Develop Reference

Concise way to null check a deeply nested object?

JavaScript for browser
I need to test that one deeply embedded property is not null and if this condition is true, then to change its property. But any its parent can be null also. Therefore I am to check each item in the chain... Therefore I write such ugly code:
if(window[rootNamespace].vm.tech &&
window[rootNamespace].vm.tech.currentWorkType &&
window[rootNamespace].vm.tech.currentWorkType.currentVariant &&
window[rootNamespace].vm.tech.currentWorkType.currentVariant.currentVersion &&
window[rootNamespace].vm.tech.currentWorkType.currentVariant.currentVersion.currentWorkSection &&
window[rootNamespace].vm.tech.currentWorkType.currentVariant.currentVersion.currentWorkSection.currentStageSet){
window[rootNamespace].vm.tech.currentWorkType.currentVariant.currentVersion
.currentWorkSection.currentStageSet.selectedEntity = item;
}
Is there a shorter method of checking?

(I was the original poster proposing the try-catch method, but based on the discussion on that post you were worried about performance. Here's an alternate approach.)
You can use prototype methods to implement a safe method of accessing subproperties. Here is a method which can safely test for the existence of a nested property:
// Indicates whether an object has the indicated nested subproperty, which may be specified with chained dot notation
// or as separate string arguments.
Object.prototype.hasSubproperty = function() {
if (arguments.length == 0 || typeof(arguments[0]) != 'string') return false;
var properties = arguments[0].indexOf('.') > -1 ? arguments[0].split('.') : arguments;
var current = this;
for(var x = 0; x < properties.length; x++) {
current = current[properties[x]];
if ((typeof current) == 'undefined') return false;
}
return true;
};
A full set of methods can be found here, with sample code.
Timings can be run here, and indicate that using the try-catch method may run a couple of orders of magnitude slower than your original approach when errors are thrown, but is otherwise quite fast. The prototype methods are more generic and can lead to a more declarative style, while offering much better performance than try-catch misses, but obviously not quite as good as hand-crafting if statements each time and/or try-catch without a miss.
I've also blogged about this approach.

Syntax wise I don't think so, but I recommend refactoring at least.
var getCurrentStageSet = function(window){
return window[rootNamespace].vm.tech &&
window[rootNamespace].vm.tech.currentWorkType &&
window[rootNamespace].vm.tech.currentWorkType.currentVariant &&
window[rootNamespace].vm.tech.currentWorkType.currentVariant.currentVersion &&
window[rootNamespace].vm.tech.currentWorkType.currentVariant.currentVersion.currentWorkSection &&
window[rootNamespace].vm.tech.currentWorkType.currentVariant.currentVersion.currentWorkSection.currentStageSet
}
var setSelectedEntity = function(currentStageSet, item){
currentStageSet.selectedEntity = item;
}
By abstracting this logic your actual set of the property will be more readable, and reusable:
var currentStageSet = getCurrentStageSet(window);
if (currentStageSet){
setSelectedEntity(currentStageSet, item);
}

For such a trivial, self-contained piece of code, it's probably not unreasonable to just catch and ignore the error (possibly log) e.g.
try {
if (window[rootNamespace].vm.tech.currentWorkType.currentVariant.currentVersion.currentWorkSection.currentStageSet) {
window[rootNamespace].vm.tech.currentWorkType.currentVariant.currentVersion.currentWorkSection.currentStageSet = item;
}
} catch (e) {
// log the error but continue
}
Not sure what else could really go wrong in this type of check, alternatively you could catch a TypeError specifically but not sure it would really matter all that much.
I generally wouldn't recommend catch all's but in this case it seems self contained enough to not be a huge risk.
Anything beyond that requires effort e.g. building an object decorator or a fluent interface type solution, seems overkill to me though.

You can create some variables to get code more readable
var tech = window[rootNamespace].vm.tech;
var workType, curVariant, curVer, curWorkSection;
if(tech){
workType = tech.currentWorkType
}
if(workType){
curVariant = workType.currentVariant;
}
if(curVariant){
curVer =curVariant.currentVersion;
}
if(curVer){
curWorkSection = curVer.currentWorkSection;
}
if(curWorkSection && curWorkSection.currentStageSet){
curWorkSection.currentStageSet.selectedEntity = item;
}

This is the most compact syntax possible in basic JavaScript. It avoids all the null-checking by using error-trapping instead. None of the other answers are as compact because the language is simply missing the feature you're after from C#.
Apparently, I'm being down-voted by the authors of the other, much less compact answers, but this is nevertheless the only single-line answer. Note that other approaches listed here have you creating multiple functions, even. :| If you want compact, this is it.
try { window[rootNamespace].vm.tech.currentWorkType.currentVariant.currentVersion
.currentWorkSection.currentStageSet.selectedEntity = item; } catch (err) {}

javascript build filter function at runtime

While I go into my use-case in (hopefully not too much) detail below, keep in mind that the fundamental question is "How do I create a customized function at runtime in javascript?"
I have (potentially large) arrays of objects, and the user can build custom searches on those objects. The search function is passed an array of filters of the form
[{field:'name', predicate:'contains', modifier:'Joe'},
{field:'type', predicate:'is', modifier:'Boss'}]
which in this example would return all bosses named Joe.
Toward that end, I created a filtering function that applies the filters to the master list, which looks something like:
var matches = everythingOfThatType;
whereClause.forEach(function(filter) {
switch(filter.predicate) {
case '=':
case 'is':
matches = matches.filter(function(record) { return record[filter.field] == filter.modifier; });
console.log(filter, matches);
break;
case '!=':
case 'is not':
matches = matches.filter(function(record) { return record[filter.field] != filter.modifier; });
console.log(filter, matches);
break;
...
and so on.
It's working all right, but now I'm getting some gnarly complexity (special rules for filter combinations, recursive filtering on array properties, etc.), and for performance it would be better to only iterate through the list of all candidates once anyway.
my ideal solution would look something like
var filterFunc = magicallyCreateFilterFunc(filters);
var matches = everythingOfThatType.filter(filterFunc);
where magicallyCreateFilterFunc() would have something like the original switch statement, but instead of applying the filter, would add a line to the function that would eventually be applied to all the objects. Then I can add all the other complexity and recursion and whatnot in a tight, efficient manner.
It seems to me that JavaScript is well-suited for this sort of task (as an aside, the deeper I get into JavaScript the more I appreciate its depth), but I'm a little stuck on step 1: dynamically define a function based on data at run-time. I would really appreciate a nudge in the right direction.

It turns out there is a simple, clean way to do this. What I didn't know when I asked this question oh, so long ago is that closures and filters are best pals.
Rather than apply the filters in the switch statement, I can add the filter functions to an array, then use a closure to execute all the functions on each member of the array.
So my switch statement above looks more like
var buildFilterList = function(whereClause) {
var filterFunctions = [];
whereClause.forEach(function(filter) {
switch(filter.predicate) {
case '=':
case 'is':
filterFunctions.push((function(field) { return function(record) { return record[filter.field] == filter.modifier; })})(field));
break;
...
Which gives me a list of functions to apply to each element, each in a closure that contains the field it should be applied to. More complex filter functions could have more parameters. Now, how to efficiently take that list of filters and apply them? Closures again.
var filterApplicator = function(filters) {
return function(item) {
var passed = true, i = 0, filterCount = filters.length;
for (i = 0; passed && i < filterCount; i++) {
passed = filters[i](item);
}
return passed;
}
}
var filterFunctions = buildFilterList(whereClause);
matches = everythingOfThatType.filter(filterApplicator(filterFunctions));
filterApplicator() returns a function that will be applied to each element in the original array. That function is in a closure that includes the array of filter functions, so all it has to do is loop through those functions and apply them on the element until one fails.
(It should be noted that I have not tested this exact syntax, but the basic concept is what I wanted to pass on here.)

Get a return value from arbitrary eval'd code

I have a requirement that the user can provide arbitrary statements which can be stored in a function and called later to get a return value. A simple example of this is that userInput might be
var x = 10;
x;
I would store this via
var callback = function() {
return eval(userInput);
}
and then running callback() returns 10 as expected.
However, I also need to support the case with an explicit return statement, ie userInput might be
var x = 10;
return x;
In this case the eval method above will fail with SyntaxError: return not in function. Instead I could store callback as
var callback = new Function(userInput);
My issue is that I would like to combine these two approaches according the rule 'get explicit return value otherwise get the result of the last executed statement'. In particular this can't be done with analysis of the code at callback creation time as the user could potentially do something odd like
if(envVar < 10)
return a;
b * 0.5;
which combines both.
Any thoughts on how to structure the creation of the callback function to accommodate these possible inputs? Unfortunately it is not possible to enforce one style or the other on the user.
UPDATE to answer some of the comments below.
One solution suggested is to search for a return token and choose between new Function and eval. This doesn't work for my last example, see http://jsfiddle.net/ZGb6z/2/ - out4 should be "no" but ends up being undefined as the last executed statement is not returned.
Another suggestion is to modify the user input to add an explicit return on the last line if one is not found. Unfortunately it's not possible to know which statement will be executed last. Consider
var x = 10;
switch(x) {
case 10:
100;
break;
default:
200;
break;
}
When called it should return 100, but it would take some serious analysis to determine where to put returns for arbitrary code.

Just use a try catch, manipulating the input will be very painful for you, and try catch can't really make your code any more obtuse at this point.
var failback = function () {
try {
return eval(userInput);
} catch (e) {
return Function(userInput);
}
};
What I would really suggest is investing in a parser, kind of like how Angular does it. That kind of thing would prevent your users from doing whatever the hell they want, introducing attack vectors, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Either manage your expectations or manage your user's expectations. eval and new Function() are not suitable for your requirements if you require mixed usage of explicit and non-explicit return statements in the same user-input. You will continue to find issues following either of these routes.
Simply searching for the word return is not sufficient either... var returning = true; or var a = 'return'; or /* return true */ true; will all throw false positives.
Managing your expectations: To do such a thing you require a form of lexer and parser, at which point you can do away with eval entirely and execute your own safe functions based on the parsed input. This is the best approach when execution of user input has to occur anyway as you can ensure that nothing gets executed you do not wish to permit. If you want to cover these sort of edge cases and permit strange user input then you must be prepared to increase the size and development time of your application. I have built a few applications executing user generated code and have always come to the conclusion this is the correct route to go down.
Managing your user's expectations: Provide a guide, tell them not to mix explicit returns with non-explicit returns, these are strange coding practices anyway. Better yet explicitly tell them to include or omit the return statement. There is no shame in asking your users to follow them, especially if it allows you to improve their experience elsewhere.

There I was thinking I'd only see problems like this at the code golf stack exchange :)
My solution is here: http://jsfiddle.net/hKq87/1
It essentially replaces the 'return' statement with an exception that has a special string prefixed to it. If we see that string, we know we are actually returning a value, and return it rather than re-raising the exception.
The reason I chose to throw an exception rather than replace the return statement with a function call was because it is hard to know where the JS code evaluated for the return really ends. It could be split across multiple lines, contain several special characters and may not even have the optional semi-colon at the end. So I concatenate a string to whatever the value being returned is and throw it, as the throw keyword doesn't require it's argument to be wrapped in parentheses.
In addition, throwing exceptions provides me a convenient way to immediately terminate execution of the code block, without halting other JS execution.
Here is the callback method:
var callback = function(userInput) {
var returned = undefined;
userInput = userInput.replace(/(^|[\(\\)[\]{};,\s])return(\s*[^\s;])?/gi, function(m, b, e){
return b + " throw '__RETURNED_VALUE'" +
(e !== undefined ? "+" + e : "");
});
try {
returned = eval(userInput);
} catch (e) {
if (e.indexOf("__RETURNED_VALUE") == 0) {
returned = e.substring("__RETURNED_VALUE".length) || undefined;
}
else {
throw e;
}
}
return returned;
}
The regex above accounts for variables that may end with the string "return", that we would not want to replace as it is not a return statement. It also allows for return statements within braces, without trailing semi-colons or at the very beginning/end.
One issue with the current method is that you can not use the (rare) comma operator in a return statement, or expect numerical values to be returned correctly. The last test case in the jsfiddle demonstrates this. An example from here:
//original
return 5 * 2 + 3, 22;
//modified
throw '__RETURNED_VALUE='+ 5 * 2 + 3, 22;
//apply * operator
throw '__RETURNED_VALUE='+ 10 + 3, 22;
//apply + operators
throw '__RETURNED_VALUE=103', 22;
//apply , operator
throw 22;
This problem can be avoided by completely eliminating the prefix '__RETURNED_VALUE=' and just replacing 'return' with 'throw'. However, this means that the code provided must run without throwing exceptions, which I thought to be a harder constraint than just crafting return statements to be simple (avoiding comma operators, non-parenthesized arithmetic, etc.). In addition, if a user ever creates a return statement that we can't handle with the current code, we conveniently throw an exception for it so it easily comes to our attention.

jsFiddle Demo
Lets assume your user can be a little smarter than the average bear. We are going to ask them to specifically provide an initial value and then a callback with an expression for that value.
The main benefit of doing this is that you avoid eval, and actually have a nice implementation that is re-usable as opposed to being subject to later refactoring.
This way also provides a separation of where the input comes from and where the examination comes from. Although the provided example only shows integer input, really it could be another call with absolutely no knowledge of the value aside that it needs to conform to the callback logic.
function expression(x,callback){
return callback(x);
}
out1.innerHTML = expression(8,function(x){
return x;
});
out2.innerHTML = expression(10,function(x){
return x;
});
out3.innerHTML = expression(10,function(x){
if(x === 10) return "yes"; "no";
});
out4.innerHTML = expression(8,function(x){
return x === 10 ? "yes" : "no";
});

Form handling and validation in pure JavaScript

My intention is to get your thoughts and criticism about the script below, as regards the algorithm's design, performance and cross-browser compatibility.
I have just started getting into JavaScript having missed out on its awesomeness for quite a while. My background and experience is in developing C/C++/PHP based RESTful backends.
In order to understand the language and the right way of using it, I decided to do something which I am sure has been done many times before. But learning to use a new language and paradigm often entails pain anyway.
This is my attempt to create a normal form processing and validation script/ function.
In order to reduce complexity and keep code simple/clean, I decided to use HTML5 Custom Data Attributes (data-*) to assign metadata for each element in the form:
Data-Required: True or False. If set to true, this parameter makes the form-field required and so it cannot be empty. A value set to false indicates that the field is optional. Default is false.>
Data-Type: Type of validation to be performed. Examples include 'email', 'password', 'numbers' or any other 'regexp'.
A fairy simple example of such a form would be:
<form action="postlistings" id="postlistings" enctype='multipart/form-data' method="post" class="postlistings">
<ul class="login-li">
<li>
<input class="title" name="title" type="title" id="title" data-required="true" data-type="title"></a>
</li>
<li>
<textarea name="body" id="elm1" class="elm1" name="elm1" data-type="body" data-required="true" >
</textarea>
</li>
<li>
<span class="nav-btn-question">Add Listing</span>
</li>
</ul>
</form>
Reminder: This is my first piece of JavaScript code.
The idea is to call Form while passing the form name to retrieve and validate all the field values in one loop for performance. The validation involves two steps as can be guessed from the Data-* attributes described above:
i. Check for required form fields.
In case the values fail to meet step 1 requirement, an error message from configuration is pulled for the specific form value. Thus, for all values that fail to meet this requirement, an array of error messages are collected and passed on to the View.
ii. Perform respective validations.
Validations are only performed if all the values passed step 1. Otherwise, they follow the same steps as indicated in 1 above.
function Form(){
var args = Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments),
formName = args[0],
callback = args.pop(),
userError = [{type: {}, param: {}}],
requiredDataParam = 'required',
typeDataParam = 'type',
form = document.forms[formName],
formLength = form.length || null,
formElement = {id: {}, name: {}, value: {}, required: {}, type: {}};
function getFormElements(){
var num = 0;
var emptyContent = false;
for (var i = 0; i < formLength; i += 1) {
var formField = form[i];
formElement.id[i] = inArray('id', formField) ? formField.id : null;
formElement.name[i] = inArray('name', formField) ? formField.name : null;
formElement.value[i] = inArray('value', formField) ? formField.value : null;
formElement.required[i] = getDataAttribute(formField, requiredDataParam);
formElement.type[i] = getDataAttribute(formField, typeDataParam);
if (formElement.required[i] === true){
if(!formElement.type[i]) {
error('Validation rule not defined!');
}
else if (!formElement.value[i]) {
userError[num++] = {'type': 'required', 'param': form[i]};
emptyContent = true;
}
}
if (emptyContent === false) {
// Perform validations only if no empty but required form values were found.
// This is so that we can collect all the empty
// inputs and their corresponding error messages.
}
}
if (userError) {
// Return empty form errors and their corresponding error messages.
}
return formElement;
};
// Removed the getFormParam function that was not used at all.
return {
getFormElements: getFormElements
}
};
Two outside functions that are used in the JS script above (from JQuery source):
var inArray = function(elem, array){
if (array.indexOf){
return array.indexOf(elem);
}
for (var i = 0, length = array.length; i < length; i++){
if (array[i] === elem){
return i;
}
}
return -1;
}
// This is a cross-platform way to retrieve HTML5 custom attributes.
// Source: JQuery
var getDataAttribute = function(elem, key, data) {
if (data === undefined && elem.nodeType === 1) {
data = elem.getAttribute("data-" + key);
if (typeof data === "string") {
data = data === "true" ? true :
data === "false" ? false :
data === "null" ? null :
!CheckType.isNaN ? parseFloat(data) :
CheckType.rbrace.test(data) ? parseJSON(data) :
data;
}
else {
data = undefined;
}
}
return data;
}
An example of Config Error messages can be set as follows:
var errorMsgs = {
ERROR_email: "Please enter a valid email address.",
ERROR_password: "Your password must be at least 6 characters long. Please try another",
ERROR_user_exists: "The requested email address already exists. Please try again."
};
As I post this for your review, please ignore any styling conventions that I might not have followed. My intention is to get your expert reviews on anything I should be doing different or could do better concerning the code itself, and the algorithm.
Besides the styling conventions, all criticism and questions are welcome.

First I'd like to clear up a common misconception. Forgive me if you already understand this clearly; maybe it will be helpful for someone else.
Learning and using jQuery or a similar library does not preclude or conflict with learning the JavaScript language. jQuery is simply a DOM manipulation library which takes away many of the pain points of using the DOM. There's plenty of room to learn and use JavaScript, the language, even if you use a library to abstract away some of the DOM details.
In fact, I would argue that using the DOM directly is likely to teach bad JavaScript coding habits, because the DOM is very much not a "JavaScript-ish" API. It was designed to work identically in JavaScript and Java and potentially other languages, and so it completely fails to make good use of the features of the JavaScript language.
Of course as you said, you're using this as a learning exercise; I just don't want you to fall into the trap that I've seen many people fall into of thinking, "I don't want to learn jQuery, because I want to learn JavaScript instead!" That's a false dichotomy: you have to learn JavaScript in either case, and using jQuery for the DOM doesn't interfere with that at all.
Now some details...
While it's OK to quote property names in an object literal and when you reference the properties, it's customary - and more readable - not to quote them when they are valid JavaScript names. e.g. in your formElement object
formElement = { id: {}, name: {}, value: {}, required: {}, type: {} };
(there was a missing semicolon at the end there too)
and where you use the names you can do:
formElement.id[i] = ...
formElement.name[i] = ...
etc.
Don't run your loops backwards unless the program logic requires it. It doesn't make the code faster except possibly in the case of an extremely tight loop, and it makes it unclear whether you're just prematurely optimizing or actually need the backwards loop.
Speaking of optimization, that loop has several inArray() calls. Since each of those loops through an array, that could be more of a performance impact than the outer loop. I imagine these arrays are probably pretty short? So performance wouldn't matter at all anyway, but this is something to think about in cases where you have longer arrays and objects. In some cases you can use an object with property names and values for a faster lookup - but I didn't look closely enough at what you're doing to suggest anything.
In any case, you're using inArray() wrong! But not your fault, that is a ridiculously named function in jQuery. The name clearly suggests a boolean return value, but the function returns the zero-based array index or -1 if the value is not found. I strongly recommend renaming this function as indexOf() to match the native Array method, or arrayIndex(), or some such.
That same loop has form[i] repeated numerous times. You could do this at the top of the loop:
var field = form[i];
and then use field throughout, e.g. field.id instead of form[i].id. This is generally faster, if it matters (which it probably doesn't here), but more importantly it's easier to read.
Do not use strict boolean comparisons like if( foo === true ) and if( bar === false) unless you really need to - and those cases are rare. The code sends a signal to the reader that there is something going on that's different from the usual boolean test. The only time these particular tests should be used is when you have a variable that may contain a boolean value or may contain some other type of value, and you need to distinguish which is which.
A good example of a case where you should use tests like these is an optional parameter that defaults to true:
// Do stuff unless 'really' is explicitly set to false, e.g.
// stuff(1) will do stuff with 1, but stuff(1,false) won't.
function stuff( value, really ) {
if( really === false ) {
// don't do stuff
}
else {
// do stuff
}
}
That specific example doesn't make a lot of sense, but it should give you the idea.
Similarly, an === true test could be used in a case where need to distinguish an actual boolean true value from some other "truthy" value. Indeed, it looks like this line is a valid case for that:
if (formElement['required'][i] === true){
given that if (formElement['required'][i] comes from the getDataAttribute() function which may return a boolean or other type.
If you are just testing for truthiness, though - and this should be most of the time - simply use if( foo ) or if( ! foo ). Or similarly in a conditional expression: foo ? x : y or !foo ? x : y.
The above was a long-winded way of saying that you should change this:
if (empty_content === false) {
to:
if (!empty_content) {
Your getFormParam() function goes to some work to convert an undefined result to null. There is usually no reason to do this. I don't see any place where that function is called, so I can't advise specifically, but in general you'd be testing for truthiness on something like this, so null and undefined would both be treated as false. Or in cases where you do need to distinguish null/undefined from other values (say, an explicit false), you can easily do it with != null or == null. This is one case where the "looser" comparison performed by == and != is very useful: both null and undefined evaluate the same with these operators.
You asked to ignore coding style, but one little suggestion here: You have a mix of camelCaseNames and names_with_underscores. In JavaScript, camelCaseNames are more idiomatic for function and variable names, with PascalCaseNames for constructor functions. Of course feel free to use underscores where they make more sense, for example if you're writing code that works with database columns in that format you may want your variable names to match the column names.
Hope that helps! Keep up the good work.
Update for your new code
I'm having a bit of trouble following the logic in the code, and I think I know part of the reason. It's a combination of naming conventions and inside-out objects.
First, the name formElement is really confusing. When I see element in JavaScript, I think of either a DOM element (HTMLElement) or an array element. I'm not sure if this formElement represents one or the other or neither.
So I look at the code to figure out what it's doing, and I see it has id:{}, name:{}, ... properties, but the code later treats each of those as an Array and not an Object:
formElement.id[i] = ...
formElement.name[i] = ...
formElement.value[i] = ...
formElement.required[i] = ...
formElement.type[i] = ...
(where i is an integer index)
If that code is right, those should be arrays instead: id:[], name:[], ....
But this is a red flag. When you see yourself creating parallel arrays in JavaScript, you're probably doing it wrong. In most cases you're better off replacing the parallel arrays with a single array of objects. Each of the objects in that array represents a single slice through all your parallel arrays, with a property for each of the previous arrays.
So, this object (where I've made the correction from {} to [] to match its current use):
formElement = { id: [], name: [], value: [], required: [], type: [] };
should be:
formInfo = [];
and then where you have the code that goes:
formElement.id[i] = ...;
formElement.name[i] = ...;
formElement.value[i] = ...;
formElement.required[i] = ...;
formElement.type[i] = ...;
It should be:
var info = {
id: ...,
name: ...,
value: ...,
required: ...,
type: ...
};
formInfo.push( info );
and adjust the rest of the code to suit. For example:
formElement.required[i]
would be:
formInfo[i].required
or even simpler since it's in the same function:
info.required
And note: I'm not saying info and formInfo are great names :-) they are just placeholders so you can think of a better name. The main idea is to create an array of objects instead of a set of parallel arrays.
One last thing and then I'm out of time for now.
That getDataAttribute() function is a complicated little piece of work. You don't need it! It would be simpler would just call the underlying function directly where you need it:
var info = {
...
required: formField.getAttribute('data-required') === 'true',
type: formField.getAttribute('data-type')
};
This also gives you full control of how the attributes are interpreted - as in the === 'true' test above. (This gives you a proper boolean value, so when you test the value later you don't have to use === true on it.)
On a stylistic note, yes, I did hard code the two 'data-xxxx' names right there, and I think that's a better and more clear way to do it.. Don't let your C experience throw you off here. There's no advantage to defining a string "constant" in this particular case, unless it's something that you want to make configurable, which this isn't.
Also, even if you do make a string constant, there's a minor advantage to having the complete 'data-whatever' string instead of just 'whatever'. The reason is that when somebody reads your HTML code, they may see a string in it and search the JS code for that string. But when they search for data-whatever they won't find it if the data- prefix is automagically prepended in the JS code.
Oh, I forgot one last thing. This code:
function Form(){
var args = Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments),
formName = args[0],
callback = args.pop(),
is working way too hard! Just do this instead:
function Form( formName, callback ) {
(and keep the var for the remaining variable declarations of course)

I cannot add comments yet so here is a little tip. I would separate the getFormElements() into smaller private functions. And I would add the errorMsgs to the Form function.
But for a first script in JavaScript, it is very impressive. This is actually the real reason I respond. I think it deserves more upvotes, and I would be very interested in a JS ninja responding to this question.
Good luck!

Javascript - Array of prototype functions

I'm a javascript newbie so I'm writing ugly code so far sometimes due to my lack of experience and how different it is to the languages I'm used to, so the code I'll post below works, but I'm wondering if I'm doing it the right way or perhaps it works but it's a horrible practice or there is a better way.
Basically, I have a little dude that moves within a grid, he receives from the server an action, he can move in 8 directions (int): 0:up, 1: up-right, 2: right... 7: up-left.
the server will send him this 0 <= action <= 7 value, and he has to take the correct action... now, instead of using a switch-case structure. I created a function goUp(), goLeft(), etc, and loaded them in an array, so I have a method like this:
var getActionFunction = actions[action];
actionFunction();
However, what to set all this up is this:
1) create a constructor function:
function LittleDude(container) {
this.element = container; //I will move a div around, i just save it in field here.
}
LittleDude.prototype.goUp() {
//do go up
this.element.animate(etc...);
}
LittleDude.prototype.actions = [LittleDude.prototype.goUp, LittleDude.prototype.goUpLeft, ...];
//In this array I can't use "this.goUp", because this points to the window object, as expected
LittleDude.prototype.doAction = function(action) {
var actionFunction = this.actions[action];
actionFunction(); //LOOK AT THIS LINE
}
Now if you pay attention, the last line won't work.. because: when i use the index to access the array, it returns a LittleDude.prototype.goUp for instance... so the "this" keyword is undefined..
goUp has a statement "this.element"... but "this" is not defined, so I have to write it like this:
actionFunction.call(this);
so my doAction will look like this:
LittleDude.prototype.doAction = function(action) {
var actionFunction = this.actions[action];
actionFunction.call(this); //NOW IT WORKS
}
I need to know if this is hackish or if I'm violating some sort of "DO NOT DO THIS" rule. or perhaps it can be written in a better way. Since it seems to me kind of weird to add it to the prototype but then treating it like a function that stands on its own.

What you are trying to do is one of the possible ways, but it is possible to make it more simple. Since object property names are not necessary strings, you can use action index directly on prototype. You even don't need doAction function.
LittleDude = function LittleDude(container) {
this.container = container;
}
LittleDude.prototype[0] = LittleDude.prototype.goUp = function goUp() {
console.log('goUp', this.container);
}
LittleDude.prototype[1] = LittleDude.prototype.goUpRight = function goUpRight() {
console.log('goUpRight', this.container);
}
var littleDude = new LittleDude(123),
action = 1;
littleDude[action](); // --> goUpRight 123
littleDude.goUp(); // --> goUp 123

actionFunction.call(this); //NOW IT WORKS
I need to know if this is hackish or if I'm violating some sort of "DO NOT DO THIS" rule. or perhaps it can be written in a better way.
No, using .call() is perfectly fine for binding the this keyword - that's what it's made for.
Since it seems to me kind of weird to add it to the prototype but then treating it like a function that stands on its own.
You don't have to define them on the prototype if you don't use them directly :-) Yet, if you do you might not store the functions themselves in the array, but the method names and then call them with bracket notation:
// or make that a local variable somewhere?
LittleDude.prototype.actions = ["goUp", "goUpLeft", …];
LittleDude.prototype.doAction = function(action) {
var methodName = this.actions[action];
this[methodName](); // calls the function in expected context as well
}