background
I have a JScript script running under WSH.
The script is fairly simple. It iterates over a list of strings, each string, a JScript itself, and run each "internal" script.
Problem
It is possible that some "internal" script, may call Quit method. This causes the main script to stop, which is not desired.
Simple example
var strSomeScript = "WScript.Quit(1)";
var F = new Function(strSomeScript);
var exitCode = (F)();
WScript.Echo("Continue doing more things...");
the last line will not be executed since the "internal" script stops the execution.
Question
If I have no control over the content of the "internal" scripts, how can I prevent them from breaking my main flow.
Requirements
I need to run each "internal" script, wait for it to finish and store its exit code.
If you want only to prevent specifically WScript.Quit calls you can simply sanitize your input with a simple replace. (*) If you want to be able to prevent any way of stopping the script - for example, var x = WScript; x.Quit(); - you're basically trying to solve the halting problem, which I hear is kind of hard.
If you were using regular JS you could have tried something like:
WScript.Quit = function(e) {
// Assume there's something reasonable to put here
};
or:
var __WScript = WScript;
WScript = { ConnectObject: function(obj, pref) { __WScript.ConnectObject(obj, pref); },
CreateObject: function(progid, pref) { __WScript.CreateObject(obj, pref); },
... };
But the WScript object doesn't implement IDIspatchEx etc. so that won't work.
The only way do make sure an arbitrary string, when interpreted as JavaScript code, doesn't end your script is not to eval that string as part of your script, but rather run it in a brand new context. (And calling the Function contrcutor on that string and then calling the resulting object is pretty much the same as evaling it.)
You can write it to a file and execute wscript.exe with this file as argument, or use the Microsoft Script Control if you don't want to write a file to disk and/or want to give the script access to objects from the parent script.
(*) Not that this makes any sense either way. Lets even say that your only problem is WScript.Quit. What are you going to put instead? return? That's not going to cut it:
function bar(a) {
if (Pred(a)) {
WScript.Quit(123);
}
return 456;
}
function foo() {
var x = bar(789);
if (!x) {
DoSomethingBad();
}
}
foo();
A script that used to end silently now does something bad. If you "know" that changing the WScript.Quit to return doesn't do anything bad you should also know that there aren't any WScript.Quits in the code in the first place.
There's simply nothing sensible you can do instead quitting even if you could catch every call to WScript.Quit.
Related
I'm trying to debug something live on a customer website and my code is all inside an anonymous function block. I don't know if there's anyway to reach that code to execute functions or look at variables in there. I can't put a breakpoint either because this code is dynamically generated each time the page is refreshed and the breakpoint doesn't stick.
(function() {
var Date = "14 September 2022 14:44:55"; // different every refresh for example
var Holder = {
var Items = {
item1: "Value1",
item2: "Value2"
};
function getItem(name) {
return Items[name];
};
function setItem(name, value) {
Items[name] = value;
};
setTimeout(DoSomething(), 2000);
})();
That's not the actual code, just a bare minimum example to illustrate the problem.
Is there anyway to get reach getItem() or Items?
Without a breakpoint that code probably runs to completion then POOF it's all gone anyway.
Redefine setTimeout
If it really is the case that the code inside the anonymous function calls other browser methods, you might be able to insert a detour at runtime that you can then put a breakpoint on.
For this to work, you will need to be able to inject new code into the page before the anonymous code, because there's no other way to invoke the IIFE.
Your example code uses setTimeout, so here's what I would try to insert:
let realSetTimeout = window.setTimeout
window.setTimeout = (...args) => {
debugger
return realSetTimeout(...args)
}
Lots of unrelated code might be calling setTimeout, in which case this could break the page or just make debugging really tedious. In that case, you might make it only debug if one of the setTimeout args has a value that's used in your example, e.g.:
// only break for our timeout
if(args[1] === 2000) debugger
Something like that might not trigger for only your code, but it would hugely reduce the number of other codepaths that get interrupted on their journey through the commonly-used browser capability.
Alternatively, use Charles Proxy to rewrite the body of the HTML page before it enters your browser. You could manually insert a debugger call directly into the anonymous function. Charles is not free, but I think they have a demo that might let you do this. If you do this professionally, it's probably a good purchase anyway. Your employer might even pay for the license.
If you can't use Charles (or a similar tool), you could instead set up a local proxy server using Node which does the rewrite for you. Something like that might only take an hour to throw together. But that is a bigger task, and deserves its own question if you need help with that.
No unfortunately.
The variables inside of the anonymous object are created in a scope which is inaccessible from the outside.
One of the main benefits of using a closure!
You’ll have to find a way to insert your own code inside of it by modifying the function that is generating those objects. If you can’t do that, then you’ll have to take the fork in the road and find another way.
I'm working on a Google Scripts add on for Google Sheets, but I'm trying to get the script working before I actually set it up on the sheet. The code below works fine if I set a breakpoint somewhere in the extractNumbers function. If I just execute the code without breakpoints, I get an error:
TypeError: Cannot call method "replace" of undefined. (line 36, file "")
Here's the code:
var myVar = phoneCheck("a1","a2","o1","o2");
Logger.log(myVar);
function phoneCheck(newCell,newHome,oldCell,oldHome) {
Logger.clear();
var newCell = extractNumbers(newCell);
var oldCell = extractNumbers(oldCell);
var newHome = extractNumbers(newHome);
var oldHome = extractNumbers(oldHome);
if (newCell === oldCell) {
return newCell;
exit;
} else if (newCell === oldHome && newHome === oldCell) {
return oldCell;
exit;
}
if (newCell === '' && oldCell !== '' ) {
return oldCell;
exit;
}
if (newCell !== oldCell && newCell !== oldHome) {
return newCell;
exit;
}
return "No value found";
exit;
}
function extractNumbers(input) {
Logger.log(input);
var str = input;
return str.replace( /\D+/g, '');
}
Now I realize my if/then logic is more than a bit inelegant, but for my purposes, quick and dirty is fine. I just need it to run.
ALSO, I have read of other novice JavaScript programmers having similar issues related to the sequence of code execution. If someone would like to link to a concise source aimed at a non-advanced audience, that would be great too. Thanks!
EDIT: I put my code into a new fiddle and it works fine, but it continues to fail in Google Scripts editor unless running in debug mode with a breakpoint. The problem seems to be that the function parameters aren't available to the function unless there is a breakpoint. Anyone have access to Google Scripts that can try my updated code from https://jsfiddle.net/hrzqg64L/ ?
None of the suggestions got to the root of your problem - and neither did your answer, although you've avoided the problem by putting an enclosure around everything.
There's no AJAX, no asynchronous behavior - it's simpler than that. "Shadowing of parameters" is likewise a red herring. Bad coding practice, yes - but not a factor here.
If someone would like to link to a concise source aimed at a non-advanced audience, that would be great too.
Sorry - no such thing. I can explain what's going on, but can't guarantee it will be accessible to novices.
The exception
Let's just clarify what causes the exception, or thrown error, that you've observed.
As written, extractNumbers() will throw an exception if it has a null parameter (or any non-string parameter) passed to it. If you choose to extractNumbers() then hit "run", you'll get:
TypeError: Cannot call method "replace" of undefined. (line 36, file "")
That is telling you that on line 36, which is return str.replace( /\D+/g, '');, the variable str contains an object that is undefined (...and has no replace() method).
For bullet-proof code, you would check your parameter(s) to ensure they are valid, and handle them appropriately. Sometimes that would be with a valid default, and other times you might return an error or throw an exception that is more explicit about the parameter problems.
Running code in Google's debugger
The only way to run code in Google's Debugger is to select a function, then choose "run" or "debug". Assuming you posted all your code, you had just two functions to choose from:
phoneCheck()
extractNumbers()
Whenever Google Apps Script runs any part of a script, the entire script is loaded and scanned to find all symbols & check syntax. The scope of all symbols is noted as well, and so are any dependencies between functions and global symbols (symbols outside of any closure, or block of code).
That takes some time. To speed things up when asked to execute a specific function, the global symbols are only evaluated if they are a dependency for the requested function or the functions it may call. There is another condition that will trigger evaluation of global symbols, and that is if there is a possibility that the debugger may need to stop and display values.
When this happens, any code that is outside a closure (outside a function, for example) will be executed. This is what you observed when you set breakpoints.
Why did it work when breakpoints were set?
As explained, just having a breakpoint set triggers evaluation of global symbols.
You start this script with a few lines of code that are not in any closure:
var myVar = phoneCheck("a1","a2","o1","o2");
Logger.log(myVar);
It is that code which makes the only proper invocation of phoneCheck() with parameters. Because myVar is evaluated, phoneCheck() gets called with parameters, and in turn calls extractNumbers() with a defined parameter.
Unfortunately, because of the way the debugger works, you cannot choose to run that code yourself. You need to rely on these side-effect behaviors.
How to fix this?
Simple. Don't rely on global code to invoke functions under test. Instead, write an explicit test function, and call that.
function test_phoneCheck() {
var myVar = phoneCheck("a1","a2","o1","o2");
Logger.log(myVar);
}
Finally found the issue, but I don't fully understand it.
This question got me thinking about scope and how it might be different in the Google Script environment. I figured a simple workaround would be to enclose the entire script in its own void function, and it worked! Also, I simplified the script quite a bit with an array:
function init () {
var numberArray = ["a3", "a2", "o3", "o10"];
var myVar = phoneCheck(numberArray);
Logger.log(myVar);
function phoneCheck(myArray) {
var phoneString = '';
Logger.clear();
var arrayLength = myArray.length;
for (i = 0; i < arrayLength; i++) {
phoneString += myArray[i].replace(/\D+/g, '');
}
return phoneString;
}
}
Also, I realize the functionality of this script is different than the original, but I was really just trying to solve this problem. Now that I have, I can finish the script properly.
Thanks for all the suggestions, everyone! I learned a lot of good things, even though they turned out not to be the answer.
I want to give clients an HTML block they can include in their site, and this HTML will contain some table and image, plus a javascript that will make manipulations over the HTML block.
so I give them the HTML :
<a data-theme="1" data-srv="http://localhost:50987/" class="block1" href="http://myserver/payment/Details">outer information</a><script type="text/javascript" src="http://myserver/Scripts/checkout.js"></script>
in checkout.js I have included JQuery if no Jquery exists in document and do manipulation over the element $('a.block1') ... the problem is when someone puts this block of HTML more then once over the same page, I want that the client will not call "checkout.js" more then once,
I've tried declaring global var inside "checkout.js" and check if it's exists, it works good to stop doing the same manipulation more then once but I want to stop the call to JS al together .
Javascript runs after it loads, you can't stop the JS running, if it is referenced multiple times. It won't be loaded multiple times, so the overhead of it running again is basically nil.
To stop the behavior of the javascript happening again, just put the check at the top level of the file, put the rest of the file in the conditional, and write to a global variable to make sure you don't run again.
if (window._your_unique_id === undefined) {
window._your_unique_id = true;
// the rest of your javascript
}
that will mean nothing in the script runs. You can still define whatever you like in that if statement, though if you define functions and variables in there, you may have to explicitly put them on the window object, because they'll otherwise be local (but then, it is bad practice to have anything implicitly defined global anyway, so it shouldn't make any difference if your code is well structured).
Just deploy your code as a module.
Ie.
(function(window){
if(window.CheckoutModule) return;
// now you're certain there's no global module loaded
var CheckoutModule = window.CheckoutModule = {};
// you can, ie, add a jQuery check here.
if('undefined' != typeof jQuery) {
// do your jQuery thing here.
}
return ;
})(window, jQuery);
I have a situation in which I have to use eval in Javascript. Yes, I know it is evil, but in this case it is required, because two requisites:
The Javascript code is big.
It has to be evaluated (and downloaded) only in a few situations, so I don't want the script to be downloaded always, but on demand.
With these requisites, I have written an XMLHttpRequest to request the code (600+K), and I want to eval that code to take place immediately. As I'll show later, the script contains just data to be inserted in two variables. The problem is that evaluating this javascript fails always with syntax error. If I put the code verbatim (without eval), the code executes fine. This is the minimal example. I have a search.js file like this:
// search.js for functional mind. Generated statically
// from the set of posts.
posts = { 'postlist' : ['YYY', 'other link...' ] };
posts_for_word = { 'word1' : [0,1], 'word2' : [Z,K] };
The last variable, posts_for_word includes indexes of posts containing that word. The problem comes when I evaluate that Javascript inside eval:
// global environment
var posts = {}; // Initial value, empty
var posts_for_word = {}; // same
function() {
var request = // create XMLHTTPREQUEST request
var response = // obtain response (the javascript)
eval( response ); // <- syntax error
// access posts or posts_for_word
posts.postlist[ posts_for_word['word1'][0] ]
....
}
The problems:
When I evaluate the javascript shown above with eval, firefox tells me that it is bad formed in the first line.
I then removed the comments. I supposed that eval would evaluate it as if it was a normal Javascript program, but it doesn't seem to accept comments (why?).
After removing the comments, the code works, but still the Javascript console of Firefox tells me that there is a syntax error in the first line (that defining the JSON first variable). Why?
You shouldn't use AJAX and eval() to make a script happen on your website, instead, create a <script> element with a link to the file and append it to the body:
(function() {
var jsCode = document.createElement('script');
jsCode.setAttribute('src', 'http://localhost/tests/doStuff.js');
document.body.appendChild(jsCode);
}());
(This code is actually taken directly from a bookmarklet of mine, and it does the trick nicely.)
As for the variable scope, if you declare them as var variable in your inner file, it would override the file scope and become global.
However, should you require a synchronous load of a script, you will have to (despite the fact it is considered bad practice) to use a synchronous AJAX call. How to do that was already written before me, Dynamically loading JavaScript synchronously
Could someone explain the javascript that makes up Google's Website Optimiser Control script? Specifically: the first two lines, which seem to be empty functions, and why is the third function wrapped parentheses () ?
As far as I can tell this script is basically writing out a new <script> which presumably loads something for A/B testing.
function utmx_section(){}
function utmx(){}
(function() {
var k='0634742331',d=document,l=d.location,c=d.cookie;
function f(n) {
if(c) {
var i=c.indexOf(n+'=');
if (i>-1) {
var j=c.indexOf(';',i);
return escape(c.substring(i+n.length+1,j<0?c.length:j))
}
}
}
var x=f('__utmx'),xx=f('__utmxx'),h=l.hash;
d.write('<sc'+'ript src="'+'http'+(l.protocol=='https:'?'s://ssl':'://www')+'.google-analytics.com'+'/siteopt.js?v=1&utmxkey='+k+'&utmx='+(x?x:'')+'&utmxx='+(xx?xx:'')+'&utmxtime='+new Date().valueOf()+(h?'&utmxhash='+escape(h.substr(1)):'')+'" type="text/javascript" charset="utf-8"></sc'+'ript>')
}
)();
I've attempted to step through with the firebug debugger but it doesn't seem to like it. Any insights much appreciated.
Many thanks
inside anonymous function it shortens names of document and cookies inside it at first, function f(n) gets value of cookie under name n. Then Google reads its cookies and with help of d.write it loads its scripts (as I see they are related to Google Analytic). This way it makes On-Demand JavaScript loading... Actually you load these scripts all the time, Google just needs some additional parameters in url, so this is done this way - save parameters in cookie, which next time are used to get script again.
And finally back to the first two magic lines :) After Google loads its script (after executing d.write), there are some functions which uses utmx and utmx_section, as well as definition of these functions, or better to say overriding. I think they are empty at first just because another function can execute it before its real definition, and having empty functions nothing will happen (and no JS error), otherwise script would not work. E.g. after first iteration there is some data, which is used to make real definition of these functions and everything starts to work :)
The first 2 functions are in fact empty, and are probably overridden later on.
The third function is an anonymous self-executing function. The brackets are a convention to make you aware of the fact that it is self executing.
the "f" function looks up the value given to it in the document's cookies and returns it. Then a new script tag is written to document (and requested from server) with these values as part of its URL.