When opening .js files, js2-mode and, subsequently, flymake-js is
automatically loaded. But flymake unloads right ahead with the message
Toggling flymake-mode off; better pass an explicit argument.
However, when enabling it manually, using M-x flymake-mode, it keeps
activated. Has anybody encountered similar behavior and has fixed it?
My setup:
I followed the instructions on emacswiki to set up Flymake to work with
the most recent js2-mode with a little modification:
(add-hook 'js2-mode-hook '(lambda () (flymake-js-load)))
instead of
(add-hook 'javascript-mode-hook '(lambda () (flymake-js-load)))
Probably, somewhere in your hook, there is a statement like :
(flymake-mode t)
you need to change it to :
(flymake-mode 1)
I read the documentation on flymake-mode. It says:
flymake-mode is an interactive compiled Lisp function in `flymake.el'.
(flymake-mode &optional ARG)
Minor mode to do on-the-fly syntax checking.
When called interactively, toggles the minor mode.
With arg, turn Flymake mode on if and only if arg is positive.
If and only if the arg is positive. Not non-nil. But the page on
http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/FlymakeJavaScript which suggests a definition for flymake-js-load, shows (flymake-mode t) .
That seems wrong.
Related
I'm trying to use a template but just realized that the javascript doesn't work at all in IE.
It fails in several places but here is the first one:
I have this tag, immediately before my </html>:
<script>
document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded", function (event) {
navbarToggleSidebar();
navActivePage();
});
</script>
The exception says, "0x800a1391 - JavaScript runtime error: 'navbarToggleSidebar' is undefined occurred"
The javascript file that came with this template was minimized as uses some cracy javascript markup that I've never seen and do not understand. But when I do a find in the whole solution for navbarToggleSidebar I only find this:
JkW7: function (t, e, n) {
"use strict";
Object.defineProperty(e, "__esModule", {
value: !0
});
var i = (n("PExH"), n("juYr"), n("6wzU"), n("e9iq"), n("aWFY"));
! function (t) {
t.keys().map(t)
}(n("pax0")), Object.assign(window, {
masonryBuild: i.a,
navbarToggleSidebar: i.c,
navActivePage: i.b
})
},
I can post the whole file somewhere (just tell me where, it's too long to paste here) if that's helpful because this is clearly just a piece of a huge js thing that I don't understand at all. I like to think I'm fairly decent with js and jquery and this looks greek to me. And it all works beautifully in Chrome and FF.
Can anyone help me figure out what's going on?
Thanks!!
Well n is a callback function t is an array or a list of some kind most likely; so in order for you to figure out what is actually happening in the function you have to figure out where the function was actually invoked. It is much easier to find out what library was used and see if it is hosted anywhere in a non-minified version.
Sometimes this is done intentionally in order to protect developers from other people having an easy time engineering their solutions to programming problems.
Basically in order for anyone to figure out what the function actually does, you would have to print the entire page library, then trace through it, then when you are done after about a month you will have your answer.
Arrays, callback functions, as well as a probably system variable and object literals are used in that function.
I am writing an extension to override a web page's JS function, and started from this question, but the answer does not appear to work in Firefox 42 on Linux.
Next, I tried to use exportFunction as described in the documentation, but that also silently failed.
Inside package.json, I have added the following sesction.
"permissions": {
"unsafe-content-script": true
}
Here is my index.js file.
var self = require('sdk/self');
require("sdk/tabs").on("ready", fixGoogle);
function fixGoogle(tab) {
if (tab.url.indexOf("google.com") > -1) {
tab.attach({
contentScriptFile: self.data.url("google-script.js")
});
}
}
Here is my current data/google-script.js.
unsafeWindow.rwt=function(){};
Note that manually typing in rwt=function(){}; to the browser's console achieves the desired effect, as does using a bookmarklet (which requires clicking) but I am writing the plugin to get this automatically every time I use Google.
Is it possible to override the rwt page function using a Firefox extension? If so, what is the correct API to use?
read the documentation you've linked to, specifically the chapter titled Expose functions to page scripts - which links to exportFunction
function blah() {}
exportFunction(blah, unsafeWindow, {defineAs: 'rwt'});
It turns out that the issue is that the redefinition of the function rwt is racing against the original definition and winning. The original runs after and overrides the function I defined, thereby making it look like my redefinition had silently failed.
Once I realized that this was the problem, the easiest hack around it was to add a timeout to the redefinition inside data/google-script.js.
setTimeout(function() {
unsafeWindow.rwt=function(){};
}, 1000);
Thus, the orignal answer is still correct but simply failed to address the race condition.
Even though content scripts share the DOM, they are otherwise isolated from page scripts. As you correctly surmised, one can use unsafeWindow in Firefox to bypass this isolation.
Personally, I don't like the name of unsafeWindow for some reason ;)
Therefore I propose another way to do this: make use of the thing that's shared between these scopes, i. e. DOM.
You can create a page script from a content script:
var script = 'rwt=function()();';
document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded', function() {
var scriptEl = document.createElement('script');
scriptEl.textContent = script;
document.head.appendChild(scriptEl);
});
The benefit of this approach is that you can use it in environments without unsafeWindow, e. g. chrome extensions.
I'm writing a decent sized JavaScript animation library, that I would like to include debugging code in. I could easily do a check :
if(myLib.debugger){
console.warn('warning message');
}
However if this runs a couple thousand times a second, it would eventually cause performance issues. Add in a few more checks throughout the code and the effect will be even more noticeable.
What I'm wondering is if it would be possible to check onload if the debugger should be enabled, and if so... turn something like this:
//debugger if(!this.name) console.warn('No name provided');
into:
if(!this.name) console.warn('No name provided');
Leaving the code commented if its not enabled, and uncommenting it if it is, thus removing any possible performance issues. Could this be done somehow with a regular expression on the entire script if loaded in through ajax? I'm trying to avoid the need for 2 versions of the same code, lib.dbug.js and a lib.js.
Cross browser compatibility is not of great importance for this (I'm really only worried about new browsers), I see it as nice to have item. If its possible however, it would be a great thing to have.
Any insight would be greatly appreciated.
The simplest way to do this would be to check if the debugger should be disabled and if so, replace it with a mock object that does nothing at the very start of your script:
if (!myLib.debugger) {
window.console = (function () {
var newConsole = {};
var key;
for (key in window.console) {
if (typeof window.console[key] === 'function') {
newConsole[key] = function () {};
}
}
return newConsole;
}());
}
The overhead of this approach should be negligible.
If this is a JavaScript library... then I'd expect as a 3rd party developer that I could download/use 2 versions. The production version (no debug, AND minimized). If I wanted to debug, I would point to the debug version of the library instead.
e.g.
<script src="foo-lib-min.js"></script>
<!-- swap to this for debugging <script src="foo-lib-full.js"></script>-->
Could someone explain the javascript that makes up Google's Website Optimiser Control script? Specifically: the first two lines, which seem to be empty functions, and why is the third function wrapped parentheses () ?
As far as I can tell this script is basically writing out a new <script> which presumably loads something for A/B testing.
function utmx_section(){}
function utmx(){}
(function() {
var k='0634742331',d=document,l=d.location,c=d.cookie;
function f(n) {
if(c) {
var i=c.indexOf(n+'=');
if (i>-1) {
var j=c.indexOf(';',i);
return escape(c.substring(i+n.length+1,j<0?c.length:j))
}
}
}
var x=f('__utmx'),xx=f('__utmxx'),h=l.hash;
d.write('<sc'+'ript src="'+'http'+(l.protocol=='https:'?'s://ssl':'://www')+'.google-analytics.com'+'/siteopt.js?v=1&utmxkey='+k+'&utmx='+(x?x:'')+'&utmxx='+(xx?xx:'')+'&utmxtime='+new Date().valueOf()+(h?'&utmxhash='+escape(h.substr(1)):'')+'" type="text/javascript" charset="utf-8"></sc'+'ript>')
}
)();
I've attempted to step through with the firebug debugger but it doesn't seem to like it. Any insights much appreciated.
Many thanks
inside anonymous function it shortens names of document and cookies inside it at first, function f(n) gets value of cookie under name n. Then Google reads its cookies and with help of d.write it loads its scripts (as I see they are related to Google Analytic). This way it makes On-Demand JavaScript loading... Actually you load these scripts all the time, Google just needs some additional parameters in url, so this is done this way - save parameters in cookie, which next time are used to get script again.
And finally back to the first two magic lines :) After Google loads its script (after executing d.write), there are some functions which uses utmx and utmx_section, as well as definition of these functions, or better to say overriding. I think they are empty at first just because another function can execute it before its real definition, and having empty functions nothing will happen (and no JS error), otherwise script would not work. E.g. after first iteration there is some data, which is used to make real definition of these functions and everything starts to work :)
The first 2 functions are in fact empty, and are probably overridden later on.
The third function is an anonymous self-executing function. The brackets are a convention to make you aware of the fact that it is self executing.
the "f" function looks up the value given to it in the document's cookies and returns it. Then a new script tag is written to document (and requested from server) with these values as part of its URL.
I call my JavaScript function. Why do I sometimes get the error 'myFunction is not defined' when it is defined?
For example. I'll occasionally get 'copyArray is not defined' even in this example:
function copyArray( pa ) {
var la = [];
for (var i=0; i < pa.length; i++)
la.push( pa[i] );
return la;
}
Function.prototype.bind = function( po ) {
var __method = this;
var __args = [];
// Sometimes errors -- in practice I inline the function as a workaround.
__args = copyArray( arguments );
return function() {
/* bind logic omitted for brevity */
}
}
As you can see, copyArray is defined right there, so this can't be about the order in which script files load.
I've been getting this in situations that are harder to work around, where the calling function is located in another file that should be loaded after the called function. But this was the simplest case I could present, and appears to be the same problem.
It doesn't happen 100% of the time, so I do suspect some kind of load-timing-related problem. But I have no idea what.
#Hojou: That's part of the problem. The function in which I'm now getting this error is itself my addLoadEvent, which is basically a standard version of the common library function.
#James: I understand that, and there is no syntax error in the function. When that is the case, the syntax error is reported as well. In this case, I am getting only the 'not defined' error.
#David: The script in this case resides in an external file that is referenced using the normal <script src="file.js"></script> method in the page's head section.
#Douglas: Interesting idea, but if this were the case, how could we ever call a user-defined function with confidence? In any event, I tried this and it didn't work.
#sk: This technique has been tested across browsers and is basically copied from the Prototype library.
I had this function not being recognized as defined in latest Firefox for Linux, though Chromium was dealing fine with it.
What happened in my case was that I had a former SCRIPT block, before the block that defined the function with problem, stated in the following way:
<SCRIPT src="mycode.js"/>
(That is, without the closing tag.)
I had to redeclare this block in the following way.
<SCRIPT src="mycode.js"></SCRIPT>
And then what followed worked fine... weird huh?
It shouldn't be possible for this to happen if you're just including the scripts on the page.
The "copyArray" function should always be available when the JavaScript code starts executing no matter if it is declared before or after it -- unless you're loading the JavaScript files in dynamically with a dependency library. There are all sorts of problems with timing if that's the case.
My guess is, somehow the document is not fully loaded by the time the method is called. Have your code executing after the document is ready event.
Verify your code with JSLint. It will usually find a ton of small errors, so the warning "JSLint may hurt your feelings" is pretty spot on. =)
A syntax error in the function -- or in the code above it -- may cause it to be undefined.
This doesn't solve your original problem, but you could always replace the call to copyArray() with:
__args = Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments);
More information available from Google.
I've tested the above in the following browsers: IE6, 7 & 8B2, Firefox 2.0.0.17 & 3.0.3, Opera 9.52, Safari for Windows 3.1.2 and Google Chrome (whatever the latest version was at the time of this post) and it works across all browsers.
If you're changing the prototype of the built-in 'function' object it's possible you're running into a browser bug or race condition by modifying a fundamental built-in object.
Test it in multiple browsers to find out.
This has probably been corrected, but... apparently firefox has a caching problem which is the cause of javascript functions not being recognized.. I really don't know the specifics, but if you clear your cache that will fix the problem (until your cache is full again... not a good solution).. I've been looking around to see if firefox has a real solution to this, but so far nothing... oh not all versions, I think it may be only in some 3.6.x versions, not sure...
Solved by removing a "async" load:
<script type="text/javascript" src="{% static 'js/my_js_file.js' %}" async></script>
changed for:
<script type="text/javascript" src="{% static 'js/my_js_file.js' %}"></script>
Use an anonymous function to protect your local symbol table. Something like:
(function() {
function copyArray(pa) {
// Details
}
Function.prototype.bind = function ( po ) {
__args = copyArray( arguments );
}
})();
This will create a closure that includes your function in the local symbol table, and you won't have to depend on it being available in the global namespace when you call the function.
This can happen when using framesets. In one frame, my variables and methods were defined. In another, they were not. It was especially confusing when using the debugger and seeing my variable defined, then undefined at a breakpoint inside a frame.
I'm afraid, when you add a new method to a Function class (by prtotyping), you are actually adding it to all declared functions, AS WELL AS to your copyArray(). In result your copyArray() function gets recursivelly self-referenced. I.e. there should exist copyArray().bind() method, which is calling itself.
In this case some browsers might prevent you from creating such reference loops and fire "function not defined" error.
Inline code would be better solution in such case.
I think your javascript code should be placed between tag,there is need of document load