var method = 'serviceName.MethodName'
I Just want to call it like
serviceName.methodName(function(output callback){
});
Is there any approach to call it.thanks
There are two methods that I can think of now.
JS eval
You can use the javascript eval function to convert any string into code snippet like below. Although eval is a quick solution but should not be used unless you dont have any other option by your side.
var method = 'UserService.getData';
eval(method)();
Factory pattern
Use a below pattern to get the service
You would need to define the services in such a manner that you can access them using a pattern.
var Services = {
// UserService and AccountsService are again objects having some callable functions.
UserService : {getData: function(){}, getAge: function(){}},
AccountsService : {getData: function(){}, getAge: function(){}},
// getService is the heart of the code which will get you the required service depending on the string paramter you pass.
getService : function(serviceName){
var service = '';
switch(serviceName){
case 'User':
service = this.UserService;
break;
case 'Accounts':
service = this.AccountsService;
break;
}
return service;
}
}
You can use get the required service with below code
Services.getService('User')
I'm not aware of any way you can resolve the serviceName part of that string to an object, without using eval. So obviously you need to be extremely careful.
Perhaps:
if (method.match(/^[a-zA-Z0-9_]+\.[a-zA-Z0-9_]+$/) {
var servicePart = eval(method.split('.')[0]);
var methodPart = method.split('.')[1];
servicePart[methodPart](...)
}
There are two separate problems in your question:
How to access object property by property name (string)?
How to access object by it's name (string)?
Regarding the first problem - it is easy to access object property by string using the following notation:
const myObject = {
myProp: 1,
};
console.log(myObject['myProp']);
And regarding the second problem - it depends on what serviceName is:
if it is a property of some other object, then use someObject['serviceName']['MethodName']
if it is a local variable, consider using a Map (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Map) to associate strings with objects;
Related
I have added to the String class three prototype classes on a file classed parse.js:
String.prototype.parseCropTo = function (needle) {
if (this.includes(needle) === false) return false;
return this.slice(0, this.indexOf(needle)).trim();
}
String.prototype.parseCropFrom = function (needle) {
if (this.includes(needle) === false) return false;
return this.slice(this.indexOf(needle) + needle.length).trim();
}
String.prototype.parseCropBetween = function (needleFrom, needleTo) {
let haystack = this.parseCropFrom(needleFrom);
if (haystack != false) return haystack.parseCropTo(needleTo);
}
As far as I can see, imported files have to expose specific functions and then they are called via a variable. However, I wish to import parse.js to other files so I could use these functions directly on strings:
let haystack = 'This is a lovely day';
console.log(haystack.parseCropBetween('is', 'day'));
Is this possible? thanks in advance.
By extending the prototype of String, you will have these methods on every string you'll ever use, however you need to load it somewhere in your code, because you won't be able to use that beforehand.
The reason that works is because your'e accessing String.prototype by reference, as with all non-primitive types in javascript so calling it once, will get you set for the rest of your code.
Generally speaking, it's not advised to extend native constructs.
See full example here:
https://codesandbox.io/s/epic-cerf-4qshv?file=/src/App.js
Additionally, I'd advise you to read some opinions about extending prototypes in javascript and considers the pros and cons of this approach:
Why is extending native objects a bad practice?
I'm currently trying to write some code that retrieves a collection from my Firestore instance.
My codebase uses the service repository pattern to keep business logic seperate from the code that retrieves data. For this reason I've made the following code:
import { injectable, inject } from "inversify";
import { IOfficeRepository, TYPES } from "../common/types";
import { Firestore } from "#google-cloud/firestore";
#injectable()
export default class OfficeRepository implements IOfficeRepository {
private fireStoreClient: Firestore;
constructor(#inject(TYPES.FireStoreFactory) firestoreFactory: () => Firestore) {
this.fireStoreClient = firestoreFactory();
};
public async getOffice(officeId: string): Promise<FirebaseFirestore.QueryDocumentSnapshot<FirebaseFirestore.DocumentData>> {
const officeCollection = "offices";
const document = await this.fireStoreClient.collection(officeCollection).get();
return document;
};
}
What I'd like to do is return the value from the get() call to my service, in the service I will be performing checks and executing the business logic that I need.
The get() returns a Promise<FirebaseFirestore.QuerySnapshot<FirebaseFirestore.DocumentData>>, but I am unable to use this as a return type for the function in my repository. I just get the following error:
Type 'QuerySnapshot' is missing the following properties from type 'QueryDocumentSnapshot': createTime, updateTime, data, exists, and 3 more.
I've already looked-up the error, but I wasn't able to find any solution or a post where someone was trying to return the result from the get() function before performing any logic on the result.
So my question is: How would I be able to make this setup work? Or is there something I am doing wrong with this setup? If so, what would be another approach to work this out while using the service repository pattern?
Your declared return type of QueryDocumentSnapshot doesn't match the actual return type of QuerySnapshot.
This line of code:
const document = await this.fireStoreClient.collection(officeCollection).get();
performs a query for all of the documents in the officeCollection collection. As you can see from the API documentation, CollectionReference.get() yields a QuerySnapshot object. The entire set of documents will be available in the returned docs property.
It seems that you expect getOffice to return a single document instead. I'm noticing that you never used the argument officeId to narrow down your query to just the one document you want. Perhaps you meant to do something like this instead to get a single document using its ID?
const document = await this.fireStoreClient
.collection(officeCollection)
.doc(officeId)
.get();
In this case, document will be a DocumentSnapshot object.
I'm curious what the difference is between the following OOP javascript techniques. They seem to end up doing the same thing but is one considered better than the other?
function Book(title) {
this.title = title;
}
Book.prototype.getTitle = function () {
return this.title;
};
var myBook = new Book('War and Peace');
alert(myBook.getTitle())
vs
function Book(title) {
var book = {
title: title
};
book.getTitle = function () {
return this.title;
};
return book;
}
var myBook = Book('War and Peace');
alert(myBook.getTitle())
The second one doesn't really create an instance, it simply returns an object. That means you can't take advantage of operators like instanceof. Eg. with the first case you can do if (myBook instanceof Book) to check if the variable is a type of Book, while with the second example this would fail.
If you want to specify your object methods in the constructor, this is the proper way to do it:
function Book(title) {
this.title = title;
this.getTitle = function () {
return this.title;
};
}
var myBook = new Book('War and Peace');
alert(myBook.getTitle())
While in this example the both behave the exact same way, there are differences. With closure-based implementation you can have private variables and methods (just don't expose them in the this object). So you can do something such as:
function Book(title) {
var title_;
this.getTitle = function() {
return title_;
};
this.setTitle = function(title) {
title_ = title;
};
// should use the setter in case it does something else than just assign
this.setTitle(title);
}
Code outside of the Book function can not access the member variable directly, they have to use the accessors.
Other big difference is performance; Prototype based classing is usually much faster, due to some overhead included in using closures. You can read about the performance differences in this article: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/kristoffer/archive/2007/02/13/javascript-prototype-versus-closure-execution-speed.aspx
Which is better can sometimes be defined by the context of their usage.
Three constraints of how I choose between Prototype and Closure methods of coding (I actively use both):
Performance/Resources
Compression requirements
Project Management
1. Performance/Resources
For a single instance of the object, either method is fine. Any speed advantages would most likely be negligible.
If I am instantiating 100,000 of these, like building a book library, then the Prototype Method would be preferred. All the .prototype. functions would only be created once, instead of these functions being created 100,000 times if using the Closure Method. Resources are not infinite.
2. Compression
Use the Closure Method if compression efficiency is important (ex: most browser libraries/modules). See below for explanation:
Compression - Prototype Method
function Book(title) {
this.title = title;
}
Book.prototype.getTitle = function () {
return this.title;
};
Is YUI compressed to
function Book(a){this.title=a}Book.prototype.getTitle=function(){return this.title};
A savings of about 18% (all spaces/tabs/returns). This method requires variables/functions to be exposed (this.variable=value) so every prototype function can access them. As such, these variables/functions can't be optimized in compression.
Compression - Closure Method
function Book(title) {
var title = title; // use var instead of this.title to make this a local variable
this.getTitle = function () {
return title;
};
}
Is YUI compressed to
function Book(a){var a=a;this.getTitle=function(){return a}};
A savings of about 33%. Local variables can be optimized. In a large module, with many support functions, this can have significant savings in compression.
3. Project Management
In a project with multiple developers, who could be working on the same module, I prefer the Prototype Method for that module, if not constrained by performance or compression.
For browser development, I can override the producton.prototype.aFunction from "production.js" in my own "test.js" (read in afterwords) for the purpose of testing or development, without having to modify the "production.js", which may be in active development by a different developer.
I'm not a big fan of complex GIT repository checkout/branch/merge/conflict flow. I prefer simple.
Also, the ability to redefine or "hijack" a module's function by a testbench can be beneficial, but too complicated to address here...
The former method is how JavaScript was intended to be used. The latter is the more modern technique, popularised in part by Douglas Crockford. This technique is much more flexible.
You could also do:
function Book(title) {
return {
getTitle: function () {
return title;
}
}
}
The returned object would just have an accessor called getTitle, which would return the argument, held in closure.
Crockford has a good page on Private Members in JavaScript - definitely worth a read to see the different options.
It's also a little bit about re-usability under the hood. In the first example with the Function.prototype property usage all the instances of the Book function-object will share the same copy of the getTitle method. While the second snippet will make the Book function execution create and keep in the heap 'bookshelf' different copies of the local closurable book object.
function Book(title) {
var book = {
title: title
};
book.getTitle = function () {
return this.title += '#';
};
return book;
}
var myBook = Book('War and Peace');
var myAnotherBook = Book('Anna Karenina');
alert(myBook.getTitle()); // War and Peace#
alert(myBook.getTitle()); // War and Peace##
alert(myAnotherBook.getTitle()); // Anna Karenina#
alert(myBook.getTitle());// War and Peace###
The prototype members exist in the only copy for all the new instances of the object on the other hand. So this is one more subtle difference between them that is not very obvious from the first sigh due to the closure trick.
here is an article about this
in general Book inharets from Book.prototype. In first example you add function to getTitle Book.prototype
How do we use 'inheritance' in Node.JS? I heard that prototype is similar to interfaces in java. But I have no idea how to use it!
Although there are various ways of performing inheritance and OO in javascript, in Node.js you would typically use the built in util.inherits function to create a constructor which inherits from another.
See http://book.mixu.net/ch6.html for a good discussion on this subject.
for example:
var util = require("util");
var events = require("events");
function MyOwnClass() {
// ... your code.
}
util.inherits(MyOwnClass, events.EventEmitter);
Creating an object constructor in pure JS:
They're just functions like any other JS function but invoked with the new keyword.
function Constructor(){ //constructors are typically capitalized
this.public = function(){ alert(private); }
var private = "Untouchable outside of this func scope.";
}
Constructor.static = function(){ alert('Callable as "Constructor.static()"'); }
var instance = new Constructor();
Inheritance:
function SubConstructor(){
this.anotherMethod(){ alert('nothing special'); }
}
function SubConstructor.prototype = new Constructor();
var instance = new SubConstructor();
instance.public(); //alerts that private string
The key difference is that prototypal inheritance comes from objects, rather than the things that build them.
One disadvantage is that there's no pretty way to write something that makes inheritance of instance vars like private possible.
The whopping gigantor mega-advantage, however, is that we can mess with the prototype without impacting the super constructor, changing a method or property for every object even after they've been built. This is rarely done in practice in higher-level code since it would make for an awfully confusing API but it can be handy for under-the-hood type stuff where you might want to share a changing value across a set of instances without just making it global.
The reason we get this post-instantiated behavior is because JS inheritance actually operates on a lookup process where any method call runs up the chain of instances and their constructor prototype properties until it finds the method called or quits. This can actually get slow if you go absolutely insane with cascading inheritance (which is widely regarded as an anti-pattern anyway).
I don't actually hit prototype specifically for inheritacne a lot myself, instead preferring to build up objects via a more composited approach but it's very handy when you need it and offers a lot of less obvious utility. For instance when you have an object that would be useful to you if only one property were different, but you don't want to touch the original.
var originInstance = {
originValue:'only on origin',
theOneProperty:'that would make this old object useful if it were different'
}
function Pseudoclone(){
this.theOneProperty = "which is now this value";
}
Pseudoclone.prototype = originInstance;
var newInstance = new Psuedoclone();
//accesses originInstance.originValue but its own theOneProperty
There are more modern convenience methods like Object.create but only function constructors give you the option to encapsulate private/instance vars so I tend to favor them since 9 times out of 10 anything not requiring encapsulation will just be an object literal anyway.
Overriding and Call Object Order:
( function Constructor(){
var private = "public referencing private";
this.myMethod = function(){ alert(private); }
} ).prototype = { myMethod:function(){ alert('prototype'); };
var instance = new Constructor();
instance.myMethod = function(){ alert(private); }
instance.myMethod();//"undefined"
Note: the parens around the constructor allow it to be defined and evaluated in one spot so I could treat it like an object on the same line.
myMethod is alerting "undefined" because an externally overwritten method is defined outside of the constructor's closure which is what effective makes internal vars private-like. So you can replace the method but you won't have access to what it did.
Now let's do some commenting.
( function Constructor(){
var private = "public referencing private";
this.myMethod = function(){ alert(private); }
} ).prototype = { myMethod:function(){ alert('prototype'); };
var instance = new Constructor();
//instance.myMethod = function(){ alert(private); }
instance.myMethod();//"public referencing private"
and...
( function Constructor(){
var private = "public referencing private";
//this.myMethod = function(){ alert(private); }
} ).prototype = { myMethod:function(){ alert('prototype'); };
var instance = new Constructor();
//instance.myMethod = function(){ alert(private); }
instance.myMethod();//"prototype"
Note that prototype methods also don't have access to that internal private var for the same reason. It's all about whether something was defined in the constructor itself. Note that params passed to the constructor will also effectively be private instance vars which can be handy for doing things like overriding a set of default options.
Couple More Details
It's actually not necessary to use parens when invoking with new unless you have required parameters but I tend to leave them in out of habit (it works to think of them as functions that fire and then leave an object representing the scope of that firing behind) and figured it would be less alien to a Java dev than new Constructor;
Also, with any constructor that requires params, I like to add default values internally with something like:
var param = param || '';
That way you can pass the constructor into convenience methods like Node's util.inherit without undefined values breaking things for you.
Params are also effectively private persistent instance vars just like any var defined in a constructor.
Oh and object literals (objects defined with { key:'value' }) are probably best thought of as roughly equivalent to this:
var instance = new Object();
instance.key = 'value';
With a little help from Coffeescript, we can achieve it much easier.
For e.g.: to extend a class:
class Animal
constructor: (#name) ->
alive: ->
false
class Parrot extends Animal
constructor: ->
super("Parrot")
dead: ->
not #alive()
Static property:
class Animal
#find: (name) ->
Animal.find("Parrot")
Instance property:
class Animal
price: 5
sell: (customer) ->
animal = new Animal
animal.sell(new Customer)
I just take the sample code Classes in CoffeeScript. You can learn more about CoffeeScript at its official site: http://coffeescript.org/
I have a function,
public static IPagedResponse<T> GetPagedResponse<T, TAnon>(
this IQueryable<TAnon> query,
QueryableRequestMessage request)
where T : class
{
//...
}
I'm trying to pass query as an IQueryable of an anonymous type.
var query = _repository.All.Select(
i => new //anon type
{
i.Id,
i.Name,
}
);
var result = query.GetPagedResponse<EftInterfaceDto, ??????>(request);
The issue is I don't know what to put in place of ??????? It can't seem to infer it. And any combinations using .GetType() or typeof() I have tried, failed.
I tried changing the function to be IQueryable<dynamic> but that resulted in other errors, about dynamic not being allowed in Expression trees.
HACK:
I can make it work if I change my function to this:
public static IPagedResponse<T> GetPagedResponse<T, TAnon>(
this IQueryable<TAnon> query,
QueryableRequestMessage request,
T typeSample)
where T : class
{
//...
}
And then pass in an instance of T
var result = query.GetPagedResponse(request, new SomeClassOfT());
This way, I can use type inference to determine the anonymous type TAnon, and don't need to be explicit in the call to the generic (no <types> required).
However, I don't want to do this, as it's clearly not clear what I'm doing.