Good day.
My question is quite dumb, I guess, but I'm not familiar enough with the termins, to ask it properly (and to get an answer from Google).
So - please help...
Shortly - I'm trying to create some major class, which will be insanitated by instances, which will describe some methods, and some fields.
Major logick will be implemented in parent class.
So, lets say I have a parent
function CRUD_Grid_model(){
//Settings part
this.GridElement = "" ;
this.editModeFlagElement = "" ;
this.newRowElement = "";
//Save logicks all lies here.
this.commit = function (){
alert("PLEASE REDEFINE COMMIT FUNCTION IN YOUR CODE");
}
;
//Settings part
//Some more code.
}
And a way I'll use it
//Das modell
var JobberCRUD = new CRUD_Grid_model();
JobberCRUD.GridElement = $('#jobbers_dg');
JobberCRUD.editModeFlagElement = $('#jobbers_tb_edit');
JobberCRUD.newRowElement = {jobb_name:'Enter new unique name',jobb_status:'Y'};
JobberCRUD.commit = function (){
if (this.endEditing()){
var addrows = this.GridElement.datagrid('getChanges','inserted');
var remrows = this.GridElement.datagrid('getChanges','deleted');
var updrows = this.GridElement.datagrid('getChanges','updated');
console.log(addrows);
console.log(remrows);
console.log(updrows);
//Send changes?
alert("Got total of " +addrows.length + remrows.length + updrows.length + " rows changed.");
//Commit changes at local level
this.GridElement.datagrid('acceptChanges');
}
};
And, what I'd like to do, is smoething like this
I want a parent.commit function to allow me to do this in child
JobberCRUD.commit = function (apdrows,updrows,remrows){
//Send changes?
alert("Got total of " +addrows.length + remrows.length + updrows.length + " rows changed.");
};
So, I have no ideas what shoudl I do to achieve that. Please advice me with some tags, what it is at least :)
Thanks in advance.
There is not exactly what you need in JavaScript, but I would tend to use this pattern :
function CRUD_Grid_model() {
...
this.onCommit = null;
this.commit = function (){
if (this.endEditing()){
var addrows = this.GridElement.datagrid('getChanges','inserted');
var remrows = this.GridElement.datagrid('getChanges','deleted');
var updrows = this.GridElement.datagrid('getChanges','updated');
if(this.onCommit != null) this.onCommit(addrows,updrows,remrows);
this.GridElement.datagrid('acceptChanges');
}
}
...
}
var JobberCRUD = new CRUD_Grid_model();
JobberCRUD.onCommit = function(apdrows,updrows,remrows) {
alert("Got total of " +addrows.length + remrows.length + updrows.length + " rows changed.");
};
JobberCRUD.GridElement = ...
Javascript doesn't have a built in notion of interfaces. A javascript object effectively "implements an interface" by having all the needed methods defined, but there's no language "interface" construct
You could use "extends" like so:
Object.prototype.extends = function(clazz) {
var o = new clazz();
for (var f in o) {
if(f === "extends") {
continue;
}
this[f] = o[f];
}
this.super = o;
}
Now could type something like this:
var JobberCRUD = function() {
this.extends(CRUD_Grid_model);
var privateFunction = function() {
//...
}
// You probably don't want to do that,
// but you could override
this.commit = function() {
//...
}
// ...
}
Hope, that helps.
Edit: forgot, that you may call super.commit() then.
You can not have something similar like C# or Java interface or even class with Javascript.
Javascript is just a dynamic scripting language.
Related
Ok, maybe is not the best title, but I lacked inspiration, so here goes:
Let's say you have a "global" (not really) variable to store temporary data and sub data as random users interact with your server. Normally on the first interaction with your server, the main variable will be undefined so you need to handle that case.
Now, what puzzled me about this, is what's the best practice performance wise to do this if there are a lot of users and a lot way more interactions with the variable.
Puzzled? Yeah, I know, words are not my strong point so let me show you in code
So you have
var user_data = [];
Then a function that handles user interaction to store data
function writeData(uid, data_name, data)
Now, on first interaction, user_data[uid][data_name] is undefined, and so it's user_data[uid]
I know you can handle this 2 ways:
With if -
if(!user_data[uid]) user_data[uid] = {}
user_data[uid][data_name] = data
With try/catch
try{user_data[uid][data_name] = data}
catch(e) {user_data[uid] = {}; writeData(uid, data_name, data)}
The if will check on every interaction, and like I said there are a lot.
Try catch will trigger once, but it has a cost as a block (afaik)
Which one is better? Or is there a another better way
#Nertan ,
There is a partiality in your proof :P . I have slightly tweeked the ternary way (same as the order of execution in if way). With this you can conclude.
//var present = require('present');
function test(val,ud,fun) {
var k = 10000000;
var t = Date.now();
for(var i=0; i<k;i++)
{
var uid = Math.ceil(Math.random()*1000);
fun(uid,ud,"value");
}
var tf = Date.now()-t;
return tf;
}
function setValue_Opp(uid,ud,value)
{
(!ud[uid] && (ud[uid] = {})) && (ud[uid].value = value);
}
function setValue_Try(uid,ud,value)
{
try{ ud[uid].value = value}
catch(e){ ud[uid] = {}; setValue_Try(uid,ud,value)};
}
function setValue_Cond(uid,ud,value)
{
if(!ud[uid]) ud[uid] = {}
ud[uid].value = value;
}
var k1=0;
var k2=0;
var k3=0;
for(var i=0;i<10;i++){
k1+=test(1,{}, setValue_Cond);
k2+=test(2,{}, setValue_Try);
k3+=test(3,{}, setValue_Opp);
}
console.log(k1,k2,k3)
I feel we can take advantage of ES6 ternaries as below:
let user_data = {}
const writeData = (uid, data_name, data) => {
((user_data[uid] || (user_data[uid] = {})) && (user_data[uid][data_name] = data ))
console.log(user_data)
// perform write action
}
writeData('1',"test","test1");
writeData('2',"test","test2");
writeData('1',"test","test3");
Ok, so I had to rewrite the test because it doesn't work fine in the Snippet
So I made this for node.js:
var present = require('present');
function test(val,ud,fun) {
var k = 10000000;
var t = present();
for(var i=0; i<k;i++)
{
var uid = Math.ceil(Math.random()*1000);
fun(uid,ud,"value");
}
var tf = present()-t;
console.log("END "+val+" at "+tf);
return tf;
}
function setValue_Opp(uid,ud,value)
{
(ud[uid] || (ud[uid] = {})) && (ud[uid].value = value);
}
function setValue_Try(uid,ud,value)
{
try{ ud[uid].value = value}
catch(e){ ud[uid] = {}; setValue_Try(uid,ud,value)};
}
function setValue_Cond(uid,ud,value)
{
if(!ud[uid]) ud[uid] = {}
ud[uid].value = value;
}
var k1=0;
var k2=0;
var k3=0;
for(var i=0;i<10;i++){
k1+=test(1,{}, setValue_Cond);
k2+=test(2,{}, setValue_Try);
k3+=test(3,{}, setValue_Opp);
}
console.log(k1,k2,k3)
And in the end:
3244.328997004777 3695.0267750024796 3437.6855720058084
Which means:
The best is the classical if
The second best is condintional operators method
And the worst is the try-catch
So it seems the classics win
Edited:
With further tests thanks to #CRayen the best method is :
(!ud[uid] && (ud[uid] = {})) && (ud[uid].value = value);
I'm trying to change the color of elements in 3D Viewer using the Autodesk-forge platform, and for this I'm using this API https://forge.autodesk.com/cloud_and_mobile/2015/12/change-color-of-elements-with-view-and-data-api.html by Daniel Du.
But the problem is when running I got this
The error Pict
And this the function :
Autodesk.Viewing.Viewer3D.prototype.setColorMaterial = function(objectIds, color) {
var material = addMaterial(color);
for (var i=0; i<objectIds.length; i++) {
var dbid = objectIds[i];
//from dbid to node, to fragid
viewer.addEventListener(Autodesk.Viewing.GEOMETRY_LOADED_EVENT, function () {
var it = viewer.model.getData().instanceTree;
console.log(it);
it.enumNodeFragments(dbid, function (fragId) {
var renderProxy = viewer.impl.getRenderProxy(viewer.model, fragId);
console.log("r prox : " + renderProxy);
renderProxy.meshProxy = new THREE.Mesh(renderProxy.geometry, renderProxy.material);
renderProxy.meshProxy.matrix.copy(renderProxy.matrixWorld);
renderProxy.meshProxy.matrixWorldNeedsUpdate = true;
renderProxy.meshProxy.matrixAutoUpdate = false;
renderProxy.meshProxy.frustumCulled = false;
viewer.impl.addOverlay(overlayName, renderProxy.meshProxy);
viewer.impl.invalidate(true);
}, false);
});
}
}
Hopefully, anyone has the solution to this problem...
Most likely you are running this code before the instance tree has been loaded, which provokes the error Cannot read property 'enumNodeFragments' of undefined on it variable. You would need to wait for the Autodesk.Viewing.OBJECT_TREE_CREATED_EVENT before running that code.
Take also a look at previous question about modifying materials in the viewer.
I'm getting the following error when attempting to get an enumerator for a collection of lists: "Uncaught Error: The collection has not been initialized. It has not been requested or the request has not been executed. It may need to be explicitly requested."
It happens on the line var listEnumerator = lists.getEnumerator(); it seems to me that there is an issue in my attempt to load lists into the client object with context.load(lists);
Here's the portion of my code that's causing the problem. I've marked the place just before the error is thrown.
//____________________________Required function for accessing the host site's info.___________________________________
function getQueryStringParameter(param) {
var params = document.URL.split("?")[1].split("&");
for (var i = 0; i < params.length; i = i + 1) {
var singleParam = params[i].split("=");
if (singleParam[0] == param) {
return singleParam[1];
}
}
}
//____________________________Begin checking for list_________________________
function checkForList(listToFind, typeOfListToCreateIfTheListIsMissing)
{
var hostUrl = decodeURIComponent(getQueryStringParameter("SPHostUrl"));
var hostcontext = new SP.AppContextSite(context, hostUrl);
var hostweb = hostcontext.get_web();
var lists = hostweb.get_lists();
context.load(lists);
context.executeQueryAsync(checkIfListExistsUsingEnumerator(listToFind, lists, hostweb, typeOfListToCreateIfTheListIsMissing), onQueryFailed);
}
//Failed to get lists for some reason
function onQueryFailed(sender, args) {
alert('We failed to retrieve lists. \n' + args.get_message() + '\n' + args.get_stackTrace());
}
//____________________________Does list exist?____________________________
function checkIfListExistsUsingEnumerator(listToFind, lists, hostweb, typeOfList)
{
var listExists = false;
//!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ERROR HERE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
var listEnumerator = lists.getEnumerator();
var title;
while (listEnumerator.moveNext())
{
title = listEnumerator.get_current().get_title();
if (title == listToFind)
{
listExists = true;
}
}
if (!listExists)
{
alert("It appears that a required list does not already exist. \nClick ok, and we'll automatically create one for you.");
//Create a new list
createList(listToFind, hostweb, typeOfList);
}
else if (listExists)
{
//Do nothing.
}
}
//____________________________If it doesn't, create one on the local site____________________________
function createList(nameOfNewList, hostweb, typeOfList) {
var listCreationInfo = new SP.ListCreationInformation();
listCreationInfo.set_title(nameOfNewList);
if (typeOfList === "events")
{
listCreationInfo.set_templateType(SP.ListTemplateType.events);
}
else if (typeOfList === "contacts")
{
listCreationInfo.set_templateType(SP.ListTemplateType.contacts);
}
var lists = hostweb.get_lists();
var newList = lists.add(listCreationInfo);
context.load(newList);
context.executeQueryAsync(onListCreationSuccess, onListCreationFail);
}
function onListCreationSuccess() {
alert('List created successfully!');
}
function onListCreationFail(sender, args) {
alert('Failed to create the list. ' + args.get_message());
}
I've looked at this question sharepoint javascript collection not initialized error which seems to be fairly similar to mine, but I'm having trouble implementing the solution provided there, making me think my error may be have a different cause.
I've also tried querying for the lists inside of the function that is throwing the error, but that doesn't seem to solve anything.
For a little background, these functions are attempting to read all lists from the app's host site, check to see if a specified list exists, and create a list if no matching list exists. If there's a better way of doing that than what I'm attempting, I'd be open to that too.
Any pointers?
Some things I've tried that don't seem to work:
Changing the Asynchronous query
context.executeQueryAsync(checkIfListExists(listToFind, hostweb, typeOfListToCreateIfTheListIsMissing), onQueryFailed);
to a Synchronous one.
context.executeQuery(checkIfListExists(listToFind, hostweb, typeOfListToCreateIfTheListIsMissing), onQueryFailed);
I've figured out an alternate, and shorter way to method of achieving the same goal I was trying to achieve before.
Instead of checking to see if a list does not already exist, I just try to create a list, and the Query fails to create a list if one is already there. (That's good because I don't want to overwrite the list if it is already there.)
I'm not totally sure if there are any undesired side effects of what I'm doing here, but in my tests it produced the desired behavior.
//____________________________Required function for accessing the host site's info.___________________________________
function getQueryStringParameter(param) {
var params = document.URL.split("?")[1].split("&");
for (var i = 0; i < params.length; i = i + 1) {
var singleParam = params[i].split("=");
if (singleParam[0] == param) {
return singleParam[1];
}
}
}
//____________________________Create a list if one does not already exist_________________________
function createList(listToCreate, typeOfList)
{
// Create an announcement SharePoint list with the name that the user specifies.
var hostUrl = decodeURIComponent(getQueryStringParameter("SPHostUrl"));
var hostContext = new SP.AppContextSite(currentContext, hostUrl);
var hostweb = hostContext.get_web();
var listCreationInfo = new SP.ListCreationInformation();
listCreationInfo.set_title(listToCreate);
if (typeOfList === "events")
{
listCreationInfo.set_templateType(SP.ListTemplateType.events);
}
else if (typeOfList === "contacts")
{
listCreationInfo.set_templateType(SP.ListTemplateType.contacts);
}
var lists = hostweb.get_lists();
var newList = lists.add(listCreationInfo);
currentContext.load(newList);
currentContext.executeQueryAsync(onListCreationSuccess, onListCreationFail);
}
function onListCreationSuccess() {
alert("We've created a list since one doesn't exist yet." );
}
function onListCreationFail(sender, args) {
alert("We didn't create the list. Here's why: " + args.get_message());
}
I have an array of objects cached on client side using JS array.
var scannerDictionary = new Array(); //Holds all scanners unmodified
var modifiedScannerDictionary = new Array(); //Holds all scanners with modified values
The properties of each object is set/changed using GUI and updated in the object. Each object contains list of InputParameters (array of Parameter class containing Name, Value and other members).
Please have a look on GUI.
Below is the code i used to render the controls -
function renderControls(scannerId) {
var currentScanner = modifiedScannerDictionary[scannerId];
//Render Input Parameters
$("#tblInputCriteria").find('tr:gt(5)').remove();
for(var i=0;i<currentScanner.InputParameters.length;i++) {
var propType = currentScanner.InputParameters[i].DataType;
var inParName = currentScanner.InputParameters[i].Name;
switch(propType) {
case 0: //Number
var eRow1 = $("#tblInputCriteria").find('#emptyNumRow').clone();
$(eRow1).removeClass('hidden').attr('id', 'Row_'+currentScanner.InputParameters[i].Name);
$(eRow1).appendTo($('#tblInputCriteria'));
var prop1 = $(eRow1).find('#InNumPropName');
$(prop1).attr('id', 'InNumPropName_'+currentScanner.InputParameters[i].Name);
var propName1 = currentScanner.InputParameters[i].Name;
$(prop1).html(propName1);
var propVal1 = $(eRow1).find('#InNumPropValue');
$(propVal1).attr('id', 'InNumPropValue_'+currentScanner.InputParameters[i].Name);
$(propVal1).val(currentScanner.InputParameters[i].Value);
$(propVal1).blur(function () {
if(!ValidateNumber(this, propName1)) {
alert('Value should be numeric in ' + propName1);
setTimeout(function() {$(propVal1).focus();}, 100);
}else {
UpdateData(currentScanner.Id, propName1, $(propVal1).val());
}
});
break;
case 1: //String
var eRow2 = $("#tblInputCriteria").find('#emptyStrRow').clone();
$(eRow2).removeClass('hidden').attr('id', 'Row_'+currentScanner.InputParameters[i].Name);
$(eRow2).appendTo($('#tblInputCriteria'));
var prop2 = $(eRow2).find('#InStrPropName');
$(prop2).attr('id', 'InStrPropName_'+currentScanner.InputParameters[i].Name);
var propName2 = currentScanner.InputParameters[i].Name;
$(prop2).html(propName2);
var propVal2 = $(eRow2).find('#InStrPropValue');
$(propVal2).attr('id', 'InStrPropValue_'+currentScanner.InputParameters[i].Name);
$(propVal2).val(currentScanner.InputParameters[i].Value);
$(propVal2).blur(function () {
UpdateData(currentScanner.Id, propName2, $(propVal2).val());
});
break;
case 2: //Boolean
var eRow3 = $("#tblInputCriteria").find('#emptyBoolRow').clone();
$(eRow3).removeClass('hidden').attr('id', 'Row_'+currentScanner.InputParameters[i].Name);
$(eRow3).appendTo($('#tblInputCriteria'));
var prop3 = $(eRow3).find('#InBoolPropName');
$(prop3).attr('id', 'InBoolPropName_'+currentScanner.InputParameters[i].Name);
var propName3 = currentScanner.InputParameters[i].Name;
$(prop3).html(propName3);
var propVal3 = $(eRow3).find('#InBoolPropValue');
$(propVal3).attr('id', 'InBoolPropValue_'+currentScanner.InputParameters[i].Name);
$(propVal3).val(currentScanner.InputParameters[i].Value);
$(propVal3).blur(function () {
UpdateData(currentScanner.Id, propName3, $(propVal3).val());
});
break;
}
}
}
PROBLEM:
The problem here is of the variables inside switch working as reference variable. So the UpdateData() function gets the last Name for similar type properties. i.e. if fields are of Number type then only the last property is updated by UpdateData() method.
Can anybody help me out solve this issue. Thanks for sharing your time and wisdom.
Try something like the following. Its a tad overkill, but will bind the values of the variables to the closures.
var fnOnBlur = (function(thePropName, thePropVal) {
return function () {
if(!ValidateNumber(this, thePropName)) {
alert('Value should be numeric in ' + thePropName);
setTimeout(function() {$(thePropVal).focus();}, 100);
}else {
UpdateData(currentScanner.Id, thePropName, $(thePropVal).val());
}
};
})(propName1, propVal1);
$(propVal1).blur( fnOnBlur );
The link that Felik King supplied has much more detailed discussion.
I have the following code in a script.
The problem is That I want to get information of scripts that starts in a specific name and are in a specific startmode.
var e = new Enumerator(GetObject("winmgmts:").InstancesOf("Win32_Service"))
var WSHShell = new ActiveXObject ("WScript.Shell");
var strPrefix = "TTTT";
for(;!e.atEnd(); e.moveNext()){
var Service = e.item();
var strName = Service.Name;
if (strName.substr (0, strPrefix.length) == strPrefix) {
if(Service.StartMode == 'mmManual') {
WScript.Echo("Yes");
}
if(e.StartMode == 'Manual') {
WScript.Echo("Yes");
}
}
}
In the above script I tried to know the start mode but it always return true.
McDowell is right, but note that you can get rid of prefix and start mode checks in your loop if you make them part of the WMI query:
SELECT * FROM Win32_Service WHERE Name LIKE 'TTTT%' AND StartMode = 'Manual'
Using this query, your script could look like this:
var strComputer = ".";
var oWMI = GetObject("winmgmts://" + strComputer + "/root/CIMV2");
var colServices = oWMI.ExecQuery("SELECT * FROM Win32_Service WHERE Name LIKE 'TTTT%' AND StartMode = 'Manual'");
var enumServices = new Enumerator(colServices);
for(; !enumServices.atEnd(); enumServices.moveNext())
{
var oService = enumServices.item();
WScript.Echo(oService.Name);
}
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but this...
if(Service.StartMode = 'mmManual')
...will always evaluate to true. You are missing an =. It should be:
if(Service.StartMode == 'mmManual')