What is the name of the native function that handles template literals?
That is, I know that when you write tag`Foo ${'bar'}.`;, that’s just syntactic sugar for tag(['Foo ', '.'], 'bar');.¹
But what about just `Foo ${'bar'}.`;? I can’t just “call” (['Foo ', '.'], 'bar');. If I already have arguments in that form, what function should I pass them to?
I am only interested in the native function that implements the template literal functionality. I am quite capable of rolling my own, but the purpose of this question is to avoid that and do it “properly”—even if my implementation is a perfect match of current native functionality, the native functionality can change and I want my usage to still match. So answers to this question should take on one of the following forms:
The name of the native function to use, ideally with links to and/or quotes from documentation of it.
Links to and/or quotes from the spec that defines precisely what the implementation of this function is, so that if I roll my own at least I can be sure it’s up to the (current) specifications.
A backed-up statement that the native implementation is unavailable and unspecified. Ideally this is backed up by, again, links to and/or quotes from documentation, but if that’s unavailable, I’ll accept other sources or argumentation that backs this claim up.
Actually, the first argument needs a raw property, since it’s a TemplateStringsArray rather than a regular array, but I’m skipping that here for the sake of making the example more readable.
Motivation
I am trying to create a tag function (tag, say) that, internally, performs the default template literal concatenation on the input. That is, I am taking the TemplateStringsArray and the remaining arguments, and turning them into a single string that has already had its templating sorted out. (This is for passing the result into another tag function, otherTag perhaps, where I want the second function to treat everything as a single string literal rather than a broken up template.)
For example, tag`Something ${'cooked'}.`; would be equivalent to otherTag`Something cooked.`;.
My current approach
The definition of tag would look something like this:
function tag(textParts, ...expressions) {
const cooked = // an array with a single string value
const raw = // an array with a single string value
return otherTag({ ...cooked, raw });
}
Defining the value of raw is fairly straightforward: I know that String.raw is the tag function I need to call here, so const raw = [String.raw(textParts.raw, ...expressions)];.
But I cannot find anywhere on the internet what function I would call for the cooked part of it. What I want is, if I have tag`Something ${'cooked'}.`;, I want const cooked = `Something ${cooked}.`; in my function. But I can’t find the name of whatever function accomplishes that.
The closest I’ve found was a claim that it could be implemented as
const cooked = [expressions.map((exp, i) => textParts[i] + exp).join('')];
This is wrong—textParts may be longer than expressions, since tag`Something ${'cooked'}.`; gets ['Something ', '.'] and ['cooked'] as its arguments.
Improving this expression to handle that isn’t a problem:
const cooked = [
textParts
.map((text, i) => (i > 0 ? expressions[i-1] : '') + text)
.join(''),
];
But that’s not the point—I don’t want to roll my own here and risk it being inconsistent with the native implementation, particularly if that changes.
The name of the native function to use, ideally with links to and/or quotes from documentation of it.
There isn't one. It is syntax, not a function.
Links to and/or quotes from the spec that defines precisely what the implementation of this function is, so that if I roll my own at least I can be sure it’s up to the (current) specifications.
Section 13.2.8 Template Literals of the specification explains how to process the syntax.
I'm not sure if this question makes sense but when I'm using an IDE and for example I type:
x = 5
s = typeof(x)
if (s === ) //Cursor selection after === (before i finished the statement)
the IDE's autocomplete feature gives me a list of the possible values. And if I type value that doesn't exist in that list it's highlighted, and when I execute the program (in other examples, not this one), it throws an error.
I want to achieve a similar functionality with my own variables so that I can only assign specific values to it.
I'd recommend using TypeScript. See this question.
For example, your code will throw a TypeScript error if you try to compare the result of typeof against anything that isn't a proper JavaScript type:
x = 5
s = typeof(x)
if (s === 'foobar') {
}
results in
In a reasonable IDE with TypeScript (such as VSCode), any line of code that doesn't make sense from a type perspective will be highlighted with the error.
If you want to permit only particular values for some variable, you can use | to alternate, eg:
let someString: 'someString' | 'someOtherString' = 'someString';
will mean that only those two strings can occur when doing
someString =
later.
TypeScript makes writing large applications so much easier. It does take some time to get used to, but it's well worth it IMO. It turns many hard-to-debug runtime errors into (usually) trivially-fixable compile-time errors.
I am still getting my head around the generic classes, and I need to create other class dynamically. But I am not sure how to do it.
Class A {}
Class B<T> {
Return T
}
Const c = B(A); // which is T
Give abit more context on what I am trying to do.
I use angular and typescript 3.45. Create a form dynamically by resolve the right component. In the directive, I should be able to retrieve a generic class. And use it, without any knowledge about the class that it is creating. Follow the separation of concerns.
UPDATE
Finally I got part of the Generic type, but still a few grey areas where I am still struggling and unsure where to start. For anyone who is interested and maybe a bit confused, I hope this will help to give you a bit of clarification.
Take any input type and receive the same type. Code example, lets we call this generic type U.
function func(a: U): U {
return a;
}
const c = func(arg: U); // after this line, c has a value of type U
// Same as
const c = func(10); // now c = 10;
What I intend to ask is, for any input type and I get a generic type as return type. That is a silly, because the compiler infers type from the input and replace U with the actual custom or primitive type.
For my return generic type, maybe we can achieve it thru conditional type but I am still getting use to the whole type, casting type and hide type behind extends and implementations. link
Thanks for the answer, it is right answer for my current question.
How to instantiate a generic type in TypeScript
source Rico Suter's blog.
link
But how would you write such a method in TypeScript? The main
problem is, that the generic type argument T is not available at
runtime because TypeScript generics are only used at compile time
for type checking and removed in the transpiled JavaScript code.
public class YourFactory
{
public T Create<T>()
where T: new()
{
return new T();
}
}
var yourFactory = new YourFactory();
var person = yourFactory.Create<PersonModal>();
refer this
I am have some JavaScript functions that run on both the client (browser) and the server (within a Java Rhino context). These are small functions - basically little validators that are well defined and don't rely upon globals or closures - self-contained and portable.
Here's an example:
function validPhoneFormat(fullObject, value, params, property) {
var phonePattern = /^\+?([0-9\- \(\)])*$/;
if (value && value.length && !phonePattern.test(value))
return [ {"policyRequirement": "VALID_PHONE_FORMAT"}];
else
return [];
}
To keep things DRY, my server code gets a handle on each of these functions and calls toString() on them, returning them to the browser as part of a JSON object. Something like this:
{ "name" : "phoneNumber",
"policies" : [
{ "policyFunction" : "\nfunction validPhoneFormat(fullObject, value, params, property) {\n var phonePattern = /^\\+?([0-9\\- \\(\\)])*$/;\n if (value && value.length && !phonePattern.test(value)) {\n return [{\"policyRequirement\":\"VALID_PHONE_FORMAT\"}];\n } else {\n return [];\n }\n}\n"
}
]
}
My browser JS code then takes this response and creates an instance of this function in that context, like so:
eval("var policyFunction = " + this.policies[j].policyFunction);
policyFailures = policyFunction.call(this, form2js(this.input.closest("form")[0]), this.input.val(), params, this.property.name));
This all works very well. However, I then run this code through JSLint, and I get back this message:
[ERROR] ValidatorsManager.js:142:37:eval is evil.
I appreciate that often, eval can be dangerous. However, I have no idea how else I could implement such a mechanism without using it. Is there any way I can do this and also pass through the JSLint validator?
I wouldn't worry about it since you are only passing these function strings from the server to the client, and are thus in control of what will be evaluated.
On the other hand, if you were going the other direction and doing the evals of client-passed code on the server, that would be an entirely different story...
Update:
As disabling the validation option in your comment may cause you to miss future errors, I would instead suggest passing the function name rather than the entire function and have the function library mirrored on the server and client. Thus, to call the function, you'd use the following code:
var policyFunction = YourLibraryName[this.policies[j].policyFunctionName];
var policyArguments = this.policies[j].policyArguments;
policyFunction.apply(this, policyArguments);
Update 2:
I was able to validate the following code with JSLint successfully, which essentially allows you to "turn off" validation for the vast minority of cases where eval is appropriate. At the same time, JSLint still validates normal eval calls, and all uses of this method should throw up flags for future developers to avoid using it/refactor it out where possible/as time allows.
var EVAL_IS_BAD__AVOID_THIS = eval;
EVAL_IS_BAD__AVOID_THIS(<yourString>);
Dont encode a function as a string in JSON. JSON is for content, which you are confounding with behavior.
Instead, I suppose you could return JS files instead, which allow real functions:
{ name : "phoneNumber",
policies : [
{ policyFunction : function() {
whateverYouNeed('here');
}
}
]
}
But while that solves the technical issue, it's still not a great idea.
The real solution here is to move your logic out of your content entirely. Import a JS file full of little validation functions and call them as needed based on a dataType property in your JSON or something. If this functions are as small and portable as you say, this should be trivial to accomplish.
Getting your data all tangled up with your code usually leads to pain. You should statically include your JS, then dynamically request/import/query for your JSON data to run through your statically included code.
I would avoid using eval in all situations. There's no reason you can't code around it. Instead of sending code to the client, just keep it hosted on the server in one contained script file.
If that's not doable, you can also have a dynamically generated javascript file then pass in the necessary parameters via the response, and then dynamically load the script on the client side. There's really no reason to use eval.
Hope that helps.
You can use
setInterval("code to be evaluated", 0);
Internally, if you pass setInterval a string it performs a function similar to eval().
However, I wouldn't worry about it. If you KNOW eval() is evil, and take appropriate precautions, it's not really a problem. Eval is similar to GoTo; you just have to be careful and aware of what you're doing to use them properly.
With very little parsing you could have had it like so:
var body = this.policies[j].policyFunction.substr;
body = body.substr(body.indexOf("(") + 1);
var arglist = body.substr(1, body.indexOf(")"));
body = body.substr(arglist.length + 1);
var policyFunction = new Function(arglist, body);
Which would provide a bit of validation, avoid the literal use of eval and work synchronously with the code. But it is surely eval in disguise, and it is prone to XSS attack. If the malevolent person can get their code loaded and evaluated this way - it will not save you. So, really, just don't do it. Add a <script> tag with the proper URL and that would be certainly safer. Well, you know, better safe then sorry.
PS. My apologises if the code above doesn't work, it only shows the intent, I've not tested it, and if I made a mistake at counting parenthesis or some such - well, you should get the idea, I'm not advertising it by any means.
DRY is definitely something I agree with, however there is a point where copy+pasting is more efficient and easy to maintain than referencing the same piece of code.
The code you're saving yourself from writing seems to be equivalent to a clean interface, and simple boiler plate. If the same code is being used on both the server and the client, you could simply pass around the common pieces of the function, rather than the whole function.
Payload:
{
"name": "phoneNumber",
"type": "regexCheck",
"checkData": "/^\\+?([0-9\\- \\(\\)])*$/"
}
if(payload.type === "regexCheck"){
const result = validPhoneFormat(fullObject, value, payload.checkData)
}
function validPhoneFormat(fullObject, value, regexPattern) {
if (value && value.length && !regexPattern.test(value))
return [ {"policyRequirement": "VALID_PHONE_FORMAT"}];
else
return [];
}
This would give you the ability to update the regex from a single location. If the interface changes it does need to be updated in 2 places, but I wouldn't consider that a bad thing. If the client is running code, why hide the structure?
If you really, really want to keep both the object structure and the patterns in one place - extract it to a single API. Have a "ValidatePhoneViaRegex" api endpoint which is called by all places you'd be passing this serialized function to.
If all of this seems like too much effort, set jslint to ignore your piece of code:
"In JSHint 1.0.0 and above you have the ability to ignore any warning with a special option syntax. The identifier of this warning is W061. This means you can tell JSHint to not issue this warning with the /*jshint -W061 */ directive.
In ESLint the rule that generates this warning is named no-eval. You can disable it by setting it to 0, or enable it by setting it to 1."
https://github.com/jamesallardice/jslint-error-explanations/blob/master/message-articles/eval.md
I would prefer to see copy+pasted code, a common api, or receiving parameters and copy+pasted boiler plate than magical functions passed in from the server to be executed.
What happens if you get a cross-browser compatibility error with one of these shared functions?
Well, the first thing to bear in mind is that jsLint does make the point that "it will hurt your feelings". It's designed to point out where you're not following best practices -- but code that isn't perfect can still work just fine; there's no compulsion upon you to follow jsLint's advice.
Having said that, eval is evil, and in virtually all cases there is always a way around using it.
In this case, you could use a library such as require.js, yepnope.js or some other library that is designed to load a script separately. This would allow you to include the javascript functions you need dynamically but without having to eval() them.
There are probably several other solutions as well, but that was the first one that came to my mind.
Hope that helps.
I was studying TinyMCE code and stumbled upon this way of exposing public methods:
tinymce.extend(this, {
execCommand : execCommand,
queryCommandState : queryCommandState,
queryCommandValue : queryCommandValue,
addCommands : addCommands
});
What is the benefit of writing the above if the below code can be used instead (with fewer lines of code and less execution time required for the same task!)
this.execCommand = execCommand;
this.queryCommandState = queryCommandState;
this.queryCommandValue = queryCommandValue;
this.addCommands = addCommands;
Or even shorter, somewhere in the declaration of an object:
execCommand: execCommand,
queryCommandState: queryCommandState,
queryCommandValue: queryCommandValue,
addCommands: addCommands
Where's the catch?
Well, one thing that jumps out at me is the first sample that you have there is the method in which the TinyMCE expects its arguments for its extend function.
Glancing at the source of extend, it checks each key value pair for undefined, only adding them to the object if they're defined. So, there's a little bit of added functionality that can be useful when extending a class.