Develop Reference

ESLint: Environment-specific rules [duplicate]

I am collaborating on a git-sourced, maven-managed Java project with differing code styling preferences with users using multiple IDE's (note 1).
Is there a tool or IDE configuration that will allow code to be viewed and edited using style-1, but committed to SCM using style-2?
My research points me to 'no', but a solution combining git hooks and Checkstyle/jrefactory might be possible.
So if 'no' to above, is there a tool/process that will perform the TBD process actions below?
The checkout process flow for User1 would be:
git pull
TBD process formats code to User1 style-1
User1 works in their preferred IDE with style-1 settings
The commit workflow for User1 would be:
User1 is ready to commit/push code
TBD process formats code to standard format style-standard
git push
Note 1: multiple IDE's = Eclipse, IntelliJ, Netbeans.
Note 2: My question differs from this question in that I'd like to focus on an IDE-related solution, since forcing the minority of standards-divergent users is probably a more efficient solution.
Note 3: Acknowledging that this shouldn't be done for best-practices-reasons. However, if you grant that it's time expect more flexibility from our IDEs and SCMs, this question is intended to explore those solutions.

First of all, you really shouldn't do that. Codestyle wars are bad for any project, and it is best to decide upon one codestyle that everybody must use. It is simple to configure IDEs to automatically apply the specified codestyle at every filesave, so the developers don't have to write code in the target codestyle themselves, they can let the IDE do that for them. True, this doesn't solve the fact that they'll have to read code in a codestyle they don't yet like, but it's a lot safer than having invisible automatic code changes; that's a major source of bugs.
Maybe you can use Eclipse's code formatter from the command line to apply a different codestyle. You'd have to set up git hooks, make sure everybody has Eclipse available, and provide the proper configuration files for their preferred codestyle. You'd need hooks both for post-checkout and pre-commit, one to set up the user's codestyle, the other to commit in the central codestyle. To go one step further, you can play with the index to add the formatted code so that it doesn't include style differences in git diff (although they will show up in git diff --staged).
Again, you shouldn't do that.

I agree with Sergiu Dumitriu in this not being a very good idea. But still git provides exactly what you are looking for. Even though this will only work if your central coding style is very well defined and strictly followed. Here’s how it works:
Git provides smudge/clean filters. They allow you to pass all code through a so-called “smudge” filter on checkout and reverse that with a “clean” filter when code is added to the staging area. These filters are set in .gitattributes, and there is a repository-local version of that file available in .git/info/attributes.
So you set your smudge filter to a tool that will change the code to your personal coding style on checkout:
And your clean filter will convert the code back to the central coding style on checkin (more precisely: when file are staged):
It is very important, that smudge -> clean is a no-op / generates the original file again. Otherwise you will still check in format changes every time you change a file.
Using smudge and clean filters will retain all the functionality of git (including git diff etc). You can find the full docu in git help attributes

Understanding the Communication between Modules in jQuery Source Code Structure [duplicate]

Uncompressed jQuery file: http://code.jquery.com/jquery-2.0.3.js
jQuery Source code: https://github.com/jquery/jquery/blob/master/src/core.js
What are they doing to make it seem like the final output is not using Require.js under the hood? Require.js examples tells you to insert the entire library into your code to make it work standalone as a single file.
Almond.js, a smaller version of Require.js also tell you to insert itself into your code to have a standalone javascript file.
When minified, I don't care for extra bloat, it's only a few extra killobytes (for almond.js), but unminified is barely readable. I have to scroll all the way down, past almond.js code to see my application logic.
Question
How can I make my code to be similar to jQuery, in which the final output does not look like a Frankenweenie?

Short answer:
You have to create your own custom build procedure.
Long answer
jQuery's build procedure works only because jQuery defines its modules according to a pattern that allows a convert function to transform the source into a distributed file that does not use define. If anyone wants to replicate what jQuery does, there's no shortcut: 1) the modules have to be designed according to a pattern which will allow stripping out the define calls, and 2) you have to have a custom conversion function. That's what jQuery does. The entire logic that combines the jQuery modules into one file is in build/tasks/build.js.
This file defines a custom configuration that it passes to r.js. The important option are:
out which is set to "dist/jquery.js". This is the single
file produced by the optimization.
wrap.startFile which is set to "src/intro.js". This file
will be prepended to dist/jquery.js.
wrap.endFile which is set to "src/outro.js". This file will
be appended to dist/jquery.js.
onBuildWrite which is set to convert. This is a custom function.
The convert function is called every time r.js wants to output a module into the final output file. The output of that function is what r.js writes to the final file. It does the following:
If a module is from the var/ directory, the module will be
transformed as follows. Let's take the case of
src/var/toString.js:
define([
"./class2type"
], function( class2type ) {
return class2type.toString;
});
It will become:
var toString = class2type.toString;
Otherwise, the define(...) call is replace with the contents of the callback passed to define, the final return statement is stripped and any assignments to exports are stripped.
I've omitted details that do not specifically pertain to your question.

You can use a tool called AMDClean by gfranko https://www.npmjs.org/package/amdclean
It's much simpler than what jQuery is doing and you can set it up quickly.
All you need to do is to create a very abstract module (the one that you want to expose to global scope) and include all your sub modules in it.
Another alternative that I've recently been using is browserify. You can export/import your modules the NodeJS way and use them in any browser. You need to compile them before using it. It also has gulp and grunt plugins for setting up a workflow. For better explanations read the documentations on browserify.org.

How to disable the JavaScript Minifier in CodeKit?

What's the best way to disable JavaScript minification in CodeKit? All those *-ck.js files it creates are making a mess of our repository's submodules.
Note that adding a rule to .gitignore doesn't work because its rules aren't inherited by submodules.

In CodeKit Preferences select Languages / JavaScript to edit the default settings for JavaScript handling. (These can be overridden for each file in a project.)
Change the setting for the second processing step (labelled "Then:") from "Concatenate + minifiy" to "Concatenate imported files". For any script file already in the project check whether it already has individual settings which still differ from this new default.
In this case, "*-ck.js"-files should only be created in case a source file imports another for concatenation but not for ordinary script files.
Alternatively you might specify a different output path for the generated ck-Files in CodeKit Preferences / JavaScript / Output Paths in order not to let the generated files clutter the source directory.

I believe the menu has been updated, but the answer from immo still stands. Under Javascript Language settings you can click a dropdown for output style and change it from minified to non-minified.

One workaround is to set the output path to something like codekit-ignore in Preferences > JavaScript > Output Paths, relative to the project's root folder.
Then add /codekit-ignore to .gitignore.
Easy to cleanup and feels better than find . -iregex '.*-ck\.js' -delete.

In the preferences see 'Skipped Items' under 'General' and add *.js to the list.

There are several ways to stop javascript minification in Code Kit but the easiest and simplest way to do so is simple to navigate to the javascript file you wish not to minify in the file view, and configure your Javascript Options to the right hand side.
This method provides benefits such as JSHint & JSLint without the minification and can be configured on a site by site, file by file basis giving you greater control.
Let me know if you have any further issues, i'd be happy to help.

Excluding files from jslint4java in eclipse

I'm using jslint4java in eclipse. Unfortunately I have a few huge dictionary files that never change but every time when the workspace is built, linting those files takes ages.
Is it possible to exclude specific files from jslint4java and how can this be configured?

In the version of the jslint4java Eclipse plug-in that I have (1.0.1.201207042009) there is an "Exclude files that match these patterns from JSLint:" field in the jslint4java preferences; I believe this is exactly what you are looking for.
It's below the "Make JSLint Laxer" list, on the right; if you have a long list of predefined global variables (as I do) you may have to scroll to see it.

When you enter an exclusion pattern as mentioned above you need to disable and re-enable jslint on the project for it to take effect. Cost me an hour...

Another note on excluding files using that pattern option. In my case I wanted to exclude every file that ended in .min.js. So, naturally I assumed the pattern would be *.min.js.
WRONG!
The pattern was just .min.js

JavaScript dependency management

I am currently maintaining a large number of JS files and the dependency issue is growing over my head. Right now I have each function in a separate file and I manually maintain a database to work out the dependencies between functions.
This I would like to automate. For instance if I have the function f
Array.prototype.f = function() {};
which is referenced in another function g
MyObject.g = function() {
var a = new Array();
a.f();
};
I want to be able to detect that g is referencing f.
How do I go about this? Where do I start? Do I need to actually write a compiler or can I tweak Spidermonkey for instance? Did anyone else already do this?
Any pointers to get me started is very much appreciated
Thanks
Dok

Whilst you could theoretically write a static analysis tool that detected use of globals defined in other files, such as use of MyObject, you couldn't realistically track usage of prototype extension methods.
JavaScript is a dynamically-typed language so there's no practical way for any tool to know that a, if passed out of the g function, is an Array, and so if f() is called on it there's a dependency. It only gets determined what variables hold what types at run-time, so to find out you'd need an interpreter and you've made yourself a Turing-complete problem.
Not to mention the other dynamic aspects of JavaScript that completely defy static analysis, such as fetching properties by square bracket notation, the dreaded eval, or strings in timeouts or event handler attributes.
I think it's a bit of a non-starter really. You're probably better of tracking dependencies manually, but simplifying it by grouping related functions into modules which will be your basic unit of dependency tracking. OK, you'll pull in a few more functions that you technically need, but hopefully not too much.
It's also a good idea to namespace each module, so it's very clear where each call is going, making it easy to keep the dependencies in control manually (eg. by a // uses: ThisModule, ThatModule comment at the top).
Since extensions of the built-in prototypes are trickier to keep track of, keep them down to a bare minimum. Extending eg. Array to include the ECMAScript Fifth Edition methods (like indexOf) on browsers that don't already have them is a good thing to do as a basic fixup that all scripts will use. Adding completely new arbitrary functionality to existing prototypes is questionable.

Have you tried using a dependency manager like RequireJS or LabJS? I noticed no one's mentioned them in this thread.
From http://requirejs.org/docs/start.html:
Inside of main.js, you can use require() to load any other scripts you
need to run:
require(["helper/util"], function(util) {
//This function is called when scripts/helper/util.js is loaded.
//If util.js calls define(), then this function is not fired until
//util's dependencies have loaded, and the util argument will hold
//the module value for "helper/util".
});
You can nest those dependencies as well, so helper/util can require some other files within itself.

As #bobince already suggested, doing static analysis on a JavaScript program is a close to impossible problem to crack. Google Closure compiler does it to some extent but then it also relies on external help from JSDoc comments.
I had a similar problem of finding the order in which JS files should be concatenated in a previous project, and since there were loads of JS files, manually updating the inclusion order seemed too tedious. Instead, I stuck with certain conventions of what constitutes a dependency for my purposes, and based upon that and using simple regexp :) I was able to generated the correct inclusion order.
The solution used a topological sort algorithm to generate a dependency graph which then listed the files in the order in which they should be included to satisfy all dependencies. Since each file was basically a pseudo-class using MooTools syntax, there were only 3 ways dependencies could be created for my situation.
When a class Extended some other class.
When a class Implemented some other class.
When a class instantiated an object of some other class using the new keyword.
It was a simple, and definitely a broken solution for general purpose usage but it served me well. If you're interested in the solution, you can see the code here - it's in Ruby.
If your dependencies are more complex, then perhaps you could manually list the dependencies in each JS file itself using comments and some homegrown syntax such as:
// requires: Array
// requires: view/TabPanel
// requires: view/TabBar
Then read each JS file, parse out the requires comments, and construct a dependency graph which will give you the inclusion order you need.

It would be nice to have a tool that can automatically detect those dependencies for you and choose how they are loaded. The best solutions today are a bit cruder though. I created a dependency manager for my particular needs that I want to add to the list (Pyramid Dependency Manager). It has some key features which solve some unique use cases.
Handles other files (including inserting html for views...yes, you can separate your views during development)
Combines the files for you in javascript when you are ready for release (no need to install external tools)
Has a generic include for all html pages. You only have to update one file when a dependency gets added, removed, renamed, etc
Some sample code to show how it works during development.
File: dependencyLoader.js
//Set up file dependencies
Pyramid.newDependency({
name: 'standard',
files: [
'standardResources/jquery.1.6.1.min.js'
]
});
Pyramid.newDependency({
name:'lookAndFeel',
files: [
'styles.css',
'customStyles.css',
'applyStyles.js'
]
});
Pyramid.newDependency({
name:'main',
files: [
'createNamespace.js',
'views/buttonView.view', //contains just html code for a jquery.tmpl template
'models/person.js',
'init.js'
],
dependencies: ['standard','lookAndFeel']
});
Html Files
<head>
<script src="standardResources/pyramid-1.0.1.js"></script>
<script src="dependencyLoader.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
Pyramid.load('main');
</script>
</head>
It does require you to maintain a single file to manage dependencies. I am thinking about creating a program that can automatically generate the loader file for you based on includes in the header but since it handles many different types of dependencies, maintaining them in one file might actually be better.

JSAnalyse uses static code analysis to detect dependencies between javascript files:
http://jsanalyse.codeplex.com/
It also allows you to define the allowed dependencies and to ensure it during the build, for instance. Of course, it cannot detect all dependencies because javascript is dynamic interpretet language which is not type-safe, like already mentioned. But it at least makes you aware of your javascript dependency graph and helps you to keep it under control.

I have written a tool to do something like this: http://github.com/damonsmith/js-class-loader
It's most useful if you have a java webapp and you structure your JS code in the java style. If you do that, it can detect all of your code dependencies and bundle them up, with support for both runtime and parse-time dependencies.