Develop Reference

Why would an event listener in a JavaScript class see old context variable?

so I'm having a problem that seems to defy everything I know about how scope is handled in JavaScript with anonymous functions - but it could be something else I'm not thinking about.
I have a JavaScript object, called Element, with a constructor similar to this:
function Element(boxElement) {
var self = this;
// Set jquery instance variables
self.pageElement = null;
self.boxElement = boxElement;
... blah blah blah
// Implement triggers to empty functions
self.onElementClicked = function () {};
// Bind listeners
self._bind_listeners();
}
The bind_listeners method is defined as such
Element.prototype._bind_listeners = function() {
var self = this;
self.boxElement.on('click', function (e) {
// Don't handle if handled already
if (e.isDefaultPrevented()) return;
console.log("Got past the return");
self.onElementClicked();
});
};
And there's also a method to set the callback method onElementClicked:
Element.prototype.on_element_click = function(callback) {
var self = this;
self.onElementClicked = callback;
};
The problem I am encountering is that if I set my callback using the on_element_click method, my method doesn't see the current instance - it sees what the instance would look like just after construction.
More specifically to my situation, there's an instance variable called boxElement that refers to a JQuery element - and in Chrome's console I can see that the instance (self) still does refer to the correct element on the page, but the onElementClicked instance variable (and others) do not seem to be set from within the listener.
Feel free to revise my explanation or ask for clarification.
From the implementer perspective:
If I do this:
// Set default listener for element click
formElement.on_element_click(function () {
console.log("Hello");
});
The listener never says Hello because onElementClicked doesn't appear to be set.
However, if I instead do this:
formElement.boxElement.click(function () {
console.log("Hello");
});
It successfully says "Hello" and makes me confused.

I found the solution to my specific problem, which is a good example of how an error like this can occur. (offtopic: please feel free to add answers for other ways to produce this error - it is a very non-intuitive problem and will always be caused by an external factor)
It turns out the class I was testing with is a class that extends my Element class - BUT, it does so improperly / VERY VERY badly!
As embarrassing as it is to post this, here's the original constructor of my "subclass" (quotes for reasons soon apparent):
function StrikeoutFormElement (formElement) {
var self = this;
// Set reference to form element
self.fe = formElement;
$.extend(self, self.fe);
// Override methods
self.on_reposition(function () {
self._on_reposition();
});
}
I used JQuery's object extending function and a hacky workaround to override something. I have learned the hard way to NEVER use JQuery's extend for OOP, as it is only intended for data manipulation rather than as a language tool.
The new constructor looks like this:
function StrikeoutFormElement (elem) {
var self = this;
}
// Extend the FormElement prototype
StrikeoutFormElement.prototype = Object.create(Element.prototype);
StrikeoutFormElement.prototype.constructor = Element;
This is a method described in an MDN article somewhere. I'll post the source when I find it if someone doesn't beat me to it.
Shoutout to anyone who looked at this obscure problem and attempted to figure it out!

Javascript - Handle function calls dynamically [duplicate]

In Ruby I think you can call a method that hasn't been defined and yet capture the name of the method called and do processing of this method at runtime.
Can Javascript do the same kind of thing ?

method_missing does not fit well with JavaScript for the same reason it does not exist in Python: in both languages, methods are just attributes that happen to be functions; and objects often have public attributes that are not callable. Contrast with Ruby, where the public interface of an object is 100% methods.
What is needed in JavaScript is a hook to catch access to missing attributes, whether they are methods or not. Python has it: see the __getattr__ special method.
The __noSuchMethod__ proposal by Mozilla introduced yet another inconsistency in a language riddled with them.
The way forward for JavaScript is the Proxy mechanism (also in ECMAscript Harmony), which is closer to the Python protocol for customizing attribute access than to Ruby's method_missing.

The ruby feature that you are explaining is called "method_missing" http://rubylearning.com/satishtalim/ruby_method_missing.htm.
It's a brand new feature that is present only in some browsers like Firefox (in the spider monkey Javascript engine). In SpiderMonkey it's called "__noSuchMethod__" https://developer.mozilla.org/en/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Object/NoSuchMethod
Please read this article from Yehuda Katz http://yehudakatz.com/2008/08/18/method_missing-in-javascript/ for more details about the upcoming implementation.

Not at the moment, no. There is a proposal for ECMAScript Harmony, called proxies, which implements a similar (actually, much more powerful) feature, but ECMAScript Harmony isn't out yet and probably won't be for a couple of years.

You can use the Proxy class.
var myObj = {
someAttr: 'foo'
};
var p = new Proxy(myObj, {
get: function (target, methodOrAttributeName) {
// target is the first argument passed into new Proxy, aka. target is myObj
// First give the target a chance to handle it
if (Object.keys(target).indexOf(methodOrAttributeName) !== -1) {
return target[methodOrAttributeName];
}
// If the target did not have the method/attribute return whatever we want
// Explicitly handle certain cases
if (methodOrAttributeName === 'specialPants') {
return 'trousers';
}
// return our generic method_missing function
return function () {
// Use the special "arguments" object to access a variable number arguments
return 'For show, myObj.someAttr="' + target.someAttr + '" and "'
+ methodOrAttributeName + '" called with: ['
+ Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments).join(',') + ']';
}
}
});
console.log(p.specialPants);
// outputs: trousers
console.log(p.unknownMethod('hi', 'bye', 'ok'));
// outputs:
// For show, myObj.someAttr="foo" and "unknownMethod" called with: [hi,bye,ok]
About
You would use p in place of myObj.
You should be careful with get because it intercepts all attribute requests of p. So, p.specialPants() would result in an error because specialPants returns a string and not a function.
What's really going on with unknownMethod is equivalent to the following:
var unk = p.unkownMethod;
unk('hi', 'bye', 'ok');
This works because functions are objects in javascript.
Bonus
If you know the number of arguments you expect, you can declare them as normal in the returned function.
eg:
...
get: function (target, name) {
return function(expectedArg1, expectedArg2) {
...

I've created a library for javascript that let you use method_missing in javascript: https://github.com/ramadis/unmiss
It uses ES6 Proxies to work. Here is an example using ES6 Class inheritance. However you can also use decorators to achieve the same results.
import { MethodMissingClass } from 'unmiss'
class Example extends MethodMissingClass {
methodMissing(name, ...args) {
console.log(`Method ${name} was called with arguments: ${args.join(' ')}`);
}
}
const instance = new Example;
instance.what('is', 'this');
> Method what was called with arguments: is this

No, there is no metaprogramming capability in javascript directly analogous to ruby's method_missing hook. The interpreter simply raises an Error which the calling code can catch but cannot be detected by the object being accessed. There are some answers here about defining functions at run time, but that's not the same thing. You can do lots of metaprogramming, changing specific instances of objects, defining functions, doing functional things like memoizing and decorators. But there's no dynamic metaprogramming of missing functions as there is in ruby or python.

I came to this question because I was looking for a way to fall through to another object if the method wasn't present on the first object. It's not quite as flexible as what your asking - for instance if a method is missing from both then it will fail.
I was thinking of doing this for a little library I've got that helps configure extjs objects in a way that also makes them more testable. I had seperate calls to actually get hold of the objects for interaction and thought this might be a nice way of sticking those calls together by effectively returning an augmented type
I can think of two ways of doing this:
Prototypes
You can do this using prototypes - as stuff falls through to the prototype if it isn't on the actual object. It seems like this wouldn't work if the set of functions you want drop through to use the this keyword - obviously your object wont know or care about stuff that the other one knows about.
If its all your own code and you aren't using this and constructors ... which is a good idea for lots of reasons then you can do it like this:
var makeHorse = function () {
var neigh = "neigh";
return {
doTheNoise: function () {
return neigh + " is all im saying"
},
setNeigh: function (newNoise) {
neigh = newNoise;
}
}
};
var createSomething = function (fallThrough) {
var constructor = function () {};
constructor.prototype = fallThrough;
var instance = new constructor();
instance.someMethod = function () {
console.log("aaaaa");
};
instance.callTheOther = function () {
var theNoise = instance.doTheNoise();
console.log(theNoise);
};
return instance;
};
var firstHorse = makeHorse();
var secondHorse = makeHorse();
secondHorse.setNeigh("mooo");
var firstWrapper = createSomething(firstHorse);
var secondWrapper = createSomething(secondHorse);
var nothingWrapper = createSomething();
firstWrapper.someMethod();
firstWrapper.callTheOther();
console.log(firstWrapper.doTheNoise());
secondWrapper.someMethod();
secondWrapper.callTheOther();
console.log(secondWrapper.doTheNoise());
nothingWrapper.someMethod();
//this call fails as we dont have this method on the fall through object (which is undefined)
console.log(nothingWrapper.doTheNoise());
This doesn't work for my use case as the extjs guys have not only mistakenly used 'this' they've also built a whole crazy classical inheritance type system on the principal of using prototypes and 'this'.
This is actually the first time I've used prototypes/constructors and I was slightly baffled that you can't just set the prototype - you also have to use a constructor. There is a magic field in objects (at least in firefox) call __proto which is basically the real prototype. it seems the actual prototype field is only used at construction time... how confusing!
Copying methods
This method is probably more expensive but seems more elegant to me and will also work on code that is using this (eg so you can use it to wrap library objects). It will also work on stuff written using the functional/closure style aswell - I've just illustrated it with this/constructors to show it works with stuff like that.
Here's the mods:
//this is now a constructor
var MakeHorse = function () {
this.neigh = "neigh";
};
MakeHorse.prototype.doTheNoise = function () {
return this.neigh + " is all im saying"
};
MakeHorse.prototype.setNeigh = function (newNoise) {
this.neigh = newNoise;
};
var createSomething = function (fallThrough) {
var instance = {
someMethod : function () {
console.log("aaaaa");
},
callTheOther : function () {
//note this has had to change to directly call the fallThrough object
var theNoise = fallThrough.doTheNoise();
console.log(theNoise);
}
};
//copy stuff over but not if it already exists
for (var propertyName in fallThrough)
if (!instance.hasOwnProperty(propertyName))
instance[propertyName] = fallThrough[propertyName];
return instance;
};
var firstHorse = new MakeHorse();
var secondHorse = new MakeHorse();
secondHorse.setNeigh("mooo");
var firstWrapper = createSomething(firstHorse);
var secondWrapper = createSomething(secondHorse);
var nothingWrapper = createSomething();
firstWrapper.someMethod();
firstWrapper.callTheOther();
console.log(firstWrapper.doTheNoise());
secondWrapper.someMethod();
secondWrapper.callTheOther();
console.log(secondWrapper.doTheNoise());
nothingWrapper.someMethod();
//this call fails as we dont have this method on the fall through object (which is undefined)
console.log(nothingWrapper.doTheNoise());
I was actually anticipating having to use bind in there somewhere but it appears not to be necessary.

Not to my knowledge, but you can simulate it by initializing the function to null at first and then replacing the implementation later.
var foo = null;
var bar = function() { alert(foo()); } // Appear to use foo before definition
// ...
foo = function() { return "ABC"; } /* Define the function */
bar(); /* Alert box pops up with "ABC" */
This trick is similar to a C# trick for implementing recursive lambdas, as described here.
The only downside is that if you do use foo before it's defined, you'll get an error for trying to call null as though it were a function, rather than a more descriptive error message. But you would expect to get some error message for using a function before it's defined.

Javascript callbacks losing 'this'

I have an issuer where I lose the this inside this object. The output of the following piece of JavaScript gives me "some-id" and then undefined. When I use this inside a callback function, the scope goes out of the object and it cannot use this any more. How can I get the callback to use 'this' or at least have access to the object?
Since I will make multiple objects, I won't be able to create a 'static' like storage.
Here is my test code that you can use to reproduce my problem. What I would like to have is CheckBox.doSomething() to return the value of this.id which should match some-id for this test case.
function CheckBox(input_id) {
this.id = input_id;
this.doSomething();
$('#some-element').click(this.doSomething);
}
Checkbox.prototype.doSomething = function() {
alert(this.input_id);
}
var some_box = new CheckBox('some-id');
some_box.doSomething();
$('#some-element').click();
I can't even get this to work as I want it to:
function CheckBox2(input_id) {
this.id = input_id;
alert(this.id);
}
CheckBox2.prototype.doSomething = function() {
alert(this.input_id);
}
var some_box = new CheckBox2('some-id');
some_box.doSomething();

Your problem is with this line: $('#some-element').click(this.doSomething);
Why this is a problem
JavaScript methods don't know anything about the object that should be assigned to this, it's set when the method is called either explicitly (with myFunction.call(obj)) or implicitly (when called using obj.myFunction()).
For example:
var x = {
logThis: function () {
console.log(this);
}
};
x.logThis(); // logs x
x.logThis.call(y); // logs y
var func = x.logThis;
func(); // logs window: the fallback for when no value is given for `this`
In your case, you're passing this.doSomething to jQuery, which is then explicitly calling it with the element that was clicked as the value of this. What's happening is (a slightly more complex version of) this:
var callback = this.doSomething;
callback.call(anElement, anEvent);
The solution
You need to make sure that doSomething is called with the right value of this. You can do that by wrapping it in another function:
var cb = this;
$('#some-element').click(function() {
return cb.doSomething();
});
jQuery provides a proxy function lets you do this more simply:
$('#some-element').click(jQuery.proxy(this.doSomething, this));

function CheckBox(input_id) {
this.id = input_id;
this.doSomething = $.proxy( this.doSomething, this );
$('#some-element').click(this.doSomething);
}
The "javascript equivalent" of this is Function#bind but that is not available in every browser and since it seems you are using jQuery I am using the jQuery equivalent $.proxy

Others have already explained the causes of the problem and how to fix it with jQuery. What's left is how you fix it with standard JavaScript. Instead of ...
$('#some-element').click(this.doSomething);
... you write:
document.getElementById('some-element').addEventListener('click', this.doSomething.bind(this));
This changes the context of this inside doSomething. You can also do that with anonymous functions - instead of ...
$('#some-element').click(function(event) {
console.log(this);
});
... you write:
document.getElementById('#some-element').addEventListener('click', (function(event) {
console.log(this);
}).bind(this));
That has been very useful to me in projects with lots of callbacks, e.g. in Node.js (where you don't have to care about outdated browsers).
Edit: getElementById() and addEventListener() instead of $(...).click(...).

javascript anonymous function parameter passing

I have some javascript code (within an object) :
toggle: function() {
var me = this;
var handler = function() { me.progress() };
me.intervalId = setInterval(handler, me.intervalTime);
//...More code
}
I'm kind of new to javascript, so doing the above as far as I can tell actually passes the me variable into anonymous the function. I was wanting to see if there is a more declarative way to do so? I wanted something along the line of:
var handler = (function(o) { o.progress();})(this));
but that doesn't seem to be working... Am I missing something? Is this a case where "this is the way the language works so just declare a local variable and deal with it"?
UPDATE:
The source to my problem was/is my unclear understanding of scope and closures in javascript. I found this article to help me understand a little more.

You can use ".bind()":
var handler = function() { this.progress(); }.bind(this);
New browsers have "bind()", and the Mozilla docs have a solid implementation you can use to patch older browsers.

The reason
var handler = (function(o) { o.progress();})(this));
doesn't work because it just immediately calls the anon function, therefore immediately calling o.progress() and assigns the return value of the anon function (undefined) to handler. You need to return an actual function from the outer function:
handler = (function(me){
return function(){
return me.progress();
}
}(this));
On the flip side this is equivalent and just as bad looking as bad looking as the variable assignment (but can still be useful, particularly if this needs to be done in a loop, with the changing i rather than the fixed this).
BTW, if the progress function doesn't have any calls to this inside it , just doing handler = this.progress (without the parens) might suffice.

The anonymous function has access to me because it is declared inside of the outer function (the toggle function); it is closed over by the outer function.
Your handler function will be called by setInterval, which passes exactly zero arguments. This means you can't use parameters in the handler function itself.
I you really want to pass me explicitly, you could write a function accepting an parameter, and have that function return an anonymous function without parameters, but which could access the creator function's parameter:
toggle: function() {
var me = this;
var handler = (function (o) { return function() { o.progress() }; })(me);
me.intervalId = setInterval(handler, me.intervalTime);
//...More code
}
But this basically adds a layer of redirection without really making it more legible. Unless you pull that creating function outside:
function createProgressHandler(o) {
return function() {
o.progress();
};
}
// ...
toggle: function() {
var me = this;
var handler = createProgressHandler(me);
me.intervalId = setInterval(handler, me.intervalTime);
//...More code
}

What you have there is a closure. The function that is created and assigned to handler keeps a reference to the me object. This is normal, everyday JavaScript, and that's the way that closures work generally.

Have you tried to return the function like this?
var handler = function(o){
return function(){
o.progress();
}
}(me);
Now you can call:
handler();

Javascript: How to make a Control send itself in a method

Where SomeMethod could have:
function SomeMethod(item)
{
item.setAttribute('name', item.id);
}
Instead of:
function SomeMethod(itemId)
{
var someItem;
someItem = document.getElementById(itemId);
someItem .setAttribute('name', someItem .id);
}
Silly example, but the idea is not to send in the id itself, but the actual control calling the method. I swear this can be done but have had no luck searching... partially because I'm not even sure what to search on.
I thought it was self, but self doesn't seem to be what I want when the script I have runs.

Use the this Keyword.

You actually don't need to pass this as an argument to your function, because you've got a click event object that you can access. So:
<script>
function clickEventHandler(event) {
if (!event) {
event = window.event; // Older versions of IE use
// a global reference
// and not an argument.
};
var el = (event.target || event.srcElement); // DOM uses 'target';
// older versions of
// IE use 'srcElement'
el.setAttribute('name', el.id);
}
</script>

I tend to use this approach in all function calls from HTML attributes:-
onclick="SomeMethod.call(this)"
Then in the javascript do:-
function SomeMethod()
{
this.setAttribute('name', this.id);
}
This has a distinct advantage when you may also assign directly to event handler properties in Javascript code:-
document.getElementById("someID").onclick = SomeMethod
If SomeMethod took the context element as a parameter it would very awkward to set up:-
function(id) {
var elem = document.getElementById(id)
elem.onclick = function() { SomeMethod(elem); }
}("someID");
Worse yet this would be memory leaking closure.

At this point: SomeMethod(this) - this returns window object so do not use it. The right way to use this keyword is making it context relevant, so use SomeMethod.call(this).