How can I instantiate a class (with, say, a known empty constructor), for example:
at api/EmptyClass1.ts, I have:
export default class EmptyClass1 {
}
and, at api/EmptyClass2.ts, I have:
export default class EmptyClass2 {
}
I want this function:
function(filepath:string):any{
return Object.fromFile(filepath); //this line is mock code
}
to return a new instance of either EmptyClass1 or EmptyClass2, if the parameter filepath:string is "api/EmptyClass1.ts" or "api/EmptyClass2.ts", respectively.
The files defining the classes may not be known at the time the function is written may include any number of files. Consequently, using the import statement for each class, then using a switch, or if-then statements is not an acceptable solution.
The .ts files defining the classes are transcoded to javascript and reside in the application .build folder as .js files.
I am using typescript on node.js (recent versions).
Use require instead, and your problem will be solved. If the file may not exist, you can use optional-require if you want to have a fallback without using try/catch.
function fromFile(filepath:string):any{
// return Object.fromFile(filepath); //this line is mock code
return require(filepath);
}
Or just call require directly instead of wrapping it in another function.
Also check:
nodejs require inside TypeScript file
Related
I'm fairly new to Typescript.
I have 2 microservices, let's call them ManagerMs and HandlerMs.
They communicate through RabbitMq.
Each of their public methods, becomes a queue on Rabbit when service starts.
The ManagerMs need to preform an RPC call on a function, called 'handle' that belongs to HandlerMs.
Ideally, I want ManagerMs to be able to import just the declarations of HandlerMs so that it can do something like (inside the ManagerMs class):
import HandlerMsApi from '<path-to-declaration-file?>'
...
class ManagerMs {
...
this.rpcClient.call(HandlerMsApi.handle.name) // instead of: this.rpcClient.call('HandlerMsApi.handle')
The point is that a certain service will have access to the declaration of another service and not the implementation.
Currently, both services can't import each other because of the way the project is structured.
So I thought of creating a shared library which will hold just the declaration files of the different modules, but that mean that .d.ts files aren't located next to their corresponding implementation files (.ts).
Questions are:
Is it a good idea?
How can I achieve such behaviour?
Currently, when I tried to do so I have the following .d.ts file (in a different folder than the implementation):
declare class HandlerMsApi {
handle(req: string): Promise<any>;
}
export = HandlerMsApi;
But when I try to compile (tsc) my code I get the following error:
"....handler.d.ts' is not a module"
Any help?
The question is simple, how do we make es6 modules act like the ImportScript function used on the web browser.
Explanation
The main reason is to soften the blow for developers as they change their code from es5 syntax to es6 so that the transition does not blow up your code the moment you make the change and find out there are a thousand errors due to missing inclusions. It also give's people the option to stay as is indefinitely if you don't want to make the full change at all.
Desired output
ImportScript(A file path/'s); can be applied globally(implicitly) across subsequently required code and vise-verse inside a main file to avoid explicit inclusion in all files.
ES6 Inclusion
This still does not ignore the fact that all your libraries will depend on modules format as well. So it is inevitable that we will still have to include the export statement in every file we need to require. However, this should not limit us to the ability to have a main file that interconnects them all without having to explicitly add includes to every file whenever you need a certain functionality.
DISCLAIMER'S
(Numbered):
(Security) I understand there are many reasons that modules exist and going around them is not advisable for security reasons/load times. However I am not sure about the risk (if any) of even using a method like "eval()" to include such scripts if you are only doing it once at the start of an applications life and to a constant value that does not accept external input. The theory is that if an external entity is able to change the initial state of your program as is launched then your system has already been compromised. So as it is I think the whole argument around Globalization vs modules boils down to the project being done(security/speed needed) and preference/risk.
(Not for everyone) This is a utility I am not implying that everyone uses this
(Already published works) I have searched a lot for this functionality but I am not infallible to err. So If a simple usage of this has already been done that follows this specification(or simpler), I'd love to know how/where I can attain such code. Then I will promptly mark that as the answer or just remove this thread entirely
Example Code
ES5 Way
const fs = require('fs');
let path = require('path');
/* only accepts the scripts with global variables and functions and
does not work with classes unless declared as a var.
*/
function include(f) {
eval.apply(global, [fs.readFileSync(f).toString()])
}
Main file Concept example:
ImportScript("filePath1");loaded first
ImportScript("filePath2");loaded second
ImportScript("filePath3");loaded third
ImportScript("filePath4");loaded fourth
ImportScript("filePath5");loaded fifth
ImportScript("someExternalDependency");sixth
/* where "functionNameFromFile4" is a function defined in
file4 , and "variableFromFile2" is a global dynamic
variable that may change over the lifetime of the
application.
*/
functionNameFromFile4(variableFromFile2);
/* current context has access to previous scripts contexts
and those scripts recognize the current global context as
well in short: All scripts should be able to access
variables and functions from other scripts implicitly
through this , even if they are added after the fact
*/
Typical exported file example (Covers all methods of export via modules):
/*where "varFromFile1" is a dynamic variable created in file1
that may change over the lifetime of the application and "var" is a
variable of type(varFromFile4) being concatenated/added together
with "varFromFile4".
*/
functionNameFromFile4(var){
return var+varFromFile1;
}
//Typical export statement
exportAllHere;
/*
This is just an example and does not cover all usage cases , just
an example of the possible functionality
*/
CONCLUSION
So you still need to export the files as required by the es6 standard , however you only need to import them once in a main file to globalize their functionality across all scripts.
I'm not personally a fan of globalizing all the exports from a module, but here's a little snippet that shows you how one ESM module's exports can be all assigned to the global object:
Suppose you had a simple module called operators.js:
export function add(a, b) {
return a + b;
}
export function subtract(a, b) {
return a - b;
}
You can import that module and then assign all of its exported properties to the global object with this:
import * as m from "./operators.js"
for (const [prop, value] of Object.entries(m)) {
global[prop] = value;
}
// can now access the exports globally
add(1, 2);
FYI, I think the syntax:
include("filePath1")
is going to be tough in ESM modules because dynamic imports in an ESM module using import (which is presumably what you would have to use to implement the include() function you show) are asynchronous (they return a promise), not synchronous like require().
I wonder if a bundler or a transpiler would be an option?
There is experimental work in nodejs related to custom loaders here: https://nodejs.org/api/esm.html#hooks.
If you can handle your include() function returning a promise, here's how you put the above code into that function:
async function include(moduleName) {
const m = await import(moduleName);
for (const [prop, value] of Object.entries(m)) {
global[prop] = value;
}
return m;
}
Partially solved:
There is an old issue on github where this problem is described a bit. When you declare a module in a global scope, it rewrites the whole exported module's types. When you declare a module inside a module, it merges. Why? I have no idea
https://github.com/microsoft/TypeScript/issues/17736#issuecomment-344353174
I want to extend third party module's type by interface merging. Everything works fine, but when I comment
export {}; in types.d.ts I encounter the following error:
This expression is not callable. Type 'typeof import("koa-session")'
has no call signatures
Could you explain why it happens?
You can check the working code here:
https://codesandbox.io/s/typescript-node-nocfq?file=/src/types.d.ts
A similar problem has been addressed on TypeScript github. Unfortunately I am now aware of any other documentation page that would describe it.
Commenting out the export {} turns the types.d.ts file from a module into a script. From TypeScript handbook:
In TypeScript, just as in ECMAScript 2015, any file containing a top-level import or export is considered a module. Conversely, a file without any top-level import or export declarations is treated as a script whose contents are available in the global scope (and therefore to modules as well).
Since the file without export statement (and without import statement) is not a module but rather a script it has no information about any modules and will indeed disregard the fact that there is an existing definition for "koa-session".
You can try this in your sandbox - adding any top-level import or export in types.d.ts (it can be completely unused) will fix the This expression is not callable error.
You need to import the interface if you want to enhance it and do interface merging. What you're doing is rewriting it altogether.
import Session from "koa-session";
declare module "koa-session" {
interface Session {
user: {
id: number;
username: string;
};
}
}
Just do this and you will enhance the interface just as you want.
I can't find TypeScript definition #type/{name} for one of my installed NodeJS packages, so I attempt to write a d.ts file for it, and put the file in {project root}\typings folder. This is how I do:
// My source code: index.ts
import Helper from 'node-helper-lib';
// My definition: \typings\node-helper-lib.d.ts
declare....(something else)
declare module 'node-helper-lib' {
class Helper { ... }
export = Helper;
}
However, Visual Studio Code keeps yielding this error and puts red line under declare module 'node-helper-lib':
[ts] Invalid module name in augmentation. Module 'node-helper-lib'
resolves to an untyped module at '{project
path}\node_modules\node-helper-lib\index.js', which cannot be
augmented.
Isn't it legit that because the library is untyped, so I should be allowed to add typing to it?
UPDATE:
I am using:
TypeScript: 2.1.4
Visual Studio Code: 1.9.1
Node JS: 6.9.4
Windows 10 x64
The actual solution is given in a comment by #Paleo in #hirikarate's answer:
Imports should be declared inside the module declaration.
Example:
declare module 'node-helper-lib' {
import * as SomeThirdParty from 'node-helper-lib';
interface Helper {
new(opt: SomeThirdParty.Options): SomeThirdParty.Type
}
export = Helper;
}
After some tries and errors, I found that augmentation means "declaring a module in the same file with other module declaration(s)".
Therefore if we want to write a definition file for an untyped 3rd-party JavaScript library, we must have ONLY ONE declare module 'lib-name' in that file, and 'lib-name' must exactly match the library name (can be found in its package.json, "name" property).
On the other hand, if a 3rd-party library already has definition file .d.ts included, and we want to extend its functionalities, then we can put the additional definition in another file that we create. This is called augmenting.
For example:
// These module declarations are in same file, given that each of them already has their own definition file.
declare module 'events' {
// Extended functionality
}
declare module 'querystring' {
// Extended functionality
}
declare module '...' { ... }
I leave my discovery here just in case somebody has same question. And please correct me if I missed something.
The issue for me was that I was trying to declare the module in a .ts file. I changed it to .d.ts and it all worked just fine.
I was getting that error message too. The issue for me was that I was trying to declare another module in an existing type definition file that had a module declaration in it. After I moved the new module declaration to a new file, the error went away.
I have being playing around with requirejs for the last few days. I am trying to understand the differences between define and require.
Define seems to allow for module separation and allow for dependency ordering to be adhere. But it downloads all the files it needs to begin with. Whilst require only loads what you need when you need it.
Can these two be used together and for what purposes should each of them be used?
With define you register a module in require.js that you can then depend on in other module definitions or require statements.
With require you "just" load/use a module or javascript file that can be loaded by require.js.
For examples have a look at the documentation
My rule of thumb:
Define: If you want to declare a module other parts of your application will depend on.
Require: If you just want to load and use stuff.
From the require.js source code (line 1902):
/**
* The function that handles definitions of modules. Differs from
* require() in that a string for the module should be the first argument,
* and the function to execute after dependencies are loaded should
* return a value to define the module corresponding to the first argument's
* name.
*/
The define() function accepts two optional parameters (a string that represent a module ID and an array of required modules) and one required parameter (a factory method).
The return of the factory method MUST return the implementation for your module (in the same way that the Module Pattern does).
The require() function doesn't have to return the implementation of a new module.
Using define() you are asking something like "run the function that I am passing as a parameter and assign whatever returns to the ID that I am passing but, before, check that these dependencies are loaded".
Using require() you are saying something like "the function that I pass has the following dependencies, check that these dependencies are loaded before running it".
The require() function is where you use your defined modules, in order to be sure that the modules are defined, but you are not defining new modules there.
General rules:
You use define when you want to define a module that will be reused
You use require to simply load a dependency
//sample1.js file : module definition
define(function() {
var sample1 = {};
//do your stuff
return sample1;
});
//sample2.js file : module definition and also has a dependency on jQuery and sample1.js
define(['jquery', 'sample1'], function($,sample1) {
var sample2 = {
getSample1:sample1.getSomeData();
};
var selectSomeElement = $('#someElementId');
//do your stuff....
return sample2;
});
//calling in any file (mainly in entry file)
require(['sample2'], function(sample2) {
// sample1 will be loaded also
});
Hope this helps you.
"define" method for facilitating module definition
and
"require" method for handling dependency loading
define is used to define named or unnamed modules based on the proposal using the following signature:
define(
module_id /*optional*/,
[dependencies] /*optional*/,
definition function /*function for instantiating the module or object*/
);
require on the other hand is typically used to load code in a top-level JavaScript file or within a module should you wish to dynamically fetch dependencies
Refer to https://addyosmani.com/writing-modular-js/ for more information.
require() and define() both used to load dependencies.There is a major difference between these two method.
Its very Simple Guys
Require() : Method is used to run immediate functionalities.
define() : Method is used to define modules for use in multiple locations(reuse).