Develop Reference

Check if elements are part of wrapper [duplicate]

How can I check if one DOM element is a child of another DOM element? Are there any built in methods for this? For example, something like:
if (element1.hasDescendant(element2))
or
if (element2.hasParent(element1))
If not then any ideas how to do this? It also needs to be cross browser. I should also mention that the child could be nested many levels below the parent.

You should use Node.contains, since it's now standard and available in all browsers.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Node.contains

Update: There's now a native way to achieve this. Node.contains(). Mentioned in comment and below answers as well.
Old answer:
Using the parentNode property should work. It's also pretty safe from a cross-browser standpoint. If the relationship is known to be one level deep, you could check it simply:
if (element2.parentNode == element1) { ... }
If the the child can be nested arbitrarily deep inside the parent, you could use a function similar to the following to test for the relationship:
function isDescendant(parent, child) {
var node = child.parentNode;
while (node != null) {
if (node == parent) {
return true;
}
node = node.parentNode;
}
return false;
}

I just had to share 'mine'.
Although conceptually the same as Asaph's answer (benefiting from the same cross-browser compatibility, even IE6), it is a lot smaller and comes in handy when size is at a premium and/or when it is not needed so often.
function childOf(/*child node*/c, /*parent node*/p){ //returns boolean
while((c=c.parentNode)&&c!==p);
return !!c;
}
..or as one-liner (just 64 chars!):
function childOf(c,p){while((c=c.parentNode)&&c!==p);return !!c}
and jsfiddle here.
Usage:
childOf(child, parent) returns boolean true|false.
Explanation:
while evaluates as long as the while-condition evaluates to true.
The && (AND) operator returns this boolean true/false after evaluating the left-hand side and the right-hand side, but only if the left-hand side was true (left-hand && right-hand).
The left-hand side (of &&) is: (c=c.parentNode).
This will first assign the parentNode of c to c and then the AND operator will evaluate the resulting c as a boolean.
Since parentNode returns null if there is no parent left and null is converted to false, the while-loop will correctly stop when there are no more parents.
The right-hand side (of &&) is: c!==p.
The !== comparison operator is 'not exactly equal to'. So if the child's parent isn't the parent (you specified) it evaluates to true, but if the child's parent is the parent then it evaluates to false.
So if c!==p evaluates to false, then the && operator returns false as the while-condition and the while-loop stops. (Note there is no need for a while-body and the closing ; semicolon is required.)
So when the while-loop ends, c is either a node (not null) when it found a parent OR it is null (when the loop ran through to the end without finding a match).
Thus we simply return that fact (converted as boolean value, instead of the node) with: return !!c;: the ! (NOT operator) inverts a boolean value (true becomes false and vice-versa).
!c converts c (node or null) to a boolean before it can invert that value. So adding a second ! (!!c) converts this false back to true (which is why a double !! is often used to 'convert anything to boolean').
Extra:
The function's body/payload is so small that, depending on case (like when it is not used often and appears just once in the code), one could even omit the function (wrapping) and just use the while-loop:
var a=document.getElementById('child'),
b=document.getElementById('parent'),
c;
c=a; while((c=c.parentNode)&&c!==b); //c=!!c;
if(!!c){ //`if(c)` if `c=!!c;` was used after while-loop above
//do stuff
}
instead of:
var a=document.getElementById('child'),
b=document.getElementById('parent'),
c;
function childOf(c,p){while((c=c.parentNode)&&c!==p);return !!c}
c=childOf(a, b);
if(c){
//do stuff
}

Another solution that wasn't mentioned:
Example Here
var parent = document.querySelector('.parent');
if (parent.querySelector('.child') !== null) {
// .. it's a child
}
It doesn't matter whether the element is a direct child, it will work at any depth.
Alternatively, using the .contains() method:
Example Here
var parent = document.querySelector('.parent'),
child = document.querySelector('.child');
if (parent.contains(child)) {
// .. it's a child
}

You can use the contains method
var result = parent.contains(child);
or you can try to use compareDocumentPosition()
var result = nodeA.compareDocumentPosition(nodeB);
The last one is more powerful: it return a bitmask as result.

Take a look at Node#compareDocumentPosition.
function isDescendant(ancestor,descendant){
return ancestor.compareDocumentPosition(descendant) &
Node.DOCUMENT_POSITION_CONTAINS;
}
function isAncestor(descendant,ancestor){
return descendant.compareDocumentPosition(ancestor) &
Node.DOCUMENT_POSITION_CONTAINED_BY;
}
Other relationships include DOCUMENT_POSITION_DISCONNECTED, DOCUMENT_POSITION_PRECEDING, and DOCUMENT_POSITION_FOLLOWING.
Not supported in IE<=8.

I came across a wonderful piece of code to check whether or not an element is a child of another element. I have to use this because IE doesn't support the .contains element method. Hope this will help others as well.
Below is the function:
function isChildOf(childObject, containerObject) {
var returnValue = false;
var currentObject;
if (typeof containerObject === 'string') {
containerObject = document.getElementById(containerObject);
}
if (typeof childObject === 'string') {
childObject = document.getElementById(childObject);
}
currentObject = childObject.parentNode;
while (currentObject !== undefined) {
if (currentObject === document.body) {
break;
}
if (currentObject.id == containerObject.id) {
returnValue = true;
break;
}
// Move up the hierarchy
currentObject = currentObject.parentNode;
}
return returnValue;
}

Consider using closest('.selector')
It returns null if neither element nor any of its ancestors matches the selector. Alternatively returns the element which was found

try this one:
x = document.getElementById("td35");
if (x.childElementCount > 0) {
x = document.getElementById("LastRow");
x.style.display = "block";
}
else {
x = document.getElementById("LastRow");
x.style.display = "none";
}

TL;DR: a library
I advise using something like dom-helpers, written by the react team as a regular JS lib.
In their contains implementation you will see a Node#contains based implementation with a Node#compareDocumentPosition fallback.
Support for very old browsers e.g. IE <9 would not be given, which I find acceptable.
This answer incorporates the above ones, however I would advise against looping yourself.

javascript passing the result of a boolean comparison confusion

I've been working through some text book to learn web development and i've become confused on an example. The example creates a meter element and fills it with some attributes. There is then some javascript to check for browser support for the tag. The part where i'm confused is after the first expression returns either true or false for the support, shouldn't there be a check for if true or false was returned on the following if statement? also as an aside, when the create element builds the element does is give it default values, or grab values from an existing meter in the html.
The check for support is as follows.
var noMeterSupport = function(){
return(document.createElement('meter').max === undefined);
}
the next part that builds the meter if the support isn't found is below. This is where i become confused as it seems to take either value and continue without checking if it was true or false.
if (noMeterSupport()) {
var fakeMeter, fill, label, labelText, max, meter, value;
value = meter.attr("value");
meter = $("#pledge_goal");
max = meter.attr("max");
labelText = "$" + meter.val();
fakeMeter = $("<div></div>");
fakeMeter.addClass("meter");
label = $("<span>" + labelText + "</span>");
label.addClass("label");
fill = $("<div></div>");
fill.addClass("fill");
fill.css("width",(value / max * 100) + "%");
fill.append("<div style='clear:both;'><br></div>");
fakeMeter.append(fill);
fakeMeter.append(label);
meter.replaceWith(fakeMeter);
}

The body of the if is only executed if noMeterSupport() returns true. The condition in an if statement requires something "truthy", i.e. something that can be interpreted as true or false. Since the function returns a boolean value, that is sufficient. (See first Google hit for truthiness javascript, which is a good explanation.)
EDIT: Forgot about your second question. When a new element is created with document.createElement, it does indeed get default values. In your example, the default value of max for a <meter> is 1.

if (noMeterSupport()) { checks the return value. It means exactly the same as this:
var supported = noMeterSupport();
if(supported) {

I hope that I understand your question correctly and will try to answer it.
So you would expect something like this:
if (noMeterSupport() == true)
Actually, this is equivalent to this:
if (noMeterSupport())
And if you want to check false:
if (noMeterSupport() == false)
This is equivalent to:
if (!noMeterSupport())

This statement will make the function either return true or false:
return(document.createElement('meter').max === undefined)
basically it would be synonymous with writing:
if(document.createElement('meter').max === undefined) {
return true;
} else {
return false;
}
That makes the value of noMeterSupport() either true or false.

var noMeterSupport = function(){
return(document.createElement('meter').max === undefined);
}
noMeterSupport returns the result of the comparison document.createElement('meter').max === undefined.
The comparison will be either true or false, ok?
So, now, when you do
if (noMeterSupport()) { /*then do something*/}
is like saying
if (/*the result of noMeterSupport() is true*/) {/*then do something*/}
So, this if statement will only run if noMeterSupport returns true

var noMeterSupport = function(){
return(document.createElement('meter').max === undefined);
}
This section of code is not actually doing the check, it is defining a function called noMeterSupport.
The code is not actually run until the function is called. It is called by adding () to the function name.
noMeterSupport()
Your if() statement is where it is being called as it the brackets.

You expect a boolean condition inside the if statement:
if(<boolean_condition>)
{
...
}
The noMeterSupport() is actually returning true or false, so the
if(noMeterSupport())
is converted to if(true) or if(false)
depending on the result of the document.createElement('meter').max === undefined evaluation.
You are receiving a boolean condition and the if statement works fine.

As a beginner, there's two points to quickly learn in programming :
The comparison operators == and === not only do the comparison, but returns in fact the result of this comparison (you can place it in var to test)
var bool = 1 === 2;
console.log(bool); // will print false
The test if(boolean === true) is equivalent to if(boolean), and the test if(boolean === false) is equivalent to if(!boolean)

Extend the number class

I want to extend the number class to have instance functions such as odd and even so I can do something like this:
2.odd() => false
2.even() => true
1.even() => false
1.odd() => true
Extending classes is a good Ruby practise: "Ruby check if even number, float".
Is the same true in JavaScript, or does it cause performance issues or some other problem?
Anyway, I can't extend despite my best efforts:
var NumberInstanceExtensions = {
accuracy: function(){
return 'This is cool ' + this
}
}
$.extend(Number.prototype,NumberInstanceExtensions);
alert( $.type(5) ); //-> number
//alert( 5.accuracy() ); //-> Uncaught SyntaxError: Unexpected token ILLEGAL
http://jsfiddle.net/VLPTb/2/
How can I get this to work? The syntax error makes me think this isn't how JavaScript works on a fundamental level. Is my best bet extending the Math class and doing this instead:
Math.odd(2) => false
Math.even(2) => true
Math.even(1) => false
Math.odd(1) => true
That seems far more inelegant than 2.odd().

I think as long as you understand the side-effects of your "extension" then you're okay. I often modify the String prototype to add an "elipsis" method so I can do things like
"SomeString".elipsis()
But start at the beginning. You're not "extending classes" in JavaScript. JavaScript is a prototype-based language. You can modify prototypes to do what you need.
You won't be able to add a method directly to the number itself. You can, however modify the prototype of the Number object:
Number.prototype.even = function(){
return this.valueOf() % 2 === 0;
}
With this, you won't be able to use the following syntax:
10.even();
But, since you aren't hard-coding stuff, otherwise you wouldn't need this function anyways, you CAN do the following:
var a = 10;
a.even(); //true
I might say that you could consider adding a utilities object to do these things, because modifying primitive prototypes is not always guaranteed to be side-effect free.
This function does not really provide any gain for you. You're checking for odd and even, replacing one line of code with another. Think about the difference:
var a = 10;
var aIsEven = a.even();
vs:
var a = 10;
var aIsEven = a % 2 === 0;
You gain three characters of code, and the second option is less likely to break your "JavaScript".

You can extend natives JS objects by using (for example) Number.prototype.myFn = function(){}.
So you could do :
Math.prototype.odd = function(n){
return n % 2 === 0;
};
Math.prototype.even = function(n){
return n % 2 === 1;
};
And then use it like so :
var two = 2;
console.log(Math.odd(2)); // true
BUT I would strongly advise you against extending natives in JavaScript.
You can read more about it here
EDIT : After trying my code on JSFiddle, it appears the Math object has no prototype, you can read more about it here. The code above won't work !
Instead, you could do :
Math.odd = function(n){
return n % 2 === 0;
};
Math.even = function(n){
return n % 2 === 1;
};
console.log(Math.odd(2)); // true
or :
Number.prototype.odd = function(){
return this % 2 === 0;
};
Number.prototype.even = function(){
return this % 2 === 1;
};
console.log(new Number(2).odd()); // true

I'd like to point out that that is already available in the numbers class.
Just use the boolean methods, odd? and even?
2.odd?
=> false
2.even?
=> true
Hope this helps.
No need to create a new class, it already exists in the numbers class.

JavaScript endsWith function not working

I have a web application. In one of the pages, I go all over the HTML element IDs wether one of them ends with a specified string or not. Every JS functions work on the page but "endsWith" function doesn't work. I really didn't understand the matter. Can anyone help?
var str = "To be, or not to be, that is the question.";
alert(str.endsWith("question."));
The above simple JS code doesn't work at all?

As said in this post http://rickyrosario.com/blog/javascript-startswith-and-endswith-implementation-for-strings/
var str = "To be, or not to be, that is the question.";
function strEndsWith(str, suffix) {
return str.match(suffix+"$")==suffix;
}
alert(strEndsWith(str,"question."));
this will return true if it ends with provided suffix.
JSFIDDLE
EDIT
There is a similar question asked before check it here
the answer says
var str = "To be, or not to be, that is the question$";
String.prototype.endsWith = function(suffix) {
return this.indexOf(suffix, this.length - suffix.length) !== -1;
};
alert(str.endsWith("$"));

ES5 has no endsWith function (or, for that matter, startsWith). You can roll your own, like this version from MDN:
if (!String.prototype.endsWith) {
Object.defineProperty(String.prototype, 'endsWith', {
enumerable: false,
configurable: false,
writable: false,
value: function (searchString, position) {
position = position || this.length;
position = position - searchString.length;
var lastIndex = this.lastIndexOf(searchString);
return lastIndex !== -1 && lastIndex === position;
}
});
}

I have never seen an endsWith function in JS. You can rather do an String.length and then check the last words by manually referencing each character you want to check against.
Even better would be to do a regex to find the last word in the string and then use that (Regular expression to find last word in sentence).

I found the endsWith() function available in Chrome console, but oddly, not defined when debugging in VS Code (with Chrome). You can try editing the snippet below by deleting the polyfill to see if your browser supports it.
This is a quote from MDN Developer Docs for String.prototype.endsWith():
String.prototype.endsWith()
This method has been added to the ECMAScript 6 specification and may
not be available in all JavaScript implementations yet. However, you
can polyfill String.prototype.endsWith() with the following snippet:
// If string.endsWith() isn't defined, Polyfill it.
if (!String.prototype.endsWith) {
String.prototype.endsWith = function(search, this_len) {
if (this_len === undefined || this_len > this.length) {
this_len = this.length;
}
return this.substring(this_len - search.length, this_len) === search;
};
}
// Use it.
const myString = "Mayberry";
const result = myString.endsWith("berry") ? 'Yes' : 'Nope';
document.body.append('A. ' + result);
Q. Does Mayberry end with "berry"?<br>

Why does this JQuery only work if I console.log a bad variable? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Why does this append only work if I console log a bad variable
(2 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
I am relatively new with jquery, and am trying to change an up and down arrow on a js accordion on each click, unfortunately, I have run into an error where it only works if I console.log a bad variable. Does anyone have any guidance as to what I might be doing wrong when I onclick="embiggen(1)" for example if its accordion id one?
There are some other issues surrounding the html, but specifically why is this only working if I console.log;?
function arrowup(id){
$('#downarrow'+id).remove();
$('#dropdown'+id).append('</a>');
$('#dropdown'+id).append('<i id="uparrow'+ id +'" class="icon-1 icon-chevron-up">');
}
function arrowdown(id){
$('#uparrow'+id).remove();
$('#dropdown'+id).append('</a>');
$('#dropdown'+id).append('<i id="downarrow'+ id +'" class="icon-1 icon-chevron-down">');
}
//Switches the arrows
function embiggen(id){
var up = $('#uparrow'+id).length;
if (up == 1){
arrowdown(id);
console.log(i see you);
}
var down = $('#downarrow'+id).length;
if (down == 1){
arrowup(id);
}
}

The bad console.log() makes it "work" because the error breaks the script execution before entering the second if statement.
Fixing the real issue
down == 1 is always true. You should use an else statement:
if ($('#uparrow'+id).length){
arrowdown(id);
} else if ($('#downarrow'+id).length){
arrowup(id);
}
Understanding it
down == 1 is always true independently of up == 1. Here's your logic explained in pseudo-code in both scenarios:
var up = 1, down = 0;
if (up) { down = 1; up = 0; } //enters this block, down now is 1
if (down) { down = 0; up = 1; } //enters this block as down == 1
var up = 0, down = 1;
if (up) { down = 1; up = 0; } //doesn't enter this block
if (down) { down = 0; up = 1; } //enters this block as down == 1
You just have put an else in there so the execution flow does not enter the second if statement in case the first one succeeds.
if (up) {}
else if (down) {}
Truthy/Falsy values
To explain why I'm using .length isolated inside the conditional statement: in JavaScript, the number 0 is a falsy value and 1 is truthy, hence these can be used directly inside the if statement and it will be interpreted based on the internal ToBoolean algorithm logic. Obviously you can == 1 if you feel like, that's more clear though slightly redundant.
A possibly simpler way around
Going a little off-topic, but your goal can most likely be achieved in an easier way. I may be oversimplifying your logic, but depending on your intents you may just toggle between those two classes:
function embiggen(id) {
$('#arrow'+id).toggleClass('icon-chevron-up icon-chevron-down');
}
Then, you'd no longer have to create a new #downarrow/#uparrow element each time the function is called. If said arrow has JS behavior attached, you can check which logic to execute through an if statement using hasClass().

It works because when an error occurs, JavaScript skips the rest of your function body.
The problem in your case is that the function arrowdown() creates #downarrow+id, making the next condition truthy and calling the function arrowup().
You either need an alternative branch, using Fabricio's answer, or return immediately after making changes to the DOM that would otherwise change the state:
function embiggen(id) {
if ($('#uparrow'+id).length) {
return arrowdown(id);
}
if ($('#downarrow'+id).length) {
return arrowup(id);
}
// ehm, something else happened?
}