What I've got
A large (proprietary unfortunately) JS library, the many small modules that get rolled up into it during the build process, the accompanying source map, and over 300 examples that use the built version of the library.
The goal
A form of dependency tracking, I guess? I need to be able to modify one of the small modules, rebuild the large file, and then only re-verify the examples that were affected by this change. Note: I don't care whether this requires static analysis or if I have to run all examples thru a headless browser to extract something or so - I'm fine as long as it can be automated.
What I've tried so far
I've read answers to questions like this and tried pre-existing tools like
Madge, but none of them seem to work for my case. Madge in particular is great for telling me which of the modules depend on which modules, but that's not what I'm looking for. Most solutions online are based on the assumption that you're already using something like require.js or similar on which they can piggy-back, but in my case the library is simply just a giant blob.
My current approach is instrumenting the built version of the library by simply appending every line with something like neededModules["the_file_this_line_comes_from.module.js"] = true similar to how code coverage tools do it. However, that fails because of several parts like this:
Points.prototype = Object.assign( Object.create( Info.prototype ), {
plot: ( function () {
var static = new Background();
return function plot( line, physics ) {
<code>
};
}() ),
copy: function () {
return new this.constructor( this.info, this.history ).copy( this );
}
} );
The copy function is tracked/skipped just fine, but because the plot function is an IIFE(right?), the line var static = new Background(); always gets executed, even if there is absolutely no connection to the Points module.
What I'm looking for
Either some help with my current approach and its problems with IIFE or a different solution altogether. I've seen Facebook's Jest does offer dependency tracking, maybe someone has experience with that one, or there's some way to incorporate the source map?
Again, as long as it's automatable and finishes in let's say < 5 min, I'm totally fine with it no matter if it's static analysis or just some hacky script or whatever :)
Thanks!
I'm learning JavaScript lately so I viewed the source code of a webpage that I want to create some page like it. But I don't understand a line of code.
win.validate();
I searched on the Internet for the method validate but couldn't find anything. Note that the variable win wasn't called but when it was declared like that :
var win = 0;
So if any one have a good explanation of that method I will be thankful.
Edit:
I figured that it may be a part of the plugin jQuery validate. But in the examples I see that it's being used with properties, but in this webpage it was just called without any parameter.
I got the source of the function by typing its name in the console of the browser..
Thanks to #TheDude
I have run into an issue that I believe is rooted in the implementation of anchor tags in Rhino. Although I am utilizing env.js, I suspect perhaps I am not configuring something correctly.
In particular, my issue occurs while I am attempting to write unit tests against code written for an angularjs application. When I include angular.js (versions 1.2.1 to present), I get the following error:
TypeError: Cannot call method "charAt" of undefined
I am convinced the error is the result of this call to urlParsingNode.pathname since a console.log call reveals that the pathname object is undefined.
I traced the instantiation of the urlParsingNode to this line where we see that it is the result of a call to document.createElement("a"); Further down, we see that they set the href attribute in this line in hopes that the created anchor tag will utilize the browser to correctly parse the URL.
I have to believe I'm not the first to attempt JS unit testing for angular via Rhino, but thus far I've not successfully Googled myself to a solution. Any tips will be greatly appreciated.
Found it and fixed it. The pathname getter/setter simply was undefined for HTMLAnchorElement in env.js.
I submitted a pull request, but unfortunately the project looks all but abandoned. I also couldn't figure out how to build it out to a single file. It appears perhaps someone has taken it upon themselves to break it apart into require.js modules. Not a battle worth fighting for my use case.
So for anyone else who hits this issue, I have the code you need below. It belongs in the HTMLAnchorElement.prototype. In my copy of env.js 1.2, this prototype begins on line 8075. I added the following at line 8118.
get pathname() {
var uri = Envjs.urlsplit(this.href);
return uri.path;
},
set pathname(val) {
var uri = Envjs.urlsplit(this.href);
uri.path = val
this.href(uri.urlunsplit(uri));
},
FYI, my particular issue is resolved with this pull request.
Original Question
This maybe a stupid question but is there a way in VS 2013 to unminify JavaScript?
Just making sure we are all on the same page here.
Minify:
var flashVer=-1;if(navigator.plugins!=null&&navigator.plugins.length>0){if(navigator.plugins["Shockwave Flash 2.0"]||navigator.plugins["Shockwave Flash"]){var swVer2=navigator.plugins["Shockwave Flash 2.0"]?"
That's just an example to make sure we all know what I'm on about. As far as I can tell there is no way to be able to do this. I have only been using VS 2013 for around 3 weeks so there is probably still stuff that is hidden to me.
If there is no way to do this within the program what is the next best thing for this?
I did see on another similar post that recommends the site http://jsbeautifier.org/ , so may have to give that ago but would make life easier if it was built into VS 2013
Thanks in advance as I know someone will be able to help me out here.
Update:
I have looked around VS 2013 and found nothing that can help me with this problem, like I said before they maybe some things I have missed (certain settings) so I guess if it cannot be done in VS what's the next best thing for the job? I seem to run into a fair amount of JS that is minifed and would like the quickest and best way to get the job done. I couple sites I have tried seem to have problems with it, is there a program I could install that would just allow me to short cut it with a hot-key or something. That would be pretty handy.
Update 2:
So I think its safe to say this cannot be done within VS2013, or for that matter at all due to missing var names and so on. So I have seen a few links and programs that allow you to format the code. Is there a way to do with within VS2013? And again if not what is the most reliable website/program that I can use to do this. Like I said I can see there have been answers and I appreciate all of them. I will be leaving this question open for a while to get more people to look at it and possibly give a better answer. Keep it up guys!
Update 3:
If anyone has any more information on this please do share. I am still looking around now and then waiting for someone to come up with something amazing for this. One day people.... One day!
The thing is that you cannot really "unminify" your code since some data was already lost - e.g. variable names. You can reformat it to more readable form though.
According to this question, since VisualStudio 2012 you can just use Ctrl+E, D keyboard shortcut
If the above is not right, there is this extension for VS 2010: http://visualstudiogallery.msdn.microsoft.com/41a0cc2f-eefd-4342-9fa9-3626855ca22a but I am not sure if it works with VS 2013
There is an extension to VisualStudio called ReSharper which can reformat javascript in a few different manners.
Also there are online formatters already mentioned in other answers (if your code is confidential, I would advise some paranoia manifested by downloading sources and using them locally).
Also you may always try to find unminified version of desired library on the interwebs
Also, there is the WebStorm IDE from JetBrains that is able to reformat JS - you may download a trial for the sole purpose of reformatting your minified scripts :)
If that's just to make debugging easier, you may want to use source maps
Also, here is a bunch of related questions:
How to automatically indent source code? <-- this is for VS2010, but it looks promising, maybe it will help you if it supports JavaScript (and it does since VS2012 according to MS support):
Ctrl+E, D - Format whole doc
Ctrl+K, Ctrl+F - Format selection
reindent(reformat) minimized jquery/javascript file in visual studio
Visual Studio 2010 can't format complex JavaScript documents
Visual Studio code formatter
how to make visual studio javascript formatting work?
I am not sure if they figured out a working way to reformat JS, but I've seen a few answers which might be helpful - I am just pasting this in here just FYI.
Added 03.06.2014:
http://www.jsnice.org/
This tool could be useful too, it even tries to infer minified names. As stated on their website:
We will rename variables and parameters to names that we learn from thousands of open source projects.
Personally I can't think of a reason to ever unminify code^:
If you're using a compiled js file (a-la google closure) and want more readable code to debug, use source maps available for well-supported libraries (speaking of jQuery, if it is served from a google CDN it already maps to the correct source)
If you're using a whitespace-only minified js file and want more readable code to debug, you could just toggle pretty print in-browser. This seems to best fit your question.
If you're using either of the above and want to modify the source code for a third-party js file, don't. Any future release will cancel out your change - instead consider one of the many patterns to extend a framework (or, perhaps, do some duck punching depending on the exact scenario.)
The other answers seem to cover the "unminification" process (maxification?) well, but it's worth making sure it's a necessary step first.
^ - Except when version control falls over, there are no backups and the only version of the file left is a minified copy in browser cache. Don't ask.
Its just a one way transformation .... sorry in normal cases you will not get something understandable back from minified JavaScript !
Make just a quick look at JQuery source for a second:
(function( window, undefined ) {
// Can't do this because several apps including ASP.NET trace
// the stack via arguments.caller.callee and Firefox dies if
// you try to trace through "use strict" call chains. (#13335)
// Support: Firefox 18+
//"use strict";
var
// The deferred used on DOM ready
readyList,
// A central reference to the root jQuery(document)
rootjQuery,
// Support: IE<10
// For `typeof xmlNode.method` instead of `xmlNode.method !== undefined`
core_strundefined = typeof undefined,
// Use the correct document accordingly with window argument (sandbox)
location = window.location,
document = window.document,
docElem = document.documentElement,
// Map over jQuery in case of overwrite
_jQuery = window.jQuery,
// Map over the $ in case of overwrite
_$ = window.$,
// [[Class]] -> type pairs
class2type = {},
// List of deleted data cache ids, so we can reuse them
core_deletedIds = [],
core_version = "1.10.2",
------
And now at the minify source:
(function(e,t){var n,r,i=typeof t,o=e.location,a=e.document,s=a.documentElement,
l=e.jQuery,u=e.$,c={},p=[],f="1.10.2", ....
I think now you see it =>
window => e
undefined => t
readyList => n
rootjQuery => r
core_strundefined => i
location => o
document => a
So its mapped somehow to make it more shorter look here to minify something
People normally use this so there is no way back
you can just format it look here
If the code has only been minified then the best you can do automatically is reformat to make it more readable. One way of doing this is using an online formatter/beautifier. E.g. Copy and paste the line of code you posted into http://jsbeautifier.org/ or http://www.jspretty.com/ and it'll produce something like this:
var flashVer = -1;
if (navigator.plugins != null && navigator.plugins.length > 0) {
if (navigator.plugins["Shockwave Flash 2.0"]
|| navigator.plugins["Shockwave Flash"]) {
var swVer2 = navigator.plugins["Shockwave Flash 2.0"] ? ""
But of course what these don't do is put any comments that have been removed by the minifier back in. And if the code has also been obfuscated then it will be a lot less readable since the variable names will have changed (e.g. var a instead of var flashVer). See here for further details.
As you can see from the other answers, there is no way to reconstitute minified Javascript back into its original form, it is a lossy compression. The best you can do is make it readable by reformatting it.
If the code is open source, then it is likely that the code will exists in a raw state on some form of version control site or as a zip. Why not just download the raw version if available?
There is an online tool to unminify Javascripts
http://jsbeautifier.org/
And also for CSS
http://mrcoles.com/blog/css-unminify/
I have some code that generates URLs to be used in various places across a site (image src, link hrefs, etc). I am seeing lines in the access logs which show some of the javascript code that generates the URLs masquerading as a file request.
For example, "/this.getIconSrc()" is one that I'm seeing quite a bit. I can't figure out how or why this is occurring and I can't manage to reproduce it without actually entering "http://whateverthesiteis.com/this.getIconSrc()" into the location bar. In most cases, these functions are chained together to generate a URL but the whole function chain does not appear in the server logs, just part of it.
I've probably invested around 30 hours trying to figure out why this is happening but cannot. It doesn't appear to be a browser issue as I've tried in IE 6/7, FF 2/3, Opera, Safari 3, and the problem does not occur. Has anyone else experienced something similar and, if so, what was the solution?
There's three possibilities really:
A bug in your HTML - malformed HTML causing onclick to leak into href, for example
A bug in your Javascript - myIcon.src = 'this.getIconSrc()'; - note the quotes that shouldn't be there
A poorly-written spider is hitting your site (like #Diodeus said: ___)
Edit:
Check the User Agent and Referrer in your logs - they may offer a clue.
Are you generating JavaScript calls like this? This may explain it.
___
#RoBorg... I'm thinking the most likely scenario is #3 since this particular function is actually only called in one place...
function whatever(){
var src = this.getIconSrc();
return src.replace( /((?:https?:\/\/)?(?:[^\/]+\/)*)[^\/]+/, '$1newimage.png' );
}