I have a variable in my main javascript file e.g. var example = {};.
After webpack has finished its job, I find that example is now referenced as t. This presents me a problem as I am using the variable across the web project. I bind functions onto objects for example:
var example = {};
example.initialise = function () {};
Finally at the bottom of a page I may invoke this section of script e.g:
<script>example.initialise()</script>
This way of writing javascript functions is not unusual...
This is obviously a huge pain in the ass as I have no control over the minification. Moreover, it appears that webpack doesn't figure out that example.initialise = function () {}; relates to its newly minified var example (becoming)--> var t. I.e. it doesn't become t.initialise = function {}; either.
What am I supposed to do here?
I've tried using rollup as well. The same kind of variable minification happens.
The thing is, this kind of minification/obfuscation is great, particularly on the inner workings of functions where there's little cause for concern over the parameter names. But not on the top level. I do not understand why this is happening, or how to prevent it.
Any ideas?
I assume that there are ways to set the configuration of webpack. E.g. inside webpack.config.js, but my perusing of the webpack docs gives me no easy understanding of what options I can use to resolve this, like preventing property minification in some way.
In laravel-elixir-webpack-official code you can see minify() is being applied here, minify() uses UglifyJS2 and mangling is on by default.
Mangling is an optimisation that reduces names of local variables and functions usually to single-letters (this explains your example object being renamed to t). See the doc here.
I don't see any way you can customize minify() behaviour in laravel-elixir-webpack, so for now you might have to monkey patch WebpackTask.prototype.gulpTask method before using the module (not an ideal solution). See the lines I am commenting out.
const WebpackTask = require('laravel-elixir-webpack-official/dist/WebpackTask').default;
WebpackTask.prototype.gulpTask = function () {
return (
gulp
.src(this.src.path)
.pipe(this.webpack())
.on('error', this.onError())
// .pipe(jsFiles)
// .pipe(this.minify())
// .on('error', this.onError())
// .pipe(jsFiles.restore)
.pipe(this.saveAs(gulp))
.pipe(this.onSuccess())
);
};
Turns out I have been silly. I've discovered that you can prevent top level properties from being minified by binding it to window... which in hindsight is something I've always known and was stupid not to have realised sooner. D'oh!
So all that needed to be done was to change all top-level properties like var example = {}; to something like window.app.example = {}; in which app is helping to namespace and prevent and override anything set by the language itself.
Related
File A:var x: number = 5;
File B:var x = function (): number { return 5; };
Error:Subsqeuent variable declarations must have same type.
Removing all references (///<reference path='/Scripts/example.ts' />) has NO effect on my project. Everything still compiles, Intellisense still works. To my understanding, this is definitely not intended behavior. Any variable declared in any file is available in all files, like the one that caused the error above. I've been aware something weird was going on but I'm about to embark on a project where File B is going to have lots of variables of the same name as A, but they must remain separate. So this is an issue. But I can't find any reading on what's going on here. Everyone says you control Intellisense with the reference directive and you must use it.
Can't find anything about this in Project Settings>TypeScript, nor Tools>Options.
It's expected behavior. Use modules to separate variables in different files
// file 1
module First {
var x = 3;
}
// file 2
module Second {
var x = function (): number { return 5; };
}
See also TypeScript module documentation and
javascript module pattern
Another option would be using AMD or CommonJS compilation option of the TypeScript, see this article
I dont really understand how they are useful. In the original article that introduced initializers this was the code sample:
App = new Backbone.Marionette.Application();
App.addInitializer(function(){
// add some app initialization code, here
});
App.addInitializer(function(){
// more initialization stuff
// for a different part of the app
});
// run all the initializers and start the app
App.start();
however, as far as I can understand, there is no difference between that^, and this:
App = new Backbone.Marionette.Application();
// add some app initialization code, here
// more initialization stuff
// for a different part of the app
The benefit of the latter code being that you can actually control the order of initialization code, whereas initializers are run in random order. So, what is the advantage of addInitializer?
I think the main wins are semantics - it's a very descriptive method name - and grouping of related functionality. I write my initializers with a named function, which helps with debugging and descriptiveness:
App.addInitializer(function startSomePartOfTheApp () {
});
Another useful feature is that the function is bound to the Application instance. This gives you the option of mixing in initializers, which is useful in larger apps.
But ultimately, you can achieve the same functionality in the way you've suggested.
Marionette apps have the initializer so that you can write code that runs after App.start()
Several uses of this :
Placing code in the .js file that will execute after the inline scripts are added
<script type='text/javascript'>
$(document).ready(function () {
App.start();
} );
</script>
Performing the initial fetch of a collection once you know the collection is defined
Setting up menu code
Fun Notes :
If the app is already started they run immediately
Keeps you clear of surprises with JavaScript function availability.
Good day!
I began writing my own basic JavaScript library for personal use and distribution a few days ago, but I am having trouble with one of the methods, specifically bind().
Within the method itself, this refers to the library, the object.
I went to Google and found function.call(), but it didn't work out the way I planned it--it just executed the function.
If you take a look at another method, each(), you'll see that it uses call() to pass values.
I also tried the following:
f.arguments[0]=this;
My console throws an error, saying it cannot read '0' of "undefined".
I would like to be able to pass this (referencing the library--NOT THE WINDOW) to use it in the event listener.
You can see it starting at line 195 of the JavaScript of this JSFiddle.
Here it is as well:
bind:function(e,f){
if(e.indexOf("on")==0){
e=e.replace("on","");
}
if(typeof f==='function'){
/*Right now, 'this' refers to the library
How can I pass the library to the upcoming eventListener?
*/
//f=f(this); doesn't work
//f.call(this); //doesn't work
//this.target refers to the HTMLElement Object itself, which we are adding the eventListener to
//the outcome I'm looking for is something like this:
/*$('h3').which(0).bind(function({
this.css("color:red");
});*/
//(which() defines which H3 element we're dealing with
//bind is to add an event listener
this.target.addEventListener(e,f,false)
}
return this;
},
Thank you so much for your help, contributors!
If, as per your comments, you don't want to use .bind(), rather than directly passing f to addEventListener() you could pass another function that in turn calls f with .call() or .apply():
if(typeof f==='function'){
var _this = this;
this.target.addEventListener(e,function(event){
f.call(_this, event);
},false)
}
Doing it this way also lets your library do any extra event admin, e.g., pre-processing on the event object to normalise properties that are different for different browsers.
So in this particular case you actually want to call JavaScript's built in bind method that all functions have.
f = f.bind(this);
f will be a new function with it's this argument set to whatever you passed into it.
Replace f=f(this); with f.apply(this);
Look at underscore code, here:
https://github.com/jashkenas/underscore/blob/master/underscore.js#L596
Using JQuery.load(), I change the content of my website's mainWindow to allow the user to switch between tabs. For each tab, there is one or multiple scipts that contain functions that are executed once the tab content is loaded.
Obviously when switching to the tab for the first time, the script has to be fetched from the server and interpreted, but this shouldn't happen if the user switches back to the tab later on. So, to put it short:
Load() html
make sure javascript functions exist, otherwise load script and interpret it.
call a a function on the javascript after the DOM is rebuilt.
Step one and two have to be complete before step 3 is performed.
At the moment, I am using nested callbacks to realize this:
function openFirstTab(){
$("#mainWindow").load("firstTab.php", function(){
if(typeof(onloadfFirstTab) != "function"){
jQuery.getScript("assets/js/FirstTab.js", function(){
onloadFirstTab();
});
}
else{
onloadFirstTab();
}
} );
}
but I feel that there should be a better way.
You can't write the code entirely synchronously since you can't load script synchronously after page load ( unless you do a synchronous XHR request and eval the results - not recommended ).
You've got a couple of choices. There are pre-existing dependency management libs like RequireJS which may fit the bill here, or if you just need to load a single file you can do something like this to clean up your code a bit rather than using if/else:
function loadDependencies() {
// For the sake of example, the script adds "superplugin" to the jQuery prototype
return $.getScript( "http://mysite.com/jquery.superplugin.js" );
}
function action() {
// If superplugin hasn't been loaded yet, then load it
$.when( jQuery.fn.superplugin || loadDependencies() ).done(function() {
// Your dependencies are loaded now
});
}
This makes use of jQuery Deferreds/Promises to make the code much nicer.
If you don't want to load the JS more than once and you are going to dynamically load it, then the only way to know whether it's already loaded is to test for some condition that indicates it has already been loaded. The choices I'm aware of are:
The simplest I know of is what you are already doing (check for the existence of a function that is defined in the javascript).
You could also use a property on each tab (using jQuery's .data() that you set to true after you load the script.
You could write the dynamically loaded code so that it knows how to avoid re-initializing itself if it has already been loaded. In that case, you just load it each time, but the successive times don't do anything. Hint, you can't have any statically defined globals and you have to test if it's already been loaded before it runs its own initialization code.
(Haven't tested it yet, so I am not sure if it works, especially since I didn't yet really understand scope in javascript:)
function require(scripts, callback){
var loadCount = 0;
function done(){
loadCount -=1;
if (loadCount==0){
callback();
}
}
for ( var script in scripts){
if (!script.exitsts()){
loadCount +=1;
jQuery.getScript(script.url, done);
}
}
}
This function takes an array of scripts that are required and makes sure all of them are interpreted before it calls the callback().
The "script" class:
function script(url, testFunc){
this.url =url;
this.testFunction = testFunc;
this.exists = function(){
if(typeof(testFunction)=="function"){
return true;
}
else{
return false;
}
}
}
Where the test-function is a function that is defined (only) in the concerned script.
PS:
To enable caching in JQuery and thus prevent the browser from doing a GET request every time getScript() is called, you can use one of the methods that are presented here.
Even though unnecessary GET - requests are avoided, the script is still getting interpreted every time getScript() is called. This might sometimes be the desired behavior. But in many cases, there is no need to re-interpret library functions. In these cases it makes sense to avoid calling getScript() if the required library functions are already available. (As it is done in this example with script.exists().
Titanium SDK version: 1.6.
iPhone SDK version: 4.2
I am trying out the cache snippet found on the Appcelerator forum but I get an error: [ERROR] Script Error = Can't find variable: utils at cache.js (line 9).
I put this one (http://pastie.org/1541768) in a file called cache.js and implemented the code from this one (http://pastie.org/pastes/1541787) in the calling script, but I get the error.
What is wrong? I copied the code exactly.
Your problems is whilst the first pastie defines utils.httpcache. The variable utils is not defined outside of this function closure (because it is not defined anywhere in global namespace). As below shows.
(function() {
utils.httpcache = {
};
})();
To make it all work in this instance add the following code to the top of your cache.js file.
var utils = {};
This declares the utils variable in global namespace. Then when the function closure is executed below it will add utils.httpcache to the utils object.
The problem is actually not specific to Appcelerator and is just a simple JavaScript bug. Checkout Douglas Crockfords book, JavaScript the Good Parts. Reading it will literally make you a more awesome JavaScript developer.
You can't use utils.httpcache.getFromCache(url) until you add this to your code:
var utils = {};
That's because how the author created his function, it's called JavaScript module pattern and it's generally used to structure the code.
I seem to lose this value "value.httpCacheExpire = expireTime;" when the code does the "Titanium.App.Properties.setString(key,JSON.stringify(value));" so when I get it back using the getString method, there's no longer the "value.httpCacheExpire.
Anyone else have this issue? Am I missing something to get this working?