Develop Reference

Unable to execute karate script() method

I am trying to migrate one of selenium test to karate, while doing this I am using script() method defined in documentation which is used in karate for evaluating the given string as JavaScript within the browser but I am getting this
driver.executeScript("sauce:job-result=passed");
Also Sharing my feature file which getting failed:
Also Even I tried calling below statement in my script but still getting the same error
* script("console.log('hello world')")
I am using testImplementation("com.intuit.karate:karate-core:1.2.0.RC1") version with gatling

First - try version 1.2.0.RC6 that has some fixes for the console.log() issue.
I also must say that sauce:job-result=passed does not look like valid JavaScript to me. Please take some time to read the docs: https://github.com/karatelabs/karate/tree/master/karate-core#karate-vs-the-browser
If still stuck, follow this process. That is the only way to replicate and for us to determine what fixes we need to make (if any): https://github.com/karatelabs/karate/wiki/How-to-Submit-an-Issue
See this answer for ideas on how to troubleshoot things at your end: https://stackoverflow.com/a/71952132/143475

Why is jsfiddle saying the reference is undefined

I'm quite new to javascript and jsfiddle. I've been able to toy around with other fiddles that I find, but setting one up myself has proved difficult.
I'm attempting to use a library from npm to get a proof of concept for how it might work. I'm not sure why my import of the module is not working with jsfiddle.
What am I missing to get my fiddle working?
used the resourced bar to import the unpkg script
https://unpkg.com/browse/json-query#2.2.2/index.js
tried using the method outlined in the package readme
var json = [...]
jsonQuery('[DisplayText]', json)

When I follow the unpkg link I see that it has requires such as:
var State = require('./lib/state')
The problem is not only can the browser not understand require, it doesn't have files like ./lib/state available.
I think the problem here is that you are trying to download the raw source, which needs to be built with something like webpack before it can be used in the browser.

qx.log.appender Syntax

When declaring qx.log.appender.Native or qx.log.appender.Console, my IDE (PyCharm) complains about the syntax:
// Enable logging in debug variant
if (qx.core.Environment.get("qx.debug"))
{
qx.log.appender.Native;
qx.log.appender.Console;
}
(as documented here)
The warning I get is
Expression statement is not assignment or call
Is this preprocessor magic or a feature of JavaScript syntax I'm not aware yet?
Clarification as my question is ambiguous:
I know that this is perfectly fine JavaScript syntax. From the comments I conclude that here's no magic JS behavior that causes the log appenders to be attached, but rather some preprocessor feature?!
But how does this work? Is it an hardcoded handling or is this syntax available for all classes which follow a specific convention?
The hints how to turn off linter warnings are useful, but I rather wanted to know how this "magic" works

Although what's there by default is legal code, I find it to be somewhat ugly since it's a "useless statement" (result is ignored), aside from the fact that my editor complains about it too. In my code I always change it to something like this:
var appender;
appender = qx.log.appender.Native;
appender = qx.log.appender.Console;
Derrell

The generator reads your code to determine what classes are required by your application, so that it can produce an optimised application with only the minimum classes.
Those two lines are valid Javascript syntax, and exist in order to create a reference to the two classes so that the generator knows to include them - without them, you wouldn't have any logging in your application.
Another way to create the references is to use the #use compiler hint in a class comment, eg:
/**
* #use(qx.log.appender.Native)
* #use(qx.log.appender.Console)
*/
qx.Class.define("mypackage.Application", {
extend: qx.application.Standalone,
members: {
main: function() {
this.base(arguments);
this.debug("Hello world");
}
}
});
This works just as well and there is no unusual syntax - however, in this version your app will always refer to the those log appenders, whereas in the skeleton you are using the references to qx.log.appender.Native/Console were surrounded by if (qx.core.Environment.get("qx.debug")) {...} which means that in the non-debug, ./generate.py build version of your app the log appenders would normally be excluded.
Whether you think this is a good thing or not is up to you - personally, these days I ship all applications with the log appenders enabled and working so that if someone has a problem I can look at the logs (you can write your own appender that sends the logs to the server, or just remote control the user's computer)
EDIT: One other detail is that when a class is created, it can have a defer function that does extra initialisation - in this case, the generator detects qx.log.appender.Console is needed so it makes sure the class is loaded; the class' defer method then adds itself as an appender to the Qooxdoo logging system

This is a valid JS syntax, so most likely it's linter's/preprocessor's warning (looks like something similar to ESLint's no-unused-expressions).
Edit:
For the other part of the question - this syntax most likely uses getters or (rather unlikely as it is a new feature) Proxies. MDN provides simple examples of how this works under the hood.
Btw: there is no such thing as "native" JS preprocessor. There are compilers like Babel or TypeScript's compiler, but they are separate projects, not related to the vanilla JavaScript.

Calling a function defined outside of the Javascript library

I am working on video.js library. I was trying to modify it, so that it uses a custom player instead of the HTML5 player.
So I replaced the function calls to play() etc with the calls to my custom player(say custFunc1()). These calls are defined in a separate javascript file: custPlayer.js.
So in my index.html file, I will first include the custPlayer.js file and then the built video.js file.
However the problem is that while building the video.js package using grunt, I get the error that custFunc1 is not defined and thus grunt is not able to create the video.js library.
Now I was able to find out from a colleague that adding
/* global custFunc1 */
at the beginning of the particular file in the video.js package from where I was calling custFunc1 resolves the issue. The grunt build succeeds and it works fine.
So what I want to know is:
How does this actually resolve the issue, since this is exactly like a comment in javascript, how does it treat this differently and understand that it indicating that the function definition will be present outside the library?
Is the word global some sort of keyword in javascript?
Are there other ways of achieving this apart from what I mentioned?
On a slightly different note, I wanted to ask if grunt is the rough equivalent of make ?

Your javascript is being linted as part of your grunt process, if you look at the root of your project folder you should see a file like .jshintrc or something along those lines (different depending on the linter).
Your current settings means that the linter is going through your .js files one at a time and if it comes across a variable or function from another files it's throwing the error your seeing. You can either turn off this check or add custFunc1 to an array of known global variables. In jshint you do it like so - https://github.com/gruntjs/grunt-contrib-jshint#jshintrc
{
"globals": {
"custFunc1": true
}
}
The globals will probably already be present in the file, so just add custFunc1: true to it.
Oh and to answer question 1 - the comment type syntax tells the linter to ignore it's settings for that current file, basically overriding the settings in the .jshintrc file.
2 - Yes it's a setting in jshintrc and your adding custFunc1 to it inside the file itself instead of globally in the .jshintrc file.
3 - Mentioned above.
4 - Never used maker but yes i believe its similar in that its a pre process tool

Including an external javascript library in pebble js file?

Is there any way I can include an external JS library in my pebble code?
Conventionally on a webpage I would do this in my head tags:
<script type='text/javascript' src='https://cdn.firebase.com/js/client/1.0.11/firebase.js'></script>
But in pebble, I am unable to do that since I am only using JS. So how can I include an external library for a JavaScript file.

At present, you cannot include external JS files.
If you're using CloudPebble, then the only way to do this is to copy and paste the content of the JS library files into your JS file.
If you're doing native development, you can modify the wscript file to combine multiple JS files into one at build time.

I think there's some confusion over Pebble.js vs PebbleKit JS (v3.8.1). Pebble.js is a fledgling SDK where eventually the programmer will be able to write pure JavaScript. It's still cooking so there's some functionality missing like the ability to draw a line or obtain the screen dimensions. The repo is a mix of C and JS sources where you can add C code to augment missing functionality but otherwise all your code lives in src/js/app.js or src/js/app/. Anyway, Pebble.js does support require.
I don't use CloudPebble but I got the impression that it either supports Pebble.js (and hence require) or is planning to. I think all this SDK boilerplate code would be hidden.
PebbleKit JS does not support require out of the box AFAIK. I've made a demo that ports require support from Pebble.js to PKJS. The summary of changes is:
Move your project's src/js/pebble-js-app.js to src/js/app/index.js.
Remove any ready event listener from src/js/app/index.js. index.js will
be loaded when the ready event is emitted.
Add src/js/loader.js from Pebble.js.
Add a src/js/main.js that calls require('src/js/app') on the ready event.
Update your wscript with the following
deltas.
When adding new modules, place them under src/js/app/ and require('./name') will work.
I've tried to cover this all in the demo's readme.
BTW, here's the official breakdown of all the different SDKs but it's a little confusing.

I am not sure if there have been changes since the above answer, but it looks like there is in fact a way to include additional resources while keeping things tidy. On the pebbleJS page, there is the following section with an some information on the subject.
GLOBAL NAMESPACE - require(path)
Loads another JavaScript file allowing you to write a multi-file project. Package loading loosely follows the CommonJS format. path is the path to the dependency.
You can then use the following code to "require" a JS library in your pebble project. This should be usable on both Cloud Pebble as well as native development.
// src/js/dependency.js
var dep = require('dependency');
You can then use this as shown below:
dep.myFunction(); // run a function from the dependency
dep.myVar = 2; // access or change variables
Update:
After some digging into this for my own, I have successfully gotten CloudPebble to work with this functionality. It is a bit convoluted, but follows the ECMAScript 6 standards. Below I am posting a simple example of getting things set up. Additionally, I would suggest looking at this code from PebbleJS for a better reference of a complex setup.
myApp.js
var resource = require('myExtraFile'); // require additional library
console.log(resource.value); // logs 42
resource.functionA(); // logs "This is working now"
myExtraFile.js
var myExtraFile = { // create a JSON object to export
"value" : 42, // variable
functionA : function() { // function
console.log("This is working now!");
}
};
this.exports = myExtraFile; // export this function for
// later use