We Keep Coding

What's the common way to check if a field is null or undefined (but not zero or empty string) in Javascript? [duplicate]

Although there are semantic differences between JavaScript's null and undefined, many times they can be treated as the same. What's the preferable way of checking if the value is either null or undefined?
Right now I'm doing the following:
if (typeof value === "undefined" || value === null) {
// do something
}
Which is pretty verbose. I could, of course, create a function for this and import everywhere, but I'm wishing that there's a better way to achieve this.
Also, I know that
if (value == null) {
}
Will get the job done 90% of the time, unless value is zero... or false... or a number of implicit things that can cause obscure bugs.

Also, I know that
if (value == null) {
}
Will get the job done 90% of the time, unless value is zero... or false... or a number of implicit things that can cause obscure bugs.
No, it gets the job done 100% of the time. The only values that are == null are null and undefined. 0 == null is false. "" == undefined is false. false == null is false. Etc. You're confusing == null with falsiness, which is a very different thing.
That's not to say, though, that it's a good idea to write code expecting everyone to know that. You have a perfectly good, clear check in the code you're already using. Whether you choose to write value == null or the explicit one you're currently using (or if (value === undefined || value === null)) is a matter of style and in-house convention. But value == null does do what you've asked: Checks that value is null or undefined.
The details of == are here: Abstract Equality Comparison.

underscore js has a function for this _.isUndefined()
from https://underscorejs.org/#isUndefined
isUndefined _.isUndefined(value)
Returns true if value is undefined.
example:
_.isUndefined(window.missingVariable);
=> true
lodash has a similar function. see https://lodash.com/docs/4.17.11#isUndefined
Both have similar functions for isNull too.
I find the functions are useful for others to know what is being tested for.

How can avoid !! comparation in JavaScript?

I am using this "!!" comparation in order to compare with "undefined". However, is there any other way to do it?
isWidgetTemplatesLoaded: function(widgetName) {
return !!templates[widgetName];
}
Thanks

You could use typeof to check for undefined:
(typeof templates[widgetName] !== 'undefined')
typeof always returns a string. It returns "undefined" if the value of the variable is undefined or the variable does not exist.

You can use the typeof operator
typeof templates[widgetName];
else you can also use like this
if (templates[widgetName] === undefined) {
// rest of code
}
else {
// rest of code
}

To check for undefined you can just use the no-conversion equal/different operators:
if (x !== undefined) { ... }
if (y === undefined) { ... }
note however that this doesn't have the exact same meaning of !!. The double-negation for example returns true even for false, null, 0 or "" despite the fact that these values are not undefined.
By the way in Javascript you should basically always use === and !== instead of == and !=, unless you really need the crazy implicit conversion that equality/different operators do (and no one needs that). Good Javascript editors will warn you about any use of == or != as they are just bug-hiding places.
In the specific of your question code the !! logic seems wrong on a philosophical level because an empty template could be "" and this function would say that the template has not been loaded while instead it has been loaded and simply happens to be the empty string.

You could use the in operator, if you know, if the property exist with some value, other than undefined.
return widgetName in templates;

Is there a nice simple way to check if a variable in Javascript has a value?

I want to check this:
if ( typeof myVar != "undefined" && myVar != null )
...
In other words, I want to check if a variable has a defined value (including 0 or an empty string), but not undefined or null, which I interpret as valueless.
Do I have to do the two-part check each time or is there a handy shortcut?

If you want to allow 0 and "" as valid values and you want to cover the case of the variable might not even be delcared, but don't consider null a valid value, then you have to specifically check for undefined and null like this:
if (typeof myVar !== 'undefined' && myVar !== null)
...
A lot of values are falsey (they don't satisfy if (myVar) so you really have to conciously decide which ones you're testing for. All of these are falsey:
undefined
false
0
""
null
NaN
If you want to allow some, but not others, then you have to do a more specific test than if (myVar) like I've shown above to isolate just the values you care about.
Here's a good writeup on falsey values: http://www.sitepoint.com/javascript-truthy-falsy/.
If you know the variable has been declared and you just want to see if it's been initialized with something other than null, you can use this:
if (myVar != undefined)
...
Using only the != instead of !== allows this to test for both undefined and null via type conversion. Although, I wouldn't recommend this because if you're trying to discern between falsey values, it's probably better to NOT let the JS engine do any type conversions at all so you can control exactly what it does without having to memorize all the type conversion equality rules. I'd stick with this to be more explicit:
if (typeof myVar !== 'undefined' && myVar !== null)
...
If you want to know if it has any non-falsey value, you can of course do this (but that won't allow 0 or "" as valid values:
if (myVar)
...

The 2-part method. If you don't check for the typeof first, you'll end up with a reference error.

If you know the context of myVar, you should be able to do this:
if (this.myVar != null) {
...
}

if myvar could be undefined, calling it without the typeof check will throw an error.
And if it is defined as null (like myvar= element.lastChild for an element with no children) you will miss catching it if you just use typeof.

Well, null is a defined value... so if you want to make sure that the variable doesn't contain null, and isn't undefined you must do both checks.

When to check for undefined and when to check for null

[Bounty Edit]
I'm looking for a good explanation when you should set/use null or undefined and where you need to check for it. Basically what are common practices for these two and is really possible to treat them separately in generic maintainable codee?
When can I safely check for === null, safely check for === undefined and when do I need to check for both with == null
When should you use the keyword undefined and when should one use the keyword null
I have various checks in the format of
if (someObj == null) or if (someObj != null) which check for both null and undefined. I would like to change all these to either === undefined or === null but I'm not sure how to guarantee that it will only ever be one of the two but not both.
Where should you use checks for null and where should you use checks for undefined
A concrete example:
var List = []; // ordered list contains data at odd indexes.
var getObject = function(id) {
for (var i = 0; i < List.length; i++) {
if (List[i] == null) continue;
if (id === List[i].getId()) {
return List[i];
}
}
return null;
}
var deleteObject = function(id) {
var index = getIndex(id) // pretty obvouis function
// List[index] = null; // should I set it to null?
delete List[index]; // should I set it to undefined?
}
This is just one example of where I can use both null or undefined and I don't know which is correct.
Are there any cases where you must check for both null and undefined because you have no choice?

Functions implicitly return undefined. Undefined keys in arrays are undefined. Undefined attributes in objects are undefined.
function foo () {
};
var bar = [];
var baz = {};
//foo() === undefined && bar[100] === undefined && baz.something === undefined
document.getElementById returns null if no elements are found.
var el = document.getElementById("foo");
// el === null || el instanceof HTMLElement
You should never have to check for undefined or null (unless you're aggregating data from both a source that may return null, and a source which may return undefined).
I recommend you avoid null; use undefined.

Some DOM methods return null. All properties of an object that have not been set return undefined when you attempt to access them, including properties of an Array. A function with no return statement implicitly returns undefined.
I would suggest making sure you know exactly what values are possible for the variable or property you're testing and testing for these values explicitly and with confidence. For testing null, use foo === null. For testing for undefined, I would recommend using typeof foo == "undefined" in most situations, because undefined (unlike null) is not a reserved word and is instead a simple property of the global object that may be altered, and also for other reasons I wrote about recently here: variable === undefined vs. typeof variable === "undefined"

The difference between null and undefined is that null is itself a value and has to be assigned. It's not the default. A brand new variable with no value assigned to it is undefined.
var x;
// value undefined - NOT null.
x = null;
// value null - NOT undefined.

I think it's interesting to note that, when Windows was first written, it didn't do a lot of checks for invalid/NULL pointers. Afterall, no programmer would be dumb enough to pass NULL where a valid string was needed. And testing for NULL just makes the code larger and slower.
The result was that many UAEs were due to errors in client programs, but all the heat went to Microsoft. Since then, Microsoft has changed Windows to pretty much check every argument for NULL.
I think the lesson is that, unless you are really sure an argument will always be valid, it's probably worth verifying that it is. Of course, Windows is used by a lot of programmers while your function may only be used by you. So that certainly factors in regarding how likely an invalid argument is.
In languages like C and C++, you can use ASSERTs and I use them ALL the time when using these languages. These are statements that verify certain conditions that you never expect to happen. During debugging, you can test that, in fact, they never do. Then when you do a release build these statements are not included in the compiled code. In some ways, this seems like the best of both worlds to me.

If you call a function with no explicit return then it implicitly returns undefined. So if I have a function that needs to say that it did its task and there is nothing result, e.g. a XMLHTTPRequest that returned nothing when you normally expect that there would be something (like a database call), then I would explicitly return null.

Undefined is different from null when using !== but not when using the weaker != because JavaScript does some implicit casting in this case.
The main difference between null and undefined is that undefined can also mean something which has not been assigned to.
undefined false
(SomeObject.foo) false false
(SomeObject.foo != null) false true
(SomeObject.foo !== null) true true
(SomeObject.foo != false) true false
(SomeObject.foo !== false) true false
This is taken from this weblog

The problem is that you claim to see the difference, but you don't. Take your example. It should really be:
var List = []; // ordered list contains data at odd indexes.
var getObject = function(id) {
for (var i = 1; i < List.length; i+=2) {
if (id === List[i].getId()) {
return List[i];
}
}
// returns undefined by default
}
Your algorithm is flawed because you check even indexes (even though you know there's nothing there), and you also misuse null as a return value.
These kind of functions should really return undefined because it means: there's no such data
And there you are in the heart of the problem. If you don't fully understand null and undefined and may use them wrongly sometimes, how can you be so sure that others will use it correctly? You can't.
Then there are Host objects with their nasty behavior, if you ask me, you better off checking for both. It doesn't hurt, in fact, it saves you some headaches dealing with third party code, or the aformentioned non-native objects.
Except for these two cases, in your own code, you can do what #bobince said:
Keep undefined as a special value for signalling when other languages might throw an exception instead.

When to set/use them...
Note that a method without a return statement returns undefined, you shouldn't force this as an expected response, if you use it in a method that should always return a value, then it should represent an error state internally.
Use null for an intentional or non-match response.
As for how/when to check...
undefined, null, 0, an empty string, NaN and false will be FALSE via coercion. These are known as "falsy" values... everything else is true.
Your best bet is coercion then testing for valid exception values...
var something; //undefined
something = !!something; //something coerced into a boolean
//true if false, null, NaN or undefined
function isFalsish(value) {
return (!value && value !== "" && value !== 0);
}
//get number or default
function getNumber(val, defaultVal) {
defaultVal = isFalsish(defaultVal) ? 0 : defaultVal;
return (isFalsish(val) || isNaN(val)) ? defaultVal : +val;
}
Numeric testing is the real bugger, since true, false and null can be coerced into a number, and 0 coerces to false.

I would treat them as 2 completely different values, and check for the one you know might occur.
If you're checking to see if something has been given a value yet, check against undefined.
If you're checking to see if the value is 'nothing,' check against 'null'
A slightly contrived example:
Say you have a series of ajax requests, and you're morally opposed to using callbacks so you have a timeout running that checks for their completion.
Your check would look something like this:
if (result !== undefined){
//The ajax requests have completed
doOnCompleteStuff();
if (result !== null){
//There is actually data to process
doSomething(result);
}
}
tldr; They are two different values, undefined means no value has been given, null means a value has been given, but the value is 'nothing'.

Falsey values in JavaScript

I had an interesting interview question today that stumped me a little. I was asked about falsey values. So undefined, NaN, null, 0, and an empty string all evaluate to false. What is the reason this is useful to know in JavaScript? The only thing I can think of is instead of having to do this:
if (mystring === '' || mystring === undefined) { }
I can do this:
if (!mystring)
Is this the only useful application?

One dangerous issue of falsey values you have to be aware of is when checking the presence of a certain property.
Suppose you want to test for the availability of a new property; when this property can actually have a value of 0 or "", you can't simply check for its availability using
if (!someObject.someProperty)
/* incorrectly assume that someProperty is unavailable */
In this case, you must check for it being really present or not:
if (typeof someObject.someProperty == "undefined")
/* now it's really not available */
Also be aware that NaN isn't equal to anything, even not to itself (NaN != NaN).

There are two separate issues with 'falsey' values in JavaScript.
Firstly there is the official conversion scheme, which is what is returned by Boolean(x). This returns false when x is false or 0 or NaN or null or undefined or "" and true otherwise. This is the same behaviour as the
if (condition) {/*true path*/} else {/*false path*/}
that is, the false path is executed if Boolean(condition) would have returned false and the true path is executed otherwise. This behaviour is often used to check to see if a property is defined. However, doing that is not safe unless you are certain that the property would be an object or an array if it is defined. The safest way to test if a property is defined is to do
if (property != null) { /*property is defined*/}
which makes sure that the property is not null or undefined. If you only want to make sure the property is not undefined do
if (property !== undefined) { /*property is not undefined (but may be null)*/ }
(notice the extra = in !==).
Secondly, there are all the values that == false. This is everything that can be coerced to 0 (which is what false gets coerced to). This includes all the values that convert to false except NaN (which can't == false by virtue of it never == anything), null and undefined. But it also includes all objects that when converted to a string and then converted to a number are equal to 0. For example, this includes everything that when converted to a string is either the empty string "" or "0" or "-0" or "+0" or "0x00" or "000" or "0e0" or "0.0000"...., for example,
({toString: function() {return "-00.0e000";}}) == false
is true. Interestingly, this includes the empty array, and any nesting of arrays containing only a single other item that returns an empty or 0 string since arrays rendered as strings show only the contents without the surrounding brackets. That is,
[[[[0]]]] == false; // Because [[[[0]]]].toString() === "0"
[] == false;
[[[""]]] == false;
["0"] == false;
[[({toString: function() {return "0";}})]] == false;
The full algorithm for calculating == false is described here.
The reason this matters is because it can lead to subtle, difficult to find bugs if you don't understand most of these rules. Most important takeaways are probably how the if (condition) works and that using === avoids most of the other crazy stuff.

It's important to understand how this works in JS, so you're not surprised. Not necessarily just what is falsey, but what is truthy and how they compare to each other.
One example is that '0' is considered equal to 0 with ==, but it is not equal to '' - though 0 is. JavaScript comparison isn't always transitive.
So this means that just because (foo==bar && bar==fizz) is true, (foo==fizz) is not always true. To go with the above example, '0'==0, and 0=='', but '0'!='' - because you're comparing strings in the latter instance, so they are compared as strings and not coerced to numbers.

It is important to know that 0 evaluates to false to prevent doing things like:
if(str.indexOf('foo'))

It's useful to detect if a browser is has specific predefined objects:
if(!!navigator.geolocation){
// executes if the browser has geolocation support
}
if(!!document.createElement('canvas').getContext){
// executes if the browser supports <canvas>
}
Explanation: navigator.geolocation is an object or undefined. In the case it's an object !navigator.geolocation will return false, if it's undefined it'll return true. So, to check if a browser has geolocation enabled, you want to 'flip' the boolean once more, by adding another !.

They're also useful for setting default values...
function foo(bar){
alert(bar || "default");
}
I know a lot of people try to do
if (typeof(foo) === "undefined"){}
to get around falsiness, but that's got its own problems because
typeof(null) === "object"
for some reason