ES6 Setting Properties - javascript

I've looked into it, and it seems as though ES6 doesn't have the ability to set properties of a class, and return that class?
class MyClass {
constructor() {
this.x = 0;
this.y = 0;
}
update(value) {
// logic
this.y = value;
return value;
}
}
var x = new MyClass();
console.log(x.update(1));
With the above, x will keep y as 0, even though setting y to 1. console.log will put out 1, but y is never actually updated. Calling x.y will result in 0.
I've also attempted returning the class, yet that doesn't work either.
class MyClass {
constructor() {
this.x = 0;
this.y = 0;
}
update(value) {
// logic
this.y = value;
return this;
}
}
var x = new MyClass();
x = x.update(1);
Using console.log(x) afterwards would once again result in y being 0, and not 1.
I'm aware of set and get, but then I wouldn't be able to perform any logic within update() or return anything.
Is this intended, or am I completely doing it wrong?
I would like to note that I'm using NodeJS.
I am doing something such as:
class.js ->
module.exports = /*class MyClass{}*/ (the above MyClass code)
app.js ->
let MyClass = require('class');
let x = new MyClass();
x.update(1);
console.log(x) (this returns the same value as x before calling update())

Calling x.y will result in 0
No it does. This suggests that your // logic is flawed. If there is no extra logic, the x.y property does end up as 1.

It works!
var x =new MyClass();
console.log(x.update(1)); //1
console.log(x.y); //1

Related

Getter not invoked when chained in multiple assign operator

When I use multiple assignment operator such as a = b = c and b is a getter/setter, the setter is invoked perfectly but getter not; why?
Here's a simple example:
//define simple example class to describe the situation
export class GetterSetter
{
private m_sValue:string = '';
constructor ()
{
}
public get value (): string
{
return this.m_sValue;
}
private set value (val:string)
{
this.m_sValue = (val ?? '').trim();
}
public getValue1 (): string
{
let ret:string = this.value;
this.value = null!;
ret = this.value;
return ret;
}
public getValue2 (): string
{
let ret:string = this.value;
ret = this.value = null!;
return ret;
}
}
//invocation
const obj:GetterSetter = new GetterSetter();
const s1:string = obj.getValue1();
const s2:string = obj.getValue2();
getValue1() works as expected. getValue2() produces null. In getValue2() the setter is invoked twice as expected but the getter never invoked.
For getValue2() I expected the getter to be invoked for this line:
ret = this.value = null!;
but it was not. It happens both in debugger and in production.
The JavaScript assignment expression y = x evaluates to its right-hand side, so y = x can be thought of as just x. But it also has the effect of assigning the right-hand side to the variable/property on the left-hand side. So after y = x is done, x has been assigned to y. Note that nowhere in that description is y ever evaluated or read from; it is only written to. Code that only triggers when y is read from will not trigger.
In a compound statement like z = y = x, or the equivalent z = (y = x), first the inner assignment y = x happens, which assigns x to y and evaluates to x. Then the outer assignment happens, which assigns x to z (and also evaluates to x but that is simply discarded). Again, at no point is y (or z for that matter) ever read, so any code triggered by reading y will stay untriggered.
So there you go. z = y = x does not behave like "x is assigned to y and then y is assigned to z". Instead, it behaves like "x is assigned to both y and z".

Handle nested properties of Object in JS

Hi I'm writing a module in NodeJS in a OOP style.
I have multiples simples objects that contains primitive data and multiple complex objects that contain other objects.
const Simple = function Simple() {
this.x = 0;
this.y = 0;
}
Simple.prototype.getArea = function() {
return this.x * this.y;
}
const Complex = function Complex() {
this.ownProp = 0;
this.nestedProp = new Simple();
this.otherNestedProp = new otherSimple();
}
Complex.prototype.set = function(key, value) {
this[key] = value;
}
Complex.prototype.otherSet = function(value) {
Object.assign(this, value);
}
My problem is that users who will use my API can break things by doing this:
let simple = new Simple();
simple.getArea(); // 0
let complex = new Complex();
complex.nestedProp.getArea(); // 0
complex.set('nestedProp', {x: 5, y: 6});
complex.nestedProp.getArea(); // THROW <----
let complex = new Complex();
complex.nestedProp.getArea(); // 0
complex.set({nestedProp: {x: 5, y: 6});
complex.nestedProp.getArea(); // THROW <----
Is there a lodash function to only assign values of such nested Object.
Or is there a good way to manage this kind of problems?
Note: I could check for instanceof but I have a lot of modules, and I don't want to manage each specific case.
It seems you think passing something like {x: 1, y:2} to Complex.set will magically make x and y end inside of Simple. I think you are confused about how Javascript works, no offense meant.
Here's an implementation that would make things work roughly the way you seem to want.
const Simple = function Simple() {
this.x = 0;
this.y = 0;
}
Simple.prototype.getArea = function() {
return this.x * this.y;
}
Simple.prototype.set = function (x, y) {
this.x = x;
this.y = y;
}
const Complex = function Complex() {
this.nestedProp = new Simple();
}
Complex.prototype.set = function(props) {
this.nestedProp.set(props.x, props.y);
}
let complex = new Complex();
complex.nestedProp.getArea(); // 0
complex.set({x: 5, y: 6});
complex.nestedProp.getArea(); // 30
The properties x and y are passed explicitly from Complex to Simple until they end where they should. You can either pass x and y as separate parameters (see Simple's set) or as properties of an object (see Complex's set).
But if you thought x and y would make it all the way to the end by themselves you need to study basic OOP before writing code; again, no offense meant.

GreenSock, tween function arguments

I got two functions called on mouse events:
function menuBtnOver(e){
var b = e.data;
b.setPosition(b.x, b.y+5);
}
function menuBtnOut(e){
var b = e.data;
b.setPosition(b.x, b.y-5);
}
and:
setPosition:function(x, y) {
if(!x) x = 0;
if(!y) y = 0;
this.element.css("left", x);
this.element.css("top", y);
}
element property is a jQuery object.
It is working ok but i want to animate this. How can i do this with TweenLite?
I've tried following code:
function menuBtnOver(e){
TweenLite.to(e.data, 1, {top:500});
}
As well as this:
function menuBtnOver(e){
TweenLite.to(e.data.getElement(), 1, {top:500});
}
and many other combinations but none of them worked.
Only on method which partially work is this:
function menuBtnOver(e){
TweenLite.to(e.data, 1, {y:400, onUpdate:e.data.setPosition, onUpdateParams:[e.data.x, e.data.y]});
}
But it work only on fist button when I roll over and (after any time) roll out, it moves directly to given position (without tween) and then the tween goes forever giving me error each time(at least - I couldn't get any errors or anything with other attempts).
Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read property 'css' of undefined
at: this.element.css("left", x);
Update
I figured out what is going on.
I've changed code as so:
function menuBtnOver(e){
TweenLite.to(e.data, 1, {y:400, onUpdate:e.data.setPosition, onUpdateParams:[e.data.x, e.data.y], onUpdateScope:e.data});
}
But the problem with this is that arguments to update function which I set to e.data.y/x aren't dynamic references and always stay as those exact values from menuBtnOver state. So the tween works if i change setPosition function to:
setPosition:function(x, y) {
if(!x) x = 0;
if(!y) y = 0;
this.element.css("left", this.x);
this.element.css("top", this.y);
}
But obviously this is not what I want to do.
So I have option to make something like this:
MenuButton.prototype = {
setPosition:function(x, y) {
if(!x) x = 0;
if(!y) y = 0;
this.x = x; this.y = y;
this.element.css("left", x);
this.element.css("top", y);
},
updatePosition:function(){
this.element.css("left", this.x);
this.element.css("top", this.y);
}
}
function menuBtnOver(e){
TweenLite.to(e.data, 1, {y:400, onUpdate:e.data.updatePosition, onUpdateScope:e.data});
}
Or define external update function in similar manner. The question still stays the same so is there a simple way to do this simpler. Does GS tween has any mechanic which automate this process?
Thanks to everyone for attention :)
this in setPosition is referring to that function and not the this of the onClick event.
you need to do pass this to setPosition. As in the example below, where I passed it as self in the function setPosition.
function menuBtnOver(e){
var b = e.data;
b.setPosition(this, b.x, b.y+5);
}
function menuBtnOut(e){
var b = e.data;
b.setPosition(this, b.x, b.y-5);
}
and:
setPosition:function(self, x, y) {
if(!x) x = 0;
if(!y) y = 0;
self.element.css("left", x);
self.element.css("top", y);
}
this always refernces the function in which is was called. as you can read about her. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Operators/this
So you can pass this in a function as a variable.

Javascript Prototype General Enquries and Assign Id by Array Index

I am trying to learn how to work with javascripts prototype, I am only getting into it now. Please Excuse me if I ask ridiculously stupid questions
I just have a few pre-questions:
Is it worth learning? I mean it looks like a structured/clean
approach to me?
Do/should you use this with jQuery this?
is there any major problems or reason not to use it and why isn't it commonly used or am i just slow?
Actual Question:
I have the following code:
var BudgetSection = function BudgetSection(name ) {
this.id = "";
this.name = name;
this.monthlyTotal = 0.00;
this.yearlyTotal = 0.00;
this.subTotal = 0.00;
this.lineItems = [];
};
BudgetSection.prototype.calculateSubTotal = function() {
this.subTotal = ((12 * this.monthlyTotal) + this.yearlyTotal);
};
function BudgetLineItem(name) {
this.id = "";
this.name = name;
this.monthlyAmount = 0.00;
this.yearlyAmount = 0.00;
}
BudgetLineItem.prototype = {
totalAmount : function() {
var result = ((12 * this.monthlyAmount) + this.yearlyAmount);
return result;
}
};
var budgetSections = [];
section = new BudgetSection("test1");
section.lineItems.push(new BudgetLineItem('sub'));
section.lineItems.push(new BudgetLineItem('sub2'));
section.lineItems.push(new BudgetLineItem('sub3'));
budgetSections.push(section);
section = new BudgetSection("test2");
section.lineItems.push(new BudgetLineItem('sub'));
section.lineItems.push(new BudgetLineItem('sub2'));
section.lineItems.push(new BudgetLineItem('sub3'));
budgetSections.push(section);
section = new BudgetSection("test3");
section.lineItems.push(new BudgetLineItem('sub'));
section.lineItems.push(new BudgetLineItem('sub2'));
section.lineItems.push(new BudgetLineItem('sub3'));
budgetSections.push(section);
// first iterate through budgetSections
for ( var t = 0; t < budgetSections.length; t++) {
var sec = budgetSections[t];
console.log(sec);
// iterate through each section's lineItems
for (var q = 0; q< budgetSections[t].lineItems.length ; q++) {
var li = budgetSections[t].lineItems[q];
console.log(li);
}
}
the first BudgetSection "test1" is at index 0 in the budgetSections array. how can i assign the id to "section_".
And then also how can i set the id of BudgetLineItem like so: lineItemRow_<section_index><lineitem_index>
Also finally n the for loop what would be the best way to generate html?
I personally never use the new keyword if I can avoid it and do pure prototype-based programming with Object.create. Here's a simple example. I create a prototype-object called rectangle and then create an object called myRectangle which inherits from rectangle.
var rectangle = {
init: function( x, y, width, height ) {
this.x = x;
this.y = y;
this.width = width;
this.height = height;
},
move: function( x, y ) {
this.x += x;
this.y += y;
}
};
var myRectangle = Object.create( rectangle );
myRectangle.init( 0, 0, 2, 4 );
myRectangle.move( 3, 5 );
To explain in more depth what happens here, Object.create makes a new object with a specified prototype. When we access a property on an object (like init or move), it first checks the object itself. If it can't find it there, it moves up to the object's prototype and checks there. If it's not there, it checks the prototype's prototype, and keeps going up the prototype chain until it finds it.
When we call a function on an object (myRectangle.init()), this inside the function refers to that object, even if the function definition is actually on the prototype. This is called delegation - an object can delegate its responsibilities to its prototype.
A more class-like way to do this is:
function Rectangle( x, y, width, height ) {
this.x = x;
this.y = y;
this.width = width;
this.height = height;
}
Rectangle.prototype.move = function( x, y ) {
this.x +=x;
this.y +=y;
};
var myRectangle = new Rectangle( 0, 0, 2, 4 );
myRectangle.move( 3, 5 );
The problem is when we need to do a deeper inheritance hierarchy:
function Parent() {
/* expensive and possibly side-effect inducing initialization */
}
Parent.prototype.parentMethod = function() {};
function Child() {}
Child.prototype = new Parent();
We have to initialize a Parent object when all we really want is to set the Child prototype to an object based on Parent.prototype. Another option is:
Child.prototype = Object.create( Parent.prototype );
But now we've got this confusing, convoluted mess of prototype-based and class-based code. Personally, I like this instead:
var parent = {
parentMethod: function() {}
};
// Using underscore for stylistic reasons
var child = _.extend( Object.create( parent ), {
childMethod: function() {}
});
var instance = Object.create( child );
instance.parentMethod();
instance.childMethod();
No new keyword needed. No fake class system. "Objects inherit from objects. What could be more object-oriented than that?"
So what's the catch? Object.create is slow. If you're creating lots of objects, it's better to use new. You can still use Object.create to set up the prototype chain, but we'll have to wait a bit for browsers to optimize it enough for lots of instantiation.
Have you tried budgetSections[0].id = 'yourID';?

JavaScript override methods

Let's say you have the below code:
function A() {
function modify() {
x = 300;
y = 400;
}
var c = new C();
}
function B() {
function modify(){
x = 3000;
y = 4000;
}
var c = new C();
}
C = function () {
var x = 10;
var y = 20;
function modify() {
x = 30;
y = 40;
};
modify();
alert("The sum is: " + (x+y));
}
Now the question is, if there is any way in which I can override the method modify from C with the methods that are in A and B. In Java you would use the super-keyword, but how can you achieve something like this in JavaScript?
Edit: It's now six years since the original answer was written and a lot has changed!
If you're using a newer version of JavaScript, possibly compiled with a tool like Babel, you can use real classes.
If you're using the class-like component constructors provided by Angular or React, you'll want to look in the docs for that framework.
If you're using ES5 and making "fake" classes by hand using prototypes, the answer below is still as right as it ever was.
JavaScript inheritance looks a bit different from Java. Here is how the native JavaScript object system looks:
// Create a class
function Vehicle(color){
this.color = color;
}
// Add an instance method
Vehicle.prototype.go = function(){
return "Underway in " + this.color;
}
// Add a second class
function Car(color){
this.color = color;
}
// And declare it is a subclass of the first
Car.prototype = new Vehicle();
// Override the instance method
Car.prototype.go = function(){
return Vehicle.prototype.go.call(this) + " car"
}
// Create some instances and see the overridden behavior.
var v = new Vehicle("blue");
v.go() // "Underway in blue"
var c = new Car("red");
c.go() // "Underway in red car"
Unfortunately this is a bit ugly and it does not include a very nice way to "super": you have to manually specify which parent classes' method you want to call. As a result, there are a variety of tools to make creating classes nicer. Try looking at Prototype.js, Backbone.js, or a similar library that includes a nicer syntax for doing OOP in js.
Since this is a top hit on Google, I'd like to give an updated answer.
Using ES6 classes makes inheritance and method overriding a lot easier:
'use strict';
class A {
speak() {
console.log("I'm A");
}
}
class B extends A {
speak() {
super.speak();
console.log("I'm B");
}
}
var a = new A();
a.speak();
// Output:
// I'm A
var b = new B();
b.speak();
// Output:
// I'm A
// I'm B
The super keyword refers to the parent class when used in the inheriting class. Also, all methods on the parent class are bound to the instance of the child, so you don't have to write super.method.apply(this);.
As for compatibility: the ES6 compatibility table shows only the most recent versions of the major players support classes (mostly). V8 browsers have had them since January of this year (Chrome and Opera), and Firefox, using the SpiderMonkey JS engine, will see classes next month with their official Firefox 45 release. On the mobile side, Android still does not support this feature, while iOS 9, release five months ago, has partial support.
Fortunately, there is Babel, a JS library for re-compiling Harmony code into ES5 code. Classes, and a lot of other cool features in ES6 can make your Javascript code a lot more readable and maintainable.
Once should avoid emulating classical OO and use prototypical OO instead. A nice utility library for prototypical OO is traits.
Rather then overwriting methods and setting up inheritance chains (one should always favour object composition over object inheritance) you should be bundling re-usable functions into traits and creating objects with those.
Live Example
var modifyA = {
modify: function() {
this.x = 300;
this.y = 400;
}
};
var modifyB = {
modify: function() {
this.x = 3000;
this.y = 4000;
}
};
C = function(trait) {
var o = Object.create(Object.prototype, Trait(trait));
o.modify();
console.log("sum : " + (o.x + o.y));
return o;
}
//C(modifyA);
C(modifyB);
modify() in your example is a private function, that won't be accessible from anywhere but within your A, B or C definition. You would need to declare it as
this.modify = function(){}
C has no reference to its parents, unless you pass it to C. If C is set up to inherit from A or B, it will inherit its public methods (not its private functions like you have modify() defined). Once C inherits methods from its parent, you can override the inherited methods.
the method modify() that you called in the last is called in global context
if you want to override modify() you first have to inherit A or B.
Maybe you're trying to do this:
In this case C inherits A
function A() {
this.modify = function() {
alert("in A");
}
}
function B() {
this.modify = function() {
alert("in B");
}
}
C = function() {
this.modify = function() {
alert("in C");
};
C.prototype.modify(); // you can call this method where you need to call modify of the parent class
}
C.prototype = new A();
Not unless you make all variables "public", i.e. make them members of the Function either directly or through the prototype property.
var C = function( ) {
this.x = 10 , this.y = 20 ;
this.modify = function( ) {
this.x = 30 , this.y = 40 ;
console.log("(!) C >> " + (this.x + this.y) ) ;
} ;
} ;
var A = function( ) {
this.modify = function( ) {
this.x = 300 , this.y = 400 ;
console.log("(!) A >> " + (this.x + this.y) ) ;
} ;
} ;
A.prototype = new C ;
var B = function( ) {
this.modify = function( ) {
this.x = 3000 , this.y = 4000 ;
console.log("(!) B >> " + (this.x + this.y) ) ;
} ;
} ;
new C( ).modify( ) ;
new A( ).modify( ) ;
new B( ).modify( ) ;
test it here
You will notice a few changes.
Most importantly the call to the supposed "super-classes" constructor is now implicit within this line:
<name>.prototype = new C ;
Both A and B will now have individually modifiable members x and y which would not be the case if we would have written ... = C instead.
Then, x, y and modify are all "public" members so that assigning a different Function to them
<name>.prototype.modify = function( ) { /* ... */ }
will "override" the original Function by that name.
Lastly, the call to modify cannot be done in the Function declaration because the implicit call to the "super-class" would then be executed again when we set the supposed "super-class" to the prototype property of the supposed "sub-classes".
But well, this is more or less how you would do this kind of thing in JavaScript.
HTH,
FK
function A() {
var c = new C();
c.modify = function(){
c.x = 123;
c.y = 333;
}
c.sum();
}
function B() {
var c = new C();
c.modify = function(){
c.x = 999;
c.y = 333;
}
c.sum();
}
C = function () {
this.x = 10;
this.y = 20;
this.modify = function() {
this.x = 30;
this.y = 40;
};
this.sum = function(){
this.modify();
console.log("The sum is: " + (this.x+this.y));
}
}
A();
B();

Categories

Resources