I have a config file with simplified content (it contains several more constants) like this:
export const appTitle = "Drzewo wyboru"
export const warnings ={
missing:" Kryterium"
duplicate: "Duplikacja"
In a test file I have written a mock like this:
jest.mock('../../../src/config',()=>({AppTitle:'abc123test'}));
The problem is that other items in the config file are necessary to correctly render the tested component as well - so this mock breaks a test.
I have read about possible uses of jest.requireActual but it works with objects and in config I have loose items.
How could I mock only this one item, leaving the rest intact without changing the structure of my config file?
You can do partial mocking for your module:
jest.mock('../../../src/config',() => {
const originalModule = jest.requireActual('../../../src/config');
return {
__esModule: true,
...originalModule,
AppTitle: 'abc123test',
};
});
More information can be found in the official doc here.
(Your example states that you want to mock out AppTitle, yet the actual module contains appTitle which is a different property, I am not sure if this was a mistake, but if it was I can update my answer)
I am trying to write a simple node script with some classes.
I first define a class
export default class Checkout() {
constructor () {
console.log('checkout')
}
check() {
console.log('check')
}
}
Then I am trying to use it
>node
>repl
check = new Checkout()
Uncaught ReferenceError: Checkout is not defined
require('Checkout')
Uncaught Error: Cannot find module 'Checkout'
How can I solve this? I am coming from Ruby where the console is pretty straight forward.
Code in a file isn't included in any other scope outside of that file until you require or import the file. When requiring/importing, the name the object you exported from the file doesn't automatically get used, you still have to specify it.
However, you're currently mixing require (CommonJS module format) with export default (ECMAScript Module format). There is only very limited interoperability between these formats using dynamic import(), but it's not yet available in the Node REPL (open issue here). If you need to test your Checkout class in the REPL, you'd need to just switch to using CommonJS:
module.exports = class Checkout() {
constructor () {
console.log('checkout')
}
check() {
console.log('check')
}
}
Usage:
> Checkout = require('checkout.js')
> check = new Checkout()
What is the purpose of Node.js module.exports and how do you use it?
I can't seem to find any information on this, but it appears to be a rather important part of Node.js as I often see it in source code.
According to the Node.js documentation:
module
A reference to the current
module. In particular module.exports
is the same as the exports object. See
src/node.js for more information.
But this doesn't really help.
What exactly does module.exports do, and what would a simple example be?
module.exports is the object that's actually returned as the result of a require call.
The exports variable is initially set to that same object (i.e. it's a shorthand "alias"), so in the module code you would usually write something like this:
let myFunc1 = function() { ... };
let myFunc2 = function() { ... };
exports.myFunc1 = myFunc1;
exports.myFunc2 = myFunc2;
to export (or "expose") the internally scoped functions myFunc1 and myFunc2.
And in the calling code you would use:
const m = require('./mymodule');
m.myFunc1();
where the last line shows how the result of require is (usually) just a plain object whose properties may be accessed.
NB: if you overwrite exports then it will no longer refer to module.exports. So if you wish to assign a new object (or a function reference) to exports then you should also assign that new object to module.exports
It's worth noting that the name added to the exports object does not have to be the same as the module's internally scoped name for the value that you're adding, so you could have:
let myVeryLongInternalName = function() { ... };
exports.shortName = myVeryLongInternalName;
// add other objects, functions, as required
followed by:
const m = require('./mymodule');
m.shortName(); // invokes module.myVeryLongInternalName
This has already been answered but I wanted to add some clarification...
You can use both exports and module.exports to import code into your application like this:
var mycode = require('./path/to/mycode');
The basic use case you'll see (e.g. in ExpressJS example code) is that you set properties on the exports object in a .js file that you then import using require()
So in a simple counting example, you could have:
(counter.js):
var count = 1;
exports.increment = function() {
count++;
};
exports.getCount = function() {
return count;
};
... then in your application (web.js, or really any other .js file):
var counting = require('./counter.js');
console.log(counting.getCount()); // 1
counting.increment();
console.log(counting.getCount()); // 2
In simple terms, you can think of required files as functions that return a single object, and you can add properties (strings, numbers, arrays, functions, anything) to the object that's returned by setting them on exports.
Sometimes you'll want the object returned from a require() call to be a function you can call, rather than just an object with properties. In that case you need to also set module.exports, like this:
(sayhello.js):
module.exports = exports = function() {
console.log("Hello World!");
};
(app.js):
var sayHello = require('./sayhello.js');
sayHello(); // "Hello World!"
The difference between exports and module.exports is explained better in this answer here.
Note that the NodeJS module mechanism is based on CommonJS modules which are supported in many other implementations like RequireJS, but also SproutCore, CouchDB, Wakanda, OrientDB, ArangoDB, RingoJS, TeaJS, SilkJS, curl.js, or even Adobe Photoshop (via PSLib).
You can find the full list of known implementations here.
Unless your module use node specific features or module, I highly encourage you then using exports instead of module.exports which is not part of the CommonJS standard, and then mostly not supported by other implementations.
Another NodeJS specific feature is when you assign a reference to a new object to exports instead of just adding properties and methods to it like in the last example provided by Jed Watson in this thread. I would personally discourage this practice as this breaks the circular reference support of the CommonJS modules mechanism. It is then not supported by all implementations and Jed example should then be written this way (or a similar one) to provide a more universal module:
(sayhello.js):
exports.run = function() {
console.log("Hello World!");
}
(app.js):
var sayHello = require('./sayhello');
sayHello.run(); // "Hello World!"
Or using ES6 features
(sayhello.js):
Object.assign(exports, {
// Put all your public API here
sayhello() {
console.log("Hello World!");
}
});
(app.js):
const { sayHello } = require('./sayhello');
sayHello(); // "Hello World!"
PS: It looks like Appcelerator also implements CommonJS modules, but without the circular reference support (see: Appcelerator and CommonJS modules (caching and circular references))
Some few things you must take care if you assign a reference to a new object to exports and /or modules.exports:
1. All properties/methods previously attached to the original exports or module.exports are of course lost because the exported object will now reference another new one
This one is obvious, but if you add an exported method at the beginning of an existing module, be sure the native exported object is not referencing another object at the end
exports.method1 = function () {}; // exposed to the original exported object
exports.method2 = function () {}; // exposed to the original exported object
module.exports.method3 = function () {}; // exposed with method1 & method2
var otherAPI = {
// some properties and/or methods
}
exports = otherAPI; // replace the original API (works also with module.exports)
2. In case one of exports or module.exports reference a new value, they don't reference to the same object any more
exports = function AConstructor() {}; // override the original exported object
exports.method2 = function () {}; // exposed to the new exported object
// method added to the original exports object which not exposed any more
module.exports.method3 = function () {};
3. Tricky consequence. If you change the reference to both exports and module.exports, hard to say which API is exposed (it looks like module.exports wins)
// override the original exported object
module.exports = function AConstructor() {};
// try to override the original exported object
// but module.exports will be exposed instead
exports = function AnotherConstructor() {};
the module.exports property or the exports object allows a module to select what should be shared with the application
I have a video on module_export available here
When dividing your program code over multiple files, module.exports is used to publish variables and functions to the consumer of a module. The require() call in your source file is replaced with corresponding module.exports loaded from the module.
Remember when writing modules
Module loads are cached, only initial call evaluates JavaScript.
It's possible to use local variables and functions inside a module, not everything needs to be exported.
The module.exports object is also available as exports shorthand. But when returning a sole function, always use module.exports.
According to: "Modules Part 2 - Writing modules".
the refer link is like this:
exports = module.exports = function(){
//....
}
the properties of exports or module.exports ,such as functions or variables , will be exposed outside
there is something you must pay more attention : don't override exports .
why ?
because exports just the reference of module.exports , you can add the properties onto the exports ,but if you override the exports , the reference link will be broken .
good example :
exports.name = 'william';
exports.getName = function(){
console.log(this.name);
}
bad example :
exports = 'william';
exports = function(){
//...
}
If you just want to exposed only one function or variable , like this:
// test.js
var name = 'william';
module.exports = function(){
console.log(name);
}
// index.js
var test = require('./test');
test();
this module only exposed one function and the property of name is private for the outside .
There are some default or existing modules in node.js when you download and install node.js like http, sys etc.
Since they are already in node.js, when we want to use these modules we basically do like import modules, but why? because they are already present in the node.js. Importing is like taking them from node.js and putting them into your program. And then using them.
Whereas Exports is exactly the opposite, you are creating the module you want, let's say the module addition.js and putting that module into the node.js, you do it by exporting it.
Before I write anything here, remember, module.exports.additionTwo is same as exports.additionTwo
Huh, so that's the reason, we do like
exports.additionTwo = function(x)
{return x+2;};
Be careful with the path
Lets say you have created an addition.js module,
exports.additionTwo = function(x){
return x + 2;
};
When you run this on your NODE.JS command prompt:
node
var run = require('addition.js');
This will error out saying
Error: Cannot find module addition.js
This is because the node.js process is unable the addition.js since we didn't mention the path. So, we have can set the path by using NODE_PATH
set NODE_PATH = path/to/your/additon.js
Now, this should run successfully without any errors!!
One more thing, you can also run the addition.js file by not setting the NODE_PATH, back to your nodejs command prompt:
node
var run = require('./addition.js');
Since we are providing the path here by saying it's in the current directory ./ this should also run successfully.
A module encapsulates related code into a single unit of code. When creating a module, this can be interpreted as moving all related functions into a file.
Suppose there is a file Hello.js which include two functions
sayHelloInEnglish = function() {
return "Hello";
};
sayHelloInSpanish = function() {
return "Hola";
};
We write a function only when utility of the code is more than one call.
Suppose we want to increase utility of the function to a different file say World.js,in this case exporting a file comes into picture which can be obtained by module.exports.
You can just export both the function by the code given below
var anyVariable={
sayHelloInEnglish = function() {
return "Hello";
};
sayHelloInSpanish = function() {
return "Hola";
};
}
module.export=anyVariable;
Now you just need to require the file name into World.js inorder to use those functions
var world= require("./hello.js");
The intent is:
Modular programming is a software design technique that emphasizes
separating the functionality of a program into independent,
interchangeable modules, such that each contains everything necessary
to execute only one aspect of the desired functionality.
Wikipedia
I imagine it becomes difficult to write a large programs without modular / reusable code. In nodejs we can create modular programs utilising module.exports defining what we expose and compose our program with require.
Try this example:
fileLog.js
function log(string) { require('fs').appendFileSync('log.txt',string); }
module.exports = log;
stdoutLog.js
function log(string) { console.log(string); }
module.exports = log;
program.js
const log = require('./stdoutLog.js')
log('hello world!');
execute
$ node program.js
hello world!
Now try swapping ./stdoutLog.js for ./fileLog.js.
What is the purpose of a module system?
It accomplishes the following things:
Keeps our files from bloating to really big sizes. Having files with e.g. 5000 lines of code in it are usually real hard to deal with during development.
Enforces separation of concerns. Having our code split up into multiple files allows us to have appropriate file names for every file. This way we can easily identify what every module does and where to find it (assuming we made a logical directory structure which is still your responsibility).
Having modules makes it easier to find certain parts of code which makes our code more maintainable.
How does it work?
NodejS uses the CommomJS module system which works in the following manner:
If a file wants to export something it has to declare it using module.export syntax
If a file wants to import something it has to declare it using require('file') syntax
Example:
test1.js
const test2 = require('./test2'); // returns the module.exports object of a file
test2.Func1(); // logs func1
test2.Func2(); // logs func2
test2.js
module.exports.Func1 = () => {console.log('func1')};
exports.Func2 = () => {console.log('func2')};
Other useful things to know:
Modules are getting cached. When you are loading the same module in 2 different files the module only has to be loaded once. The second time a require() is called on the same module the is pulled from the cache.
Modules are loaded in synchronous. This behavior is required, if it was asynchronous we couldn't access the object retrieved from require() right away.
ECMAScript modules - 2022
From Node 14.0 ECMAScript modules are no longer experimental and you can use them instead of classic Node's CommonJS modules.
ECMAScript modules are the official standard format to package JavaScript code for reuse. Modules are defined using a variety of import and export statements.
You can define an ES module that exports a function:
// my-fun.mjs
function myFun(num) {
// do something
}
export { myFun };
Then, you can import the exported function from my-fun.mjs:
// app.mjs
import { myFun } from './my-fun.mjs';
myFun();
.mjs is the default extension for Node.js ECMAScript modules.
But you can configure the default modules extension to lookup when resolving modules using the package.json "type" field, or the --input-type flag in the CLI.
Recent versions of Node.js fully supports both ECMAScript and CommonJS modules. Moreover, it provides interoperability between them.
module.exports
ECMAScript and CommonJS modules have many differences but the most relevant difference - to this question - is that there are no more requires, no more exports, no more module.exports
In most cases, the ES module import can be used to load CommonJS modules.
If needed, a require function can be constructed within an ES module using module.createRequire().
ECMAScript modules releases history
Release
Changes
v15.3.0, v14.17.0, v12.22.0
Stabilized modules implementation
v14.13.0, v12.20.0
Support for detection of CommonJS named exports
v14.0.0, v13.14.0, v12.20.0
Remove experimental modules warning
v13.2.0, v12.17.0
Loading ECMAScript modules no longer requires a command-line flag
v12.0.0
Add support for ES modules using .js file extension via package.json "type" field
v8.5.0
Added initial ES modules implementation
You can find all the changelogs in Node.js repository
let test = function() {
return "Hello world"
};
exports.test = test;
Babel and ESLint are throwing parsing errors when i try to export a function with the name "new" or "delete".
export function new () {}
export function delete () {}
Why is this happening? Is this a bug or is this not plausible because of babel?
Well new and delete are reserved words of JavaScript language. So they are not valid names for function.
You cannot have a delete function at the root of your module's file but yes, you can export a delete function in your module. You give the function a non reserved name and you give it the correct alias when you export it.
function deleteFunc() {
// ...
}
export { deleteFunc as delete }
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I was just browsing through the nodejs source and noticed differences between the ways different modules are exported. For example, some modules export an object with a prototypical inheritance style:
Thing = function () {
constructor stuff
}
Thing.prototype.jump () {
jump stuff
}
exports = Thing
Where as other modules will append functions directly to exports:
exports.spectacles = function () {
spectacle stuff
}
To me it seems that they will achieve similar goals, but they are clearly different. I believe the first example describes something like an a class, whereas the second simply makes available static methods.
What are the fundamental differences between these two approaches, how are they properly described and what are the advantages/disadvantages of one over the other?
Try viewing this from another perspective: the module which requires your module.
Each file in Node is a module. Each module has a global var, module, and it's property, exports. Whatever you put on that exports property will be available as the module's export.
Primitive
Ie. a boolean, number or a string will work:
module.exports = 3;
When you require that file, you'll get '3'.
var myModule = require('./my-module');
console.log(myModule); // <== 3
But since everything in JavaScript is an object, then you can call methods even a primitive prop:
console.log(myModule.toString()); // <== "3"
Function
You can also export a function.
module.exports = function() {
console.log('3 more');
};
That export will be a function:
var myModule = require('./my-module');
myModule(); // <== '3 more'
Of course, a function is also an object, so you have methods on that too to try out.
console.log(myModule.toString());
// You get: 'function (){\n console.log(\'3 more\');\n }'
Object
Then you can export an object with a few of those things:
module.exports = {
prop: 3,
method: function() {
console.log('Not 3 this time.');
}
};
When you require this module, you'll have that object - an object with a property prop and a method method.
var myModule = require('./my-module');
console.log(myModule.prop); // <== 3
myModule.method(); // <== 'Not 3 this time'
So you get the pattern? Whatever you put in module.exports is what you get on the other end. A matter of perspective, as I've said.
Default
Even if you don't export anything (ie. require an empty file), you have an export.
Require an empty file (it has to exist tho
var myModule = require('./my-module');
console.log(myModule); // <== {}
This tells you that the default export is an empty object.
This is where it gets interesting.
If module.exports = {} by default, then if we simply attach to it, we can add props to it:
So, when Node first gets your module (file), it's a {}. We can simply attach props to it.
module.exports.prop = 3;
module.exports.method = function() { console.log('I am out of ideas for placeholders, I should use kitten');}
Why does it work without the module keyword?
Now, why does this work without the module keyword? Ie. just:
exports.prop = 3;
exports.method = function() {};
Because when the Node.js starts working your file, it aliases exports to module.exports. But be careful, you can override this!
What does that mean? It's almost as if you wrote var exports = module.exports at the beginning of the file.
So you can use just the exports syntax, but I prefer not to. Why? Because you can make a mistake and override exports var. And you'll be more careful with module.exports. (There are other reasons, this one is what I have learned about first and remembered best.)
Example 1:
exports.prop = false;
// later in module
module.exports = myObj; // see? overriden.
Example 2:
var exports = {}; // see? Overridden default module.exports.
exports.prop = 4;
exports.method = function(){
console.log('3 more');
};
So when you require this later:
var myModule = require('./my-module');
console.log(myModule); // <== {}
I hope this helps.
The differences that you are pointing out are mainly flavour based. It is very related with how people prefer to construct their objects.
Javascript has lot's of different ways to build objects, here is another example:
exports.stuff = {
f1: function() ...
foobar: function() ...
}
For example, I prefer to wrap everything with a function to enforce use strict and simulate static variables:
(function() {
"use strict";
var staticVariable;
function MyObject() {
...
};
exports.MyObject = MyObject;
})();
+1 on close vote. This question is very subjective.