I have code in a module which looks something like this:
var MyModule = module.exports;
MyModule.some_function = function(arg) {
// Do some code here
// Do some logging using the function name
// var function_name = calleeArgs.callee.toString().match(/function ([^\(]+)/)[1];
// BAD, this method doesnt have a name
};
The code above does not work as the function does not have a name.
As an alternative, I could do the following, in which case the log would contain the method name:
function _some_function(arg) {
// Do some code here
// Do some logging using the function name - BAD, this method doesnt have a name
// var function_name = calleeArgs.callee.toString().match(/function ([^\(]+)/)[1];
// GOO, this method doesnt have a name
}
MyModule.some_function = function(arg) {
_some_function(arg);
};
So my question is:
1.) Does this way of writing make any sense - as far as I understand _some_function() is local to this module so there will be no negative implications as far as global scope/access is concerned
2.) Does this (the second option) have any performance implications? (my guess would of course be no, or at least relatively negligible)?
1) I find that code style very confusing and bloated. I think the following is the cleanest approach:
function some_function(arg) {
// Do some code here
// Do some logging using the function name
}
// Put exports at the end
exports.some_function = some_function;
2) A function wrapping another function will add a negligible overhead, but it should be avoided if it adds no value.
Related
I need to compile my code with closure compiler in ADVANCED mode. I also need to keep prototypes of my objects in my application because I'm looping on Javascript objects prototypes. Trying to get both results in some ReferenceError when starting the application.
When compiling with ADVANCED mode, some prototypes are removed and replaced by a function that is using an object parameter in order to recover "this" keyword. This is due to crossModuleCodeMotionNoStubMethods attribute of CompilerOptions.java.
Example of code before compilation :
function MyClass() = { // Some code }
MyClass.prototype.someFunc = function() { // Some code calling someOtherFunc };
MyClass.prototype.someOtherFunc = function(someParam) { // Some code };
Example of code after compilation :
function MyCompiledClass = { // Some code }
MyCompiledClass.prototype.someCompiledFunc = function() { // Some code calling someOtherFunc }
function someOtherCompiledFunc(that, someParam) = { // Some code }
I first tried to use #this and #preserve JSDoc tags to solve the problem, without success. Using #export is not a solution, because functions will then keep their original names.
I've found two options to solve my problem for now :
Refactor the code as seen here
Build a custom version of Closure Compiler as seen here
Option 1 will need to much modifications in my code and will make it less readable, if it's the only solution, I will have a go for this one.
Option 2 seems to be a nice workaround, but I've read that some changes on CompilationLevel.java may violate some core assumptions of the compiler. Can someone tell me if by modifying setCrossModuleMethodMotion from true to false, will it still respect all core assumptions of the compiler ?
I'm currently building a custom version of the compiler to check if the code is compiling properly, but even if the code is usable, I need to be sure it will be properly obfuscated.
Thank you !
The specific optimization pass you are referring to is DevirtualizePrototypeMethods. The best way to block the optimization would be to use the #nocollapse annotation. It will allow your method to be renamed but not allow it to be removed from the prototype.
I'm not 100% sure it will work for this case, but if it doesn't it should and you can file an issue to have that fixed: https://github.com/google/closure-compiler/issues
You can export constructors and prototype properties in the same way.
For example:
MyClass = function(name) {
this.myName = name;
};
MyClass.prototype.myMethod = function() {
alert(this.myName);
};
window['MyClass'] = MyClass; // <-- Constructor
MyClass.prototype['myMethod'] = MyClass.prototype.myMethod;
As in https://developers.google.com/closure/compiler/docs/api-tutorial3
I'm creating a plugin system using the following:
function Plugin(thingy, code)
{
var GLOBAL = null;
var arguments = null;
var process = null;
var require = null;
eval(code);
};
plugins.push(new Plugin(thingy, code));
Please don't get too excited about the eval(), using ('vm') or a sandbox is not an option as this will be a long running object until the user unloads it. It will also be running in it's own nodeJS instance so they can't affect other users. I'd still have the same problem passing in this object reference to a sandbox system anyway.
What I am concerned about is someone seeing the code of the thingy object that has functions they need to use e.g shoot()
console.log(thingy.shoot.toString());
A way around this was the following:
function thingy()
{
// They can't see this
var _shoot = function(someone)
{
// Load weapon
// Aim
// Fire
};
// They can see this
this.shoot = function(someone)
{
_shoot(someone);
};
};
This way if they console.log(thingy.shoot.toString()) they'll only see _shoot(someone); and not the actual code that handles the shooting process.
Please could someone help me with the following:
Is there an easier way to limit access to a passed in variables code?
I'm setting GLOBAL, arguments, process and require to null; are there others I need to worry about?
I have module pattern done like this:
var A = (function(x) {
var methodA = function() { ... }
var methodB = function() { ... }
var methodC = function() { ... }
...
...
return {
methA: methodA,
methB: methodB
}
})(window)
This code let's me call only methA and methB() on A which is what I want and what I like. Now the problem I have - I want to unit test it with no pain ot at least with minimal efforts.
First I though I can simply return this but I was wrong. It returns window object.(can someone explain why?).
Second - I found solution somewhere online - to include this method inside my return block:
__exec: function() {
var re = /(\(\))$/,
args = [].slice.call(arguments),
name = args.shift(),
is_method = re.test(name),
name = name.replace(re, ''),
target = eval(name);
return is_method ? target.apply(this, args) : target;
}
This method let's me call the methods like this: A.__exec('methA', arguments);
It is almost what I want, but quite ugly. I would prefer A.test.methA() where test would never be used in production code - just for revealing private methods.
EDIT
I see people telling me to test the big thing instead of the small parts. Let me explain. In my opinion API should reveal only the needed methods not a bunch of internal functions. The internals because of their small size and limited functionality are much easier to test then test the whole thing and guess which part gone wrong.
While I may be wrong, I would still like to see how I could return references to all the methods from the object itself :).
Answer to your first question(you return this, but it returns window, not the object you wanted): in javascript this inside the function returns global object unless this function is a method of the object.
Consider next examples:
1) this points to the global object ():
function(){
return this;
}
2) this points to the object:
var obj = {
value: "foo",
getThisObject: function(){
return this;
}
}
Your case is example #1, because you have a function, that returns an object. This function is not a method of any object.
The best answer to your second question is to test only public methods, but if
that is so important for you, I can propose next:
create your modules dynamically on server side.
How it works:
create separate scripts for functionality you want;
create tests for these separate scripts;
create method that will combine scripts into one however you want;
to load script, reference to the combining scripts method.
Hopefully, it can solve your problem. Good luck!
Why not use namespaces to add your modules and public methods to js engine. Like this:
window['MyApp']['MODULE1'] = { "METHOD1" : {}, "METHOD2" : {}};
I write modules like this Sample module in JavaScript.
And test it like this: Simple unit testing in JavaScript
The use of eval() is generally not good idea.
I would like to set variables on the fly using the console.
My code is wrapped like this:
( function () {
var debug = true;
// code here
} () )
I want to change debug on the fly using the console.
Should I move debug out of the self executing wrapper and pass it in using the global import?
Should I give the anonymous function a name, and set it using the "name spaced" name?
I have not used the console too much, but I assume it is made for things like this.
How is this usually done? What is best practice?
You could use a namespace with minimal effort as follows:
(function (foo) {
foo.debug = true;
}(FOO = FOO || {}));
FOO.debug = false;
I would go with this type of solution over using an explicit global because it isn't really more cumbersome and with variable names like debug there's a chance you might have a conflict.. even if you're working with code that is 100% yours.
The problem I have is that there are a set of variable values / properties in one file and a library in another file. I have started refactoring the code but still need to keep variable values(dynamic) and library(static) differently.
I am using namespacing and overall want only one global namespace.
The problems I have at the moment:
1. How can I still keep one global namespace
2. What is the best way to read the values from one file and use it in the library present in another file.
e.g I came up with something like
//File ONE with values
var main.dynamicvalues = (function(){
var a = 10,
b = 20,
c = 30;
return {
a:a,
b:b,
c:c
}
}());
//File TWO with core Library
var main.library = (function(){
//Various Private functions that need to use a,b,c variables from above main.dynamicvalues namespace
return {
//Public functions again need to use a,b,c from above namespace.
}
}());
Is there a way I can have a pattern so that I keep only one global namespace and can refer to variables directly without having to use maincode.values.a, maincode.values.b, maincode.values.c or something like this in maincode.library.functions
Thanks
Sparsh Gupta
This approach is a little better, but it's not exactly what you're looking for.
var main = {};
main.dynamicvalues = (function() {
// same as before
})();
main.library = (function(dyn){
// use dyn.a, dyn.b etc
return {
// same in here
}
}(main.dynamicvalues));
Create a new file (maybe name it something like "common.js") and put the values there.
You can try RequireJS. This will let you do what you want with no global namespace at all (if you'd like to). In addition it will give you non-blocking script loading, easy way to handle dependencies and a build tool.
On the other hand, it can deprive you of the joy of investigating things for your own and better understanding of js architectural patterns.
Your code with RequireJs could have looked like this:
// File one with values, let's name it values.js
define([], function() {
var a = 10,
b = 20,
c = 30;
return {
a: a,
b: b,
c: c
}
})
// File two with library
define([
// load values.js as a dependency
'values'
// what is returned in values.js can be passed as an argument to the callback
], function( values ) {
values.a === 10 // true
})