I am extending mxgraph delete control example to add delete like controls to nodes which are generated dynamically in my graph. The source code for the example is available here
The problem is in this part of the code -
// Overridden to add an additional control to the state at creation time
mxCellRendererCreateControl = mxCellRenderer.prototype.createControl;
mxCellRenderer.prototype.createControl = function(state)
{
mxCellRendererCreateControl.apply(this, arguments);
var graph = state.view.graph;
if (graph.getModel().isVertex(state.cell))
{
if (state.deleteControl == null)
mxCellRendererCreateControl.apply inside the overridden call back of createControl seems to work as intended (calls the original function before creating additional controls) with the initial state of the graph on load. But, once I add nodes dynamically to the graph and the callback is invoked by mxgraph's validate/redraw, the control goes into an infinite loop, where 'apply' function basically keeps calling itself (i.e, the callback).
I am a bit clueless because when I debug, the context(this) looks fine, but I can't figure out why instead of invoking the prototype method, it just keeps invoking the overridden function in a loop. What am I doing wrong?
It looks like you are not cloning your original function the right way, please try the following :
Function.prototype.clone = function() {
var that = this;
return function theClone() {
return that.apply(this, arguments);
};
};
Add that new method somewhere in your main code so it will available in the whole application, now you can change your code to :
// Overridden to add an additional control to the state at creation time
let mxCellRendererCreateControl = mxCellRenderer.prototype.createControl.clone();
mxCellRenderer.prototype.createControl = function(state) {
mxCellRendererCreateControl(state);
var graph = state.view.graph;
if (graph.getModel().isVertex(state.cell)) {
if (state.deleteControl == null) {
// ...
}
}
// ...
};
This should work if I understood your problem correctly, if it does not, please change the old function call back to the apply. Otherwise let me know if something different happened after the Function prototype change.
It seems that your overriding code is being called multiple times (adding a simple console.log before your overriding code should be enough to test this)
Try to ensure that the code that overrides the function only gets called once, or validate whether the prototype function is the original or yours.
Here is an example of how you can check if the function is yours or not
if (!mxCellRenderer.prototype.createControl.isOverridenByMe) {
let mxCellRendererCreateControl = mxCellRenderer.prototype.createControl;
mxCellRenderer.prototype.createControl = function(state) { /* ... */ };
mxCellRenderer.prototype.createControl.isOverridenByMe = true;
}
There are other ways, like using a global variable to check if you have overriden the method or not.
If this doesn't fix your issue, please post more about the rest of your code (how is this code being loaded/called would help a lot)
Related
I created a custom element in Aurelia and I also have the valueChanged, however I need to do a certain action only when the value is changed outside of the custom element. Since the signature is valueChanged(newValue, oldValue), how would I know when the value gets changed from the ViewModel and not from the custom element itself? Is that doable somehow with an observer or observable?
I actually got kind of a working sample, I saw that there's also an __array_observer__ property when the value is changed from the ViewModel, and it works but it's probably not ideal. So I got this piece of code which kinda works
valueChanged(newValue, oldValue) {
if (newValue !== oldValue && newValue.__array_observer__) {
// value got changed outside of this custom element
}
}
This is probably not ideal though, or is it? Any other suggestion in knowing where the value got changed outside of the custom element?
EDIT
As much as possible, I'm looking for a solution that will still have access to the custom element. Even if I want to get triggered by an external value change call, I still need to call an internal function of the same custom element.
EDIT #2
To give a little more description of my issue, I need to know when the value got changed from the outside because this will trigger an action that will re-affect the value. Without knowing if the change was from the outside of the custom element, I fall in a recursive call with no way to stop it. What I'm looking for is similar to what used to be the caller and the callee but this was removed with ES5 and Strict Mode, however this would have been very useful.
Still looking for an answer :(
You could use a CustomBindingBehavior to intercept the updateTarget event. For instance:
export class InterceptBindingBehavior {
bind(binding, scope, interceptor) {
binding['originalUpdateTarget'] = binding['updateTarget'];
binding.updateTarget = val => {
alert('property was changed outside of the element');
//do something here
binding['originalUpdateTarget'](val);
}
}
unbind(binding, scope) {
binding.updateTarget = binding['originalUpdateTarget'];
binding['originalUpdateTarget'] = null;
}
}
Usage:
<template>
<require from="./intercept-binding-behavior"></require>
<some-element value.bind="message & intercept"></some-element>
</template>
Runnable example: https://gist.run/?id=bcd7d39ed94856caf586f224f89fd1ff
I haven't tested this in many cases and I'm not sure if it's best way.
If you want to do the opposite (intercept when the property is changed from the element instead of the VM) just replace updateTarget for updateSource.
More info about CustomBindingBehaviors http://aurelia.io/hub.html#/doc/article/aurelia/binding/latest/binding-binding-behaviors/8
Hope this helps!
As discussed in gitter, you can use a suppress flag
value: number;
suppressValueChanged: boolean;
valueChanged(){
if(this.suppressValueChanged){
this.suppressValueChanged = false;
this.logger.debug("the value has been changed from inside the element");
return;
}
this.logger.debug("the value has been changed from outside the element");
// here comes the code to run when the value is changed outside
}
internalSetValue(value: number){
this.suppressValueChanged = true;
this.value = value;
}
The reason I reset the flag in the changed method is that depending on the circumstances valueChanged can be called by Aurelia asynchronously so you cannot just do the following
this.suppressValueChanged = true;
this.value = 123;
this.suppressValueChanged = false;
Sometimes, using a task will work
this.taskQueue.queueTask(() => {
this.suppressValueChanged = true;
this.value = 123;
this.suppressValueChanged = false;
});
It really depends where exactly in Aurelia code you are changing the value. I've found that the first option gives the most consistent result.
I have put together a fun API for game creation. In the code I create a prototype for Mover and then extend it with several specific prototypes (Gold, Monster, and Hero). Each one is based on a img tag with a given ID. I use type-specific information in the constructor and a single template method for each type. Most of the functional code in Mover depends on those type-specific details. I have included one example for simplicity.
I use method calls in a separate script to create and destroy instances of the Mover child types. When I create and destroy one instance at a time everything works as intended. The image updates, the sound plays and it is removed after the correct delay. If I create two or more, however, only the last one works as expected. So if I make gold, moster, hero. Only the hero will remove correctly. The other two will play the audio, but don't appear to update.
I ran into the same problem when I tried to attach a function to the onclick event for more than one instance. Only the last one worked and the others did nothing. Obviously I'm missing something about the way java handles method assignments. Any explanation you can offer would help.
Thanks,
BSD
function Mover()
{
}
Mover.prototype.InitTag = function()
{
this.HTMLtag.src=this.imageURL;
this.HTMLtag.style.position="absolute";
this.HTMLtag.style.width=characterSize;
this.HTMLtag.style.height=characterSize;
this.Position(Math.floor(Math.random()*(MaxW-characterSize)+(characterSize/2)),Math.floor(Math.random()*(MaxH-characterSize)+(characterSize/2)));
}
Mover.prototype.Destroy = function()
{
var disp = this.HTMLtag.display;
this.HTMLtag.src=this.destroyURL
this.HTMLtag.display = disp;
this.destroyAudio.play();
this.RemoveTag();
}
function Monster(id)
{
this.MonsterID = id;
this.HTMLtag = document.getElementById("monster"+id);
this.imageURL = "monster1.jpg";
this.destroyURL = "monster2.jpg";
this.destroyAudio = monsterAudio;
}
Monster.prototype = new Mover();
Monster.prototype.RemoveTag = function()
{
var mID = this.MonsterID;
setTimeout(function() {field.DeleteMonster(mID)}, 1000);
}
function Hero()
{
this.HTMLtag = document.getElementById("hero");
this.imageURL = "hero1.jpg";
this.destroyURL = "hero2.jpg";
this.destroyAudio = heroAudio;
}
Hero.prototype = new Mover();
Hero.prototype.RemoveTag = function()
{
setTimeout(function() {field.DeleteHero()}, 5000);
}
function Gold(id)
{
this.GoldID = id;
this.HTMLtag = document.getElementById("gold"+id);
this.imageURL = "gold1.jpg";
this.destroyURL = "gold2.jpg";
this.destroyAudio = goldAudio;
}
Gold.prototype = new Mover();
Gold.prototype.RemoveTag = function()
{
var mID = this.GoldID;
setTimeout(function() {field.DeleteGold(mID)}, 1000);
}
---------UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE-----------
I have at least partially fixed the problem. I have gotten it to work, but I still don't know why it didn't function as intended. I noticed that while my browser's (Chrome) developer tools could visually identify the most-recently-added Mover when it was being destroyed, it could not do so with the any other movers.
Tag of most recently added Mover can be identified in Chrome developer tools.
This suggested that Mover.HTMLtag was not actually the same as document.getElementById('mover1'). I was able to confirm this by looking at the variables in the GoldField.DeleteMover. At the line indicated mover.src has not changed, but movers[id].HTMLtag.src has been correctly updated. In the most-recently-added case they were both the same.
GoldField.prototype.DeleteMover = function(id)
{
var isHero = false;
if(this.Hero!=null && id==this.Hero.myID)
{
this.Hero = null;
isHero = true;
}
else if(this.Tower!=null && id==this.Tower.myID)
{
this.Tower = null;
}
var mover = document.getElementById("mover"+id);
if(!isHero)
{
this.tag.removeChild(mover);//<<< HERE HERE HERE HERE
delete this.movers[id];
}
}
So, I changed one line in Mover.Destroy. By finding the tag by ID and setting the src. I was able to reliable behavior. It would appear that Mover.HTMLtag is not reliable the same after the second Mover is added. Any explanation?
Mover.prototype.Destroy = function()
{
document.getElementById(this.HTMLtag.id).src=this.destroyURL;
this.HTMLtag.src=this.destroyURL;//old method
this.destroyAudio.play();
this.RemoveTag();
}
On suspicion that this might extend to other updates to this.HTMLtag I set up some basic movement of the Hero. It works great, but if you add one additional Mover of any kind it no longer moves. That narrows down the question considerably. Why would constructing a second Mover cause the prototype members to change?
So I debug your code and I found the cause of your problem. The problem was when you create a new instance of monster you storing a reference to it on the monster var. And when you delete it you don't delete / update the reference to it. So your delete function myField.DeleteMover(id) try to delete a monster already deleted. How to solve this.
// create an array to keep ref to our instances
var monsters= [];
// var monster = null;
function addMonster()
{
// monster = goldField.AddMonster();⏎
// push every monster in array
monsters.push(goldField.AddMonster());
}
function killMonster()
{
// if array.length is true
if (monsters.length) {
// call the destroy function on the last ref
monsters[monsters.length - 1].Destroy();
// remove the last ref from array using pop
monsters.pop();
}
//monster.Destroy();
}
This is working however I think all of this should be done in the objects itself. And you should not care about it here.
Another advice try to use more array methods. Avoid using delete on array index because it mess with index and count instead use splice(index, 1) same for add item in array use push instead of arbitrary index.
Anyway funny game! Good luck to finish it.
Edit, after your answer I go back an test.
To make it work I do this.
// First go inGoldField.prototype.DeleteMover and replace the ugly delete index by
this.movers.splice(id, 1);
// Then in the Mover.prototype.Destroy
// This part is a a little blurred for me.
// the current HTMLtag looks good but when I console.log like this
console.log('before', this.HTMLtag);
this.HTMLtag = document.querySelector("#mover" + this.myID);
console.log('after', this.HTMLtag);
// They are not equal look like the first is outdated
You should convert all your delete and add to splice and push methods.
This is just a quick debug I don't know why the selector is outdated.
So I check the code again and I make it work without refreshing the selector. The problem is caused by the creation of dom element with innerHTML.
First reset
this.HTMLtag.src=this.destroyURL
Then instead of
//Mover.prototype.Destroy
this.tag.innerHTML+="<img id='mover"+this.moverCount+"'>";
I create a img dom el.
var img = document.createElement("img");
img.setAttribute('id', 'mover' + this.moverCount);
this.tag.appendChild(img);
All Monsters are now deleted with the image.
I don't check for the hero but first you should update your innerHTML and reply if there is still a problem. I don't think there is any problem with some prototype.
How do I call the original method from an override method?
I have a combobox from which I am removing one of the values from its store to prevent users from selecting it due to the fact that we are no longer supporting that value in that value. I still want that value to be displayed properly if the combobox receives it, because technically, it's not an invalid value; it's just no longer supported. In order to achieve my goal, I want to override the getDisplayValue() method such that, if the combo box receives the value that is no longer in the store, I want the override method to return the correct string, but if it receives any other value, I want the original method to handle it, like so:
myCombobox = Ext.create("Ext.form.field.ComboBox",
{
// <snip><snip>
getDisplayValue: function()
{
if (this.value == 'removedValue')
{
return 'Correct Text';
}
else
{
// What do I do here to call original getDisplayValue() and return its returned value?
}
}
});
Update
Someone posted an answer which said to use this.callParent(arguments); but then they deleted the answer after I left a comment saying that that didn't work. I got the override function to do what I want it to do in the else case by putting in the source code from the overridden function (which I got from Sencha's web site), but I'd rather use a solution that involves somehow actually calling that function instead if that's possible, as its source code could change in a later ExtJS update (e.g., for a bug fix), while mine would remain static.
(Note that I changed the code slightly to look at the value instead of the rawValue, since the latter isn't necessarily defined at the time of the getDisplayValue() call.)
Even though the question is answered, here is another better way to solve your problem. This is how ExtJS calls it parent method in some of its internal classes.
Ext.create("Ext.form.field.ComboBox", {
getDisplayValue: function() {
if (this.rawValue == 'removedValue') {
// your logic
return;
}
return Ext.form.field.ComboBox.prototype.getDisplayValue.call(this);
}
});
If you use Ext.define, in 4.1 it was callOverridden, and since 4.2 it is callParent.
If you use Ext.create to create a combobox, callParent does not bring you to the combobox's function, but to the function of the base class (triggerfield?), which is not what you want.
What I have used successfully once is something like this:
Ext.create('MyCombo',{
initComponent:function() {
var me = this;
me.callParent(arguments);
var oldFn = me.getDisplayValue;
me.getDisplayValue = function() {
if (this.rawValue == 'removedValue') {
return 'Correct Text';
} else {
oldFn.apply(this, arguments); // What do I do here to call original getDisplayValue() and return its returned value?
}
};
}
});
But it is far cleaner if you use Ext.define to derive your special combobox from the default one and then use callParent.
This always gets me. After initializing all lovely UI elements on a web page, I load some content in (either into a modal or tabs for example) and the newly loaded content does not have the UI elements initialized. eg:
$('a.button').button(); // jquery ui button as an example
$('select').chosen(); // chosen ui as another example
$('#content').load('/uri'); // content is not styled :(
My current approach is to create a registry of elements that need binding:
var uiRegistry = {
registry: [],
push: function (func) { this.registry.push(func) },
apply: function (scope) {
$.each(uiRegistry.registry, function (i, func) {
func(scope);
});
}
};
uiRegistry.push(function (scope) {
$('a.button', scope).button();
$('select', scope).chosen();
});
uiRegistry.apply('body'); // content gets styled as per usual
$('#content').load('/uri', function () {
uiRegistry.apply($(this)); // content gets styled :)
});
I can't be the only person with this problem, so are there any better patterns for doing this?
My answer is basically the same as the one you outline, but I use jquery events to trigger the setup code. I call it the "moddom" event.
When I load the new content, I trigger my event on the parent:
parent.append(newcode).trigger('moddom');
In the widget, I look for that event:
$.on('moddom', function(ev) {
$(ev.target).find('.myselector')
})
This is oversimplified to illustrate the event method.
In reality, I wrap it in a function domInit, which takes a selector and a callback argument. It calls the callback whenever a new element that matches the selector is found - with a jquery element as the first argument.
So in my widget code, I can do this:
domInit('.myselector', function(myelement) {
myelement.css('color', 'blue');
})
domInit sets data on the element in question "domInit" which is a registry of the functions that have already been applied.
My full domInit function:
window.domInit = function(select, once, callback) {
var apply, done;
done = false;
apply = function() {
var applied, el;
el = $(this);
if (once && !done) {
done = true;
}
applied = el.data('domInit') || {};
if (applied[callback]) {
return;
}
applied[callback] = true;
el.data('domInit', applied);
callback(el);
};
$(select).each(apply);
$(document).on('moddom', function(ev) {
if (done) {
return;
}
$(ev.target).find(select).each(apply);
});
};
Now we just have to remember to trigger the 'moddom' event whenever we make dom changes.
You could simplify this if you don't need the "once" functionality, which is a pretty rare edge case. It calls the callback only once. For example if you are going to do something global when any element that matches is found - but it only needs to happen once. Simplified without done parameter:
window.domInit = function(select, callback) {
var apply;
apply = function() {
var applied, el;
el = $(this);
applied = el.data('domInit') || {};
if (applied[callback]) {
return;
}
applied[callback] = true;
el.data('domInit', applied);
callback(el);
};
$(select).each(apply);
$(document).on('moddom', function(ev) {
$(ev.target).find(select).each(apply);
});
};
It seems to me browsers should have a way to receive a callback when the dom changes, but I have never heard of such a thing.
best approach will be to wrap all the ui code in a function -even better a separate file -
and on ajax load just specify that function as a call back ..
here is a small example
let's say you have code that bind the text fields with class someclass-for-date to a date picker then your code would look like this ..
$('.someclass-for-date').datepicker();
here is what i think is best
function datepickerUi(){
$('.someclass-for-date').datepicker();
}
and here is what the load should look like
$('#content').load('/uri', function(){
datepickerUi();
})
or you can load it at the end of your html in script tag .. (but i dont like that , cuz it's harder to debug)
here is some tips
keep your code and css styles as clean as possible .. meaning that for text fields that should be date pickers give them one class all over your website ..
at this rate all of your code will be clean and easy to maintain ..
read more on OOCss this will clear what i mean.
mostly with jquery it's all about organization ... give it some thought and you will get what you want done with one line of code ..
edit
here is a js fiddle with something similar to your but i guess it's a bit cleaner click here
I have a static class which contains an array of callback functions, I then have a few other classes that are used to interact with this static class...
Here is a simple example of the static class:
var SomeStaticInstance = {};
(function(staticInstance) {
var callbacks = {};
staticInstance.addCallback = function(callback) { callbacks.push(callback); }
staticInstance.callAllCallbacks = function() { /* call them all */ }
}(SomeStaticInstance));
Then here is an example of my other classes which interact with it:
function SomeClassOne() {
this.addCallbackToStaticInstance = function() { SomeStaticInstance.addCallback(this.someCallback); }
this.someCallback = function() { /* Do something */ }
this.activateCallbacks = function() { SomeStaticInstance.callAllCallbacks(); }
}
function SomeClassTwo() {
this.addCallbackToStaticInstance = function() { SomeStaticInstance.addCallback(this.someOtherCallback); }
this.someOtherCallback = function() { /* Do something else */ }
this.activateCallbacks = function() { SomeStaticInstance.callAllCallbacks(); }
}
Now the problem I have is that when I call either class and tell it to activateCallbacks() the classes only activate the callbacks within their own scope, i.e SomeClassOne would call someCallback() but not someOtherCallback() and vice versa, now I am assuming it is something to do with the scope of the closures, however I am not sure how to get the behaviour I am after...
I have tried turning the static class into a regular class and then passing it into the 2 classes via the constructor, but still get the same issue...
So my question is how do I get the classes to raise all the callbacks
-- EDIT --
Here is an example displaying the same issue as I am getting on my actual app, I have put all script code into the page to give a clearer example:
http://www.grofit.co.uk/other/pubsub-test.html
It is a simple app with 2 presenters and 2 views... one view is concerned with adding 2 numbers at the top of the page, the 2nd view is concerned with taking that total and multiplying it and showing a result.
The 3rd party library I am using is PubSubJS, and the first presenter listens for an event to tell it that the one of the boxes has changed and re-totals the top row. The 2nd presenter listens for when the multiply or total at the top changes, then recalculates the bottom one. Now the first presenter recalculates correctly, and the 2nd presenter will correctly recalculate whenever the multiply box changes, HOWEVER! It will NOT recalculate when the total on the top changes, even thought it should receive the notification...
Anyway take a quick look through the source code on the page to see what I mean...
First, I think you want var callbacks = [] (an array instead of an object) since you're using callbacks.push().
I'm not sure I understand your problem. The way your classes are structured, you can achieve what you want by instantiating both classes and calling addCallbackToStaticInstance() on both new objects. E.g.,
var one = new SomeClassOne();
var two = new SomeClassTwo();
one.addCallbackToStaticInstance();
two.addCallbackToStaticInstance();
one.activateCallbacks();
Then, as above, you can call activateCallbacks() from either object.
If you're saying you want to be able to call activateCallback() after instantiating only one of the classes, you really have to rethink your approach. I'd start with moving addCallbackToStaticInstance() and activateCallbacks() into their own class.
This is a very odd way of doing things, but your main problem is that your callbacks object it not part of SomeStaticInstance, it is defined within an anonymous closure. Also your callbacks object {} should be an array [].
try staticInstance.callbacks = []; instead of var callbacks = {};
and
staticInstance.addCallback = function(callback) {
this.callbacks.push(callback);
}