Develop Reference

What does Jquery.Recup mean?

well i'm confuse about the line witch says "$.Recup ..." I don't know why it is named the same as the plugin name and what it's for.
(function ($) {
$.fn.Recup = function () {
var parametros = {
};
var tsic = true;
$.Recup = function (opciones) {
var Metodos = {
};
return Metodos;
};
$.Recup.anterior = function () {
};
$.Recup.siguiente = function () {
}
})(jQuery);
I'm refering to this code, What does $.Recup exactly do?it would be perfect if someone gives me an example please
$.Recup = function (opciones) {
var Metodos = {
};
return Metodos;
};

In this case it appears to be a questionable plugin design - especially since $.Recup is not assigned until $.fn.Recup is first called.
However, if it is "appropriately and/or well written" is another question that requires context of (intended) usage. For what it is worth, I would reject this code as written as it smells of misunderstood design and widely scoped side-effects.
Anyway, the way the function is assigned determines how the method can be called.
// let $ be jQuery, then:
$.fn.foo = function () { console.log("foo") }
$.bar = function () { console.log("bar") }
$.foo() // TypeError: $.foo is not a function
$.bar() // -> "bar"
$("sel").foo() // -> "foo"
$("sel").bar() // TypeError: $(..).bar is not a function
That is, $.fn.foo is like .each() - it does something based on the currently selected elements (which are represented by this). On the other hand, $.bar is like jQuery.each() - it provides a way to iterate over a general collection but is not related to a specific set of (previously) selected elements.
In general, a plugin should only add a single entry to $.fn, but directly adding to $ may be useful to expose utility functions - it should definitely be done with care.
Here are two approaches that fix the issue of incorrectly leaked data:
$.fn.Recup = function () {
var parametros = ..
var tsic = true;
// Most trivial change; then use recup in this scope
// (or child scopes) only. There is no $.Recup - yay!
var recup = function (opciones) {
};
// ..
}
Or, just expose as local methods:
$.fn.Recup = function () {
var parametros = ..
var tsic = true;
function anterior () {
}
function siguiente () {
}
// Just use simple functions in scope
}

This is a jQuery plugin.
jQuery.fn is an alias to jQuery's prototype. So this line lets you call the Recup function on instances of jQuery :
$('#myid').Recup();
Here's the documentation on creating jQuery plugins.

What's the easiest way i can pass an element as a first argument to event handlers in JavaScript?

I know that having the value of this being changed to the element receiving the event in event handling functions is pretty useful. However, I'd like to make my functions always be called in my application context, and not in an element context. This way, I can use them as event handlers and in other ways such as in setTimeout calls.
So, code like this:
window.app = (function () {
var that = {
millerTime: function () {},
changeEl: function (el) {
el = el || this;
// rest of code...
that.millerTime();
}
};
return that;
}());
could just be like this:
window.app = (function () {
return {
millerTime: function () {},
changeEl: function (el) {
// rest of code...
this.millerTime();
}
};
}());
The first way just looks confusing to me. Is there a good easy way to pass the element receiving the event as the first argument (preferably a jQuery-wrapped element) to my event handling function and call within the context of app? Let's say I bind a bunch of event handlers using jQuery. I don't want to have to include anonymous functions all the time:
$('body').on('click', function (event) {
app.changeEl.call(app, $(this), event); // would be nice to get event too
});
I need a single function that will take care of this all for me. At this point I feel like there's no getting around passing an anonymous function, but I just want to see if someone might have a solution.
My attempt at it:
function overrideContext (event, fn) {
if (!(this instanceof HTMLElement) ||
typeof event === 'undefined'
) {
return overrideContext;
}
// at this point we know jQuery called this function // ??
var el = $(this);
fn.call(app, el, event);
}
$('body').on('click', overrideContext(undefined, app.changeEl));
Using Function.prototype.bind (which I am new to), I still can't get the element:
window.app = (function () {
return {
millerTime: function () {},
changeEl: function (el) {
// rest of code...
console.log(this); // app
this.millerTime();
}
};
}());
function overrideContext (evt, fn) {
var el = $(this); // $(Window)
console.log(arguments); // [undefined, app.changeEl, p.Event]
fn.call(app, el, event);
}
$('body').on('click', overrideContext.bind(null, undefined, app.changeEl));
Using $('body').on('click', overrideContext.bind(app.changeEl)); instead, this points to my app.changeEl function and my arguments length is 1 and contains only p.Event. I still can't get the element in either instance.

Defining a function like this should give you what you want:
function wrap(func) {
// Return the function which is passed to `on()`, which does the hard work.
return function () {
// This gets called when the event is fired. Call the handler
// specified, with it's context set to `window.app`, and pass
// the jQuery element (`$(this)`) as it's first parameter.
func.call(window.app, $(this) /*, other parameters (e?)*/);
}
}
You'd then use it like so;
$('body').on('click', wrap(app.changeEl));
For more info, see Function.call()
Additionally, I'd like to recommend against this approach. Well versed JavaScript programmers expect the context to change in timeouts and event handlers. Taking this fundamental away from them is like me dropping you in the Sahara with no compass.

Javascript: Extend a Function

The main reason why I want it is that I want to extend my initialize function.
Something like this:
// main.js
window.onload = init();
function init(){
doSomething();
}
// extend.js
function extends init(){
doSomethingHereToo();
}
So I want to extend a function like I extend a class in PHP.
And I would like to extend it from other files too, so for example I have the original init function in main.js and the extended function in extended.js.

With a wider view of what you're actually trying to do and the context in which you're doing it, I'm sure we could give you a better answer than the literal answer to your question.
But here's a literal answer:
If you're assigning these functions to some property somewhere, you can wrap the original function and put your replacement on the property instead:
// Original code in main.js
var theProperty = init;
function init(){
doSomething();
}
// Extending it by replacing and wrapping, in extended.js
theProperty = (function(old) {
function extendsInit() {
old();
doSomething();
}
return extendsInit;
})(theProperty);
If your functions aren't already on an object, you'd probably want to put them there to facilitate the above. For instance:
// In main.js
var MyLibrary = {
init: function init() {
}
};
// In extended.js
(function() {
var oldInit = MyLibrary.init;
MyLibrary.init = extendedInit;
function extendedInit() {
oldInit.call(MyLibrary); // Use #call in case `init` uses `this`
doSomething();
}
})();
But there are better ways to do that. Like for instance, providing a means of registering init functions.
// In main.js
var MyLibrary = (function() {
var initFunctions = [];
return {
init: function init() {
var fns = initFunctions;
initFunctions = undefined;
for (var index = 0; index < fns.length; ++index) {
try { fns[index](); } catch (e) { }
}
},
addInitFunction: function addInitFunction(fn) {
if (initFunctions) {
// Init hasn't run yet, remember it
initFunctions.push(fn);
} else {
// `init` has already run, call it almost immediately
// but *asynchronously* (so the caller never sees the
// call synchronously)
setTimeout(fn, 0);
}
}
};
})();
Here in 2020 (or really any time after ~2016), that can be written a bit more compactly:
// In main.js
const MyLibrary = (() => {
let initFunctions = [];
return {
init() {
const fns = initFunctions;
initFunctions = undefined;
for (const fn of fns) {
try { fn(); } catch (e) { }
}
},
addInitFunction(fn) {
if (initFunctions) {
// Init hasn't run yet, remember it
initFunctions.push(fn);
} else {
// `init` has already run, call it almost immediately
// but *asynchronously* (so the caller never sees the
// call synchronously)
setTimeout(fn, 0);
// Or: `Promise.resolve().then(() => fn());`
// (Not `.then(fn)` just to avoid passing it an argument)
}
}
};
})();

There are several ways to go about this, it depends what your purpose is, if you just want to execute the function as well and in the same context, you can use .apply():
function init(){
doSomething();
}
function myFunc(){
init.apply(this, arguments);
doSomethingHereToo();
}
If you want to replace it with a newer init, it'd look like this:
function init(){
doSomething();
}
//anytime later
var old_init = init;
init = function() {
old_init.apply(this, arguments);
doSomethingHereToo();
};

The other methods are great but they don't preserve any prototype functions attached to init. To get around that you can do the following (inspired by the post from Nick Craver).
(function () {
var old_prototype = init.prototype;
var old_init = init;
init = function () {
old_init.apply(this, arguments);
// Do something extra
};
init.prototype = old_prototype;
}) ();

Another option could be:
var initial = function() {
console.log( 'initial function!' );
}
var iWantToExecuteThisOneToo = function () {
console.log( 'the other function that i wanted to execute!' );
}
function extendFunction( oldOne, newOne ) {
return (function() {
oldOne();
newOne();
})();
}
var extendedFunction = extendFunction( initial, iWantToExecuteThisOneToo );

2017+ solution
The idea of function extensions comes from functional paradigm, which is natively supported since ES6:
function init(){
doSomething();
}
// extend.js
init = (f => u => { f(u)
doSomethingHereToo();
})(init);
init();
As per #TJCrowder's concern about stack dump, the browsers handle the situation much better today. If you save this code into test.html and run it, you get
test.html:3 Uncaught ReferenceError: doSomething is not defined
at init (test.html:3)
at test.html:8
at test.html:12
Line 12: the init call, Line 8: the init extension, Line 3: the undefined doSomething() call.
Note: Much respect to veteran T.J. Crowder, who kindly answered my question many years ago, when I was a newbie. After the years, I still remember the respectfull attitude and I try to follow the good example.

This is very simple and straight forward. Look at the code. Try to grasp the basic concept behind javascript extension.
First let us extend javascript function.
function Base(props) {
const _props = props
this.getProps = () => _props
// We can make method private by not binding it to this object.
// Hence it is not exposed when we return this.
const privateMethod = () => "do internal stuff"
return this
}
You can extend this function by creating child function in following way
function Child(props) {
const parent = Base(props)
this.getMessage = () => `Message is ${parent.getProps()}`;
// You can remove the line below to extend as in private inheritance,
// not exposing parent function properties and method.
this.prototype = parent
return this
}
Now you can use Child function as follows,
let childObject = Child("Secret Message")
console.log(childObject.getMessage()) // logs "Message is Secret Message"
console.log(childObject.getProps()) // logs "Secret Message"
We can also create Javascript Function by extending Javascript classes, like this.
class BaseClass {
constructor(props) {
this.props = props
// You can remove the line below to make getProps method private.
// As it will not be binded to this, but let it be
this.getProps = this.getProps.bind(this)
}
getProps() {
return this.props
}
}
Let us extend this class with Child function like this,
function Child(props) {
let parent = new BaseClass(props)
const getMessage = () => `Message is ${parent.getProps()}`;
return { ...parent, getMessage} // I have used spread operator.
}
Again you can use Child function as follows to get similar result,
let childObject = Child("Secret Message")
console.log(childObject.getMessage()) // logs "Message is Secret Message"
console.log(childObject.getProps()) // logs "Secret Message"
Javascript is very easy language. We can do almost anything. Happy JavaScripting... Hope I was able to give you an idea to use in your case.

as I understand it, you are trying to fetch the applications connected to the user account. You can do this by making a request on the API, I don't know if discord.js covers this part of the API
endpoint: https://discord.com/api/users/#me/connections
Request type: GET Header:
Authorization: "Beareryou token"
response: [
{...}
]

Use extendFunction.js
init = extendFunction(init, function(args) {
doSomethingHereToo();
});
But in your specific case, it's easier to extend the global onload function:
extendFunction('onload', function(args) {
doSomethingHereToo();
});
I actually really like your question, it's making me think about different use cases.
For javascript events, you really want to add and remove handlers - but for extendFunction, how could you later remove functionality? I could easily add a .revert method to extended functions, so init = init.revert() would return the original function. Obviously this could lead to some pretty bad code, but perhaps it lets you get something done without touching a foreign part of the codebase.

Is there anyway to unit test javascript functions defined within a function?

I would just like to ask whether I would be able to unit test the code inside ExternalFunction within the document.ready? I have tried many things for a while now and still couldn't work out how, and am at my wits end.
$(document).ready(function () {
var originalExternalFunction = ExternalFunction;
ExternalFunction = function(context, param) {
// trying to unit test the stuff in here!
}
}
I'm unit testing using JsTestDriver. Test declaration is something like TestThisTest.prototype.test_this - function() {};
Thanks in advance.

Since, in your example, ExternalFunction is not declared within the scope of the function, it is global (or at least, in whatever scope it may have been defined in outside ready). You can therefore test it by calling it as a global.
The trouble is, in order to assign the function to ExternalFunction, you have to run ready (which you could run manually, if you need). This means that if you put any other functionality in ready, then no, it is not unit testable. If your example code is an accurate reflection of reality, then I suppose it is kinda testable.
The point of a construct like this, is to hide the inner function. If you don't wish to hide it, then Anon.'s suggestion of defining newExternalFunction in a more accessible scope is what you need.
If your function needs to be a closure using variables from within ready, you could define newExternalFunction thus:
var newExternalFunction;
$(document).ready(function () {
var originalExternalFunction = ExternalFunction;
newExternalFunction = function(context, param) {
// trying to unit test the stuff in here!
}
ExternalFunction = newExternalFunction;
}
You would still need to ensure that ready has run, prior to unit testing, but you wouldn't have to rely on ExternalFunction not being reset to originalExternalFunction.

You could do something like:
function newExternalFunction(context, param) {
//etc.
}
$(document).ready(function () {
var originalExternalFunction = ExternalFunction;
ExternalFunction = newExternalFunction;
}
Then it's relatively straightforward to run your unit tests on newExternalFunction.

Theoretically, you could do something like:
ExternalFunction = function() { }
ExecuteDocumentReady(); // implement a mock on $(document).ready(fn) to store the function, and then execute it here
ExternalFunction(fakeContext, fakeParam);
assert(fakeContext.foo == 12); // or whatever you need it to do
That being said, I'm not sure exactly how to do that in javascript.

You could use a closure to generate your callback function:
// create function to make your "extension" function
function createHookFunction(callback) {
// return a function
return function(context, param) {
var ret;
// // trying to unit test the stuff in here!
if (typeof callback == 'function') {
// if you want to trap the return value from callback,
// ret = callback.apply(...);
callback.apply(this, arguments);
}
return ret;
};
}
// your hook now becomes:
$(document).ready(function() {
ExternalFunction = createHookFunction(ExternalFunction);
});
// and your unit test becomes:
var funcToTest = createHookFunction();
funcToTest(testContext, testParam);
// And, you could even test that the callback itself gets called
function someTest() {
var testContext = {}, testParam='test';
var callbackCalled = false;
var funcToTest = createHookFunction(function(context, param) {
callbackCalled = (context === testContext) && (param === testParam);
});
return (funcToTest(testContext, testParam) == 'Expected Return') && callbackCalled;
}

Overriding a JavaScript function while referencing the original

I have a function, a(), that I want to override, but also have the original a() be performed in an order depending on the context. For example, sometimes when I'm generating a page I'll want to override like this:
function a() {
new_code();
original_a();
}
and sometimes like this:
function a() {
original_a();
other_new_code();
}
How do I get that original_a() from within the over-riding a()? Is it even possible?
Please don't suggest alternatives to over-riding in this way, I know of many. I'm asking about this way specifically.

You could do something like this:
var a = (function() {
var original_a = a;
if (condition) {
return function() {
new_code();
original_a();
}
} else {
return function() {
original_a();
other_new_code();
}
}
})();
Declaring original_a inside an anonymous function keeps it from cluttering the global namespace, but it's available in the inner functions.
Like Nerdmaster mentioned in the comments, be sure to include the () at the end. You want to call the outer function and store the result (one of the two inner functions) in a, not store the outer function itself in a.

The Proxy pattern might help you:
(function() {
// log all calls to setArray
var proxied = jQuery.fn.setArray;
jQuery.fn.setArray = function() {
console.log( this, arguments );
return proxied.apply( this, arguments );
};
})();
The above wraps its code in a function to hide the "proxied"-variable. It saves jQuery's setArray-method in a closure and overwrites it. The proxy then logs all calls to the method and delegates the call to the original. Using apply(this, arguments) guarantees that the caller won't be able to notice the difference between the original and the proxied method.

Thanks guys the proxy pattern really helped.....Actually I wanted to call a global function foo..
In certain pages i need do to some checks. So I did the following.
//Saving the original func
var org_foo = window.foo;
//Assigning proxy fucnc
window.foo = function(args){
//Performing checks
if(checkCondition(args)){
//Calling original funcs
org_foo(args);
}
};
Thnx this really helped me out

You can override a function using a construct like:
function override(f, g) {
return function() {
return g(f);
};
}
For example:
a = override(a, function(original_a) {
if (condition) { new_code(); original_a(); }
else { original_a(); other_new_code(); }
});
Edit: Fixed a typo.

Passing arbitrary arguments:
a = override(a, function(original_a) {
if (condition) { new_code(); original_a.apply(this, arguments) ; }
else { original_a.apply(this, arguments); other_new_code(); }
});

The answer that #Matthew Crumley provides is making use of the immediately invoked function expressions, to close the older 'a' function into the execution context of the returned function. I think this was the best answer, but personally, I would prefer passing the function 'a' as an argument to IIFE. I think it is more understandable.
var a = (function(original_a) {
if (condition) {
return function() {
new_code();
original_a();
}
} else {
return function() {
original_a();
other_new_code();
}
}
})(a);

The examples above don't correctly apply this or pass arguments correctly to the function override. Underscore _.wrap() wraps existing functions, applies this and passes arguments correctly. See: http://underscorejs.org/#wrap

In my opinion the top answers are not readable/maintainable, and the other answers do not properly bind context. Here's a readable solution using ES6 syntax to solve both these problems.
const orginial = someObject.foo;
someObject.foo = function() {
if (condition) orginial.bind(this)(...arguments);
};

I had some code written by someone else and wanted to add a line to a function which i could not find in the code. So as a workaround I wanted to override it.
None of the solutions worked for me though.
Here is what worked in my case:
if (typeof originalFunction === "undefined") {
originalFunction = targetFunction;
targetFunction = function(x, y) {
//Your code
originalFunction(a, b);
//Your Code
};
}

I've created a small helper for a similar scenario because I often needed to override functions from several libraries. This helper accepts a "namespace" (the function container), the function name, and the overriding function. It will replace the original function in the referred namespace with the new one.
The new function accepts the original function as the first argument, and the original functions arguments as the rest. It will preserve the context everytime. It supports void and non-void functions as well.
function overrideFunction(namespace, baseFuncName, func) {
var originalFn = namespace[baseFuncName];
namespace[baseFuncName] = function () {
return func.apply(this, [originalFn.bind(this)].concat(Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments, 0)));
};
}
Usage for example with Bootstrap:
overrideFunction($.fn.popover.Constructor.prototype, 'leave', function(baseFn, obj) {
// ... do stuff before base call
baseFn(obj);
// ... do stuff after base call
});
I didn't create any performance tests though. It can possibly add some unwanted overhead which can or cannot be a big deal, depending on scenarios.

So my answer ended up being a solution that allows me to use the _this variable pointing to the original object.
I create a new instance of a "Square" however I hated the way the "Square" generated it's size. I thought it should follow my specific needs. However in order to do so I needed the square to have an updated "GetSize" function with the internals of that function calling other functions already existing in the square such as this.height, this.GetVolume(). But in order to do so I needed to do this without any crazy hacks. So here is my solution.
Some other Object initializer or helper function.
this.viewer = new Autodesk.Viewing.Private.GuiViewer3D(
this.viewerContainer)
var viewer = this.viewer;
viewer.updateToolbarButtons = this.updateToolbarButtons(viewer);
Function in the other object.
updateToolbarButtons = function(viewer) {
var _viewer = viewer;
return function(width, height){
blah blah black sheep I can refer to this.anything();
}
};

Not sure if it'll work in all circumstances, but in our case, we were trying to override the describe function in Jest so that we can parse the name and skip the whole describe block if it met some criteria.
Here's what worked for us:
function describe( name, callback ) {
if ( name.includes( "skip" ) )
return this.describe.skip( name, callback );
else
return this.describe( name, callback );
}
Two things that are critical here:
We don't use an arrow function () =>.
Arrow functions change the reference to this and we need that to be the file's this.
The use of this.describe and this.describe.skip instead of just describe and describe.skip.
Again, not sure it's of value to anybody but we originally tried to get away with Matthew Crumley's excellent answer but needed to make our method a function and accept params in order to parse them in the conditional.