How to use this in javascript module pattern? - javascript

I'm studying module pattern and have a question.
I want to use 'settings' anywhere.
script1.js
var MODULE = (function() {
var t = {};
this.settings = { // this == Window
users: ['john', 'emma']
}
return t;
})()
script2.js
MODULE.dom = function() {
var t = this; // this == MODULE
document.querySelector('p').textContent = t.settings.users[0]; // error
function _say() {
return t.settings.users[1] // error
}
return {
say: _say
}
}
MODULE.DOM = MODULE.dom.call(MODULE)
When use this.settings = {...}, 'this' means Window so code doesn't work.
When use t.settings = {...}, 'this' means MODULE so code works but when write MODULE in dev console, settings is exposed in MODULE variable. Is it ok?
I'd greatly appreciate any help, thank you!

When use t.settings = {...}, 'this' means MODULE so code works
That's the right way to do it.
but when write MODULE in dev console, settings is exposed in MODULE variable. Is it ok?
It's mostly OK.
If you're worried about the client being able to type in the variable name and see the code that gets run - there's no way to avoid that. They can just look at the devtools to see what the network requests are, and what is downloaded - or look at the Sources panel.
If you're worried about running into naming collisions with larger scripts, then - sometimes, libraries deliberately assign themselves to the window to allow other parts of the code to access them. Perhaps you'd like your MODULE to be like this. If not, then you should utilize JavaScript modules instead, which allow for scripts to be imported inside other scripts without polluting the global namespace at all or having any possibility of naming collisions. For example, you could do
// script1.js
export const MODULE = {
settings: {
users: ['john', 'emma'];
}
};
// script2.js
import { MODULE } from './script1.js';
// proceed to use MODULE
And you can do import { MODULE } from './script1.js'; from any script file, not just script2.js.
Personally, I consider the IIFE module pattern in JavaScript to be mostly obsolete nowadays. For any reasonable-sized script, better to write code in separate files and then import and export as needed. (A 1000 line file is somewhat hard to debug and refactor. Ten 100 line files are easier to debug and refactor.)

Related

How to migrate legacy JS app to modules

I have a large (~15k LoC) JS app (namely a NetSuite app) written in old-style all-global way. App consists of 26 files and dependencies between them are totally unclear.
The goal is to gracefully refactor the app to smaller modules. By gracefully I mean not breaking\locking the app for long time, but doing refactoring in smaller chunks, while after completing each chunk app remains usable.
An idea I have here is to concat all the JS files we have now into single-file bundle. After that some code could be extracted into modules. And the legacy code could start importing it. The modules & imports should be transpiled with webpack\whatever, while legacy code remains all-globals style. Finally all this is packed into single JS file and deployed.
My questions are
is there a better approach maybe? This sounds like a typical problem
are there any tools available to support my approach?
I gave webpack a try and I haven't managed to get what I want out of it. The export-loader and resolve-loader are no options because of amount of methods\vars that needs to be imported\exported.
Examples
Now code looks like
function someGlobalFunction() {
...
}
var myVar = 'something';
// and other 15k lines in 26 files like this
What I would ideally like to achieve is
function define(...) { /* function to define a module */ }
function require(moduleName) { /* function to import a module */ }
// block with my refactored out module definitions
define('module1', function () {
// extracted modularised code goes here
});
define('module2', function () {
// extracted modularised code goes here
});
// further down goes legacy code, which can import new modules
var myModule = require('myNewModule');
function myGlobalLegacyFunction() {
// use myModule
}
I'm following an approach similar to that outlined here: https://zirho.github.io/2016/08/13/webpack-to-legacy/
In brief:
Assuming that you can configure webpack to turn something like
export function myFunction(){...}
into a file bundle.js that a browser understands. In webpack's entry point, you can import everything from your module, and assign it to the window object:
// using namespace import to get all exported things from the file
import * as Utils from './utils'
// injecting every function exported from utils.js into global scope(window)
Object.assign(window, Utils).
Then, in your html, make sure to include the webpack output before the existing code:
<script type="text/javascript" src="bundle.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="legacy.js"></script>
Your IDE should be able to help identify clients of a method as you bring them into a module. As you move a function from legacy.js to myNiceModule.js, check to see if it still has clients that are aware of it globally - if it doesn't, then it doesn't need to be globally available.
No good answer here so far, and it would be great if the person asking the question would come back. I will pose a challenging answer saying that it cannot be done.
All module techniques end up breaking the sequential nature of execution of scripts in the document header.
All dynamically added scripts are loaded in parallel and they do not wait for one another. Since you can be certain that almost all such horrible legacy javascript code is dependent on the sequential execution, where the second script can depend on the first previous one, as soon as you load those dynamically, it can break.
If you use some module approach (either ES7 2018 modules or require.js or you own) you need to execute the code that depends on the loading having occurred in a call-back or Promise/then function block. This destroys the implicit global context, so all these spaghetti coils of global functions and var's we find in legacy javascript code files will not be defined in the global scope any more.
I have determined that only two tricks could allow a smooth transition:
Either some way to pause continuation of a script block until the import Promise is resolved.
const promise = require("dep1.js", "dep2.js", "dep3.js");
await promise;
// legacy stuff follows
or some way to revert the scope of a block inside a function explicitly into the global scope.
with(window) {
function foo() { return 123; }
var bar = 543;
}
But neither wish was granted by the javascript fairy.
In fact, I read that even the await keyword essentially just packs the rest of the statements into function to call when promise is resolved:
async function() {
... aaa makes promise ...
await promise;
... bbb ...
}
is just, I suppose, no different from
async function() {
... aaa makes promise ...
promise.then(r => {
... bbb ...
});
}
So this means, the only way to fix this is by putting legacy javascript statically in the head/script elements, and slowly moving things into modules, but continue to load them statically.
I am tinkering with my own module style:
(function(scope = {}) {
var v1 = ...;
function fn1() { ... }
var v2 = ...;
function fn2() { ... }
return ['v1', 'fn1', 'v2', 'fn2']
.reduce((r, n) => {
r[n] = eval(n);
return r;
}, scope);
})(window)
by calling this "module" function with the window object, the exported items would be put on there just as legacy code would do.
I gleaned a lot of this by using knockout.js and working with the source readable file that has everything together but in such module function calls, ultimately all features are on the "ko" object.
I hate using frameworks and "compilation" so generating the sequence of HTML tags to load them in the correct order by the topologically sorted dependency tree, while I could write myself such a thing quickly, I won't do this, because I do not want to have any "compilation" step, not even my own.
UPDATE: https://stackoverflow.com/a/33670019/7666635 gives the idea that we can just Object.assign(window, module) which is somewhat similar to my trick passing the window object into the "module" function.

How to circumvent RequireJS to load module with global?

I'm trying to load a JS file from a bookmarklet. The JS file has this JS that wraps the module:
(function (root, factory) {
if (typeof module === 'object' && module.exports) {
// Node/CommonJS
module.exports = factory();
} else if (typeof define === 'function' && define.amd) {
// AMD. Register as an anonymous module.
define(factory);
} else {
// Browser globals
root.moduleGlobal = factory();
}
}(this, function factory() {
// module script is in here
return moduleGlobal;
}));
Because of this, if the webpage uses RequireJS, the script will not export a global when it loads. To get around this I temporarily set define to null, load the script, then reset define to its original value:
function loadScript(url, cb) {
var s = document.createElement('script');
s.src = url;
s.defer = true;
var avoidRequireJS = typeof define === 'function' && define.amd;
if (avoidRequireJS) {
var defineTmp = define;
define = null;
}
s.onload = function() {
if (avoidRequireJS) define = defineTmp;
cb();
};
document.body.appendChild(s);
}
This works, but it seems to me like it could be problematic to change a global variable when other parts of the application could depend on it. Is there a better way to go about this?
You may fetch the script using XMLHttpRequest, jQuery.ajax or the new Fetch API.
This will allow you to manipulate the script and reassign define before executing it. Two options:
Have the module export a global by wrapping the script with:
(function(define){ ... })(null);
Handle the module exports yourself by wrapping the script with:
(function(define, module){ ... })((function() {
function define(factory) {
var exports = factory();
}
define.amd = true;
return define;
})());
You can then load it using a new <script> element or eval 😲.
Note that when using XHR, you may have to address CORS issues.
If you can use the AJAX method above, that will be best. But as stated, you will need to deal with CORS issues, which is not always trivial - even impossible if you do not control the origin server.
Here is a technique which uses an iframe to load the script in an isolated context, allowing the script to export its global object. We then grab the global object and copy it to the parent. This technique does not suffer from CORS restrictions.
(fiddle: https://jsfiddle.net/qu0pxesd/)
function loadScript (url, exportName) {
var iframe = document.createElement('iframe');
Object.assign(iframe.style, {
position: 'fixed',
top: '-9999em',
width: '0px'
});
var script = document.createElement('script');
script.onload = function () {
window[exportName] = iframe.contentWindow[exportName];
document.body.removeChild(iframe);
}
script.src = url;
document.body.appendChild(iframe);
iframe.contentWindow.document.open();
iframe.contentWindow.document.appendChild(script);
iframe.contentWindow.document.close();
}
loadScript('https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.2.1/jquery.min.js', 'jQuery');
I ran a quick test to see if a memory leak would happen from deleting the iframe, and it appears to be memory safe. Here's the snapshot of loading a script 100 times, resulting in 100 different iframes and 100 different instances of jQuery loading.
The parent window's jQuery variable is continuously overwritten, meaning only the last one prevails and all previous references are cleaned up. This is not entirely scientific and you will need to do your own testing, but this should be safe enough to get you started.
Update: The above code requires that you know the name of the exported object, which is not always known. Some modules may export multiple variables too. For example, jQuery exports both $ and jQuery. The following fiddle illustrates a technique for solving this issue by copying any global objects which did not exist before the script was loaded:
https://jsfiddle.net/qu0pxesd/3/
Which approach would work best really depends on the specific needs of the project. Context would determine which one I'd use.
Undefining define Temporarily
I'm mentioning it because you tried it.
DON'T DO THIS!
The approach of undefining define before you load your script and restoring it after is not safe. In the general case, it is possible for other code on the page to perform a require call that will resolve after you've undefined define and before you've defined it again. After you do document.body.appendChild(s); you're handing back control to the JavaScript engine, which is free to immediately execute scripts that were required earlier. If the scripts are AMD module, they'll either bomb or install themselves incorrectly.
Wrapping the Script
As Dheeraj V.S. suggests, you can wrap the script to make define locally undefined:
(function(define) { /* original module code */ }())
can work for trivial cases like the one you show in your question. However, cases where the script you try to load actually has dependencies on other libraries can cause issues when it comes to dealing with the dependencies. Some examples:
The page loads jQuery 2.x but the script you are trying to load depends on a feature added in jQuery 3.x. Or the page loads Lodash 2 but the script needs Lodash 4, or vice-versa. (There are huge differences between Lodash 2 and 4.)
The script needs a library that is not otherwise loaded by something else. So now you are responsible for producing the machinery that will load the library.
Using RequireJS Contexts
RequireJS is capable of isolating multiple configurations from one another by defining a new context. Your bookmarklet could define a new context that configures enough paths for the script you are trying to load to load itself and its dependencies:
var myRequire = require.config({
// Within the scope of the page, the context name must be unique to
// your bookmarklet.
context: "Web Designer's Awesome Bookmarklet",
paths: {
myScript: "https://...",
jquery: "https://code.jquery.com/jquery-3.2.1.min.js",
},
map: {...},
// Whatever else you may want.
});
myRequire(["myScript"]);
When you use contexts like this, you want to save the return value of require.config because it is a require call that uses your context.
Creating a Bundle with Webpack
(Or you could use Browserify or some other bundler. I'm more familiar with Webpack.)
You could use Webpack to consume all the AMD modules necessary for the script you are trying to load to produce a bundle that exports its "module" as a global. At a minimum, you'll need something like this in your configuration:
// Tell Webpack what module constitutes the entry into the bundle.
entry: "./MyScript.js",
output: {
// This is the name under which it will be available.
library: "MyLibrary",
// Tell Webpack to make it globally available.
libraryTarget: "global",
// The final bundle will be ./some_directory/MyLibrary.js
path: "./some_directory/",
filename: "MyLibrary.js",
}
Once this is done, the bookmarklet only needs to insert a new script element that points to the produced bundle and no longer has to worry about wrapping anything or dealing with dependencies.
If it were me, I would have the url provide the hint as to how to load the module. Instead of having just a "scripts/" directory -> I would make "scripts/amd/", "scripts/require/", etc. Then query the url for "amd", "require", etc. within your loadScript method... using, e.g.,
if (url.includes('amd')) {
// do something
} else if (url.includes('require')) {
// do something different
}
That should let you avoid the global var entirely. It might also provide a better structure for your app in general.
You could also return an object with a script property and loadType property that specifies amd, require, etc... but imho the first option would be the quickest and save you some additional typing.
Cheers

Why in Firefox Addon the imported objects can not access the importers' imported modules?

For clarification, please consider the following simplified example:
one.js
Components.utils.import('resource://gre/modules/Services.jsm');
let obj = {
init: function() {
Components.utils.import('chrome://myaddon/modules/two.jsm', this);
}
// code here has access to Services.jsm
}
two.js
this.EXPORTED_SYMBOLS = ['abc'];
this.abc = {
// abc is imported into obj()
// however as part of obj (), abc{} does not have access to Services.jsm
}
I know that this is how it works but the question is why?
Result is that for example Services.jsm has to be imparted in every module.
Although Firefox caches the modules and there isn't much of a performance difference, I would like to know if the repeated importation can be avoided?
Like #felix-kling already mentioned, that's due to module level isolation and it makes a lot of sense if you think about it. If it was otherwise not only Services would be seen by other modules, but also abc.
There is another important reason, though:
Since JS code modules are initiated once and cached after that, what would happen if you imported two.jsm twice, once from a module already having imported Services.jsm and once from another module not having done so? Now two.jsm "seeing" Services would depend on which of the other modules was imported first! Which would be extremely nasty.
In that context, your comment about "abc is imported into obj()" is wrong. Your code actually imports abc into the top-level scope. Cu.import will always import into the top-level scope, unless you explicitly specify another scope to import to.
"abc" in this; // false
"abc" in obj; // false
obj.init();
"abc" in this; // true
"abc" in obj; // false!
If you wanted to import two.jsm into obj, you'd need to call Cu.import with a second argument.
let obj = {
init: function() {
Components.utils.import('chrome://myaddon/modules/two.jsm', this);
}
};
"abc" in this; // false
"abc" in obj; // false
obj.init();
"abc" in this; // false
"abc" in obj; // true
But that does not affect the visibility of Services, of course.
It would be helpful I guess, if Cu.import just auto-imported some modules you'd import anyway, such as Services.jsm and XPCOMUtils.jsm. But this does not and likely will not ever happen due to legacy reasons and backward-compatibility constraints. (E.g. I had code break that imported const {Promise} = Cu.import(..., {}); because ES6 added a default Promise global...; that kind of backward-compatibility issues/constraints).
Alternatives?
Well, the obvious one is not to use Cu.import for your own stuff, but use something else. A bunch of add-ons, incl. all SDK add-ons of course, have their own CommonJS-style require() implementation.
You can actually re-use the SDK loader, without using the SDK, or with only using selected parts of the SDK if you like. See the loader documentation. I know that Erik creates a loader in the otherwse non-SDK Scriptish add-on.
You can write your own custom loader based on the subscript loader and maybe Sandbox. E.g. I did so in my extSDK boilerplate (all global symbols in loader.jsm == loader.jsm::exports will be visible to each required module).
But doing so may require a quite bit of extra work, extra knowledge, and effort to port existing JS code modules to require() based modules.

Node.js, Mocha, make globals in closures available

I am currently setting up some mocha tests using Node and in general they work. I now came across a problem I am not able to resolve.
I have a JS file containing the following: MyClass.js
(General CoffeeScript output for class MyClass + constructor: ->)
EDIT: This is browser code, I just want to use Node to test it. (Is that even desirable?)
(function() {
window.MyClass = (function() {
function MyClass() {
// Do something cool here
}
return MyClass;
})();
}).call(this);
I now require MyClass.js in my test file. Once I run it, it directly throws an error
Testfile:
var myclass = require('MyClass.js');
...
describe('MyClass', function() { ... });
Error:
ReferenceError: window is not defined.
So far, I understand why this is happening, window does not exist in Node. But I cannot come up with a solution. I actually do not need the real window object specifically, so I thought mocking it would be enough. But it is not...
var window = {},
myclass = require('myclass.js');
...
describe('MyClass', function() { ... });
This command is also not helping: $ mocha --globals window
I still end up with the same error.
Any idea is much appreciated!
You don't actually want the window object, what you want is the global object. Here is some code that can get it in the browser (in which case it will be the same as 'window') or in node (in which case it will be the same as 'global').
var global = Function('return this')();
Then set things on that rather than on 'window'.
Note: there are other ways of getting the global object, but this has the benefit that it will work inside strict mode code too.
With following code you can use your class-like object in web-browser environment and Node.js without modification. (Sorry, I don't know how to translate that to CoffeeScript)
(function (exports) {
var MyClass = (function() {
function MyClass() {
// Do something cool here
}
return MyClass;
})();
exports(MyClass);
})(function (exported) {
if (typeof module !== 'undefined' && module.exports) {
module.exports = exported;
} else if (typeof window !== 'undefined') {
window.MyClass = exported;
} else {
throw new Error('unknown environment');
}
});
As you already have a scope which doesn't pollute global name-space, you could reduce it to:
(function (exports) {
function MyClass() {
// Do something cool here
}
exports(MyClass);
})(function (exported) {
// see above
});
I'm not an expert in AMD, require.js and other module loaders, but I think it should be easy to extend this pattern to support other environments as well.
Edit
In a comment you said that the above solution is not working when translated back to CoffeeScript. Therefore, I suggest another solution. I haven't tried it but maybe this could be a way to solve your problem:
global.window = {}; // <-- should be visible in your myclass.js
require('myclass.js');
var MyClass = global.window.MyClass;
describe('MyClass', function() {
var my = new MyClass();
...
});
It's a horrible piece of code, but if it works, maybe for testing purposes it's sufficient.
Due to the module loading behaviour of node.js this only works if your require('myclass.js') is the first require of this file in the node process. But in case of testing with Mocha this should be true.
1) What you are looking for is the module.exports to expose things in Node:
http://openmymind.net/2012/2/3/Node-Require-and-Exports/
2) Also you don't need IIFE in Node, you can drop the (function() {...
3) You can alway look at some popular Node repo on Github to see examples, look at the Mocha code since you're using it, you'll learn a thing or two.
Something like jsdom is lighter than PhantomJS and yet provides quite a few things you need to test code that expects to be running with a proper window. I've used it with great success to test code that navigates up and down the DOM tree.
You ask:
This is browser code, I just want to use Node to test it. (Is that even desirable?)
It is very desirable. There's a point at which a solution like jsdom won't cut it but as long as your code is within the limit of what jsdom handles, might as well use it and keep the cost of launching a test environment to the minimum needed.
#hgoebl: As I'm not the OP, I can not add his original CoffeeScript code, but here is my example:
pubsub.coffee:
window.PubSub = window.PubSub || {}
PubSub.subscribe = ( subject, callback )->
now the test:
assert = require "assert"
pubsub = require './pubsub.coffee'
describe "pubsub.http interface", ->
it "should perform a http request", ->
PubSub.subscribe 1, 2
what works for me up to now is:
window.PubSub = window.PubSub || {}
window.PubSub.subscribe = ( subject, callback )->
and the test:
`window = {}`
assert = require "assert"
pubsub = require './pubsub.coffee'
describe "pubsub.http interface", ->
it "should perform a http request", ->
window.PubSub.subscribe 1, 2
The main drawback of the solution, is that I have to explicitly mention the window object in the implementation and the test. User code executed in a browser should be able to omit it.
I now came up with an other solution:
window = window || exports
window.PubSub = window.PubSub || {}
PubSub = PubSub || window.PubSub
PubSub.subscribe = ( subject, callback )->
and then in the test, simply requiring the PubSub namespace:
PubSub = require( './pubsub.coffee' ).PubSub
And finally, the solution from kybernetikos applied looks like this:
global = `Function('return this')()`
global.PubSub = global.PubSub || {}
PubSub.subscribe = ( subject, callback )->
As now, the PubSub namespace is in the global namespace, just a simple require is needed in the file that contains the mocha tests:
require( './pubsub.coffee' )

What is this JavaScript "require"?

I'm trying to get JavaScript to read/write to a PostgreSQL database. I found this project on GitHub. I was able to get the following sample code to run in Node.
var pg = require('pg'); //native libpq bindings = `var pg = require('pg').native`
var conString = "tcp://postgres:1234#localhost/postgres";
var client = new pg.Client(conString);
client.connect();
//queries are queued and executed one after another once the connection becomes available
client.query("CREATE TEMP TABLE beatles(name varchar(10), height integer, birthday timestamptz)");
client.query("INSERT INTO beatles(name, height, birthday) values($1, $2, $3)", ['Ringo', 67, new Date(1945, 11, 2)]);
client.query("INSERT INTO beatles(name, height, birthday) values($1, $2, $3)", ['John', 68, new Date(1944, 10, 13)]);
//queries can be executed either via text/parameter values passed as individual arguments
//or by passing an options object containing text, (optional) parameter values, and (optional) query name
client.query({
name: 'insert beatle',
text: "INSERT INTO beatles(name, height, birthday) values($1, $2, $3)",
values: ['George', 70, new Date(1946, 02, 14)]
});
//subsequent queries with the same name will be executed without re-parsing the query plan by postgres
client.query({
name: 'insert beatle',
values: ['Paul', 63, new Date(1945, 04, 03)]
});
var query = client.query("SELECT * FROM beatles WHERE name = $1", ['John']);
//can stream row results back 1 at a time
query.on('row', function(row) {
console.log(row);
console.log("Beatle name: %s", row.name); //Beatle name: John
console.log("Beatle birth year: %d", row.birthday.getYear()); //dates are returned as javascript dates
console.log("Beatle height: %d' %d\"", Math.floor(row.height/12), row.height%12); //integers are returned as javascript ints
});
//fired after last row is emitted
query.on('end', function() {
client.end();
});
Next I tried to make it run on a webpage, but nothing seemed to happen. I checked on the JavaScript console and it just says "require not defined".
So what is this "require"? Why does it work in Node but not in a webpage?
Also, before I got it to work in Node, I had to do npm install pg. What's that about? I looked in the directory and didn't find a file pg. Where did it put it, and how does JavaScript find it?
So what is this "require?"
require() is not part of the standard JavaScript API. But in Node.js, it's a built-in function with a special purpose: to load modules.
Modules are a way to split an application into separate files instead of having all of your application in one file. This concept is also present in other languages with minor differences in syntax and behavior, like C's include, Python's import, and so on.
One big difference between Node.js modules and browser JavaScript is how one script's code is accessed from another script's code.
In browser JavaScript, scripts are added via the <script> element. When they execute, they all have direct access to the global scope, a "shared space" among all scripts. Any script can freely define/modify/remove/call anything on the global scope.
In Node.js, each module has its own scope. A module cannot directly access things defined in another module unless it chooses to expose them. To expose things from a module, they must be assigned to exports or module.exports. For a module to access another module's exports or module.exports, it must use require().
In your code, var pg = require('pg'); loads the pg module, a PostgreSQL client for Node.js. This allows your code to access functionality of the PostgreSQL client's APIs via the pg variable.
Why does it work in node but not in a webpage?
require(), module.exports and exports are APIs of a module system that is specific to Node.js. Browsers do not implement this module system.
Also, before I got it to work in node, I had to do npm install pg. What's that about?
NPM is a package repository service that hosts published JavaScript modules. npm install is a command that lets you download packages from their repository.
Where did it put it, and how does Javascript find it?
The npm cli puts all the downloaded modules in a node_modules directory where you ran npm install. Node.js has very detailed documentation on how modules find other modules which includes finding a node_modules directory.
Alright, so let's first start with making the distinction between Javascript in a web browser, and Javascript on a server (CommonJS and Node).
Javascript is a language traditionally confined to a web browser with a limited global context defined mostly by what came to be known as the Document Object Model (DOM) level 0 (the Netscape Navigator Javascript API).
Server-side Javascript eliminates that restriction and allows Javascript to call into various pieces of native code (like the Postgres library) and open sockets.
Now require() is a special function call defined as part of the CommonJS spec. In node, it resolves libraries and modules in the Node search path, now usually defined as node_modules in the same directory (or the directory of the invoked javascript file) or the system-wide search path.
To try to answer the rest of your question, we need to use a proxy between the code running in the the browser and the database server.
Since we are discussing Node and you are already familiar with how to run a query from there, it would make sense to use Node as that proxy.
As a simple example, we're going to make a URL that returns a few facts about a Beatle, given a name, as JSON.
/* your connection code */
var express = require('express');
var app = express.createServer();
app.get('/beatles/:name', function(req, res) {
var name = req.params.name || '';
name = name.replace(/[^a-zA_Z]/, '');
if (!name.length) {
res.send({});
} else {
var query = client.query('SELECT * FROM BEATLES WHERE name =\''+name+'\' LIMIT 1');
var data = {};
query.on('row', function(row) {
data = row;
res.send(data);
});
};
});
app.listen(80, '127.0.0.1');
I noticed that whilst the other answers explained what require is and that it is used to load modules in Node they did not give a full reply on how to load node modules when working in the Browser.
It is quite simple to do. Install your module using npm as you describe, and the module itself will be located in a folder usually called node_modules.
Now the simplest way to load it into your app is to reference it from your html with a script tag which points at this directory. i.e if your node_modules directory is in the root of the project at the same level as your index.html you would write this in your index.html:
<script src="node_modules/ng"></script>
That whole script will now be loaded into the page - so you can access its variables and methods directly.
There are other approaches which are more widely used in larger projects, such as a module loader like require.js. Of the two, I have not used Require myself, but I think it is considered by many people the way to go.
It's used to load modules. Let's use a simple example.
In file circle_object.js:
var Circle = function (radius) {
this.radius = radius
}
Circle.PI = 3.14
Circle.prototype = {
area: function () {
return Circle.PI * this.radius * this.radius;
}
}
We can use this via require, like:
node> require('circle_object')
{}
node> Circle
{ [Function] PI: 3.14 }
node> var c = new Circle(3)
{ radius: 3 }
node> c.area()
The require() method is used to load and cache JavaScript modules. So, if you want to load a local, relative JavaScript module into a Node.js application, you can simply use the require() method.
Example:
var yourModule = require( "your_module_name" ); //.js file extension is optional
Necromancing.
IMHO, the existing answers leave much to be desired.
At first, it's very confusing.
You have a (nowhere defined) function "require", which is used to get modules.
And in said (CommonJS) modules, you can use require, exports and module, WITHOUT THEM EVER BEING DEFINED.
Not that it would be new that you could use undefined variables in JS, but you couldn't use an undefined function.
So it looks a little like magic at first.
But all magic is based on deception.
When you dig a little deeper, it turns out it is really quite simple:
Require is simply a (non-standard) function defined at global scope.
(global scope = window-object in browser, global-object in NodeJS).
Note that by default, the "require function" is only implemented in NodeJS, not in the browser.
Also, note that to add to the confusion, for the browser, there is RequireJS, which, despite the name containing the characters "require", RequireJS absolutely does NOT implement require/CommonJS - instead RequireJS implements AMD, which is something similar, but not the same (aka incompatible).
That last one is just one important thing you have to realize on your way to understanding require.
Now, as such, to answer the question "what is require", we "simply" need to know what this function does.
This is perhaps best explained with code.
Here's a simple implementation by Michele Nasti, the code you can find on his github page.
Let's call our minimalisc implementation of the require function "myRequire":
function myRequire(name)
{
console.log(`Evaluating file ${name}`);
if (!(name in myRequire.cache)) {
console.log(`${name} is not in cache; reading from disk`);
let code = fs.readFileSync(name, 'utf8');
let module = { exports: {} };
myRequire.cache[name] = module;
let wrapper = Function("require, exports, module", code);
wrapper(myRequire, module.exports, module);
}
console.log(`${name} is in cache. Returning it...`);
return myRequire.cache[name].exports;
}
myRequire.cache = Object.create(null);
window.require = myRequire;
const stuff = window.require('./main.js');
console.log(stuff);
Now you notice, the object "fs" is used here.
For simplicity's sake, Michele just imported the NodeJS fs module:
const fs = require('fs');
Which wouldn't be necessary.
So in the browser, you could make a simple implementation of require with a SYNCHRONOUS XmlHttpRequest:
const fs = {
file: `
// module.exports = \"Hello World\";
module.exports = function(){ return 5*3;};
`
, getFile(fileName: string, encoding: string): string
{
// https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/XMLHttpRequest/Synchronous_and_Asynchronous_Requests
let client = new XMLHttpRequest();
// client.setRequestHeader("Content-Type", "text/plain;charset=UTF-8");
// open(method, url, async)
client.open("GET", fileName, false);
client.send();
if (client.status === 200)
return client.responseText;
return null;
}
, readFileSync: function (fileName: string, encoding: string): string
{
// this.getFile(fileName, encoding);
return this.file; // Example, getFile would fetch this file
}
};
Basically, what require thus does, is it downloads a JavaScript-file, evals it in an anonymous namespace (aka Function), with the parameters "require", "exports" and "module", and returns the exports, meaning an object's public functions and properties.
Note that this evaluation is recursive: you require files, which themselfs can require files.
This way, all "global" variables used in your module are variables in the require-wrapper-function namespace, and don't pollute the global scope with unwanted variables.
Also, this way, you can reuse code without depending on namespaces, so you get "modularity" in JavaScript. "modularity" in quotes, because this is not exactly true, though, because you can still write window.bla/global.bla, and hence still pollute the global scope... Also, this establishes a separation between private and public functions, the public functions being the exports.
Now instead of saying
module.exports = function(){ return 5*3;};
You can also say:
function privateSomething()
{
return 42:
}
function privateSomething2()
{
return 21:
}
module.exports = {
getRandomNumber: privateSomething
,getHalfRandomNumber: privateSomething2
};
and return an object.
Also, because your modules get evaluated in a function with parameters
"require", "exports" and "module", your modules can use the undeclared variables "require", "exports" and "module", which might be startling at first. The require parameter there is of course a pointer to the require function saved into a variable.
Cool, right ?
Seen this way, require looses its magic, and becomes simple.
Now, the real require-function will do a few more checks and quirks, of course, but this is the essence of what that boils down to.
Also, in 2020, you should use the ECMA implementations instead of require:
import defaultExport from "module-name";
import * as name from "module-name";
import { export1 } from "module-name";
import { export1 as alias1 } from "module-name";
import { export1 , export2 } from "module-name";
import { foo , bar } from "module-name/path/to/specific/un-exported/file";
import { export1 , export2 as alias2 , [...] } from "module-name";
import defaultExport, { export1 [ , [...] ] } from "module-name";
import defaultExport, * as name from "module-name";
import "module-name";
And if you need a dynamic non-static import (e.g. load a polyfill based on browser-type), there is the ECMA-import function/keyword:
var promise = import("module-name");
note that import is not synchronous like require.
Instead, import is a promise, so
var something = require("something");
becomes
var something = await import("something");
because import returns a promise (asynchronous).
So basically, unlike require, import replaces fs.readFileSync with fs.readFileAsync.
async readFileAsync(fileName, encoding)
{
const textDecoder = new TextDecoder(encoding);
// textDecoder.ignoreBOM = true;
const response = await fetch(fileName);
console.log(response.ok);
console.log(response.status);
console.log(response.statusText);
// let json = await response.json();
// let txt = await response.text();
// let blo:Blob = response.blob();
// let ab:ArrayBuffer = await response.arrayBuffer();
// let fd = await response.formData()
// Read file almost by line
// https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/ReadableStreamDefaultReader/read#Example_2_-_handling_text_line_by_line
let buffer = await response.arrayBuffer();
let file = textDecoder.decode(buffer);
return file;
} // End Function readFileAsync
This of course requires the import-function to be async as well.
"use strict";
async function myRequireAsync(name) {
console.log(`Evaluating file ${name}`);
if (!(name in myRequireAsync.cache)) {
console.log(`${name} is not in cache; reading from disk`);
let code = await fs.readFileAsync(name, 'utf8');
let module = { exports: {} };
myRequireAsync.cache[name] = module;
let wrapper = Function("asyncRequire, exports, module", code);
await wrapper(myRequireAsync, module.exports, module);
}
console.log(`${name} is in cache. Returning it...`);
return myRequireAsync.cache[name].exports;
}
myRequireAsync.cache = Object.create(null);
window.asyncRequire = myRequireAsync;
async () => {
const asyncStuff = await window.asyncRequire('./main.js');
console.log(asyncStuff);
};
Even better, right ?
Well yea, except that there is no ECMA-way to dynamically import synchronously (without promise).
Now, to understand the repercussions, you absolutely might want to read up on promises/async-await here, if you don't know what that is.
But very simply put, if a function returns a promise, it can be "awaited":
"use strict";
function sleep(interval)
{
return new Promise(
function (resolve, reject)
{
let wait = setTimeout(function () {
clearTimeout(wait);
//reject(new Error(`Promise timed out ! (timeout = ${timeout})`));
resolve();
}, interval);
});
}
The promise would then normally be used like this:
function testSleep()
{
sleep(3000).then(function ()
{
console.log("Waited for 3 seconds");
});
}
But when you return a promise, you can also use await, which means we get rid of the callback (sort of - actually, it is being replaced with a state-machine in the compiler/interpreter).
This way, we make asynchronous code feel like synchronous, so we now can use try-catch for error-handling.
Note that if you want to use await in a function, that function must be declared async (hence async-await).
async function testSleep()
{
await sleep(5000);
console.log("i waited 5 seconds");
}
And also please note that in JavaScript, there is no way to call an async function (blockingly) from a synchronous one (the ones you know). So if you want to use await (aka ECMA-import), all your code needs to be async, which most likely is a problem, if everything isn't already async...
An example of where this simplified implementation of require fails, is when you require a file that is not valid JavaScript, e.g. when you require css, html, txt, svg and images or other binary files.
And it's easy to see why:
If you e.g. put HTML into a JavaScript function body, you of course rightfully get
SyntaxError: Unexpected token '<'
because of Function("bla", "<doctype...")
Now, if you wanted to extend this to for example include non-modules, you could just check the downloaded file-contents for code.indexOf("module.exports") == -1, and then e.g. eval("jquery content") instead of Func (which works fine as long as you're in the browser). Since downloads with Fetch/XmlHttpRequests are subject to the same-origin-policy, and integrity is ensured by SSL/TLS, the use of eval here is rather harmless, provided you checked the JS files before you added them to your site, but that much should be standard-operating-procedure.
Note that there are several implementations of require-like functionality:
the CommonJS (CJS) format, used in Node.js, uses a require function and module.exports to define dependencies and modules. The npm ecosystem is built upon this format. (this is what is implemented above)
the Asynchronous Module Definition (AMD) format, used in browsers, uses a define function to define modules. (basically, this is overcomplicated archaic crap that you wouldn't ever want to use). Also, AMD is the format that is implemented by RequireJS (note that despite the name containing the characters "require", AMD absolutely is NOT CommonJS).
the ES Module (ESM) format. As of ES6 (ES2015), JavaScript supports a native module format. It uses an export keyword to export a module’s public API and an import keyword to import it. This is the one you should use if you don't give a flying f*ck about archaic browsers, such as Safari and IE/EdgeHTML.
the System.register format, designed to support ES6 modules within ES5. (the one you should use, if you need support for older browsers (Safari & IE & old versions of Chrome on mobile phones/tablets), because it can load all formats [for some, plugins are required], can handle cyclic-dependencies, and CSS and HTML - don't define your modules as system.register, though - the format is rather complicated, and remember, it can read the other easier formats)
the Universal Module Definition (UMD) format, compatible to all the above mentioned formats (except ECMA), used both in the browser and in Node.js. It’s especially useful if you write modules that can be used in both NodeJS and the browser. It's somewhat flawed, as it doesn't support the latest ECMA modules, though (maybe this will get fixed) - use System.register instead.
Important sidenote on the function argument "exports":
JavaScript uses call-by-value-sharing - meaning objects are passed as a pointer, but the pointer-value itselfs is passed BY VALUE, not by reference. So you can't override exports by assigning it a new object. Instead, if you want to override exports, you need to assign the new object to module.exports - because hey, module is the pointer passed by value, but exports in module.exports is the reference to the original exports pointer.
Important sidenote on module-Scope:
Modules are evaluated ONCE, and then cached by require.
That means all your modules have a Singleton scope.
If you want a non-singleton scope, you have to do something like:
var x = require("foo.js").createInstance();
or simply
var x = require("foo.js")();
with appropriate code returned by your module.
If you need CommonJS-support for the browser (IE5+, Chrome, Firefox),
check out my code in my comment on Michele Nasti's project
You know how when you are running JavaScript in the browser, you have access to variables like "window" or Math? You do not have to declare these variables, they have been written for you to use whenever you want.
Well, when you are running a file in the Node.js environment, there is a variable that you can use. It is called "module" It is an object. It has a property called "exports." And it works like this:
In a file that we will name example.js, you write:
example.js
module.exports = "some code";
Now, you want this string "some code" in another file.
We will name the other file otherFile.js
In this file, you write:
otherFile.js
let str = require('./example.js')
That require() statement goes to the file that you put inside of it, finds whatever data is stored on the module.exports property. The let str = ... part of your code means that whatever that require statement returns is stored to the str variable.
So, in this example, the end-result is that in otherFile.js you now have this:
let string = "some code";
or -
let str = ('./example.js').module.exports
Note:
the file-name that is written inside of the require statement: If it is a local file, it should be the file-path to example.js. Also, the .js extension is added by default, so I didn't have to write it.
You do something similar when requiring node.js libraries, such as Express. In the express.js file, there is an object named 'module', with a property named 'exports'.
So, it looks something like along these lines, under the hood (I am somewhat of a beginner so some of these details might not be exact, but it's to show the concept:
express.js
module.exports = function() {
//It returns an object with all of the server methods
return {
listen: function(port){},
get: function(route, function(req, res){}){}
}
}
If you are requiring a module, it looks like this:
const moduleName = require("module-name");
If you are requiring a local file, it looks like this:
const localFile = require("./path/to/local-file");
(notice the ./ at the beginning of the file name)
Also note that by default, the export is an object .. eg module.exports = {} So, you can write module.exports.myfunction = () => {} before assigning a value to the module.exports. But you can also replace the object by writing module.exports = "I am not an object anymore."
Two flavours of module.exports / require:
(see here)
Flavour 1
export file (misc.js):
var x = 5;
var addX = function(value) {
return value + x;
};
module.exports.x = x;
module.exports.addX = addX;
other file:
var misc = require('./misc');
console.log("Adding %d to 10 gives us %d", misc.x, misc.addX(10));
Flavour 2
export file (user.js):
var User = function(name, email) {
this.name = name;
this.email = email;
};
module.exports = User;
other file:
var user = require('./user');
var u = new user();

Categories

Resources