, but that's destroyed. Any hope of obtaining a key-value associative array or hash-like object would involve meta-programming ( i.e. reading the function definition to obtain the variable names, and obtaining an exception report to attempt to salvage data ).
See this answer for more on something similar:
Getting All Variables In Scope
But this "lacking functionality" is a good thing:
If you could gain access to what you're asking for, that would likely be a fault in the Javascript engine. Why? Because the variable states and contents themselves are what caused the exception/error, assuming bad code wasn't the issue to begin with.
In other words, if you could get access to a faulty variable, that might be a door into an infinite loop:
Failure due to variable contents.
Error handler triggered.
Trace contents of variable.
Failure due to variable contents.
Error handler triggered.
Trace contents of variable.
Etc.
#2 Can Javascript store all arguments of every function call by voodoo?
Yes. It can. This is probably a really bad idea ( see #1 ) but it is possible. Here is a pointer on where to start:
Is there a way to wrap all JavaScript methods with a function?
From there, what you're wanting to do is push this.arguments or equivalent to a stack of function calls. But again, this is approaching insanity for many reasons. Not the least of which is the need to duplicate all the values, lest you reference mutated variables, or be unable to access the data at all... and like I said above, the problem of bad data in general. But still, it is possible.
Is this even possible?
No. A stack trace is proof that the stack has unwound, all stack frames and all the local variables they contained are gone. As for getting the name of a variable, that is not even possible at run time.
To start off i accept #Tomalak completely.
I was also put in your situation where i needed to debug a remote running app in case of crash.
As a work around I have forked my code for you in a fiddler. Please modify according to your need.
Caveat: You have to wrap the function body with try{..}catch(e){..} as illustrated in the fiddler code.
Please read the inline comments for understanding.
window.onerror = function (errorMsg, url, lineNumber, column, errorObj) {
console.log(errorObj);
}
window.addEventListener("reportOnError", function(e){
console.log(e.detail);
/*Send to the server or any listeners for analysis.*/
//Http.send(e.detail);
});
function ExceptionReport(ex, args, scope) {
var self = {};
self.message = ex.message;
self.stack = ex.stack;
self.name = ex.name;
self.whoCalled = args.callee.caller.name == "" ? "Window": args.callee.caller.name;
self.errorInFunction = args.callee.name;
self.instanceOf = scope.constructor;
self.KeyPairValues = getParamNames(arguments.callee.caller.toString(), Array.prototype.slice.call(args)); //Contains the parameters value set during runtime
window.dispatchEvent(new CustomEvent('reportOnError', {'detail':self}));
}
//Utilties
function getParamNames(fnBody, values) {
var STRIP_COMMENTS = /((\/\/.*$)|(\/\*[\s\S]*?\*\/))/mg,
ARGUMENT_NAMES = /([^\s,]+)/g,
result = fnBody.slice(fnBody.indexOf('(')+1, fnBody.indexOf(')')).match(ARGUMENT_NAMES),
obj={};
fnBody.replace(STRIP_COMMENTS, '');
if(result !== null){
for(var i=0; i < result.length; i++){
obj[result[i]] = values.length !==0 ? values[i] : null;
}
}else{
obj = null;
}
return obj;
}
/*
This is a testing/sample function that throws the error
*/
function testing(a,b,c){
try{
dummy(1,2) ; //This line throws the error as reference error.
}catch(e){
ExceptionReport(e, arguments, this);
}
}
//Class Emulation: For instanceof illustration.
function testingClass(){
this.testing = testing;
}
//Named self executing function: This calls the function
var myvar = (function myvar(){
testing(1,2,3);
})();
//Illustrating instanceof in exception
var myVar2 = new testingClass();
myVar2.testing(1,2,3);
//Calling from global scope this is Window
testing(1,2,3);
//Without variables
testing();
I have used examples to illustrate the behavior of functions called in different circumstances.
Below signifies the varialble used for
self.KeyPairValues : Used to store the function parameter set/passed during runtime
self.errorInFunction : This stores the name of the function error was caused in.
self.whoCalled : This stores the function name that invoked the defective function
self.instanceOf : This stores the name of the instance is called creating a new instance.
Other variables are same as in Error object
The others answers here are spot on, but I might be able to offer a suggestion for a slightly different way to accomplish this. Instead of trying to track all scope in your program, why not add a tagging function that tracks the scope of one function's parameters without affecting the runtime of the function. For for example:
var globalRecord = {};
function record(name, fn) {
return function () {
var args = [].slice.call(arguments);
var record = globalRecord[name] = {
args: args,
arg: {}
};
args.unshift(function (name, value) {
return record[name] = value;
});
fn.apply(args, arguments);
}
}
// Then, you track variables like this
var func = record("func", function (record, a, b, c) {
record("a", a); // named parameters are accessible now
record("b", b); // if some error occurs in the function body
return a + b + c;
});
// Calling func still behaves as before.
func(1, 2, 3);
// Errors handled like this:
window.onerror = function () {
globalRecord.func.args; // ==> last set of arguments past to function
globalRecord.func.arg.a; // specific arguments recorded with names
};
You could even use this method to track scope without using a function by anonymously calling the recorded function.
record("test", function (record) {
var a = record("a", /* whatever */);
var b = record("b", /* ... */ );
// do scope specific stuff that might fail
})();
Of course, this isn't a polished implementation by any stretch, but with a little work, I think you might be able to get the behavior you're looking for without any seriously black magic. By selectively adding and removing record calls as the need presents itself, you can have precise control over what is logged without any intrusive hacks.
You can find your answer in this link.
Before taking bundles from the server, you must modify them. For example, to solve your problem, you can do changes in the mentioned link as follows. In the BuildBundleContent Class make this change:
contents.Insert(blockContentIndex,
string.Format("if(customErrorLogging)customErrorLogging({0}, this){1}",
errVariable, hasContent ? ";" : ""));
If in the modules you have to use something like:
var self = this;
You can use:
contents.Insert(blockContentIndex,
string.Format("if(customErrorLogging)customErrorLogging({0}, self ? self : this){1}",
errVariable, hasContent ? ";" : ""));
And in added js file:
"use strict";
var customErrorLogging = function (ex, module) {
console.log(module);
//do something...
};
I hope help you.
I'm writing a basic wrapper for the Webkit Storage API (the new version of this API) for me to use. My current problem with it is the queryUsageAndQuota() function.
My wrapper around that particular function originally looked like this:
self.pers.getQuota = function() {
self.pers.queryUsageAndQuota(function(usage,quota) {
return quota;
});
}
// self is a reference to the top level of this 'wrapper'
Hence, I would have called var quota = self.pers.getQuota(); and had the quota returned.
After that failed, I had a look at this question and changed it so I used a user-defined callback instead. Now the function is this:
self.pers.getQuota = function(callback) {
self.pers.queryUsageAndQuota(function(usage,quota) {
callback.call(quota);
});
}
However, executing this line:
self.pers.getQuota(function(quota) {
console.log(quota);
});
shows undefined in the log. I can't figure out why, because when I execute the underlying function navigator.webkitPersistentStorage.queryUsageAndQuota(), I get the right number out of it.
.call doesn't work like you think it does. Instead do callback.call(null, quota).
The actual signature for both Function.prototype.call (and similarly for apply) is
Function.prototype.call(valueOfThis, valueOfParam1, valueOfParam2, ...);
This is also why I often say that the this keyword in javascript is stupid and you should avoid using it. It simply is another parameter like all the others, You just don't get to specify a name for it. It's a vestige of javascript's creation when Netscape mandated that this Scheme-based language look like Java.
Incidentally, you could use the third way of invoking methods here. Simply
callback(quota);
This however has the side effect of making javascript take a guess at what you want this to be (the global window object in this case). As long as you don't use this, the simple syntax works great.
If you actually really want to return a value rather than passing a callback look into javascript promises. I can't tell you which one to use without knowing what environment you in and what libraries you're using but jQuery has a good implementation in the Deferred object
Try
self.pers.getQuota = function(callback) {
self.pers.queryUsageAndQuota(function(usage,quota) {
callback(quota);
});
}
Or
self.pers.getQuota = function(callback) {
self.pers.queryUsageAndQuota(function(usage,quota) {
callback.call(/* an object as 'this'*/, quota);
});
}
Function.prototype.call()
Or
self.pers.getQuota = function(callback) {
self.pers.queryUsageAndQuota(function(usage,quota) {
callback.apply(/* an object as 'this'*/, [quota]);
});
}
Function.prototype.apply()
I'm rewriting a simple app using HTML/CSS/JavaScript that creates animations with images using intervals, and there's a bunch of buttons that controls these animations.
It's scaling and becoming really messed up, with logic mixed with DOM manipulations via jQuery all through one javascript script file.
So I decided to use the Module design pattern.
Based on my description of the app, is there a problem with this callback implementation for a module?
Or with the module implementation?
In this example, what is the best approach to declare private variables and give access to them through the public api? Getters and setters? Are they really necessary? I want to write readable code but I don't want to over-architect things.
(function($) {
$.Module = function(options){
var module = {
options: $.extend({
callbacks: {
start: false
}
}, options),
start: function(callback){
//console.log('private start method');
if(typeof callback === "function") {
callback();
}
}
}
// public api
return {
start: function(){
//console.log('public start method');
module.start(module.options.callbacks.start);
}
}
}
}($));
var myModule = $.Module({
callbacks: {
start: function(){
console.log('start callback!');
}
}
})
myModule.start();
Here is a sample.
Just because it seems to work to me, and I've seen other implementations that have some code that look like this:
callback: function(method) {
if(typeof method === "function") {
var args = [];
for(var x = 1; x <= arguments.length; x++) {
if(arguments[x]) {
args.push(arguments[x]);
}
}
method.apply(this, args);
}
},
I'm not sure what this last code is supposed to do. Is it intended to return data to the callback function I registered when instantiating the module? If so, how does it work?
Is there a problem with this callback implementation for a module?
Not if this what you want.
Or with the module implementation?
Your instantiation of the options property should probably use a deep extend, the current one is overwriting the complete callbacks object.
I'm not sure what this other code I found is supposed to do. Is it intended to return data to the callback function
Yes. It does support multiple arguments, using the arguments object
… I registered when instantiating the module?
No, it does not have to do with registration. It will call the method that is passed as a parameter to this callback function.
Using this code will release you from the need to do that typeof check every time. You would just write
helper.callback(this.options.callbacks.start, /* optional arguments */)
// instead of
if (typeof this.options.callbacks.start == "function")
this.options.callbacks.start(/* arguments */)
However, until you think that you need this helper you will not need this helper.