How to check if NOT using Javascript bitwise operators? - javascript

I have a function that checks whether a user is premium by checking its flags:
isUserPremium() {
return this.flags & Flags.PREMIUM; // returns true
}
Now let's say that I'd want another function, but this time to check whether the user is free, but using the same flag. I tried negating the returned value, but I'd like to know if there was a better way to do this.
isUserFree() {
return !(this.flags & Flags.PREMIUM); // returns false
}

There isn't a way of checking whether a flag is not set with a single operator. I can suggest using !isUserPremium() instead of isUserFree() later in the code - don't create functions that invert a value returned from another function. However, make sure that you don't rely on this for security. Everything that is executing in the browser can be easily manipulated.

Related

Haskell Webviewhs textfields and returns to Haskell

I've discovered webviewhs and tried it recently. It just works and I think it can do what I need it to do. Samples are abundant, but I would need some pointers of Haskell experts.
{-# LANGUAGE
OverloadedStrings
, QuasiQuotes
#-}
import Data.Text
import Language.Javascript.JMacro
import qualified Graphics.UI.Webviewhs as WHS
main :: IO ()
main =
WHS.withWindowLoop
WHS.WindowParams
{ WHS.windowParamsTitle = "webviewhs - How do I run some JavaScript inside the window?"
-- This could be a localhost URL to your single-page application (SPA).
, WHS.windowParamsUri = ""
, WHS.windowParamsWidth = 800
, WHS.windowParamsHeight = 600
, WHS.windowParamsResizable = True
, WHS.windowParamsDebuggable = True
}
-- This is the callback JavaScript can execute.
(\ _window stringFromJavaScript -> print stringFromJavaScript) $
-- This function runs every window loop.
-- Return True to continue the loop or False to exit the loop.
\ window -> do
let string = "Hello from Haskell." :: Text
-- runJavaScript returns either True on success or False on failure.
WHS.runJavaScript
window
[jmacro|
alert ("Yahoo! Alert windows, but little too persistent!");
window.external.invoke("Hello from JavaScript.");
|]
If I use the code above, the alert-dialog (test) keeps popping up. I would love to have it gone after ok. I also tried several times to get information (document.getElementById) from a sites' input field. Cannot get that to work. For me webviewhs is the missing link in Haskell and I would really like to get it to work.
The problem is in WHS.withWindowLoop. Referring to the documentation:
Creates a window for you. Accepts a function that is called with each iteration of the window loop. If the accepted function returns False, the loop is exited and the window is destroyed. If the accepted function returns True, the loop is continued provided it can.
(my emphasis)
Note that the last parameter of withWindowLoop is invoked repeatedly until it returns False. However, you are always returning True, meaning that the dialog box is repeatedly opened without ever finishing the loop. I can see two ways out of this problem:
Use WHC.createWindow instead; this function simply creates a window and returns it, without looping. This is the approach used in the relevant example.
Keep on using withWindowLoop, but return False instead of True. This will stop the loop immediately after one iteration.
If you really want to use withWindowLoop, then you could declare an IORef which is True at first, then changed to False after one iteration. That approach isn't very idiomatic though. (Don't use this approach, it doesn't work, it actually launches the dialog box twice, and it's much more complicated than needed anyway)

while(i) loop in JavaScript

I ran the below code in JavaScript
let i = 3;
while (i) {
console.log(i--);
}
since the while(i) is not like while(i>0) then I expected the result as 3,2,1,0,-1,-2,...
but the actual result is 3,2,1. Could anyone explain this case to me? I am confused.
The while loop runs until the check condition is false.
In this case, it is the value of i.
Since Javascript is dynamically typed(ie - we don't define the types when defining the variables) the value of i is converted into a boolean from the type it is currently in.
In this case, you are setting numerical values to i. And the number 0 is considered to be falsely. Therefore, breaking the while loop.
You can refer here for a full list of falsely value.
While loops run until its condition is set false. Note that all statements such as while, if and ternaries all handle conditions in the same way. To have a better understanding on how the simplest and quickest way is to test them with ternaries.
I usually run something such as the following on a js console such as chrome (ctrl + j)
1?2:3;
0?2:3;
5?2:3;
"Hello"?2:3;
""?2:3;
And so on. These are conditional statements, the first number is taken as a condition, the second (2) is what will be returned if it were true, and the third (3) is what it will return if it were false. Note that 2 and 3 are just random numbers.
In the example you have shown, i is an integer. For an integer, only 0 is taken as a false.

Boolean to string wherever present in code

I have an app platform which is developed on "Edge". And my app is built on eclipse. In javascript files of my code many times i have declared my variables with boolean. But to run app on platform i have to convert these boolean values to string like "true". Then only i can set it true. In a big code it is not good to convert boolean to string everywhere. So is it possible that wherever i am having boolean value it can detect and convert to string so that the app platform developed on Edge can understand it ?
Why would you try to print out boolean values in the first place? Check to see if value is boolean where you are alert(value);
For example,
var value = true; // Somewhere in code
if (value == true) { // Just check if value is true/false
alert("true");
} else {
alert("false");
}
Your approach is unnecessary and you are making the problem more complex then needs to be. There is no way to check if a value is boolean while the code is running, so you are going to have to change it everywhere you want alert("true"); Sadly, you can't hack this with a different approach.

.deny Meteor use.. can't get it to work

I'm trying to deny a question to be submitted if it has a length of 0. But I don't quite understand Meteor deny.
Here's what's going on.
I am updating the question. It is currently set at "yes"
I update it to "yessir"
I console log it as follows:
Questions.deny({
update: function(userId, question) {
console.log(question.question.length);
}
});
but the result is 3. It seems to console log the field being updated, not what I am updating it TO.
This is a problem because how can I check the length of an input if this thing won't check it when it's being submitted.
Can someone enlighten me?
Have a look at the docs and you'll see that the 2nd argument to update is doc:
doc is the current version of the document from the database, without the proposed update
The only way to validate the length of question is to look at the 4th argument - modifier. The problem with this approach is that you must check the modifier for every possible way it could be modified. Fundamentally, this is why allow/deny is really hard to implement in all but the most simple cases.
Instead, I'd strongly suggest either using collection2 to enforce your schema or using methods to modify your documents.
Recommended reading:
Meteor method vs. deny/allow rules
Allow & Deny: A Security Primer
Collection.deny Function either returns true or flase.
If you want to deny update on certain criteria here goes your code like this
Questions.deny({
update: function(userId, question, fields, modifier) {
// check for critera
if(fields.question.length < 0)
return true // denys update for question length less than 0
else
return false // deny = false means allow = true
}
});

Strange Javascript statement

if (1) {
google_conversion_value = 1;
}
What is the meaning of the above statement? I mean, this looks like it will always execute so why bother with the if statement?
updated: one reason might be remnants of scripting on the server side. Any other ideas?
updated2: could as easily change the value of the assignment without bothering with the if statement, no?
There are two likely explanations:
It's a leftover from debugging.
The file containing this code is generated dynamically and the original sourcecode contains something like if(<?php echo $some_stuff_enabled; ?>)
However, in the latter case it would have been cleaner to output that code block only if the condition is met - but maybe it's used in some crappy template engine that just allows replacements but no conditionals...
I've seen this before, and I've always assumed it was a remnant of some old condition that was no longer needed, but never removed. I can't see any actual reason to do something like that otherwise.
Potentially because the person writing the code wanted an easy way to turn it off and on again, this is especially useful if there is a lot of code inside the block (not the case here).
Another possibility is that the original programmer couldn't be bothered writing the logic or, more likely, it hadn't been specified so the "if" was left as a placeholder.
More than likely left in from a debug release or something similar. You're right, it will always execute. It could also have been done like this so that it can be easily enabled / disabled by setting the if to 0. Perhaps the developer intended to use it as a flag somewhere else in the code?
actually, this happens when the "if" condition is driven from server, so instead of doing the right thing and not produce the script when the condition is false, they do something like this:
if (<% if (my_server_condition) then Response.Write("1") else Response.Write("0") %>){
// code goes here
}
Perhaps the if statement used to check for a legitimate conditional, and then someone replaced it with a truthy value for testing/debugging/etc.
You're right, it will always execute because 1 is truthy. I would go through your source control history and investigate that line to see if it used to contain a real conditional. If the conditional was always 1, then it's likely a debugging statement. Otherwise someone might have meant for it to be a temporary change, and may not have meant to check that in (which could be bad).
I'm not sure where this code is from, but as you indicated it will always execute. As for why you'd do this, there are times where you want to see what the result of branch code would be, without having to setup an environment. In this case you can comment out the actual value and replace it with if(1) instead for testing:
// if( ... some hard to achieve condition )
if (1) {
// Now you can see what happens if this value is set quickly
google_conversion_value = 1;
}
Of course the problem with this is that it's sometimes easy to forget to remove the if(1) and uncomment the proper condition.
This is actually the javascript recommended by Google on http://support.google.com/adwords/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1722054#nocomments (click on Step 2 for the sample HTML)

Categories

Resources