I know that I can test for a JavaScript variable and then define it if it is undefined, but is there not some way of saying
var setVariable = localStorage.getItem('value') || 0;
seems like a much clearer way, and I'm pretty sure I've seen this in other languages.
Yes, it can do that, but strictly speaking that will assign the default value if the retrieved value is falsey, as opposed to truly undefined. It would therefore not only match undefined but also null, false, 0, NaN, "" (but not "0").
If you want to set to default only if the variable is strictly undefined then the safest way is to write:
var x = (typeof x === 'undefined') ? your_default_value : x;
On newer browsers it's actually safe to write:
var x = (x === undefined) ? your_default_value : x;
but be aware that it is possible to subvert this on older browsers where it was permitted to declare a variable named undefined that has a defined value, causing the test to fail.
Logical nullish assignment, ES2020+ solution
New operators are currently being added to the browsers, ??=, ||=, and &&=. This post will focus on ??=.
This checks if left side is undefined or null, short-circuiting if already defined. If not, the right-side is assigned to the left-side variable.
Comparing Methods
// Using ??=
name ??= "Dave"
// Previously, ES2020
name = name ?? "Dave"
// or
if (typeof name === "undefined" || name === null) {
name = true
}
// Before that (not equivalent, but commonly used)
name = name || "Dave" // Now: name ||= "Dave"
Basic Examples
let a // undefined
let b = null
let c = false
a ??= true // true
b ??= true // true
c ??= true // false
Object/Array Examples
let x = ["foo"]
let y = { foo: "fizz" }
x[0] ??= "bar" // "foo"
x[1] ??= "bar" // "bar"
y.foo ??= "buzz" // "fizz"
y.bar ??= "buzz" // "buzz"
x // Array [ "foo", "bar" ]
y // Object { foo: "fizz", bar: "buzz" }
??= Browser Support Oct 2022 - 93%
??= Mozilla Documentation
||= Mozilla Documentation
&&= Mozilla Documentation
The 2018 ES6 answer is:
return Object.is(x, undefined) ? y : x;
If variable x is undefined, return variable y... otherwise if variable x is defined, return variable x.
ES2020 Answer
With the Nullish Coalescing Operator, you can set a default value if value is null or undefined.
const setVariable = localStorage.getItem('value') ?? 0;
However, you should be aware that the nullish coalescing operator does not return the default value for other types of falsy value such as 0 and ''.
However, do take note of the browser support. You may need to use a JavaScript compiler like Babel to convert it into something more backward compatible. If you are using Node.js, it has been supported since version 14.
I needed to "set a variable if undefined" in several places. I created a function using #Alnitak answer. Hopefully it helps someone.
function setDefaultVal(value, defaultValue){
return (value === undefined) ? defaultValue : value;
}
Usage:
hasPoints = setDefaultVal(this.hasPoints, true);
It seems more logical to check typeof instead of undefined? I assume you expect a number as you set the var to 0 when undefined:
var getVariable = localStorage.getItem('value');
var setVariable = (typeof getVariable == 'number') ? getVariable : 0;
In this case if getVariable is not a number (string, object, whatever), setVariable is set to 0
In our days you actually can do your approach with JS:
// Your variable is null
// or '', 0, false, undefined
let x = null;
// Set default value
x = x || 'default value';
console.log(x); // default value
So your example WILL work:
const setVariable = localStorage.getItem('value') || 0;
You can use any of below ways.
let x;
let y = 4;
x || (x = y)
in ES12 or after
let x;
let y = 4;
x ||= y;
If you're a FP (functional programming) fan, Ramda has a neat helper function for this called defaultTo :
usage:
const result = defaultTo(30)(value)
It's more useful when dealing with undefined boolean values:
const result2 = defaultTo(false)(dashboard.someValue)
var setVariable = (typeof localStorage.getItem('value') !== 'undefined' && localStorage.getItem('value')) || 0;
Ran into this scenario today as well where I didn't want zero to be overwritten for several values. We have a file with some common utility methods for scenarios like this. Here's what I added to handle the scenario and be flexible.
function getIfNotSet(value, newValue, overwriteNull, overwriteZero) {
if (typeof (value) === 'undefined') {
return newValue;
} else if (value === null && overwriteNull === true) {
return newValue;
} else if (value === 0 && overwriteZero === true) {
return newValue;
} else {
return value;
}
}
It can then be called with the last two parameters being optional if I want to only set for undefined values or also overwrite null or 0 values. Here's an example of a call to it that will set the ID to -1 if the ID is undefined or null, but wont overwrite a 0 value.
data.ID = Util.getIfNotSet(data.ID, -1, true);
Works even if the default value is a boolean value:
var setVariable = ( (b = 0) => b )( localStorage.getItem('value') );
It seems to me, that for current javascript implementations,
var [result='default']=[possiblyUndefinedValue]
is a nice way to do this (using object deconstruction).
Related
Is there a null coalescing operator in Javascript?
For example, in C#, I can do this:
String someString = null;
var whatIWant = someString ?? "Cookies!";
The best approximation I can figure out for Javascript is using the conditional operator:
var someString = null;
var whatIWant = someString ? someString : 'Cookies!';
Which is sorta icky IMHO. Can I do better?
Update
JavaScript now supports the nullish coalescing operator (??). It returns its right-hand-side operand when its left-hand-side operand is null or undefined, and otherwise returns its left-hand-side operand.
Old Answer
Please check compatibility before using it.
The JavaScript equivalent of the C# null coalescing operator (??) is using a logical OR (||):
var whatIWant = someString || "Cookies!";
There are cases (clarified below) that the behaviour won't match that of C#, but this is the general, terse way of assigning default/alternative values in JavaScript.
Clarification
Regardless of the type of the first operand, if casting it to a Boolean results in false, the assignment will use the second operand. Beware of all the cases below:
alert(Boolean(null)); // false
alert(Boolean(undefined)); // false
alert(Boolean(0)); // false
alert(Boolean("")); // false
alert(Boolean("false")); // true -- gotcha! :)
This means:
var whatIWant = null || new ShinyObject(); // is a new shiny object
var whatIWant = undefined || "well defined"; // is "well defined"
var whatIWant = 0 || 42; // is 42
var whatIWant = "" || "a million bucks"; // is "a million bucks"
var whatIWant = "false" || "no way"; // is "false"
function coalesce() {
var len = arguments.length;
for (var i=0; i<len; i++) {
if (arguments[i] !== null && arguments[i] !== undefined) {
return arguments[i];
}
}
return null;
}
var xyz = {};
xyz.val = coalesce(null, undefined, xyz.val, 5);
// xyz.val now contains 5
this solution works like the SQL coalesce function, it accepts any number of arguments, and returns null if none of them have a value. It behaves like the C# ?? operator in the sense that "", false, and 0 are considered NOT NULL and therefore count as actual values. If you come from a .net background, this will be the most natural feeling solution.
Yes, it is coming soon. See proposal here and implementation status here.
It looks like this:
x ?? y
Example
const response = {
settings: {
nullValue: null,
height: 400,
animationDuration: 0,
headerText: '',
showSplashScreen: false
}
};
const undefinedValue = response.settings?.undefinedValue ?? 'some other default'; // result: 'some other default'
const nullValue = response.settings?.nullValue ?? 'some other default'; // result: 'some other default'
const headerText = response.settings?.headerText ?? 'Hello, world!'; // result: ''
const animationDuration = response.settings?.animationDuration ?? 300; // result: 0
const showSplashScreen = response.settings?.showSplashScreen ?? true; // result: false
If || as a replacement of C#'s ?? isn't good enough in your case, because it swallows empty strings and zeros, you can always write your own function:
function $N(value, ifnull) {
if (value === null || value === undefined)
return ifnull;
return value;
}
var whatIWant = $N(someString, 'Cookies!');
Nobody has mentioned in here the potential for NaN, which--to me--is also a null-ish value. So, I thought I'd add my two-cents.
For the given code:
var a,
b = null,
c = parseInt('Not a number'),
d = 0,
e = '',
f = 1
;
If you were to use the || operator, you get the first non-false value:
var result = a || b || c || d || e || f; // result === 1
If you use the new ?? (null coalescing) operator, you will get c, which has the value: NaN
vas result = a ?? b ?? c ?? d ?? e ?? f; // result === NaN
Neither of these seem right to me. In my own little world of coalesce logic, which may differ from your world, I consider undefined, null, and NaN as all being "null-ish". So, I would expect to get back d (zero) from the coalesce method.
If anyone's brain works like mine, and you want to exclude NaN, then this custom coalesce method (unlike the one posted here) will accomplish that:
function coalesce() {
var i, undefined, arg;
for( i=0; i < arguments.length; i++ ) {
arg = arguments[i];
if( arg !== null && arg !== undefined
&& (typeof arg !== 'number' || arg.toString() !== 'NaN') ) {
return arg;
}
}
return null;
}
For those who want the code as short as possible, and don't mind a little lack of clarity, you can also use this as suggested by #impinball. This takes advantage of the fact that NaN is never equal to NaN. You can read up more on that here: Why is NaN not equal to NaN?
function coalesce() {
var i, arg;
for( i=0; i < arguments.length; i++ ) {
arg = arguments[i];
if( arg != null && arg === arg ) { //arg === arg is false for NaN
return arg;
}
}
return null;
}
Logical nullish assignment, 2020+ solution
A new operator is currently being added to the browsers, ??=. This combines the null coalescing operator ?? with the assignment operator =.
NOTE: This is not common in public browser versions yet. Will update as availability changes.
??= checks if the variable is undefined or null, short-circuiting if already defined. If not, the right-side value is assigned to the variable.
Basic Examples
let a // undefined
let b = null
let c = false
a ??= true // true
b ??= true // true
c ??= true // false
Object/Array Examples
let x = ["foo"]
let y = { foo: "fizz" }
x[0] ??= "bar" // "foo"
x[1] ??= "bar" // "bar"
y.foo ??= "buzz" // "fizz"
y.bar ??= "buzz" // "buzz"
x // Array [ "foo", "bar" ]
y // Object { foo: "fizz", bar: "buzz" }
Browser Support Jan '22 - 89%
Mozilla Documentation
Yes, and its proposal is Stage 4 now. This means that the proposal is ready for inclusion in the formal ECMAScript standard. You can already use it in recent desktop versions of Chrome, Edge and Firefox, but we will have to wait for a bit longer until this feature reaches cross-browser stability.
Have a look at the following example to demonstrate its behavior:
// note: this will work only if you're running latest versions of aforementioned browsers
const var1 = undefined;
const var2 = "fallback value";
const result = var1 ?? var2;
console.log(`Nullish coalescing results in: ${result}`);
Previous example is equivalent to:
const var1 = undefined;
const var2 = "fallback value";
const result = (var1 !== null && var1 !== undefined) ?
var1 :
var2;
console.log(`Nullish coalescing results in: ${result}`);
Note that nullish coalescing will not threat falsy values the way the || operator did (it only checks for undefined or null values), hence the following snippet will act as follows:
// note: this will work only if you're running latest versions of aforementioned browsers
const var1 = ""; // empty string
const var2 = "fallback value";
const result = var1 ?? var2;
console.log(`Nullish coalescing results in: ${result}`);
For TypesScript users, starting off TypeScript 3.7, this feature is also available now.
?? vs || vs &&
None of the other answers compares all three of these. Since Justin Johnson's comment has so many votes, and since double question mark vs && in javascript was marked a duplicate of this one, it makes sense to include && in an answer.
First in words, inspired by Justin Johnson's comment:
|| returns the first "truey" value, else the last value whatever it is.
&& returns the first "falsey" value, else the last value whatever it is.
?? returns the first non-null, non-undefined value, else the last value, whatever it is.
Then, demonstrated in live code:
let F1,
F2 = null,
F3 = 0,
F4 = '',
F5 = parseInt('Not a number (NaN)'),
T1 = 3,
T2 = 8
console.log( F1 || F2 || F3 || F4 || F5 || T1 || T2 ) // 3 (T1)
console.log( F1 || F2 || F3 || F4 || F5 ) // NaN (F5)
console.log( T1 && T2 && F1 && F2 && F3 && F4 && F5 ) // undefined (F1)
console.log( T1 && T2 ) // 8 (T2)
console.log( F1 ?? F2 ?? F3 ?? F4 ?? F5 ?? T1 ) // 0 (F3)
console.log( F1 ?? F2) // null (F2)
After reading your clarification, #Ates Goral's answer provides how to perform the same operation you're doing in C# in JavaScript.
#Gumbo's answer provides the best way to check for null; however, it's important to note the difference in == versus === in JavaScript especially when it comes to issues of checking for undefined and/or null.
There's a really good article about the difference in two terms here. Basically, understand that if you use == instead of ===, JavaScript will try to coalesce the values you're comparing and return what the result of the comparison after this coalescence.
beware of the JavaScript specific definition of null. there are two definitions for "no value" in javascript.
1. Null: when a variable is null, it means it contains no data in it, but the variable is already defined in the code. like this:
var myEmptyValue = 1;
myEmptyValue = null;
if ( myEmptyValue === null ) { window.alert('it is null'); }
// alerts
in such case, the type of your variable is actually Object. test it.
window.alert(typeof myEmptyValue); // prints Object
Undefined: when a variable has not been defined before in the code, and as expected, it does not contain any value. like this:
if ( myUndefinedValue === undefined ) { window.alert('it is undefined'); }
// alerts
if such case, the type of your variable is 'undefined'.
notice that if you use the type-converting comparison operator (==), JavaScript will act equally for both of these empty-values. to distinguish between them, always use the type-strict comparison operator (===).
Note that React's create-react-app tool-chain supports the null-coalescing since version 3.3.0 (released 5.12.2019). From the release notes:
Optional Chaining and Nullish Coalescing Operators
We now support the optional chaining and nullish coalescing operators!
// Optional chaining
a?.(); // undefined if `a` is null/undefined
b?.c; // undefined if `b` is null/undefined
// Nullish coalescing
undefined ?? 'some other default'; // result: 'some other default'
null ?? 'some other default'; // result: 'some other default'
'' ?? 'some other default'; // result: ''
0 ?? 300; // result: 0
false ?? true; // result: false
This said, in case you use create-react-app 3.3.0+ you can start using the null-coalesce operator already today in your React apps.
There are two items here:
Logical OR
const foo = '' || 'default string';
console.log(foo); // output is 'default string'
Nullish coalescing operator
const foo = '' ?? 'default string';
console.log(foo); // output is empty string i.e. ''
The nullish coalescing operator (??) is a logical operator that returns its right-hand side operand when its left-hand side operand is null or undefined, and otherwise returns its left-hand side operand.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Operators/Nullish_coalescing_operator
It will hopefully be available soon in Javascript, as it is in proposal phase as of Apr, 2020. You can monitor the status here for compatibility and support - https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Operators/Nullish_coalescing_operator
For people using Typescript, you can use the nullish coalescing operator from Typescript 3.7
From the docs -
You can think of this feature - the ?? operator - as a way to “fall
back” to a default value when dealing with null or undefined. When we
write code like
let x = foo ?? bar();
this is a new way to say that the value foo will be used when it’s “present”; but when it’s null or undefined,
calculate bar() in its place.
Need to support old browser and have a object hierarchy
body.head.eyes[0] //body, head, eyes may be null
may use this,
(((body||{}) .head||{}) .eyes||[])[0] ||'left eye'
ECMAScript 2021 enabled two new features:
Nullish coalescing operator (??) which is a logical operator that returns its right-hand side operand when its left-hand side operand is either null or undefined, and otherwise returns its left-hand side operand.
let b = undefined ?? 5;
console.log(b); // 5
Logical nullish assignment (x ??= y) operator which only assigns if x has a nullish value (null or undefined).
const car = {speed : 20};
car.speed ??= 5;
console.log(car.speed);
car.name ??= "reno";
console.log(car.name);
More about Logical nullish assignment can be found here https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Operators/Logical_nullish_assignment
More about Nullish coalescing operator can be found here
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Operators/Nullish_coalescing_operator
Now it has full support in latest version of major browsers like Chrome, Edge, Firefox , Safari etc. Here's the comparison between the null operator and Nullish Coalescing Operator
const response = {
settings: {
nullValue: null,
height: 400,
animationDuration: 0,
headerText: '',
showSplashScreen: false
}
};
/* OR Operator */
const undefinedValue = response.settings.undefinedValue || 'Default Value'; // 'Default Value'
const nullValue = response.settings.nullValue || 'Default Value'; // 'Default Value'
const headerText = response.settings.headerText || 'Hello, world!'; // 'Hello, world!'
const animationDuration = response.settings.animationDuration || 300; // 300
const showSplashScreen = response.settings.showSplashScreen || true; // true
/* Nullish Coalescing Operator */
const undefinedValue = response.settings.undefinedValue ?? 'Default Value'; // 'Default Value'
const nullValue = response.settings.nullValue ?? ''Default Value'; // 'Default Value'
const headerText = response.settings.headerText ?? 'Hello, world!'; // ''
const animationDuration = response.settings.animationDuration ?? 300; // 0
const showSplashScreen = response.settings.showSplashScreen ?? true; // false
Those who are using Babel, need to upgrade to the latest version to use nullish coalescing (??):
Babel 7.8.0 supports the new ECMAScript 2020 features by default: you
don't need to enable individual plugins for nullish coalescing (??),
optional chaining (?.) and dynamic import() anymore with preset-env
From https://babeljs.io/blog/2020/01/11/7.8.0
Chain multiple values / several values
"short circuit" is enabled: do not evaluate any further if one of the first values is valid
that means order matters, the most left values are prioritized
const value = first ?? second ?? third ?? "default";
I was trying to check if an input is null and then use the value accordingly. This is my code.
let valueToBeConsidered = !inputValue ? "trueCondition" : "falseCondition",
So if inputValue is null then valueToBeConsidered = falseCondition and if inputValue has a value then valueToBeConsidered = trueCondition
In my code, I deal with an array that has some entries with many objects nested inside one another, where as some do not. It looks something like the following:
// where this array is hundreds of entries long, with a mix
// of the two examples given
var test = [{'a':{'b':{'c':"foo"}}}, {'a': "bar"}];
This is giving me problems because I need to iterate through the array at times, and the inconsistency is throwing me errors like so:
for (i=0; i<test.length; i++) {
// ok on i==0, but 'cannot read property of undefined' on i==1
console.log(a.b.c);
}
I am aware that I can say if(a.b){ console.log(a.b.c)}, but this is extraordinarily tedious in cases where there are up to 5 or 6 objects nested within one another. Is there any other (easier) way that I can have it ONLY do the console.log if it exists, but without throwing an error?
Update:
If you use JavaScript according to ECMAScript 2020 or later, see optional chaining.
TypeScript has added support for optional chaining in version 3.7.
// use it like this
obj?.a?.lot?.of?.properties
Solution for JavaScript before ECMASCript 2020 or TypeScript older than version 3.7:
A quick workaround is using a try/catch helper function with ES6 arrow function:
function getSafe(fn, defaultVal) {
try {
return fn();
} catch (e) {
return defaultVal;
}
}
// use it like this
console.log(getSafe(() => obj.a.lot.of.properties));
// or add an optional default value
console.log(getSafe(() => obj.a.lot.of.properties, 'nothing'));
What you are doing raises an exception (and rightfully so).
You can always do:
try{
window.a.b.c
}catch(e){
console.log("YO",e)
}
But I wouldn't, instead think of your use case.
Why are you accessing data, 6 levels nested that you are unfamiliar of? What use case justifies this?
Usually, you'd like to actually validate what sort of object you're dealing with.
Also, on a side note you should not use statements like if(a.b) because it will return false if a.b is 0 or even if it is "0". Instead check if a.b !== undefined
If I am understanding your question correctly, you want the safest way to determine if an object contains a property.
The easiest way is to use the in operator.
window.a = "aString";
//window should have 'a' property
//lets test if it exists
if ("a" in window){
//true
}
if ("b" in window){
//false
}
Of course you can nest this as deep as you want
if ("a" in window.b.c) { }
Not sure if this helps.
Try this. If a.b is undefined, it will leave the if statement without any exception.
if (a.b && a.b.c) {
console.log(a.b.c);
}
If you are using lodash, you could use their has function. It is similar to the native "in", but allows paths.
var testObject = {a: {b: {c: 'walrus'}}};
if(_.has(testObject, 'a.b.c')) {
//Safely access your walrus here
}
If you use Babel, you can already use the optional chaining syntax with #babel/plugin-proposal-optional-chaining Babel plugin. This would allow you to replace this:
console.log(a && a.b && a.b.c);
with this:
console.log(a?.b?.c);
If you have lodash you can use its .get method
_.get(a, 'b.c.d.e')
or give it a default value
_.get(a, 'b.c.d.e', default)
I use undefsafe religiously. It tests each level down into your object until it either gets the value you asked for, or it returns "undefined". But never errors.
This is a common issue when working with deep or complex json object, so I try to avoid try/catch or embedding multiple checks which would make the code unreadable, I usually use this little piece of code in all my procect to do the job.
/* ex: getProperty(myObj,'aze.xyz',0) // return myObj.aze.xyz safely
* accepts array for property names:
* getProperty(myObj,['aze','xyz'],{value: null})
*/
function getProperty(obj, props, defaultValue) {
var res, isvoid = function(x){return typeof x === "undefined" || x === null;}
if(!isvoid(obj)){
if(isvoid(props)) props = [];
if(typeof props === "string") props = props.trim().split(".");
if(props.constructor === Array){
res = props.length>1 ? getProperty(obj[props.shift()],props,defaultValue) : obj[props[0]];
}
}
return typeof res === "undefined" ? defaultValue: res;
}
I like Cao Shouguang's answer, but I am not fond of passing a function as parameter into the getSafe function each time I do the call. I have modified the getSafe function to accept simple parameters and pure ES5.
/**
* Safely get object properties.
* #param {*} prop The property of the object to retrieve
* #param {*} defaultVal The value returned if the property value does not exist
* #returns If property of object exists it is returned,
* else the default value is returned.
* #example
* var myObj = {a : {b : 'c'} };
* var value;
*
* value = getSafe(myObj.a.b,'No Value'); //returns c
* value = getSafe(myObj.a.x,'No Value'); //returns 'No Value'
*
* if (getSafe(myObj.a.x, false)){
* console.log('Found')
* } else {
* console.log('Not Found')
* }; //logs 'Not Found'
*
* if(value = getSafe(myObj.a.b, false)){
* console.log('New Value is', value); //logs 'New Value is c'
* }
*/
function getSafe(prop, defaultVal) {
return function(fn, defaultVal) {
try {
if (fn() === undefined) {
return defaultVal;
} else {
return fn();
}
} catch (e) {
return defaultVal;
}
}(function() {return prop}, defaultVal);
}
Lodash has a get method which allows for a default as an optional third parameter, as show below:
const myObject = {
has: 'some',
missing: {
vars: true
}
}
const path = 'missing.const.value';
const myValue = _.get(myObject, path, 'default');
console.log(myValue) // prints out default, which is specified above
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.11/lodash.js"></script>
Imagine that we want to apply a series of functions to x if and only if x is non-null:
if (x !== null) x = a(x);
if (x !== null) x = b(x);
if (x !== null) x = c(x);
Now let's say that we need to do the same to y:
if (y !== null) y = a(y);
if (y !== null) y = b(y);
if (y !== null) y = c(y);
And the same to z:
if (z !== null) z = a(z);
if (z !== null) z = b(z);
if (z !== null) z = c(z);
As you can see without a proper abstraction, we'll end up duplicating code over and over again. Such an abstraction already exists: the Maybe monad.
The Maybe monad holds both a value and a computational context:
The monad keeps the value safe and applies functions to it.
The computational context is a null check before applying a function.
A naive implementation would look like this:
⚠️ This implementation is for illustration purpose only! This is not how it should be done and is wrong at many levels. However this should give you a better idea of what I am talking about.
As you can see nothing can break:
We apply a series of functions to our value
If at any point, the value becomes null (or undefined) we just don't apply any function anymore.
const abc = obj =>
Maybe
.of(obj)
.map(o => o.a)
.map(o => o.b)
.map(o => o.c)
.value;
const values = [
{},
{a: {}},
{a: {b: {}}},
{a: {b: {c: 42}}}
];
console.log(
values.map(abc)
);
<script>
function Maybe(x) {
this.value = x; //-> container for our value
}
Maybe.of = x => new Maybe(x);
Maybe.prototype.map = function (fn) {
if (this.value == null) { //-> computational context
return this;
}
return Maybe.of(fn(this.value));
};
</script>
Appendix 1
I cannot explain what monads are as this is not the purpose of this post and there are people out there better at this than I am. However as Eric Elliot said in hist blog post JavaScript Monads Made Simple:
Regardless of your skill level or understanding of category theory, using monads makes your code easier to work with. Failing to take advantage of monads may make your code harder to work with (e.g., callback hell, nested conditional branches, more verbosity).
Appendix 2
Here's how I'd solve your issue using the Maybe monad from monetjs
const prop = key => obj => Maybe.fromNull(obj[key]);
const abc = obj =>
Maybe
.fromNull(obj)
.flatMap(prop('a'))
.flatMap(prop('b'))
.flatMap(prop('c'))
.orSome('🌯')
const values = [
{},
{a: {}},
{a: {b: {}}},
{a: {b: {c: 42}}}
];
console.log(
values.map(abc)
);
<script src="https://www.unpkg.com/monet#0.9.0/dist/monet.js"></script>
<script>const {Maybe} = Monet;</script>
In str's answer, value 'undefined' will be returned instead of the set default value if the property is undefined. This sometimes can cause bugs. The following will make sure the defaultVal will always be returned when either the property or the object is undefined.
const temp = {};
console.log(getSafe(()=>temp.prop, '0'));
function getSafe(fn, defaultVal) {
try {
if (fn() === undefined || fn() === null) {
return defaultVal
} else {
return fn();
}
} catch (e) {
return defaultVal;
}
}
You can use optional chaining from the ECMAScript standart.
Like this:
a?.b?.c?.d?.func?.()
I answered this before and happened to be doing a similar check today. A simplification to check if a nested dotted property exists. You could modify this to return the value, or some default to accomplish your goal.
function containsProperty(instance, propertyName) {
// make an array of properties to walk through because propertyName can be nested
// ex "test.test2.test.test"
let walkArr = propertyName.indexOf('.') > 0 ? propertyName.split('.') : [propertyName];
// walk the tree - if any property does not exist then return false
for (let treeDepth = 0, maxDepth = walkArr.length; treeDepth < maxDepth; treeDepth++) {
// property does not exist
if (!Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(instance, walkArr[treeDepth])) {
return false;
}
// does it exist - reassign the leaf
instance = instance[walkArr[treeDepth]];
}
// default
return true;
}
In your question you could do something like:
let test = [{'a':{'b':{'c':"foo"}}}, {'a': "bar"}];
containsProperty(test[0], 'a.b.c');
I usually use like this:
var x = object.any ? object.any.a : 'def';
You can avoid getting an error by giving a default value before getting the property
var test = [{'a':{'b':{'c':"foo"}}}, {'a': "bar"}];
for (i=0; i<test.length; i++) {
const obj = test[i]
// No error, just undefined, which is ok
console.log(((obj.a || {}).b || {}).c);
}
This works great with arrays too:
const entries = [{id: 1, name: 'Scarllet'}]
// Giving a default name when is empty
const name = (entries.find(v => v.id === 100) || []).name || 'no-name'
console.log(name)
Unrelated to the question's actual question, but might be useful for people coming to this question looking for answers.
Check your function parameters.
If you have a function like const x({ a }) => { }, and you call it without arguments x(); append = {} to the parameter: const x({ a } = {}) => { }.
What I had
I had a function like this:
const x = ({ a }) => console.log(a);
// This one works as expected
x({ a: 1 });
// This one errors out
x();
Which results in "Uncaught TypeError: Cannot destructure property 'a' of 'undefined' as it is undefined."
What I switched it to (now works).
const x = ({ a } = {}) => console.log(a);
// This one works as expected
x({ a: 1 });
// This now works too!
x();
Dealing with ES6, I have an object and I need to add something to it if it already doesn't have it, so below is my work:
const a = {name:"haha",address:"here",rate:6};
const b = {rate:3,...a};
so if object a has that rate it will remain but if it doesn't have it, rate:3 will be added to the object. BUT, I remember that we could do it with || operator (or &&, I don't remember which operator). could you tell me how it was done that way?
Use the keyword in to check if the property exists
b.rate = 'rate' in b ? a.rate : 3;
The "old" way to do it would be:
b.rate = a.rate || 3; // This would fail if a.rate === 0
b.rate = a.rate === undefined ? 3 : a.rate; // This would fail if a.rate === null
b.rate = a.rate === undefined || a.rate === null ? 3 : a.rate;
You could also use Object.assign to simulate object-spread:
const b = Object.assign({rate: 3}, a);
You can initialize a value with || by using:
const val = something || somethingElse;
However, this doesn't work as well when using it for objects. E.g
const obj1 = { rate: 1 };
obj1.rate = obj1.rate || 1; // this is fine
obj1.rate = obj1.rate || obj2.rate; // if obj1.rate and obj2.rate do not exist, obj1.rate will be set to undefined. But that's not always what you want. If you don't want rate set at all, this would be an unexpected result
Before object spread was usable, you could use:
const a = {name:"haha",address:"here",rate:6};
const b = Object.assign({}, a, { rate: a.rate || 3 });
console.log(b);
But this may not work as intended, because using || relies on the preceding expression being truthy. If a.rate is falsey but still defined, like the empty string or 0, then it will be overwritten, so it may be better to avoid || and explicitly check for whether a.rate is defined or not, which can be put into the rate property concisely with the conditional operator:
const a = {name:"haha",address:"here",rate:6};
const b = Object.assign({}, a, {
rate: a.rate === undefined ? 3 : a.rate
});
console.log(b);
This question already has answers here:
What does the construct x = x || y mean?
(12 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
I came over a snippet of code the other day that I got curious about, but I'm not really sure what it actually does;
options = options || {};
My thought so far; sets variable options to value options if exists, if not, set to empty object.
Yes/no?
This is useful to setting default values to function arguments, e.g.:
function test (options) {
options = options || {};
}
If you call test without arguments, options will be initialized with an empty object.
The Logical OR || operator will return its second operand if the first one is falsy.
Falsy values are: 0, null, undefined, the empty string (""), NaN, and of course false.
ES6 UPDATE: Now, we have real default parameter values in the language since ES6.
function test (options = {}) {
//...
}
If you call the function with no arguments, or if it's called explicitly with the value undefined, the options argument will take the default value. Unlike the || operator example, other falsy values will not cause the use of the default value.
It's the default-pattern..
What you have in your snippet is the most common way to implement the default-pattern, it will return the value of the first operand that yields a true value when converted to boolean.
var some_data = undefined;
var some_obj_1 = undefined;
var some_obj_2 = {foo: 123};
var str = some_data || "default";
var obj = some_obj1 || some_obj2 || {};
/* str == "default", obj == {foo: 123} */
the above is basically equivalent to doing the following more verbose alternative
var str = undefined;
var obj = undefined;
if (some_data) str = some_data;
else str = "default";
if (some_obj1) obj = some_obj1;
else if (some_obj2) obj = some_obj2;
else obj = {};
examples of values yield by the logical OR operator:
1 || 3 -> 1
0 || 3 -> 3
undefined || 3 -> 3
NaN || 3 -> 3
"" || "default" -> "default"
undefined || undefined -> undefined
false || true -> true
true || false -> true
null || "test" -> "test"
undefined || {} -> {}
{} || true -> {}
null || false || {} -> {}
0 || "!!" || 9 -> "!!"
As you can see, if no match is found the value of the last operand is yield.
When is this useful?
There are several cases, though the most popular one is to set the default value of function arguments, as in the below:
function do_something (some_value) {
some_value = some_value || "hello world";
console.log ("saying: " + some_value);
}
...
do_something ("how ya doin'?");
do_something ();
saying: how ya doin'?
saying: hello world
Notes
This is notably one of the differences that javascript have compared to many other popular programming languages.
The operator || doesn't implicitly yield a boolean value but it keeps the operand types and yield the first one that will evaluate to true in a boolean expression.
Many programmers coming from languages where this isn't the case (C, C++, PHP, Python, etc, etc) find this rather confusing at first, and of course there is always the opposite; people coming from javascript (perl, etc) wonders why this feature isn't implemented elsewhere.
Yes. The sample is equivalent to this:
if (options) {
options = options;
} else {
options = {};
}
The OR operator (||) will short-circuit and return the first truthy value.
Yes, that's exactly what it does.
Found another variation of this:
options || (options = {});
Seems to do the same trick.
Is there a null coalescing operator in Javascript?
For example, in C#, I can do this:
String someString = null;
var whatIWant = someString ?? "Cookies!";
The best approximation I can figure out for Javascript is using the conditional operator:
var someString = null;
var whatIWant = someString ? someString : 'Cookies!';
Which is sorta icky IMHO. Can I do better?
Update
JavaScript now supports the nullish coalescing operator (??). It returns its right-hand-side operand when its left-hand-side operand is null or undefined, and otherwise returns its left-hand-side operand.
Old Answer
Please check compatibility before using it.
The JavaScript equivalent of the C# null coalescing operator (??) is using a logical OR (||):
var whatIWant = someString || "Cookies!";
There are cases (clarified below) that the behaviour won't match that of C#, but this is the general, terse way of assigning default/alternative values in JavaScript.
Clarification
Regardless of the type of the first operand, if casting it to a Boolean results in false, the assignment will use the second operand. Beware of all the cases below:
alert(Boolean(null)); // false
alert(Boolean(undefined)); // false
alert(Boolean(0)); // false
alert(Boolean("")); // false
alert(Boolean("false")); // true -- gotcha! :)
This means:
var whatIWant = null || new ShinyObject(); // is a new shiny object
var whatIWant = undefined || "well defined"; // is "well defined"
var whatIWant = 0 || 42; // is 42
var whatIWant = "" || "a million bucks"; // is "a million bucks"
var whatIWant = "false" || "no way"; // is "false"
function coalesce() {
var len = arguments.length;
for (var i=0; i<len; i++) {
if (arguments[i] !== null && arguments[i] !== undefined) {
return arguments[i];
}
}
return null;
}
var xyz = {};
xyz.val = coalesce(null, undefined, xyz.val, 5);
// xyz.val now contains 5
this solution works like the SQL coalesce function, it accepts any number of arguments, and returns null if none of them have a value. It behaves like the C# ?? operator in the sense that "", false, and 0 are considered NOT NULL and therefore count as actual values. If you come from a .net background, this will be the most natural feeling solution.
Yes, it is coming soon. See proposal here and implementation status here.
It looks like this:
x ?? y
Example
const response = {
settings: {
nullValue: null,
height: 400,
animationDuration: 0,
headerText: '',
showSplashScreen: false
}
};
const undefinedValue = response.settings?.undefinedValue ?? 'some other default'; // result: 'some other default'
const nullValue = response.settings?.nullValue ?? 'some other default'; // result: 'some other default'
const headerText = response.settings?.headerText ?? 'Hello, world!'; // result: ''
const animationDuration = response.settings?.animationDuration ?? 300; // result: 0
const showSplashScreen = response.settings?.showSplashScreen ?? true; // result: false
If || as a replacement of C#'s ?? isn't good enough in your case, because it swallows empty strings and zeros, you can always write your own function:
function $N(value, ifnull) {
if (value === null || value === undefined)
return ifnull;
return value;
}
var whatIWant = $N(someString, 'Cookies!');
Nobody has mentioned in here the potential for NaN, which--to me--is also a null-ish value. So, I thought I'd add my two-cents.
For the given code:
var a,
b = null,
c = parseInt('Not a number'),
d = 0,
e = '',
f = 1
;
If you were to use the || operator, you get the first non-false value:
var result = a || b || c || d || e || f; // result === 1
If you use the new ?? (null coalescing) operator, you will get c, which has the value: NaN
vas result = a ?? b ?? c ?? d ?? e ?? f; // result === NaN
Neither of these seem right to me. In my own little world of coalesce logic, which may differ from your world, I consider undefined, null, and NaN as all being "null-ish". So, I would expect to get back d (zero) from the coalesce method.
If anyone's brain works like mine, and you want to exclude NaN, then this custom coalesce method (unlike the one posted here) will accomplish that:
function coalesce() {
var i, undefined, arg;
for( i=0; i < arguments.length; i++ ) {
arg = arguments[i];
if( arg !== null && arg !== undefined
&& (typeof arg !== 'number' || arg.toString() !== 'NaN') ) {
return arg;
}
}
return null;
}
For those who want the code as short as possible, and don't mind a little lack of clarity, you can also use this as suggested by #impinball. This takes advantage of the fact that NaN is never equal to NaN. You can read up more on that here: Why is NaN not equal to NaN?
function coalesce() {
var i, arg;
for( i=0; i < arguments.length; i++ ) {
arg = arguments[i];
if( arg != null && arg === arg ) { //arg === arg is false for NaN
return arg;
}
}
return null;
}
Logical nullish assignment, 2020+ solution
A new operator is currently being added to the browsers, ??=. This combines the null coalescing operator ?? with the assignment operator =.
NOTE: This is not common in public browser versions yet. Will update as availability changes.
??= checks if the variable is undefined or null, short-circuiting if already defined. If not, the right-side value is assigned to the variable.
Basic Examples
let a // undefined
let b = null
let c = false
a ??= true // true
b ??= true // true
c ??= true // false
Object/Array Examples
let x = ["foo"]
let y = { foo: "fizz" }
x[0] ??= "bar" // "foo"
x[1] ??= "bar" // "bar"
y.foo ??= "buzz" // "fizz"
y.bar ??= "buzz" // "buzz"
x // Array [ "foo", "bar" ]
y // Object { foo: "fizz", bar: "buzz" }
Browser Support Jan '22 - 89%
Mozilla Documentation
Yes, and its proposal is Stage 4 now. This means that the proposal is ready for inclusion in the formal ECMAScript standard. You can already use it in recent desktop versions of Chrome, Edge and Firefox, but we will have to wait for a bit longer until this feature reaches cross-browser stability.
Have a look at the following example to demonstrate its behavior:
// note: this will work only if you're running latest versions of aforementioned browsers
const var1 = undefined;
const var2 = "fallback value";
const result = var1 ?? var2;
console.log(`Nullish coalescing results in: ${result}`);
Previous example is equivalent to:
const var1 = undefined;
const var2 = "fallback value";
const result = (var1 !== null && var1 !== undefined) ?
var1 :
var2;
console.log(`Nullish coalescing results in: ${result}`);
Note that nullish coalescing will not threat falsy values the way the || operator did (it only checks for undefined or null values), hence the following snippet will act as follows:
// note: this will work only if you're running latest versions of aforementioned browsers
const var1 = ""; // empty string
const var2 = "fallback value";
const result = var1 ?? var2;
console.log(`Nullish coalescing results in: ${result}`);
For TypesScript users, starting off TypeScript 3.7, this feature is also available now.
?? vs || vs &&
None of the other answers compares all three of these. Since Justin Johnson's comment has so many votes, and since double question mark vs && in javascript was marked a duplicate of this one, it makes sense to include && in an answer.
First in words, inspired by Justin Johnson's comment:
|| returns the first "truey" value, else the last value whatever it is.
&& returns the first "falsey" value, else the last value whatever it is.
?? returns the first non-null, non-undefined value, else the last value, whatever it is.
Then, demonstrated in live code:
let F1,
F2 = null,
F3 = 0,
F4 = '',
F5 = parseInt('Not a number (NaN)'),
T1 = 3,
T2 = 8
console.log( F1 || F2 || F3 || F4 || F5 || T1 || T2 ) // 3 (T1)
console.log( F1 || F2 || F3 || F4 || F5 ) // NaN (F5)
console.log( T1 && T2 && F1 && F2 && F3 && F4 && F5 ) // undefined (F1)
console.log( T1 && T2 ) // 8 (T2)
console.log( F1 ?? F2 ?? F3 ?? F4 ?? F5 ?? T1 ) // 0 (F3)
console.log( F1 ?? F2) // null (F2)
After reading your clarification, #Ates Goral's answer provides how to perform the same operation you're doing in C# in JavaScript.
#Gumbo's answer provides the best way to check for null; however, it's important to note the difference in == versus === in JavaScript especially when it comes to issues of checking for undefined and/or null.
There's a really good article about the difference in two terms here. Basically, understand that if you use == instead of ===, JavaScript will try to coalesce the values you're comparing and return what the result of the comparison after this coalescence.
beware of the JavaScript specific definition of null. there are two definitions for "no value" in javascript.
1. Null: when a variable is null, it means it contains no data in it, but the variable is already defined in the code. like this:
var myEmptyValue = 1;
myEmptyValue = null;
if ( myEmptyValue === null ) { window.alert('it is null'); }
// alerts
in such case, the type of your variable is actually Object. test it.
window.alert(typeof myEmptyValue); // prints Object
Undefined: when a variable has not been defined before in the code, and as expected, it does not contain any value. like this:
if ( myUndefinedValue === undefined ) { window.alert('it is undefined'); }
// alerts
if such case, the type of your variable is 'undefined'.
notice that if you use the type-converting comparison operator (==), JavaScript will act equally for both of these empty-values. to distinguish between them, always use the type-strict comparison operator (===).
Note that React's create-react-app tool-chain supports the null-coalescing since version 3.3.0 (released 5.12.2019). From the release notes:
Optional Chaining and Nullish Coalescing Operators
We now support the optional chaining and nullish coalescing operators!
// Optional chaining
a?.(); // undefined if `a` is null/undefined
b?.c; // undefined if `b` is null/undefined
// Nullish coalescing
undefined ?? 'some other default'; // result: 'some other default'
null ?? 'some other default'; // result: 'some other default'
'' ?? 'some other default'; // result: ''
0 ?? 300; // result: 0
false ?? true; // result: false
This said, in case you use create-react-app 3.3.0+ you can start using the null-coalesce operator already today in your React apps.
There are two items here:
Logical OR
const foo = '' || 'default string';
console.log(foo); // output is 'default string'
Nullish coalescing operator
const foo = '' ?? 'default string';
console.log(foo); // output is empty string i.e. ''
The nullish coalescing operator (??) is a logical operator that returns its right-hand side operand when its left-hand side operand is null or undefined, and otherwise returns its left-hand side operand.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Operators/Nullish_coalescing_operator
It will hopefully be available soon in Javascript, as it is in proposal phase as of Apr, 2020. You can monitor the status here for compatibility and support - https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Operators/Nullish_coalescing_operator
For people using Typescript, you can use the nullish coalescing operator from Typescript 3.7
From the docs -
You can think of this feature - the ?? operator - as a way to “fall
back” to a default value when dealing with null or undefined. When we
write code like
let x = foo ?? bar();
this is a new way to say that the value foo will be used when it’s “present”; but when it’s null or undefined,
calculate bar() in its place.
Need to support old browser and have a object hierarchy
body.head.eyes[0] //body, head, eyes may be null
may use this,
(((body||{}) .head||{}) .eyes||[])[0] ||'left eye'
ECMAScript 2021 enabled two new features:
Nullish coalescing operator (??) which is a logical operator that returns its right-hand side operand when its left-hand side operand is either null or undefined, and otherwise returns its left-hand side operand.
let b = undefined ?? 5;
console.log(b); // 5
Logical nullish assignment (x ??= y) operator which only assigns if x has a nullish value (null or undefined).
const car = {speed : 20};
car.speed ??= 5;
console.log(car.speed);
car.name ??= "reno";
console.log(car.name);
More about Logical nullish assignment can be found here https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Operators/Logical_nullish_assignment
More about Nullish coalescing operator can be found here
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Operators/Nullish_coalescing_operator
Now it has full support in latest version of major browsers like Chrome, Edge, Firefox , Safari etc. Here's the comparison between the null operator and Nullish Coalescing Operator
const response = {
settings: {
nullValue: null,
height: 400,
animationDuration: 0,
headerText: '',
showSplashScreen: false
}
};
/* OR Operator */
const undefinedValue = response.settings.undefinedValue || 'Default Value'; // 'Default Value'
const nullValue = response.settings.nullValue || 'Default Value'; // 'Default Value'
const headerText = response.settings.headerText || 'Hello, world!'; // 'Hello, world!'
const animationDuration = response.settings.animationDuration || 300; // 300
const showSplashScreen = response.settings.showSplashScreen || true; // true
/* Nullish Coalescing Operator */
const undefinedValue = response.settings.undefinedValue ?? 'Default Value'; // 'Default Value'
const nullValue = response.settings.nullValue ?? ''Default Value'; // 'Default Value'
const headerText = response.settings.headerText ?? 'Hello, world!'; // ''
const animationDuration = response.settings.animationDuration ?? 300; // 0
const showSplashScreen = response.settings.showSplashScreen ?? true; // false
Those who are using Babel, need to upgrade to the latest version to use nullish coalescing (??):
Babel 7.8.0 supports the new ECMAScript 2020 features by default: you
don't need to enable individual plugins for nullish coalescing (??),
optional chaining (?.) and dynamic import() anymore with preset-env
From https://babeljs.io/blog/2020/01/11/7.8.0
Chain multiple values / several values
"short circuit" is enabled: do not evaluate any further if one of the first values is valid
that means order matters, the most left values are prioritized
const value = first ?? second ?? third ?? "default";
I was trying to check if an input is null and then use the value accordingly. This is my code.
let valueToBeConsidered = !inputValue ? "trueCondition" : "falseCondition",
So if inputValue is null then valueToBeConsidered = falseCondition and if inputValue has a value then valueToBeConsidered = trueCondition