i'm trying to get my script to wait for user input (click of a button) before continuing, this is v feasible in other languages, but seems impossible in js. basically, i want the user to select an option within a given time frame, if the user selects the wrong option, they're told..script then conts...otherwise, if after a certain amount of time theres no response...script just continues again sowing them the correct ans, but there seems to be nothing in js to make the script wait for that user input! ive tried a while loop, but that is just a big no no in js, ive used settimeout but has no real effect because the script just continues like normal then performs an action after x amount of time, ive tried setting variables and letting the script cont only if it is of a particular value, which is set only if the user clicks...eg var proceed=false, this is only set to true if the user clicks a button, but it still doesn't work... ive tried sooo many other solutions but nothing actually seems to be working. i like the idea of a while loop, because it doeas exactly what i want it to so, but if completly freezes my browser, is there a more effecient type of loop that will will peroform in the same manner with crashing my browser?
heres my code below that compltely freezes my computer. this method is called within a for loop which calls another method after it.
function getUserResp(){
$("#countdown").countdown({seconds: 15});
setTimeout("proceed=true", 16000);
$("#ans1").click(function(){
ansStr=$(this).text();
checkAns(ansStr);
});
$("#ans2").click(function(){
ansStr=$(this).text();
checkAns(ansStr);
});
$("#ans3").click(function(){
ansStr=$(this).text();
checkAns(ansStr);
});
would like something like this.....or just some sort of loop to make the script wait before going ahead so at least it gives the user some time to respond rather than running straight though!
do{
$(".ans").mouseover(function(){
$(this).addClass("hilite").fadeIn(800);
});
$(".ans").mouseout(function(){
$(this).removeClass("hilite");
});
}while(proceed==false);
}
You're doing it wrong.
JavaScript in the browser uses an event-driven model. There's no main function, just callbacks that are called when an event happens (such as document ready or anchor clicked). If you want something to happen after a user clicks something, then put a listener on that thing.
What you've done just keeps adding an event listener every time round the loop.
If you want to wait for user input then just don't do anything - the browser waits for user input (it's got an internal event loop). The worst thing you can do is try to reimplement your own event loop on top of the browser's.
You need to learn JavaScript. Trying to write JavaScript like you would another language only leads to pain and suffering. Seriously.
Douglas Crockford said it best:
JavaScript is a language that most people don’t bother to learn before they use. You can’t do that with any other language, and you shouldn’t want to, and you shouldn’t do that with this language either. Programming is a serious business, and you should have good knowledge about what you’re doing, but most people feel that they ought to be able to program in this language without any knowledge at all, and it still works. It’s because the language has enormous expressive power, and that’s not by accident.
You can't block the Javascript from running in the same way that you can in some other imperative languages. There's only one thread for Javascript in the browser, so if you hang it in a loop, nothing else can happen.
You must use asynchronous, event-driven programming. Setting a click handler (or whatever) combined with a timeout is the right way to start. Start a 15 second setTimeout. Inside the click handler for the answers, cancel the timeout. This way the timeout's handler only happens if the user doesn't click an answer.
For example:
var mytimeout = setTimeout(15000, function() {
// This is an anonymous function that will be called when the timer goes off.
alert("You didn't answer in time.");
// Remove the answer so the user can't click it anymore, etc...
$('#ans').hide();
});
$('#ans').click(function() {
// Clear the timeout, so it will never fire the function above.
clearTimeout(mytimeout);
alert("You picked an answer!");
});
See how the code must be structured such that it's event-driven. There's no way to structure it to say "do this thing, and wait here for an answer."
You're looking at client-side javascript as if it wasn't already in an event-driven loop. All you need to do is wait for the appropriate event to happen, and if it hasn't happened yet, continue to wait, or else perform some default action.
You don't need to:
create main loop: // All
wait for user input // Of
timer = start_timer() // This
// Is done for you
if [user has input data]:
process_data()
else if [timer > allowed_time]:
process_no_data()
else:
wait() // By the Browser
You only need the middle part. All you need to do is (Actual javascript follows, not pseudo-code):
// First, store all of the answer sections,
// so you're not grabbing them every time
// you need to check them.
var answers = {};
answers.ans1 = $("#ans1");
answers.ans2 = $("#ans2");
answers.ans3 = $("#ans3");
// This is a flag. We'll use it to check whether we:
// A. Have waited for 16 seconds
// B. Have correct user input
var clear_to_proceed = false;
var timer_id;
// Now we need to set up a function to check the answers.
function check_answers() {
if ( ! clear_to_proceed ) {
clear_to_proceed = checkAns(answers.ans1.text());
clear_to_proceed = checkAns(answers.ans2.text());
clear_to_proceed = checkAns(answers.ans3.text());
// I assume checkAns returns
// true if the answer is correct
// and false if it is wrong
}
if ( clear_to_proceed ) {
clearTimeout(timer_id);
return true; // Or do whatever needs be done,
// as the client has answered correctly
} else {
// If we haven't set a timer yet, set one
if ( typeof timer_id === 'undefined' ) {
timer_id = setTimeout(function(){
// After 16 seconds have passed we'll check their
// answers one more time and then force the default.
check_answers();
clear_to_proceed = true;
check_answers();
}, 16000);
}
return false; // We're just waiting for now.
}
}
// Finally, we check the answers any time the user interact
// with the answer elements.
$("#ans1,#ans2,#ans3").bind("focus blur", function() {
check_answers();
});
Related
I use hack.chat a bit, and I saw that they have a bot, but the bot program wasn't working for me so I decided to make my own.
var finderBinder;
var searchFor = function(command){
finderBinder = window.find(command, true, true);
if(finderBinder){
if(command === "/hello"){
ws.send(JSON.stringify({cmd: "chat", text: "hello!"}));
}
else if(command === "/cry"){
ws.send(JSON.stringify({cmd: "chat", text: "wah waha wahhh"}));
}
else
{
console.log("it was found but it was not a command.")
}
}
else
{
console.log("Did not find the command");
}
}
var loopdeloop = 0;
while(loopdeloop === 0){
searchFor("/hello");
searchFor("/cry");
}
Now, the first part works if I just run that by itself on the page, and enter searchFor("/hello"); that would work, but if I wanted it to just automatically do that whenever a message popped up, I attempted the loop,(In a empty chatroom so it wouldn't spam a used room if it did) and it crashed my browser. I know why it did that. because it just checked forever, and it saw it forever so it kept on trying to do the code forever..
But how would I make it only run the searchFor when a new text showed up so it would run the text in it and if it was a command it would do the command? Or is there a better way to do this?
The simplest way to stop your function from looping to infinity (and beyond!) would be to call it once every X seconds/minutes/hours/lightyears.
Using setInterval(searchFor, 1000); where the second parameter is the time interval in milliseconds.
To pass a parameter to your searchFor function, you must create an anonymous function so it doesn't get called right away.
setInterval( function() { searchFor ("/hello"); }, 1000 );
This will call your function every ~1 second, although keep in mind there is some overhead to javascript and there will be a slight delay. Also be careful of looping your function too often, as it will be expensive, and browsers have a built in delay, for example, you will not be able to setInterval to 2 ms and have it function normally cross browser.
Edit: The more elegant solution of binding an event to a change in the textbox is also possible, depending on how the page is setup and your access to it, hard to answer without that structure known.
To see the problem in action, see this jsbin. Clicking on the button triggers the buttonHandler(), which looks like this:
function buttonHandler() {
var elm = document.getElementById("progress");
elm.innerHTML = "thinking";
longPrimeCalc();
}
You would expect that this code changes the text of the div to "thinking", and then runs longPrimeCalc(), an arithmetic function that takes a few seconds to complete. However, this is not what happens. Instead, "longPrimeCalc" completes first, and then the text is updated to "thinking" after it's done running, as if the order of the two lines of code were reversed.
It appears that the browser does not run "innerHTML" code synchronously, but instead creates a new thread for it that executes at its own leisure.
My questions:
What is happening under the hood that is leading to this behavior?
How can I get the browser to behave the way I would expect, that is, force it to update the "innerHTML" before it executes "longPrimeCalc()"?
I tested this in the latest version of chrome.
Your surmise is incorrect. The .innerHTML update does complete synchronously (and the browser most definitely does not create a new thread). The browser simply does not bother to update the window until your code is finished. If you were to interrogate the DOM in some way that required the view to be updated, then the browser would have no choice.
For example, right after you set the innerHTML, add this line:
var sz = elm.clientHeight; // whoops that's not it; hold on ...
edit — I might figure out a way to trick the browser, or it might be impossible; it's certainly true that launching your long computation in a separate event loop will make it work:
setTimeout(longPrimeCalc, 10); // not 0, at least not with Firefox!
A good lesson here is that browsers try hard not to do pointless re-flows of the page layout. If your code had gone off on a prime number vacation and then come back and updated the innerHTML again, the browser would have saved some pointless work. Even if it's not painting an updated layout, browsers still have to figure out what's happened to the DOM in order to provide consistent answers when things like element sizes and positions are interrogated.
I think the way it works is that the currently running code completes first, then all the page updates are done. In this case, calling longPrimeCalc causes more code to be executed, and only when it is done does the page update change.
To fix this you have to have the currently running code terminate, then start the calculation in another context. You can do that with setTimeout. I'm not sure if there's any other way besides that.
Here is a jsfiddle showing the behavior. You don't have to pass a callback to longPrimeCalc, you just have to create another function which does what you want with the return value. Essentially you want to defer the calculation to another "thread" of execution. Writing the code this way makes it obvious what you're doing (Updated again to make it potentially nicer):
function defer(f, callback) {
var proc = function() {
result = f();
if (callback) {
callback(result);
}
}
setTimeout(proc, 50);
}
function buttonHandler() {
var elm = document.getElementById("progress");
elm.innerHTML = "thinking...";
defer(longPrimeCalc, function (isPrime) {
if (isPrime) {
elm.innerHTML = "It was a prime!";
}
else {
elm.innerHTML = "It was not a prime =(";
}
});
}
When looking to improve a page's performance, one technique I haven't heard mentioned before is using setTimeout to prevent javascript from holding up the rendering of a page.
For example, imagine we have a particularly time-consuming piece of jQuery inline with the html:
$('input').click(function () {
// Do stuff
});
If this code is inline, we are holding up the perceived completion of the page while the piece of jquery is busy attaching a click handler to every input on the page.
Would it be wise to spawn a new thread instead:
setTimeout(function() {
$('input').click(function () {
// Do stuff
})
}, 100);
The only downside I can see is that there is now a greater chance the user clicks on an element before the click handler is attached. However, this risk may be acceptable and we have a degree of this risk anyway, even without setTimeout.
Am I right, or am I wrong?
The actual technique is to use setTimeout with a time of 0.
This works because JavaScript is single-threaded. A timeout doesn't cause the browser to spawn another thread, nor does it guarantee that the code will execute in the specified time. However, the code will be executed when both:
The specified time has elapsed.
Execution control is handed back to the browser.
Therefore calling setTimeout with a time of 0 can be considered as temporarily yielding to the browser.
This means if you have long running code, you can simulate multi-threading by regularly yielding with a setTimeout. Your code may look something like this:
var batches = [...]; // Some array
var currentBatch = 0;
// Start long-running code, whenever browser is ready
setTimeout(doBatch, 0);
function doBatch() {
if (currentBatch < batches.length) {
// Do stuff with batches[currentBatch]
currentBatch++;
setTimeout(doBatch, 0);
}
}
Note: While it's useful to know this technique in some scenarios, I highly doubt you will need it in the situation you describe (assigning event handlers on DOM ready). If performance is indeed an issue, I would suggest looking into ways of improving the real performance by tweaking the selector.
For example if you only have one form on the page which contains <input>s, then give the <form> an ID, and use $('#someId input').
setTimeout() can be used to improve the "perceived" load time -- but not the way you've shown it. Using setTimeout() does not cause your code to run in a separate thread. Instead setTimeout() simply yields the thread back to the browser for (approximately) the specified amount of time. When it's time for your function to run, the browser will yield the thread back to the javascript engine. In javascript there is never more than one thread (unless you're using something like "Web Workers").
So, if you want to use setTimeout() to improve performance during a computation-intensive task, you must break that task into smaller chunks, and execute them in-order, chaining them together using setTimeout(). Something like this works well:
function runTasks( tasks, idx ) {
idx = idx || 0;
tasks[idx++]();
if( idx < tasks.length ) {
setTimeout( function(){ runTasks(tasks, idx); },1);
}
}
runTasks([
function() {
/* do first part */
},
function() {
/* do next part */
},
function() {
/* do final part */
}
]);
Note:
The functions are executed in order. There can be as many as you need.
When the first function returns, the next one is called via setTimeout().
The timeout value I've used is 1. This is sufficient to cause a yield, and the browser will take the thread if it needs it, or allow the next task to proceed if there's time. You can experiment with other values if you feel the need, but usually 1 is what you want for these purposes.
You are correct, there is a greater chance of a "missed" click, but with a low timeout value, its pretty unlikely.
I have a function called save(), this function gathers up all the inputs on the page, and performs an AJAX call to the server to save the state of the user's work.
save() is currently called when a user clicks the save button, or performs some other action which requires us to have the most current state on the server (generate a document from the page for example).
I am adding in the ability to auto save the user's work every so often. First I would like to prevent an AutoSave and a User generated save from running at the same time. So we have the following code (I am cutting most of the code and this is not a 1:1 but should be enough to get the idea across):
var isSaving=false;
var timeoutId;
var timeoutInterval=300000;
function save(showMsg)
{
//Don't save if we are already saving.
if (isSaving)
{
return;
}
isSaving=true;
//disables the autoSave timer so if we are saving via some other method
//we won't kick off the timer.
disableAutoSave();
if (showMsg) { //show a saving popup}
params=CollectParams();
PerformCallBack(params,endSave,endSaveError);
}
function endSave()
{
isSaving=false;
//hides popup if it's visible
//Turns auto saving back on so we save x milliseconds after the last save.
enableAutoSave();
}
function endSaveError()
{
alert("Ooops");
endSave();
}
function enableAutoSave()
{
timeoutId=setTimeOut(function(){save(false);},timeoutInterval);
}
function disableAutoSave()
{
cancelTimeOut(timeoutId);
}
My question is if this code is safe? Do the major browsers allow only a single thread to execute at a time?
One thought I had is it would be worse for the user to click save and get no response because we are autosaving (And I know how to modify the code to handle this). Anyone see any other issues here?
JavaScript in browsers is single threaded. You will only ever be in one function at any point in time. Functions will complete before the next one is entered. You can count on this behavior, so if you are in your save() function, you will never enter it again until the current one has finished.
Where this sometimes gets confusing (and yet remains true) is when you have asynchronous server requests (or setTimeouts or setIntervals), because then it feels like your functions are being interleaved. They're not.
In your case, while two save() calls will not overlap each other, your auto-save and user save could occur back-to-back.
If you just want a save to happen at least every x seconds, you can do a setInterval on your save function and forget about it. I don't see a need for the isSaving flag.
I think your code could be simplified a lot:
var intervalTime = 300000;
var intervalId = setInterval("save('my message')", intervalTime);
function save(showMsg)
{
if (showMsg) { //show a saving popup}
params=CollectParams();
PerformCallBack(params, endSave, endSaveError);
// You could even reset your interval now that you know we just saved.
// Of course, you'll need to know it was a successful save.
// Doing this will prevent the user clicking save only to have another
// save bump them in the face right away because an interval comes up.
clearInterval(intervalId);
intervalId = setInterval("save('my message')", intervalTime);
}
function endSave()
{
// no need for this method
alert("I'm done saving!");
}
function endSaveError()
{
alert("Ooops");
endSave();
}
All major browsers only support one javascript thread (unless you use web workers) on a page.
XHR requests can be asynchronous, though. But as long as you disable the ability to save until the current request to save returns, everything should work out just fine.
My only suggestion, is to make sure you indicate to the user somehow when an autosave occurs (disable the save button, etc).
All the major browsers currently single-thread javascript execution (just don't use web workers since a few browsers support this technique!), so this approach is safe.
For a bunch of references, see Is JavaScript Multithreaded?
Looks safe to me. Javascript is single threaded (unless you are using webworkers)
Its not quite on topic but this post by John Resig covers javascript threading and timers:
http://ejohn.org/blog/how-javascript-timers-work/
I think the way you're handling it is best for your situation. By using the flag you're guaranteeing that the asynchronous calls aren't overlapping. I've had to deal with asynchronous calls to the server as well and also used some sort of flag to prevent overlap.
As others have already pointed out JavaScript is single threaded, but asynchronous calls can be tricky if you're expecting things to say the same or not happen during the round trip to the server.
One thing, though, is that I don't think you actually need to disable the auto-save. If the auto-save tries to happen when a user is saving then the save method will simply return and nothing will happen. On the other hand you're needlessly disabling and reenabling the autosave every time autosave is activated. I'd recommend changing to setInterval and then forgetting about it.
Also, I'm a stickler for minimizing global variables. I'd probably refactor your code like this:
var saveWork = (function() {
var isSaving=false;
var timeoutId;
var timeoutInterval=300000;
function endSave() {
isSaving=false;
//hides popup if it's visible
}
function endSaveError() {
alert("Ooops");
endSave();
}
function _save(showMsg) {
//Don't save if we are already saving.
if (isSaving)
{
return;
}
isSaving=true;
if (showMsg) { //show a saving popup}
params=CollectParams();
PerformCallBack(params,endSave,endSaveError);
}
return {
save: function(showMsg) { _save(showMsg); },
enableAutoSave: function() {
timeoutId=setInterval(function(){_save(false);},timeoutInterval);
},
disableAutoSave: function() {
cancelTimeOut(timeoutId);
}
};
})();
You don't have to refactor it like that, of course, but like I said, I like to minimize globals. The important thing is that the whole thing should work without disabling and reenabling autosave every time you save.
Edit: Forgot had to create a private save function to be able to reference from enableAutoSave
Are you able to halt JavaScript execution without locking up the browser? The way you would normally halt execution is to do an infinite while()-loop, but in the case of FireFox, it locks up the browser until the loop has ended.
What's your take on this?
I am trying to override window.confirm() to implement my own dialog using HTML. I am doing this so I don't have to change existing code (it's a pretty big code-base).
I need to be able to halt execution to allow user-input; to in turn return a boolean like the standard confirm function does:
if (confirm("..."))
{
// user pressed "OK"
}
else
{
// user pressed "Cancel"
}
Update
To my knowledge; this cannot be done using setTimeout() or setInterval() since these functions execute the code thats given to them asynchronously.
confirm() prompt() and alert() are special functions--they call out of the JavaScript sandbox into the browser, and the browser suspends JavaScript execution. You can't do the same thing, since you need to build your functionality into JavaScript.
I don't think there's a great way to drop in a replacement without doing some restructuring along the lines of:
myconfirmfunction(function() {
/* OK callback */
}, function() {
/* cancel callback */
});
Either use callbacks or make your code Firefox-only. In Firefox with support for JavaScript 1.7 and higher, you can use the yield statement to simulate your desired effect. I have created a library for this purpose called async.js. The standard library for async.js includes a confirm method, which can be used as such:
if (yield to.confirm("...")) {
// user pressed OK
} else {
// user pressed Cancel
}
You cannot stop the event thread in JavaScript, so instead you have to work around the problem, usually by using callback functions. These are functions that are run at a later time, but can be passed around like any other object in JavaScript. You might be familiar with them from AJAX programming. So, for example:
doSomeThing();
var result = confirm("some importart question");
doSomeThingElse(result);
Would be converted into:
doSomeThing();
customConfirm("some importart question", function(result){
doSomeThingElse(result);
});
where customConfirm now takes a question and passes the result to the function it takes as an argument. If you implement a DOM dialog with a button, then connect an event listener to the OK and CANCEL buttons, and call the callback function when the user clicks on one of them.
There is an extension to the JavaScript language called StratifiedJS. It runs in every browser, and it allows you to do just that: halting one line of JavaScript code without freezing the browser.
You can enable Stratified JavaScript e.g. by including Oni Apollo ( http://onilabs.com/docs ) in your webpage like:
<script src="http://code.onilabs.com/latest/oni-apollo.js"></script>
<script type="text/sjs"> your StratifiedJS code here </script>
Your code would look like this:
var dom = require("dom");
displayYourHtmlDialog();
waitfor {
dom.waitforEvent("okbutton", "click");
// do something when the user pressed OK
}
or {
dom.waitforEvent("cancelbutton", "click");
}
hideYourHtmlDialog();
// go on with your application
the way you normally halt execution should hardly ever be an infinite while loop.
break up your work into parts, that you call with SetTimeout
change this:
DoSomeWork();
Wait(1000);
var a = DoSomeMoreWork();
Wait(1000);
DoEvenMoreWork(a);
to this:
DoSomeWork();
setTimeout(function() {
var a = DoSomeMoreWork();
setTimeout(function() {
DoEvenMoreWork(a);
}, 1000);
}, 1000);
I don't think there's any way to reasonably re-create the functionality of confirm() or prompt() in your own JavaScript. They're "special" in the sense of being implemented as calls into the native browser library. You can't really do a modal dialog of that sort in JavaScript.
I have seen various UI libraries that simulate the effect by putting an element on top of the page, that looks & acts like a modal dialog, but those are implemented using async callbacks.
You will have to modify the existing library, rather than replacing window.confirm.
I tried using tight looping for this. I needed to slow down a native event (which AFAIK is the only use case for a synchronous wait that can't be re-architected asynchronously). There are lots of example loops out there that claim not to lock up the browser; but none of them worked for me (the browser didn't lock up, but they prevented it from doing the thing I was waiting for in the first place), so I abandoned the idea.
Next I tried this - storing and replaying the event, which seems to be impossible cross-browser too. However depending on the event and how flexible you need to be, you can get close.
In the end I gave up, and feel much better for it; I found a way to make my code work without having to slow down the native event at all.