This documentation is confusing.
It says, unbuffered code does not output any code directly. What does that mean?
But in general, what is the difference between buffered and unbuffered code?
Would also be nice if they didn't disable copy and right click on the page too!
"Unbuffered" means that the code is executed, but the results are not sent to the output buffer.
"Buffered" also means that the code is executed, and the results are sent to the output buffer.
For example, this Jade:
.unbuffered
- 'unbuffered vs buffered'
.buffered
= 'unbuffered vs buffered'
Produces this HTML:
<div class="unbuffered">
</div>
<div class="buffered">unbuffered vs buffered
</div>
Please ignore this answer as it is incorrect as pointed out in the comments
I invite you to have a look at matty's answer instead.
From what I understand in the documentation link you shared I'd say there is a major difference:
Unbuffered code is not executed when read, but deferred (it is looks like javascript), which means that the string is post processed.
It seems that they map the string to an internal routine, that is hybrid js + templating language.
Buffered code is on the other hand executed as javascript (first it is preprocessed to escape html).
Though it seems to have a different behavior according to which code you put in there.
For example it is said that this:
p='Test' + ' concatenation'
Will result in Test concatenation
But now, you could do this:
p=(function() { return 'Does this really work ?! It seems so'; }())
It will result in Does this really work ?! It seems so.
It simply evals your code and escapes the html.
Related
I am still new a Javascript tried earching and tried the development tool in Chrome, too see if I could find the problem.
Working in Intellij IDEA 13, Java, javascript and xhtml.
My problem is that I have a piece of javascript, then in IDEA when moused over, says that
Expression Expected
the javascript code looks the following
<script type="text/javascript>
function nameOfFunction(){
if(#{trendAnalysisLocationReportController.model.showTargetLine}){
this.cfg.series[this.cfg.data.length-1].pointLabels = {
show: false
};
}
}
<\script>
the method in the if sentence is a java method with a boolean return value.
the error is shown when hovering
'#{'
if Had a look at the following questions, before :
Expected Expression
boolean in an if statement
But didnt get me a solution.
what Iam I doing wrong ?
It looks as though the problem is the part that you've got within the #{...} block. Without knowing the context, it's hard to be sure, but is this something in a view/JSP page that's supposed to be replaced with a property at runtime? The if block will expect the part inside the brackets to be a boolean value, so if that's rendered to either 'true' or 'false' it would execute at runtime but would likely show the error you're seeing in your IDE as it's not actually a valid piece of JavaScript. If, on the other hand, you're expecting to be able to call your Java method/property from your JavaScript code, you're going to need to do something that requests that value from the server-side code - AJAX or similar.
Also worth noting that we can't see what this.cfg is supposed to represent. If that's your entire script block, then there's nothing that defines the cfg object within the current scope.
One last thing, you should change the <\script> end element to as it won't be understood properly by some browsers.
I'm making a library, and I often inspect the result of Closure Compiler's output to see how it's doing things (I do have unit tests, but I still like to see the compiled code for hints of how it could compress better).
So, I found this very weird piece of code, which I never seen before.
variable : {
some();
code()
}
Note: this is not an object literal! Also, there is no ? anywhere that would make it a ?: conditional.
That code is in a regular function block (an IIFE).
variable, in this case, is an undefined variable. There's no code making it true, false, or whatever, and just to make sure, I put a console.log in there and indeed, I get a ReferenceError.
Please do note that I test my code in IE8 too, so this isn't just in modern browsers. It seems to be standard, plain old javascript.
So let's experiment with it. Firing up Chrome's console, I get this:
undeclaredVariable:{console.log('does this get logged?')} // yes it does.
trueValue:{console.log('what about this?')} // same thing.
falseValue:{console.log('and this?')} // same thing.
but then...
(true):{console.log('does this work too?')} // SyntaxError: Unexpected token :
...and...
so?{console.log('is this a conditional?')}:{alert(123)} // Unexpected token .
So what does it do?
thisThing:{console.log('is used to declare a variable?')}
thisThing // ReferenceError: thisThing is not defined
Please, I'd love it if someone could explain to me what this code is meant to do, or at least what it does.
It is a label
Provides a statement with an identifier that you can refer to using a
break or continue statement.
For example, you can use a label to identify a loop, and then use the
break or continue statements to indicate whether a program should
interrupt the loop or continue its execution.
Another common place you see it is when people stick the wonderful and useless javascript: on event handlers.
This is a label (the bit ending with a colon) followed by a block (the code surrounded by the curly brackets).
Blocks usually follow control statements, like if(...) { /*block*/ }, but they can also simply stand on their own, as in your example.
Labels allow jumping up several loops at a time with a continue or break; see the linked MDN page for several examples, such as:
var itemsPassed = 0;
var i, j;
top:
for (i = 0; i < items.length; i++){
for (j = 0; j < tests.length; j++)
if (!tests[j].pass(items[i]))
continue top;
itemsPassed++;
}
Here, top: is a label that code inside the inner loop can jump to, in order to escape to the outer loop.
For the sake of anyone who doesn't know what JSON is, and sees a colon in what might actually be an object, and is trying to figure out what it is, and finds this discussion, a colon is also used in JSON. There is a practice of embedding functions in a JSON object. Which might be confusing (As it was to me) for anyone who happens to see this for the first time. (Everyone isn't born with the knowledge of JSON and JavaScript programmed into their brains.) So if you find yourself at this discussion, and you think that every time you see a colon in JavaScript, that it's a label, it might not be. It might be that it's a colon after a label, OR it might be part of JSON. In fact, a colon in JSON being shown as a string, is a lot more common than a label. JSON in the form of an object, will be displayed as [object Object], with all the content hidden. So, unless the JSON is in the form of a string, and you display an object to the console (console.log(object)) all you will see is [object Object]. It is common practice to write JavaScript code, wrapped in an object. In that case you will see the JSON in the form of code. That's when you'll ask yourself, "What is this? and what is that colon for?" Then you'll find yourself at this discussion, and be told that it's a label, when it's really part of JSON. The topic of this discussion is worded: "Please explain this usage of a colon in javascript", and then the "correct answer" is marked as having to do with a label. The correct answer is that a colon can be used in more than one way. So, if you don't know what JSON is, or think you know (like I did, but didn't really understand) read about it here:
JSON.org
That is just a label.
you can use continue [label name] (or break) in a loop to go to a label.
More explanations of what they are can be seen throughout the interwebs.
it is used for labeling an statement in jsvascript.check more detail here.
the labeled statement can be used with break and continue later.
I have searched Google for a converter but I did not find anything. Is there any tools available or I must make one to decode my obfuscated JavaScript code ?
I presume there is such a tool but I'm not searching Google with the right keywords.
The code is 3 pages long, this is why I need a tools.
Here is an exemple of the code :
<script>([][(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]][([][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]]()[(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(+(+[])+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]])(([]+[])[([][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+
Thank you
This code is fascinating because it seems to use only nine characters ("[]()!+,;" and empty space U+0020) yet has some sophisticated functionality. It appears to use JavaScript's implicit type conversion to coerce arrays into various primitive types and their string representations and then use the characters from those strings to compose other strings which type out the names of functions which are then called.
Consider the following snippet which evaluates to the array filter function:
([][
(![]+[])[+[]] // => "f"
+ ([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]] // => "i"
+ (![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]] // => "l"
+ (!![]+[])[+[]] // => "t"
+ (!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]] // => "e"
+ (!![]+[])[+!+[]] // => "r"
]) // => function filter() { /* native code */ }
Reconstructing the code as such is time consuming and error prone, so an automated solution is obviously desirable. However, the behavior of this code is so tightly bound to the JavaScript runtime that de-obsfucating it seems to require a JS interpreter to evaluate the code.
I haven't been able to find any tools that will work generally with this sort of encoding. It seems as though you'll have to study the code further and determine any patterns of usage (e.g. reliance on array methods) and figure out how to capture their usage (e.g. by wrapping high-level functions [such as Function.prototype.call]) to trace the code execution for you.
This question has already an accepted answer, but I will still post to clear some things up.
When this idea come up, some guy made a generator to encode JavaScript in this way. It is based on doing []["sort"]["call"]()["eval"](/* big blob of code here */). Therefore, you can decode the results of this encoder easily by removing the sort-call-eval part (i.e. the first 1628 bytes). In this case it produces:
if (document.cookie=="6ffe613e2919f074e477a0a80f95d6a1"){ alert("bravo"); }
else{ document.location="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0"; }
(Funny enough the creator of this code was not even able to compress it properly and save a kilobyte)
There is also an explanation of why this code doesn't work in newer browser anymore: They changed Array.prototype.sort so it does not return a reference to window. As far as I remember, this was the only way to get a reference to window, so this code is kind of broken now.
if (1) {
google_conversion_value = 1;
}
What is the meaning of the above statement? I mean, this looks like it will always execute so why bother with the if statement?
updated: one reason might be remnants of scripting on the server side. Any other ideas?
updated2: could as easily change the value of the assignment without bothering with the if statement, no?
There are two likely explanations:
It's a leftover from debugging.
The file containing this code is generated dynamically and the original sourcecode contains something like if(<?php echo $some_stuff_enabled; ?>)
However, in the latter case it would have been cleaner to output that code block only if the condition is met - but maybe it's used in some crappy template engine that just allows replacements but no conditionals...
I've seen this before, and I've always assumed it was a remnant of some old condition that was no longer needed, but never removed. I can't see any actual reason to do something like that otherwise.
Potentially because the person writing the code wanted an easy way to turn it off and on again, this is especially useful if there is a lot of code inside the block (not the case here).
Another possibility is that the original programmer couldn't be bothered writing the logic or, more likely, it hadn't been specified so the "if" was left as a placeholder.
More than likely left in from a debug release or something similar. You're right, it will always execute. It could also have been done like this so that it can be easily enabled / disabled by setting the if to 0. Perhaps the developer intended to use it as a flag somewhere else in the code?
actually, this happens when the "if" condition is driven from server, so instead of doing the right thing and not produce the script when the condition is false, they do something like this:
if (<% if (my_server_condition) then Response.Write("1") else Response.Write("0") %>){
// code goes here
}
Perhaps the if statement used to check for a legitimate conditional, and then someone replaced it with a truthy value for testing/debugging/etc.
You're right, it will always execute because 1 is truthy. I would go through your source control history and investigate that line to see if it used to contain a real conditional. If the conditional was always 1, then it's likely a debugging statement. Otherwise someone might have meant for it to be a temporary change, and may not have meant to check that in (which could be bad).
I'm not sure where this code is from, but as you indicated it will always execute. As for why you'd do this, there are times where you want to see what the result of branch code would be, without having to setup an environment. In this case you can comment out the actual value and replace it with if(1) instead for testing:
// if( ... some hard to achieve condition )
if (1) {
// Now you can see what happens if this value is set quickly
google_conversion_value = 1;
}
Of course the problem with this is that it's sometimes easy to forget to remove the if(1) and uncomment the proper condition.
This is actually the javascript recommended by Google on http://support.google.com/adwords/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1722054#nocomments (click on Step 2 for the sample HTML)
I just found out that when you call toString() on a javascript function, as in myFunction.toString(), the source code of that function is returned.
If you try it in the Firebug or Chrome console it will even go as far as formatting it nicely for you, even for minimized javascript files.
I don't know what is does for obfuscated files.
What's the use of such a toString implementation?
It has some use for debugging, since it lets you see the code of the function. You can check if a function has been overwritten, and if a variable points to the right function.
It has some uses for obfuscated javascript code. If you want to do hardcore obfuscation in javascript, you can transform your whole code into a bunch of special characters, and leave no numbers or letters. This technique relies heavily on being able to access most letters of the alphabet by forcing the toString call on everything with +""
example: (![]+"")[+[]] is f since (![]+"") evaluates to the string "false" and [+[]] evaluates to [0], thus you get "false"[0] which extracts the first letter f.
Some letters like v can only be accessed by calling toString on a native function like [].sort. The letter v is important for obfuscated code, since it lets you call eval, which lets you execute anything, even loops, without using any letters. Here is an example of this.
function.ToString - Returns a string representing the source code of the function. For Function objects, the built-in toString method decompiles the function back into the JavaScript source that defines the function.
Read this on mozilla.
You can use it as an implementation for multi-line strings in Javascript source.
As described in this blog post by #tjanczuk, one of the massive inconveniences in Javascript is multi-line strings. But you can leverage .toString() and the syntax for multi-line comments (/* ... */) to produce the same results.
By using the following function:
function uncomment(fn){
return fn.toString().split(/\/\*\n|\n\*\//g).slice(1,-1).join();
};
…you can then pass in multi-line comments in the following format:
var superString = uncomment(function(){/*
String line 1
String line 2
String line 3
*/});
In the original article, it was noted that Function.toString()'s behaviour is not standardised and therefore implementation-discrete — and the recommended usage was for Node.js (where the V8 interpreter can be relied on); however, a Fiddle I wrote seems to work on every browser I have available to me (Chrome 27, Firefox 21, Opera 12, Internet Explorer 8).
A nice use case is remoting. Just toString the function in the client, send it over the wire and execute it on the server.
My use case - I have a node program that processes data and produces interactive reports as html/js/css files. To generate a js function, my node code calls myfunc.toString() and writes it to a file.
You can use it to create a Web Worker from function defined in the main script:
onmessage = function(e) {
console.log('[Worker] Message received from main script:',e.data);
postMessage('Worker speaking.');
}
b = new Blob(["onmessage = " + onmessage.toString()], {type: 'text/javascript'})
w = new Worker(window.URL.createObjectURL(b));
w.onmessage = function(e) {
console.log('[Main] Message received from worker script:' + e.data);
};
w.postMessage('Main speaking.');