We Keep Coding

Returning Chrome storage API value without function

For the past two days I have been working with chrome asynchronous storage. It works "fine" if you have a function. (Like Below):
chrome.storage.sync.get({"disableautoplay": true}, function(e){
console.log(e.disableautoplay);
});
My problem is that I can't use a function with what I'm doing. I want to just return it, like LocalStorage can. Something like:
var a = chrome.storage.sync.get({"disableautoplay": true});
or
var a = chrome.storage.sync.get({"disableautoplay": true}, function(e){
return e.disableautoplay;
});
I've tried a million combinations, even setting a public variable and setting that:
var a;
window.onload = function(){
chrome.storage.sync.get({"disableautoplay": true}, function(e){
a = e.disableautoplay;
});
}
Nothing works. It all returns undefined unless the code referencing it is inside the function of the get, and that's useless to me. I just want to be able to return a value as a variable.
Is this even possible?
EDIT: This question is not a duplicate, please allow me to explain why:
1: There are no other posts asking this specifically (I spent two days looking first, just in case).
2: My question is still not answered. Yes, Chrome Storage is asynchronous, and yes, it does not return a value. That's the problem. I'll elaborate below...
I need to be able to get a stored value outside of the chrome.storage.sync.get function. I -cannot- use localStorage, as it is url specific, and the same values cannot be accessed from both the browser_action page of the chrome extension, and the background.js. I cannot store a value with one script and access it with another. They're treated separately.
So my only solution is to use Chrome Storage. There must be some way to get the value of a stored item and reference it outside the get function. I need to check it in an if statement.
Just like how localStorage can do
if(localStorage.getItem("disableautoplay") == true);
There has to be some way to do something along the lines of
if(chrome.storage.sync.get("disableautoplay") == true);
I realize it's not going to be THAT simple, but that's the best way I can explain it.
Every post I see says to do it this way:
chrome.storage.sync.get({"disableautoplay": true, function(i){
console.log(i.disableautoplay);
//But the info is worthless to me inside this function.
});
//I need it outside this function.

Here's a tailored answer to your question. It will still be 90% long explanation why you can't get around async, but bear with me — it will help you in general. I promise there is something pertinent to chrome.storage in the end.
Before we even begin, I will reiterate canonical links for this:
After calling chrome.tabs.query, the results are not available
(Chrome specific, excellent answer by RobW, probably easiest to understand)
Why is my variable unaltered after I modify it inside of a function? - Asynchronous code reference (General canonical reference on what you're asking for)
How do I return the response from an asynchronous call?
(an older but no less respected canonical question on asynchronous JS)
You Don't Know JS: Async & Performance (ebook on JS asynchronicity)
So, let's discuss JS asynchonicity.
Section 1: What is it?
First concept to cover is runtime environment. JavaScript is, in a way, embedded in another program that controls its execution flow - in this case, Chrome. All events that happen (timers, clicks, etc.) come from the runtime environment. JavaScript code registers handlers for events, which are remembered by the runtime and are called as appropriate.
Second, it's important to understand that JavaScript is single-threaded. There is a single event loop maintained by the runtime environment; if there is some other code executing when an event happens, that event is put into a queue to be processed when the current code terminates.
Take a look at this code:
var clicks = 0;
someCode();
element.addEventListener("click", function(e) {
console.log("Oh hey, I'm clicked!");
clicks += 1;
});
someMoreCode();
So, what is happening here? As this code executes, when the execution reaches .addEventListener, the following happens: the runtime environment is notified that when the event happens (element is clicked), it should call the handler function.
It's important to understand (though in this particular case it's fairly obvious) that the function is not run at this point. It will only run later, when that event happens. The execution continues as soon as the runtime acknowledges 'I will run (or "call back", hence the name "callback") this when that happens.' If someMoreCode() tries to access clicks, it will be 0, not 1.
This is what called asynchronicity, as this is something that will happen outside the current execution flow.
Section 2: Why is it needed, or why synchronous APIs are dying out?
Now, an important consideration. Suppose that someMoreCode() is actually a very long-running piece of code. What will happen if a click event happened while it's still running?
JavaScript has no concept of interrupts. Runtime will see that there is code executing, and will put the event handler call into the queue. The handler will not execute before someMoreCode() finishes completely.
While a click event handler is extreme in the sense that the click is not guaranteed to occur, this explains why you cannot wait for the result of an asynchronous operation. Here's an example that won't work:
element.addEventListener("click", function(e) {
console.log("Oh hey, I'm clicked!");
clicks += 1;
});
while(1) {
if(clicks > 0) {
console.log("Oh, hey, we clicked indeed!");
break;
}
}
You can click to your heart's content, but the code that would increment clicks is patiently waiting for the (non-terminating) loop to terminate. Oops.
Note that this piece of code doesn't only freeze this piece of code: every single event is no longer handled while we wait, because there is only one event queue / thread. There is only one way in JavaScript to let other handlers do their job: terminate current code, and let the runtime know what to call when something we want occurs.
This is why asynchronous treatment is applied to another class of calls that:
require the runtime, and not JS, to do something (disk/network access for example)
are guaranteed to terminate (whether in success or failure)
Let's go with a classic example: AJAX calls. Suppose we want to load a file from a URL.
Let's say that on our current connection, the runtime can request, download, and process the file in the form that can be used in JS in 100ms.
On another connection, that's kinda worse, it would take 500ms.
And sometimes the connection is really bad, so runtime will wait for 1000ms and give up with a timeout.
If we were to wait until this completes, we would have a variable, unpredictable, and relatively long delay. Because of how JS waiting works, all other handlers (e.g. UI) would not do their job for this delay, leading to a frozen page.
Sounds familiar? Yes, that's exactly how synchronous XMLHttpRequest works. Instead of a while(1) loop in JS code, it essentially happens in the runtime code - since JavaScript cannot let other code execute while it's waiting.
Yes, this allows for a familiar form of code:
var file = get("http://example.com/cat_video.mp4");
But at a terrible, terrible cost of everything freezing. A cost so terrible that, in fact, the modern browsers consider this deprecated. Here's a discussion on the topic on MDN.
Now let's look at localStorage. It matches the description of "terminating call to the runtime", and yet it is synchronous. Why?
To put it simply: historical reasons (it's a very old specification).
While it's certainly more predictable than a network request, localStorage still needs the following chain:
JS code <-> Runtime <-> Storage DB <-> Cache <-> File storage on disk
It's a complex chain of events, and the whole JS engine needs to be paused for it. This leads to what is considered unacceptable performance.
Now, Chrome APIs are, from ground up, designed for performance. You can still see some synchronous calls in older APIs like chrome.extension, and there are calls that are handled in JS (and therefore make sense as synchronous) but chrome.storage is (relatively) new.
As such, it embraces the paradigm "I acknowledge your call and will be back with results, now do something useful meanwhile" if there's a delay involved with doing something with runtime. There are no synchronous versions of those calls, unlike XMLHttpRequest.
Quoting the docs:
It's [chrome.storage] asynchronous with bulk read and write operations, and therefore faster than the blocking and serial localStorage API.
Section 3: How to embrace asynchronicity?
The classic way to deal with asynchronicity are callback chains.
Suppose you have the following synchronous code:
var result = doSomething();
doSomethingElse(result);
Suppose that, now, doSomething is asynchronous. Then this becomes:
doSomething(function(result) {
doSomethingElse(result);
});
But what if it's even more complex? Say it was:
function doABunchOfThings() {
var intermediate = doSomething();
return doSomethingElse(intermediate);
}
if (doABunchOfThings() == 42) {
andNowForSomethingCompletelyDifferent()
}
Well.. In this case you need to move all this in the callback. return must become a call instead.
function doABunchOfThings(callback) {
doSomething(function(intermediate) {
callback(doSomethingElse(intermediate));
});
}
doABunchOfThings(function(result) {
if (result == 42) {
andNowForSomethingCompletelyDifferent();
}
});
Here you have a chain of callbacks: doABunchOfThings calls doSomething immediately, which terminates, but sometime later calls doSomethingElse, the result of which is fed to if through another callback.
Obviously, the layering of this can get messy. Well, nobody said that JavaScript is a good language.. Welcome to Callback Hell.
There are tools to make it more manageable, for example Promises and async/await. I will not discuss them here (running out of space), but they do not change the fundamental "this code will only run later" part.
Section TL;DR: I absolutely must have the storage synchronous, halp!
Sometimes there are legitimate reasons to have a synchronous storage. For instance, webRequest API blocking calls can't wait. Or Callback Hell is going to cost you dearly.
What you can do is have a synchronous cache of the asynchronous chrome.storage. It comes with some costs, but it's not impossible.
Consider:
var storageCache = {};
chrome.storage.sync.get(null, function(data) {
storageCache = data;
// Now you have a synchronous snapshot!
});
// Not HERE, though, not until "inner" code runs
If you can put ALL your initialization code in one function init(), then you have this:
var storageCache = {};
chrome.storage.sync.get(null, function(data) {
storageCache = data;
init(); // All your code is contained here, or executes later that this
});
By the time code in init() executes, and afterwards when any event that was assigned handlers in init() happens, storageCache will be populated. You have reduced the asynchronicity to ONE callback.
Of course, this is only a snapshot of what storage looks at the time of executing get(). If you want to maintain coherency with storage, you need to set up updates to storageCache via chrome.storage.onChanged events. Because of the single-event-loop nature of JS, this means the cache will only be updated while your code doesn't run, but in many cases that's acceptable.
Similarly, if you want to propagate changes to storageCache to the real storage, just setting storageCache['key'] is not enough. You would need to write a set(key, value) shim that BOTH writes to storageCache and schedules an (asynchronous) chrome.storage.sync.set.
Implementing those is left as an exercise.

Make the main function "async" and make a "Promise" in it :)
async function mainFuction() {
var p = new Promise(function(resolve, reject){
chrome.storage.sync.get({"disableautoplay": true}, function(options){
resolve(options.disableautoplay);
})
});
const configOut = await p;
console.log(configOut);
}

Yes, you can achieve that using promise:
let getFromStorage = keys => new Promise((resolve, reject) =>
chrome.storage.sync.get(...keys, result => resolve(result)));

chrome.storage.sync.get has no returned values, which explains why you would get undefined when calling something like
var a = chrome.storage.sync.get({"disableautoplay": true});
chrome.storage.sync.get is also an asynchronous method, which explains why in the following code a would be undefined unless you access it inside the callback function.
var a;
window.onload = function(){
chrome.storage.sync.get({"disableautoplay": true}, function(e){
// #2
a = e.disableautoplay; // true or false
});
// #1
a; // undefined
}

If you could manage to work this out you will have made a source of strange bugs. Messages are executed asynchronously which means that when you send a message the rest of your code can execute before the asychronous function returns. There is not guarantee for that since chrome is multi-threaded and the get function may delay, i.e. hdd is busy.
Using your code as an example:
var a;
window.onload = function(){
chrome.storage.sync.get({"disableautoplay": true}, function(e){
a = e.disableautoplay;
});
}
if(a)
console.log("true!");
else
console.log("false! Maybe undefined as well. Strange if you know that a is true, right?");
So it will be better if you use something like this:
chrome.storage.sync.get({"disableautoplay": true}, function(e){
a = e.disableautoplay;
if(a)
console.log("true!");
else
console.log("false! But maybe undefined as well");
});
If you really want to return this value then use the javascript storage API. This stores only string values so you have to cast the value before storing and after getting it.
//Setting the value
localStorage.setItem('disableautoplay', JSON.stringify(true));
//Getting the value
var a = JSON.stringify(localStorage.getItem('disableautoplay'));

var a = await chrome.storage.sync.get({"disableautoplay": true});
This should be in an async function. e.g. if you need to run it at top level, wrap it:
(async () => {
var a = await chrome.storage.sync.get({"disableautoplay": true});
})();

How to delay event propagation using jQuery

I want to display a note after the user submits a form but before he leaves the page.
Currently I'm using this (reduced example code):
$('form').submit(function(event) {
$('.note').show();
setTimeout(function() {
$('form').unbind().submit();
}, 2000);
return false;
});
This works but doesn't seem to be nice. Is there any other way, like a function $.delayPropagation(2000);?
PS: The note covers the whole screen, so the user won't be able to submit again during this time.

That is an appropriate way to delay the operation.
You may actually want to unbind the event first to stop multiple calls (you currently have a 2 second window in which they could submit again).
As a standard practice, you should only run your jQuery selectors once (use a temp var to hold the result). $ prefixes are also another standard for naming jQuery variables. This now means the code below would support multiple forms on a page separately.
$('form').submit(function(event) {
var $form = $(this);
$('.note').show();
$form.unbind()
setTimeout(function() {
$form.submit();
}, 2000);
return false;
});
You must return false immediately to avoid blocking the browser.
Notes:
An alternative would be to use Ajax for the form post, then have the delay, then goto a new page
setTimeout is the most ubiquitous way to delay code from executing.
Note: I just wanted to use the term ubiquitous in a post :)

How should I make complex, sequential events in javascript

I'm working on an interactive tutorial-tool for JavaScript. The core of the tool is the script of the tutorial. The script will trigger various functions that run animations, speaker-voices load new pages etc. Three sample calls(most tutorials will have 10-100s of calls, so a neat overview of the calls is highly desired:
wrap(); //wrap the page in an iframe
playsound('media/welcome') //playing a sound (duh)
highlight('[name=firstname]'); //animation that highlights an element.
playsound('media/welcome2');
loadpage(page2); //loading a new page
All calls have something in common: they have non-normal-triggers. In this simple script for example, the second call should be triggered once the iframe in the first call is loaded. The third script is triggered once the sound is complete (ie delay). The fourth function should be triggered once the animation is complete. The fifth event should be triggered on an event (for example a click).
A technical solution to this would be to call the function in the callback of the previous function, this has the potential to get pretty messy. What I like with a solution wherer the functions are called lite this is that someone with a little bit of brains, but no coding experience could hammer up a script of their own. How would you solve this? I'm pretty new to javascript so if you could be explicit i'd appreciate it.

I'd use a per-built solution. There is bound be one that fits your needs. Something simple like jTour or if that doesn't cover it something a little more complex like Scriptio. Some of the answers to this question may also be of interest to you.
Edit
If you don't want to use a preexisting solution, I'd do something like this:
var runTutorial = (function () {
// The command object holds all the different commands that can
// be used by someone for the tutorial. Each of these commands
// will recive a callback set as their `this`. This
// callback should be called by your commands when they are done
// running. The person making the tutorial won't need to know
// about the callback, the code will handle that.
var commands = {
wrap: function () {
//wrap the page in an iframe
this();
},
playsound: function (soundPath, soundLength) {
//playing a sound (duh)
setTimeout(this, soundLength);
},
highlight: function (selector) {
//animation that highlights an element.
//I'm using jQuery UI for the animation here,
// but most animation libraries should provide
// a callback for when the animation is done similarly
$(selector).effect('highlight', 'slow', this);
},
loadpage: function (pageUrl) {
//loading a new page
setTimeout(this, 500);
},
waitForClick: function () {
// when we go into the click handler `this` will no
// longer be availble to us since we will be in a
// different context, save `this` into `that` so
// we can call it later.
var that = this;
$(document).one('click', function () {
that();
});
}
},
// This function takes an array of commands
// and runs them in sequence. Each item in the
// array should be an array with the command name
// as the first item and any arguments it should be
// called with following as the rest of the items.
runTutorial = function (commandList) {
var nextCommand = function () {
if (commandList.length > 0) {
var args = commandList.shift();
// remove the command name
// from the argument list
cmd = args.shift(1);
// call the command, setting nextCommand as `this`
commands[cmd].apply(nextCommand, args);
}
}
nextCommand();
};
return runTutorial;
}());
$('#tutorialbutton').click(function() {
runTutorial([
['playsound', 'media/welcome', 1000],
['highlight', '[name=firstname]'],
['playsound', 'media/welcome2', 1500],
['waitForClick'],
['loadpage', page2],
['playsound', 'media/page2', 100]
]);
});
The runTutorial function takes a simple array containing the commands in the order they should be run, along with their parameters. No need to bother the person writing the script with callbacks, runTutorial handles that for them. This has some big advantages over a system that requires the writer to manage callbacks. You don't need an unique name for each line in the script as you do with explicit callbacks, nor endless nesting of anonymous functions. You don't need to rewire anything to change the order that the commands are played in, you just physically rearrange them in the array.
jsfiddle you can play with
Each of your commands will need to wait for its action to be done before it calls its callback (aka this). I simulate this in the fiddle using setTimeout. For instance, if you are using jQuery's .animate for highlight, it provides a complete handler that fires when the animation is done, just stick this (with out the invocation parentheses ()) there. If you are using jQuery UI, it has a built-in 'highlight' effect, so you could implement it like this:
highlight: function (selector) {
//animation that highlights an element.
$(selector).effect('highlight', 'slow', this);
},
Most other libraries that provide animations should provide a similar callback option you can use.
Controlling the callback for the sounds may be harder depending on how you are playing them. If the method you are using doesn't provide a callback or a way of polling it to see if it is done yet you might just have to add another parameter to playsound that takes the length of the sound in ms and then waits that long before proceeding:
playsound: function (soundPath, soundLength) {
//playing a sound (duh)
setTimeout(this, soundLength);
},

Callbacks are your best bet, I think. They don't have to be messy (though it's certainly possible to make them completely incomprehensible). You could create each function to accept a callback, then use a structure like this to call them in sequence in a readable way:
var loadingSequence = {
start : function() { wrap(this.playsound); },
playsound : function() { playsound('media/welcome', this.highlight); },
highlight : function() { highlight('[name=firstname]', this.playsound2); },
playsound2 : function() { playsound('media/welcome2', this.loadpage); },
loadpage : function() { loadpage(page2); }
};
loadingSequence.start();

Combined delayed function calls in Javascript

I am not quite sure what the technical term for this is. I have a GUI with interactive graphics. After the user has interacted with the GUI, I need to perform some CPU intensive action. However, user input is very frequent, so I only want to call the function after e.g. 1000ms of no userinput. Below the pattern that I use:
scheduler = (function(){
var timer;
function exec(call, delay){
clearTimeout(timer);
timer = setTimeout(call, delay);
};
return exec;
})()
I.e. if the 3 calls to scheduler are done right after each other, only the final one will actually be executed:
scheduler(function(){alert('foo')}, 1000);
scheduler(function(){alert('bar')}, 1000);
scheduler(function(){alert('zoo')}, 1000);
It seems to work, but it feels a bit hacky I am a little worried about any caveats of Javascript setTimeout, especially the scoping problems. Does this seem like a reliable pattern I could use on a larger scale? Will the inline function that I pass to scheduler be able to lookup all objects in its lexical scope as usual, when it is called by settimeout? What about if I have several of these scheduler instances? Could they interfere with each other? Is there an alternative way of accomplishing this?

You could opt for using web worker threads instead:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/DOM/Using_web_workers
http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/workers/basics/

What I would do:
http://jsfiddle.net/gunderson/4XXQ4/1/
var severQueue = [];
var delay;
$("#inputSquare").mousemove(onMouseMove);
function onMouseMove(){
if (delay){
clearTimeout(delay);
}
serverQueue.push("doSomething")
delay = setTimeout(sendToServer, 1000);
}
function sendToServer(){
console.log(serverQueue.length);
delay = null;
$("#inputSquare").addClass("activated");
// do some ajax using serverQueue
// we'll just simulate it with another timeout
for (var i in serverQueue){
serverQueue.pop();
}
onComplete = setTimeout(onAjaxComplete, 1000);
}
function onAjaxComplete(){
$("#inputSquare").removeClass("activated");
}
​

In theory, your solution looks like it will work. There are no scoping problems related to you passing a callback function to your scheduler function; the callback will close over whatever environment it was created in, just like any other function in JavaScript. That being said, scoping rules can be a bit tricky in JavaScript, so make sure that you read up on it.
In practice, there may be some browser-specific issues related to setTimeout that may make this solution unworkable. For example, the frequency at which certain browsers execute setTimeout callbacks may vary such that you'll be waiting longer than you expect for a callback to be executed. All setTimeout callbacks will be executed sequentially; they'll never be executed in parallel. However, you have guarantees as to what order they will be executed in.
All that being said, any major gotcha in your solution will likely have more to do with the callbacks that your registering rather than the way in which you're registering them.

The debounce function in underscore.js does exactly this:
debounce _.debounce(function, wait, [immediate])
Creates and returns a new debounced version of the passed function that will postpone its execution until after wait milliseconds have
elapsed since the last time it was invoked. Useful for implementing
behavior that should only happen after the input has stopped arriving.
For example: rendering a preview of a Markdown comment, recalculating
a layout after the window has stopped being resized, and so on.

asynchronous javascript prepare function

To speed up my application I want to prepare some data before DOM is ready and then use this data when DOM is ready.
Here's how it might be:
var data = function prepareData(){
...
}();
$(document).ready(function() {
// use data to build page
}
How to prepare the data for later use?
Thanks

You need should use parentheses around the function expression for clarity (and because in a similar situation where you're defining and calling a function but not using the return value, it would be a syntax error without them). Also, when you use a function expression, you want to not give it a name. So:
var data = (function(){
...
})();
or use a function declaration instead:
var data = processData();
function processData() {
...
}
(Why not use a name with a function expression? Because of bugs in various implementations, especially Internet Explorer prior to IE9, which will create two completely unrelated functions.)
However, it's not clear to me what you're trying to achieve. When the browser reaches the script element, it hands off to the JavaScript interpreter and waits for it to finish before continuing building the DOM (because your script might use document.write to add to the HTML token stream). You can use the async or defer attributes to promise the browser you're not going to use document.write, on browsers that support them, but...
Update: Below you've said:
because prepareData is long time function and I assumed that browser can execute this while it's building DOM tree. Unfortunately '$(document).ready' fires before prepareData is finished. The question is how to teach '$(document).ready' to wait for ready data
The only way the ready handler can possibly trigger while processData is running is if processData is using asynchronous ajax (or a couple of edge conditions around alert, confirm, and the like, but I assume you're not doing that). And if it were, you couldn't be returning the result as a return value from the function (though you could return an object that you continued to update as the result of ajax callbacks). Otherwise, it's impossible: JavaScript on browsers is single-threaded, the ready handler will queue waiting for the interpreter to finish its previous task (processData).
If processData isn't doing anything asynchronous, I suspect whatever the symptom is that you're seeing making you think the ready handler is firing during processData has a different cause.
But in the case of asynchronous stuff, three options:
If you're not in control of the ready handlers you want to hold up, you might look at jQuery's holdReady feature. Call $.holdReady(true); to hold up the event, and use $.holdReady(false); to stop holding it up.
It's simple enough to reschedule the ready handler. Here's how I'd do it (note that I've wrapped everything in a scoping function so these things aren't globals):
(function() {
var data = processData();
$(onPageReady);
function processData() {
}
function onPageReady() {
if (!data.ready) {
// Wait for it to be ready
setTimeout(onPageReady, 0); // 0 = As soon as possible, you may want a
// longer delay depending on what `processData`
// is waiting for
return;
}
}
})();
Note that I happily use data in the onPageReady function, because I know that it's there; that function will not run until processData has returned. But I'm assuming processData is returning an object that is slowly being filled in via ajax calls, so I've used a ready flag on the object that will get set when all the data is ready.
If you can change processData, there's a better solution: Have processData trigger the ready handler when it's done. Here's the code for when processData is done with what it needs to do:
$(onPageReady);
That works because if the DOM isn't ready yet, that just schedules the call. If the DOM is already ready, jQuery will call your function immediately. This prevents the messy looping above.