I'm trying to minify my javascript code using an online tool but everytime I try to do that I get this error:
// Error : Unexpected token: operator (>)
// Line : 1
// Col : 41
and this is on line 1:
var result = parsedObject.filter( audio => audio.filename === ''+audioFile+'' );
Could someone please advice on this issue and how to resolve it?
Thanks in advance.
Apparently, your minifier doesn't understand arrow functions, or it needs some option to be set to know you're doing ES2015+ ("ES6+") stuff. Your options are:
If it has an option, turn the option on; or
(you've now told us that you tried both https://jscompress.com/ and https://javascript-minifier.com/. jscompress.com has an "ECMAScript 2018 (via Babili)" tickbox in the upper right-hand corner that, when ticked, minifies your example code. I didn't find an option on javascript-minifier.com.)
If it doesn't, switch to a mninifier that does understand them; or
Don't use arrow functions. In this particular case that would look like:
var result = parsedObject.filter(function(audio) {
return audio.filename === ''+audioFile+'';
});
Use arrow function, but turn them into non-arrows before minifying by using a transpiler like Babel.
If you need to support any version of IE, you need to not send arrow functions to the browser (by using option 3 or 4 above). If you don't have to support IE, just modern browsers like Edge, Chrome, Firefox, and Safari, sending arrow functions to the browser is just fine.
Side note: You don't need those '' on either side of audioFile. If it's already a string, just remove them (=== audioFile). If it isn't already a string, just do one or the other, or use String(audioFile) to convert it, and do it once before the filter loop:
var audioFileString = String(audioFile); // or `'' + audioFile` or `audioFile + ''`
var result = parsedObject.filter(function(audio) {
return audio.filename === audioFileString;
});
The tool you are using does not support arrow functions (which are a relatively new feature).
You can:
Find a minifying tool which supports modern JS
Not use arrow functions in the first place
Use a tool to transform your JS to ES5 before minifying it
Related
i'm testing my website and everything is worked as wished, but when i work on ipad using safari i got this error:
Unexpected token '='. Expected a ')' or a ',' after a parameter declaration
This the line of my code where give me the error:
function searchLente(side = null) {
The problem is that when i test my website on a desktop is working (chrome, safari...) But not on ipad...
PD: My ipad is updated at last version.
Default values are a ES6 thingy, and most browsers don't support them.
Change it to
function searchLente(side) {
side = side === (void 0) ? null : side;
void 0 is a way to tell undefined. This code will check if size is undefined and then set size to a default value (null) if is true.
NOTE: This is what typescript actually does when transpiling to ES5 (which don't has defaults).
NOTE2: Don't think that your users will have ES6 enabled, as there are still browsers which don't support it. Use Babel if you want to write ES6 code and make it work for most browsers, or simply don't write ES6 code.
I am using the underscore js library (http://underscorejs.org/#filter) for functionality in my app.
Everything works as expected in chrome. However when I run the same code in IE11 I get an js error in the console
SCRIPT1002: Syntax error
File: OptionSrv.js, Line: 197, Column: 62
When I clicked the file to bring me to the error the cursor is placed on the => - is this a red herring or should there be another way of doing this which works in both chrome and IE?
Note if I comment out the line in IE I don't get the console error however this obviously isn't the fix that I need
var group = myOptions.filter(g => g.options.indexOf(option.OptionCode) > -1);
Internet Explorer 11 does not support arrow functions.
That's the g => g.options.indexOf(option.OptionCode) > -1 part of your code.
You can use a normal anonymous (or named) function instead here, and it should work fine:
var group = myOptions.filter(function(g) {
g.options.indexOf(option.OptionCode) > -1);
});
IE11 does not support ES6 syntax. If you want to write ES6 syntax like Arrow functions, you can run your code through a transpiler like Babel.
If you like your client-side code to be compatible with older browsers and you don't care about new syntax, simply use ES5 syntax :)
I have some big set of different javascript-snippets (several thousands), and some of them have some stupid errors in syntax (like unmatching braces/quotes, HTML inside javascript, typos in variable names).
I need a simple way to check JS syntax. I've tried JSLint but it send too many warnings about style, way of variable definitions, etc. (even if i turn off all flags). I don't need to find out style problems, or improve javascript quality, i just need to find obvious syntax errors. Of course i can simply check it in browser/browser console, but i need to do it automatically as the number of that snippets is big.
Add:
JSLint/JSHint reports a lot of problems in the lines that are not 'beauty' but working (i.e. have some potential problems), and can't see the real problems, where the normal compiler will simply report syntax error and stop execution. For example, try to JSLint that code, which has syntax errors on line 4 (unmatched quotes), line 6 (comma required), and line 9 (unexpected <script>).
document.write('something');
a = 0;
if (window.location == 'http://google.com') a = 1;
document.write("aaa='andh"+a+"eded"');
a = {
something: ['a']
something2: ['a']
};
<script>
a = 1;
You could try JSHint, which is less verbose.
Just in case anyone is still looking you could try Esprima,
It only checks syntax, nothing else.
I've found that SpiderMonkey has ability to compile script without executing it, and if compilation failed - it prints error.
So i just created small wrapper for SpiderMonkey
sub checkjs {
my $js = shift;
my ( $js_fh, $js_tmpfile ) = File::Temp::tempfile( 'XXXXXXXXXXXX', EXLOCK => 0, UNLINK => 1, TMPDIR => 1 );
$| = 1;
print $js_fh $js;
close $js_fh;
return qx(js -C -f $js_tmpfile 2>&1);
}
And javascriptlint.com also deals very good in my case. (Thanks to #rajeshkakawat).
Lots of options if you have an exhaustive list of the JSLint errors you do want to capture.
JSLint's code is actually quite good and fairly easy to understand (I'm assuming you already know JavaScript fairly well from your question). You could hack it to only check what you want and to continue no matter how many errors it finds.
You could also write something quickly in Node.js to use JSLint as-is to check every file/snippet quickly and output only those errors you care about.
Just use node --check filename
Semantic Designs' (my company) JavaScript formatter read JS files and formats them. You don't want the formatting part.
To read the files it will format, it uses a full JavaScript parser, which does a complete syntax check (even inside regular expressions). If you run it and simply ignore the formatted result, you get a syntax checker.
You can give it big list of files and it will format all of them. You could use this to batch-check your large set. (If there are any syntax errors, it returns a nonzero error status to a shell).
I have searched Google for a converter but I did not find anything. Is there any tools available or I must make one to decode my obfuscated JavaScript code ?
I presume there is such a tool but I'm not searching Google with the right keywords.
The code is 3 pages long, this is why I need a tools.
Here is an exemple of the code :
<script>([][(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]][([][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]]()[(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(+(+[])+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]])(([]+[])[([][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+
Thank you
This code is fascinating because it seems to use only nine characters ("[]()!+,;" and empty space U+0020) yet has some sophisticated functionality. It appears to use JavaScript's implicit type conversion to coerce arrays into various primitive types and their string representations and then use the characters from those strings to compose other strings which type out the names of functions which are then called.
Consider the following snippet which evaluates to the array filter function:
([][
(![]+[])[+[]] // => "f"
+ ([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]] // => "i"
+ (![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]] // => "l"
+ (!![]+[])[+[]] // => "t"
+ (!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]] // => "e"
+ (!![]+[])[+!+[]] // => "r"
]) // => function filter() { /* native code */ }
Reconstructing the code as such is time consuming and error prone, so an automated solution is obviously desirable. However, the behavior of this code is so tightly bound to the JavaScript runtime that de-obsfucating it seems to require a JS interpreter to evaluate the code.
I haven't been able to find any tools that will work generally with this sort of encoding. It seems as though you'll have to study the code further and determine any patterns of usage (e.g. reliance on array methods) and figure out how to capture their usage (e.g. by wrapping high-level functions [such as Function.prototype.call]) to trace the code execution for you.
This question has already an accepted answer, but I will still post to clear some things up.
When this idea come up, some guy made a generator to encode JavaScript in this way. It is based on doing []["sort"]["call"]()["eval"](/* big blob of code here */). Therefore, you can decode the results of this encoder easily by removing the sort-call-eval part (i.e. the first 1628 bytes). In this case it produces:
if (document.cookie=="6ffe613e2919f074e477a0a80f95d6a1"){ alert("bravo"); }
else{ document.location="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0"; }
(Funny enough the creator of this code was not even able to compress it properly and save a kilobyte)
There is also an explanation of why this code doesn't work in newer browser anymore: They changed Array.prototype.sort so it does not return a reference to window. As far as I remember, this was the only way to get a reference to window, so this code is kind of broken now.
I just found out that when you call toString() on a javascript function, as in myFunction.toString(), the source code of that function is returned.
If you try it in the Firebug or Chrome console it will even go as far as formatting it nicely for you, even for minimized javascript files.
I don't know what is does for obfuscated files.
What's the use of such a toString implementation?
It has some use for debugging, since it lets you see the code of the function. You can check if a function has been overwritten, and if a variable points to the right function.
It has some uses for obfuscated javascript code. If you want to do hardcore obfuscation in javascript, you can transform your whole code into a bunch of special characters, and leave no numbers or letters. This technique relies heavily on being able to access most letters of the alphabet by forcing the toString call on everything with +""
example: (![]+"")[+[]] is f since (![]+"") evaluates to the string "false" and [+[]] evaluates to [0], thus you get "false"[0] which extracts the first letter f.
Some letters like v can only be accessed by calling toString on a native function like [].sort. The letter v is important for obfuscated code, since it lets you call eval, which lets you execute anything, even loops, without using any letters. Here is an example of this.
function.ToString - Returns a string representing the source code of the function. For Function objects, the built-in toString method decompiles the function back into the JavaScript source that defines the function.
Read this on mozilla.
You can use it as an implementation for multi-line strings in Javascript source.
As described in this blog post by #tjanczuk, one of the massive inconveniences in Javascript is multi-line strings. But you can leverage .toString() and the syntax for multi-line comments (/* ... */) to produce the same results.
By using the following function:
function uncomment(fn){
return fn.toString().split(/\/\*\n|\n\*\//g).slice(1,-1).join();
};
…you can then pass in multi-line comments in the following format:
var superString = uncomment(function(){/*
String line 1
String line 2
String line 3
*/});
In the original article, it was noted that Function.toString()'s behaviour is not standardised and therefore implementation-discrete — and the recommended usage was for Node.js (where the V8 interpreter can be relied on); however, a Fiddle I wrote seems to work on every browser I have available to me (Chrome 27, Firefox 21, Opera 12, Internet Explorer 8).
A nice use case is remoting. Just toString the function in the client, send it over the wire and execute it on the server.
My use case - I have a node program that processes data and produces interactive reports as html/js/css files. To generate a js function, my node code calls myfunc.toString() and writes it to a file.
You can use it to create a Web Worker from function defined in the main script:
onmessage = function(e) {
console.log('[Worker] Message received from main script:',e.data);
postMessage('Worker speaking.');
}
b = new Blob(["onmessage = " + onmessage.toString()], {type: 'text/javascript'})
w = new Worker(window.URL.createObjectURL(b));
w.onmessage = function(e) {
console.log('[Main] Message received from worker script:' + e.data);
};
w.postMessage('Main speaking.');