I am trying to build a component to handle the editing of a substructure of my data. This piece of data is an object but in the main object, it is optional. So when invoking component I am trying to use the ?? operator to pass in an empty object to avoid access of undef issue. I would also like to be able to use the ?. operator for the same reason. Like so.
<template>
<my-sub-component :value="value.scf_rule??{}" />
</template>
However, Vuejs doesn't really like the question marks in the HTML attributes on my template. I get the following error:
Syntax Error: SyntaxError: Unexpected token (1:93)
This should be a really simple lookup on the web but I have been looking for quite a while and it's not easy. It doesn't help that searching for question marks isn't really possible.
I've tried escaping it with a backslash, that doesn't seem to work. Anyone know how I can have an expression in my attribute that uses the question mark operator? I suppose I could define my own nvl utility function but that seems a tad silly.
If you remove any kind of build stack from the equation, you can use whatever your platform supports. Your browser then will run the code just as you author it.
Otherwise you are limited to what the acorn parser version used by your webpack/bundler supports (usually everything finalized in the spec and proposals that have reached stage 4). With Vue, you're probably using webpack.
If you are fine with your code being transpiled to older JS versions, use Babel along with the necessary plugins 1 2.
Related
How does a frameworks like Vue implement their own custom syntaxes within an HTML document?
So I want to create a template engine, consequently I need to know how to implement my own custom syntax. I thought that an easy one would be the double curlys that can be used in Vue. Example of curlys:
<h1>{{pageTitle}}</h1>
My first thought was to use `String.prototype.replaceAll(regex, string); but I got stuck at the regex I would use. In fact thinking about it now, I probably need a dynamic regular expression maybe?
p.replaceAll(/\{\{()\}\}/g, '<p>{{embeddedVar}}</p>')
The other option I considered was a parser, or a lexer, but I didn't even know where to start. I built them in school in C++. I thought maybe NPM has one pre-built?
It seems like several developers have wrote their own custom template engine that has built-in support for the double curly brackets. I was thinking that maybe there is a common way that its being implemented.
The Vue syntax is indeed not understood by the browser. the work is done by the Vue library that's imported in every Vue app.
The original markup (with the curly braces showing up) can even be seen for a split second when the page is loading, and this is because Vue hasn't loaded up all the way yet.
I have a system (it happens to be Gatsby, but I don't believe that's relevant to this question) which is using webpack DefinePlugin to attach some EnvironmentVariables to the global variable: process.env
I can read this just fine.
Unfortunatley, due to weirdnesses in the app startup proces, I need have chosen to do some brief overwritting of those EnvironmentVariables after the site loads. (Not interested in discussing whether that's the best option, in the context of this question. I know there are other options; I want to know whether this is possible)
But it doesn't work :(
If I try to do it explicitly:
process.env.myVar = 'foo';
Then I get ReferenceError: invalid assignment left-hand side.
If I do it by indexer (which appears to be what dotenv does) then it doesn't error, but also doesn't work:
console.log(process.env.myVar);
process.env['myVar'] = 'foo';
console.log(process.env.myVar);
will log undefined twice.
What am I doing wrong, and how do I fix this?
The premise behind this attempted solution was flawed.
I was under the impression that webpack "made process.env.* available as an object in the browser".
It doesn't!
What it actually does is to transpile you code down into literals wherever you reference process.env. So what looks like fetch(process.env.MY_URL_VAR); isn't in fact referencing a variable, it's actually being transpiled down into fetch("http://theActualValue.com") at compile time.
That means that it's conceptually impossible to modify the values on the "process.env object", because there is not in fact an actual object, in the transpiled javascript.
This explains why the direct assignment gives a ref error (you tried to execute "someString" = "someOtherString";) but the indexer doesn't. (I assume that process.env gets compiled into some different literal, which technically supports an indexed setter)
The only solutions available would be to modify the webpack build process (not an option, though I will shortly raise a PR to make it possible :) ), use a different process for getting the Env.Vars into the frontEnd (sub-optimal for various other reasons) or to hack around with various bits of environment control that Gatsby provides to make it all kinda-sorta work (distasteful for yet other reasons).
When declaring qx.log.appender.Native or qx.log.appender.Console, my IDE (PyCharm) complains about the syntax:
// Enable logging in debug variant
if (qx.core.Environment.get("qx.debug"))
{
qx.log.appender.Native;
qx.log.appender.Console;
}
(as documented here)
The warning I get is
Expression statement is not assignment or call
Is this preprocessor magic or a feature of JavaScript syntax I'm not aware yet?
Clarification as my question is ambiguous:
I know that this is perfectly fine JavaScript syntax. From the comments I conclude that here's no magic JS behavior that causes the log appenders to be attached, but rather some preprocessor feature?!
But how does this work? Is it an hardcoded handling or is this syntax available for all classes which follow a specific convention?
The hints how to turn off linter warnings are useful, but I rather wanted to know how this "magic" works
Although what's there by default is legal code, I find it to be somewhat ugly since it's a "useless statement" (result is ignored), aside from the fact that my editor complains about it too. In my code I always change it to something like this:
var appender;
appender = qx.log.appender.Native;
appender = qx.log.appender.Console;
Derrell
The generator reads your code to determine what classes are required by your application, so that it can produce an optimised application with only the minimum classes.
Those two lines are valid Javascript syntax, and exist in order to create a reference to the two classes so that the generator knows to include them - without them, you wouldn't have any logging in your application.
Another way to create the references is to use the #use compiler hint in a class comment, eg:
/**
* #use(qx.log.appender.Native)
* #use(qx.log.appender.Console)
*/
qx.Class.define("mypackage.Application", {
extend: qx.application.Standalone,
members: {
main: function() {
this.base(arguments);
this.debug("Hello world");
}
}
});
This works just as well and there is no unusual syntax - however, in this version your app will always refer to the those log appenders, whereas in the skeleton you are using the references to qx.log.appender.Native/Console were surrounded by if (qx.core.Environment.get("qx.debug")) {...} which means that in the non-debug, ./generate.py build version of your app the log appenders would normally be excluded.
Whether you think this is a good thing or not is up to you - personally, these days I ship all applications with the log appenders enabled and working so that if someone has a problem I can look at the logs (you can write your own appender that sends the logs to the server, or just remote control the user's computer)
EDIT: One other detail is that when a class is created, it can have a defer function that does extra initialisation - in this case, the generator detects qx.log.appender.Console is needed so it makes sure the class is loaded; the class' defer method then adds itself as an appender to the Qooxdoo logging system
This is a valid JS syntax, so most likely it's linter's/preprocessor's warning (looks like something similar to ESLint's no-unused-expressions).
Edit:
For the other part of the question - this syntax most likely uses getters or (rather unlikely as it is a new feature) Proxies. MDN provides simple examples of how this works under the hood.
Btw: there is no such thing as "native" JS preprocessor. There are compilers like Babel or TypeScript's compiler, but they are separate projects, not related to the vanilla JavaScript.
As noted in Where to write and store mongoDB map/reduce functions in java project - Eclipse doesn't like a JavaScript (.js) file to only contain the following:
function(doc) {
if(doc.somekey) emit(doc._id, doc);
}
The keyword function is marked with an error:
Syntax error on token "function", Identifier expected after this token
This form is used in MapReduce, but perhaps it's not exactly valid JavaScript (I'm not a lawyer). Is there any way to allow this form?
edit it looks like it's a function expression instead of a function statement. ( MDN, ECMA-262 )
Non-solution: "Just add a function name" according to https://stackoverflow.com/a/11258388/185799 it seems that it's not important to economize on the size of these functions. However, adding a function name results in: {"error":"compilation_error","reason":"Compilation of the map function in the 'myView' view failed: Expression does not eval to a function."}
Possible solution? Add a function name or "module.exports = " at the top, and then remove it during a build phase, using grunt/gulp/yeoman or something related.
For now, what I am actually doing is using the literal form function anonymous(... and then doing a string replace just before calling synchronizeWithDb() to replace function anonymous( with function(. This doesn't answer my question, but works around it.
You have three bad options:
You can ignore the error since CouchDB can process this file (it will wrap it later to make it valid).
You can change the file extension but then you lose syntax highlight, code completion and error checks.
You can delete the error in the error view. It will stay deleted until you change the file the next time or you do a full build.
You may be able to configure Eclipse to stop validating the file.
There are two ways to implement #4:
You can ignore the resource. That makes this file invisible to Eclipse and all plugins. Which means you can't edit it anymore inside of Eclipse. Use Resource Filters for that.
You can check the per-project preferences for Validation rules for JavaScript. Maybe you can exclude the file.
For testing purposes, obviously not for production. What is the best way to do this?
Googling I found this tutorial, and of course the project on github.
For starters which files do I need to run:
// removed
and is there an API reference. I see there is a large comment block in jslint.js that seems to server this purpose but was wondering if there is something easier to read.
Because the client has no file access, I was planning on ajaxing the code in to get its contents.
Please never the mind, on why I want to do this on the client.
If you include the JSLint script you will have access to a single global variable, JSLINT. You can invoke it with a string and an optional map of options:
var valid = JSLINT(code, options);
The result will be true or false, depending on whether the code passed the check based on the provided options.
After this call you can inspect the JSLINT.errors property for an array of warnings, if any.
This is precisely what I have done to build JSLint integration into the editor in the articles on http://jslinterrors.com.
Have you looked at http://jshint.com/ ? Source is available here: https://github.com/jshint/jshint/
The browser bundle is available here: http://jshint.com/get/jshint-2.1.10.js and the docs describe how to call it (http://jshint.com/docs/)