Develop Reference

Javascript/NodeJS passing byref

I'm still learning JS. In some other languages, you can pass variables byref and then modify them elsewhere in code.
In an attempt to avoid having lots of duplicate code, I have structured a series of callbacks and parsing like so:
class MarketData {
constructor() {
//Arrays
this.OneMinuteData = [];
this.ThreeMinuteData = [];
this.initializeCandleData();
}
initializeData() {
var client = new Client();
this._initializeData(60, client, this.OneMinuteData);
this._initializeData(180, client, this.ThreeMinuteData);
}
_initializeData(granularity, client, dataStore) {
client.GetRates({ granularity: granularity }, function(err, msg, data) {
var items = data.map(item => ({
///data mapped here
}));
dataStore = dataStore.concat(items);
}
}
So essentially I have this 'private' _initializeData function with the hopes of passing in an array and having it add to the array, but since JS passes byval, I cannot achieve the desired effect (e.g. this.OneMinuteData array is not modified).
Because of this, the only way I currently know how to work around this problem is to essentially have the same function copy-pasted for each individual array, which I find incredibly sloppy. Is there a better way of doing this?

but since JS passes byval, I cannot achieve the desired effect (e.g. this.OneMinuteData array is not modified).
While JavaScript does pass by value, that value when dealing with an object (including any array) is a reference.
See the documentation for concat:
The concat() method is used to merge two or more arrays. This method does not change the existing arrays, but instead returns a new array.
So when you say dataStore = dataStore.concat(items);, you assign a new array to the local dataStore variable and discard the old one.
Outside the function, the original array is unchanged.
The reason the array assigned to OneMinuteData is not modified is because you never modify any array.
Push the values of items into dataStore instead.
dataStore.push.apply(dataStore, items);
NB: GetRates has the signature of an asynchronous function, so make sure you don't try to inspect the modifications to OneMinuteData before they are made.

Node.JS behaves strange

I have a variable called uids
var uids = [];
Then I write some value to it property
uids[16778923] = "3fd6335d-b0e4-4d77-b304-d30c651ed509"
But before it
if (!uids[user.id]) {
uids[user.id] = generateKey(user);
}
This thing behaves ok. If I try to get the value of it property
uids[currentUser.id]
It will give me a value of this property. If I try to call some methods like
Object.keys(uids);
It will give me, what I expected. And here the mystery comes...
uids;
RAM rest in piece. See the node eating ram
I am very confused now. What's wrong?

This is because you are creating a huge array and node will reserve memory for it - who knows what comes. I'd say that's a scenario where you would use a Map (or a plain object, but Map feels better here.
var uids = new Map();
var key = 456464564564654;
if (! uids.has(key)) {
uids.set(key, generateKey(user))
}

You are creating an empty array (length is zero), then you assign some value to an arbitrary index. This will make the array grow as big as the index and assign the value to that index. Look at this example using node.js REPL:
> var a = []
undefined
> a[5] = "something"
'something'
> a
[ , , , , , 'something' ]
> a.length
6
Instead of creating an array, you could create a Map() or an common javascript object (singleton). Javascript objects behave like Maps but only Strings can be used as keys. If you assign a Number to be key, javascript will convert it to String automatically.
Personally, I would go with objects because they perform better. Instantiating an object takes longer than instantiating a Map (and it doesn't seem like you need to create several groups of "uids"), but once done, adding new keys and retrieving values from any key in faster when using common objects. At least that's how things go in my node.js v6.7.0 on ubuntu 14.04 but you could try for yourself. And it would also make the least alteration to your code.
var uids = {} // common/ordinary empty javascript object instead of array.
if (!uids[user.id]) { // getting value from one key works the same.
uids[user.id] = generateKey(user) // assignment works the same.
}
////
uids[16778923] = "3fd6335d-b0e4-4d77-b304-d30c651ed509" // key will be "16778923".
uids[16778923] // getting value for key "16778923" can be done using 16778923 instead of "16778923".
////
uids[currentUser.id] // still returning values like this.
Object.keys(uids) // still returning an array of keys like this. but they are all Strings.

How do I prevent my program from overwriting localStorage every time a button is clicked?

document.getElementById("submit").addEventListener("click", getElements)
function getElements() {
var a = document.getElementById("sample").value;
var x = new obj(a);
function store() {
localStorage.setItem('todays-values', Object.values(x));
}
store();
}
In a separate js file I then call
localStorage.getItem('todays-values');
I get the values, but if I put new inputs into my html file and click the submit button, the previous values get overwritten and replaced by the new ones. How do I store all the values that are submitted and prevent the old ones from getting replaced?
I'm very new to Javascript so I would prefer to solve this problem without the use of any additional libraries if possible.

First: it seems that you are mixing JavaScript a class with a function (here is an example: What techniques can be used to define a class in JavaScript, and what are their trade-offs?)
For example this is the class equivalent in JavaScript:
function ClassName() {
var privateVar;
this.publicVar;
function privateFunction() {}
this.publicFunction = function() {};
}
You shouldn't wrap a function in a function unless it has a meaning (beacuse it is confusing for other people otherwise), but in the example given you don't need that. Also I can't see the reason why you are creating a new object x - if you create the object right before you save it you could just save the value because the object will only contain the value from sample, so you could write something like this:
document.getElementById("submit").addEventListener("click", getElements);
function storeElements() {
var sampleValue = document.getElementById("sample").value;
localStorage.setItem('todays-values', sampleValue);
}
Back to your question:
As Kalamarico mentioned: if you write new values into todays-values you will overwrite your old values, you could simply load all old values from the localStorage append the new ones and write them back to the localStorage.
You should also note that the localStorage only takes strings, so you should stringify objects (see localStorage.setItem).
function appendValueToStorage(key, value) {
var values = JSON.parse(localStorage.getItem(key));
if (values === null) {
values = [];
}
values.push(value);
localStorage.setItem(key, JSON.stringify(values));
console.log(localStorage.getItem(key));
}
appendValueToStorage('todays-values', document.getElementById("sample").value);
The function will let you append some value for a key, you could even wrap this function again to be able to use it in your click function:
function onSubmitClick() {
appendValueToStorage('todays-values', document.getElementById("sample").value);
}
document.getElementById("submit").addEventListener("click", onSubmitClick);
With the console.log command you can see the current content of the localStorage (you could also check with the developer tools - I find the ones for chrome work the best, under the Application -> Local Storage tab you can check the localStorage of your page).

You need read more about localStorage, this is a new feature introduced with HTML5, you can take a look here and see all features.
localStorage stores your data like a JSON object, if you don't know what is JSON, you need to find info. In javascript think in objects in this way:
var myData = {
myName: 'Kalamarico',
myAge: undefined
};
This is a Javascript object, and JSON is very similar and it is a representation of objects.
localStorage API stores your data as this way, when you do:
localStorage.setItem('todays-values', Object.values(x))
localStorage saves a new entry, one key 'todays-values' and its value is an object, so, your localStorage seems:
{
"todays-values": { ... }
}
Every time you set a "todays-values" you will overwrite the key, as you are seeing, so, if you can keep old values, you need to do this manage, first you can get items in localstorage (if there are), and after you can "merge" your old value and the new value. Or you can set a new key, for example: "todays-values1" depends on your need.

If you need to store exactly one key-value pair per day, then you could add the date in the key string.
Else how about numbering the keys ("yourKey_0", "yourKey_1", ...) and also storing the current (biggest) index ("currentIndex")in local storage:
function store(value) {
newIndex = localStorage.getItem("currentIndex") + 1;
localStorage.setItem("yourKey_" + newIndex, value);
localStorage.setItem("currentIndex", newIndex);
}
If you run into problems storing integer values, convert to strings.

How to work with javascript object methods in Angularfire

I have an object that represents a restaurant order:
function order () {
this.customer_name = ''
this.menu = // menu object
}
extended with some object methods for business logic, like:
order.prototype.value = function() {
var total = 0;
for (var i = 0; i < this.menu.length; i++) {
// calculate the order value
}
return total;
}
In the angular controller orders get pushed onto an array when submitted (via ng-click from a button in the view):
var ref = new Firebase('https://myfirebase.firebaseio.com');
$scope.orders = [];
angularFire(ref, $scope, 'orders');
$scope.currentOrder = orderService;
$scope.submitOrder = function() {
$scope.orders.push($scope.currentOrder);
};
Once orders are pushed into the array, properties like orders[0].customer_name work, but methods like orders[0].value() don't.
It seems reasonable that Firebase/Angularfire would only be syncing JSON, but is there an approach that would allow me to keep order-related logic included with the order object, i.e without having to write $scope.getOrderValue(orders[0])?

There isn't a great way to do exactly what you want, since according to the Firebase FAQ:
At a low-level, we support basically the same data types as JSON: Strings, Numbers, Booleans, and Objects (which in turn contain Strings, Numbers, Booleans, and more Objects).
Which means you can store data but not functions. It seems like a clean way to accomplish the same thing would be to store the latest order value as a property of your order object, and have a method as part of your orderService that updates it whenever menu items are added or removed. Alternatively, do what you suggested and have a getOrderValue somewhere, but it probably still makes sense to put that in a service.

I actually had the same issue.
I wanted to add a method to my firebase object.
After looking in the latest angularfire docs I found that $extend can do just that
I didn't test it yet, but I think this is the way to go about it.

Deserializing JavaScript object instance

I am working on an app that heavily uses JavaScript. I am attempting to include some object-oriented practices. In this attempt, I have created a basic class like such:
function Item() { this.init(); }
Item.prototype = {
init: function () {
this.data = {
id: 0,
name: "",
description: ""
}
},
save: function() {
alert("Saving...");
$.ajax({
url: getUrl(),
type: "POST",
data: JSON.stringify(this.data),
contentType: "application/json"
});
}
}
I am creating Item instances in my app and then saving them to local storage like such:
Item item = new Item();
window.localStorage.setItem("itemKey", JSON.stringify(item));
On another page, or at another time, I am retriving that item from local storage like such:
var item = window.localStorage.getItem("itemKey");
item = JSON.parse(item);
item.save();
Unfortunately, the "save" function does not seem to get reached. In the console window, there is an error that says:
*save_Click
(anonymous function)
onclick*
I have a hunch that the "(anonymous function)" is the console window's way of saying "calling item.save(), but item is an anonymous type, so I am trying to access an anonymous function". My problem is, I'm not sure how to convert "var item" into an Item class instance again. Can someone please show me?

Short answer:
Functions cannot be serialized into JSON.
Explanation:
JSON is a cross-platform serialization scheme based on a subset of JS literal syntax. This being the case, it can only store certain things. Per http://www.json.org/ :
Objects: An object is an unordered set of name/value pairs. An object begins with { (left brace) and ends with } (right brace). Each name is followed by : (colon) and the name/value pairs are separated by , (comma).
Arrays: An array is an ordered collection of values. An array begins with [ (left bracket) and ends with ] (right bracket). Values are separated by , (comma).
values: A value can be a string in double quotes, or a number, or true or false or null, or an object or an array. These structures can be nested.
Functions cannot be serialized into JSON because another non-JS platform would not be able to unserialize and use it. Consider the example in reverse. Say I had a PHP object at my server which contained properties and methods. If I serialized that object with PHP's json_encode() and methods were included in the output, how would my JavaScript ever be able to parse and understand PHP code in the methods, let alone use those methods?
What you are seeing in your resulting JSON is the toString() value of the function on the platform you're using. The JSON serilizer calls toString() on anything being serialized which isn't proper for JSON.
I believe your solution is to stop storing instances in JSON/local storage. Rather, save pertinent data for an instance which you set back to a new instance when you need.

I know this question is answered already, however I stumbled upon this by accident and wanted to share a solution to this problem, if anyone is interested.
instead of doing this:
var item = window.localStorage.getItem("itemKey");
item = JSON.parse(item);
item.save();
do something like this:
// get serialized JSON
var itemData = window.localStorage.getItem("itemKey");
//instantiate new Item object
var item = new Item();
// extend item with data
$.extend(item, JSON.parse(itemData));
// this should now work
item.save();
this will work so long as the function you are wanting to call (ie, save()) is prototypal and not an instance method (often times the case, and is indeed the case in the OP's original question.
the $.extend method is a utility method of jquery, but it is trivial to roll your own.

You cant do that, how can javascript possibly knows that item have a save function ? json doesnt allow functions as datas. just read the json spec , you cant save functions.
what you need to do is to create a serialize and deserialize method in the hash you want to stock. that will specifiy what to export and how you can "wake up" an object after parsing the corresponding json string.

You can only store plain Objects in DOMstorages (cookies, urlparams..., everything that needs [de]serialisation through JSON.stringify/JSON.parse). So what you did when sending the ajax data
ajaxsend(this.data);
also applies to string serialisation. You can only store the data, not the instance attributes (like prototype, constructor etc.). So use
savestring(JSON.stringify(item.data));
which is possible because item.data is such a plain Object. And when restoring it, you will only get that plain data Object back. In your case it's easy to reconstruct a Item instance from plain data, because your Items hold their values (only) in a public available property:
var item = new Item;
item.data = JSON.parse(getjsonstring());

Disclaimer
Not a full time time J.S. Developer, answer may have some minor bugs:
Long Boring Explanation
As mentioned by #JAAulde, your object cannot be serialized into JSON, because has functions, the technique that you are using doesn't allow it.
Many people forget or ignore that the objects that are used in an application, may not be exactly the same as saved / restored from storage.
Short & quick Answer
Since you already encapsulate the data members of your object into a single field,
you may want to try something like this:
// create J.S. object from prototype
Item item = new Item();
// assign values as you app. logic requires
item.data.name = "John Doe";
item.data.description = "Cool developer, office ladies, love him";
// encoded item into a JSON style string, not stored yet
var encodedItem = JSON.stringify(item.data)
// store string as a JSON string
window.localStorage.setItem("itemKey", encodedItem);
// do several stuff
// recover item from storage as JSON encoded string
var encodedItem = window.localStorage.getItem("itemKey");
// transform into J.S. object
item.data = JSON.parse(encodedItem);
// do other stuff
Cheers.