Related
Let's say I have a file called app.js. Pretty simple:
var express = require('express');
var app = express.createServer();
app.set('views', __dirname + '/views');
app.set('view engine', 'ejs');
app.get('/', function(req, res){
res.render('index', {locals: {
title: 'NowJS + Express Example'
}});
});
app.listen(8080);
What if I have a functions inside "tools.js". How would I import them to use in apps.js?
Or...am I supposed to turn "tools" into a module, and then require it? << seems hard, I rather do the basic import of the tools.js file.
You can require any js file, you just need to declare what you want to expose.
// tools.js
// ========
module.exports = {
foo: function () {
// whatever
},
bar: function () {
// whatever
}
};
var zemba = function () {
}
And in your app file:
// app.js
// ======
var tools = require('./tools');
console.log(typeof tools.foo); // => 'function'
console.log(typeof tools.bar); // => 'function'
console.log(typeof tools.zemba); // => undefined
If, despite all the other answers, you still want to traditionally include a file in a node.js source file, you can use this:
var fs = require('fs');
// file is included here:
eval(fs.readFileSync('tools.js')+'');
The empty string concatenation +'' is necessary to get the file content as a string and not an object (you can also use .toString() if you prefer).
The eval() can't be used inside a function and must be called inside the global scope otherwise no functions or variables will be accessible (i.e. you can't create a include() utility function or something like that).
Please note that in most cases this is bad practice and you should instead write a module. However, there are rare situations, where pollution of your local context/namespace is what you really want.
Update 2015-08-06
Please also note this won't work with "use strict"; (when you are in "strict mode") because functions and variables defined in the "imported" file can't be accessed by the code that does the import. Strict mode enforces some rules defined by newer versions of the language standard. This may be another reason to avoid the solution described here.
You need no new functions nor new modules.
You simply need to execute the module you're calling if you don't want to use namespace.
in tools.js
module.exports = function() {
this.sum = function(a,b) { return a+b };
this.multiply = function(a,b) { return a*b };
//etc
}
in app.js
or in any other .js like myController.js :
instead of
var tools = require('tools.js') which force us to use a namespace and call tools like tools.sum(1,2);
we can simply call
require('tools.js')();
and then
sum(1,2);
in my case I have a file with controllers ctrls.js
module.exports = function() {
this.Categories = require('categories.js');
}
and I can use Categories in every context as public class after require('ctrls.js')()
Create two js files
// File cal.js
module.exports = {
sum: function(a,b) {
return a+b
},
multiply: function(a,b) {
return a*b
}
};
Main js file
// File app.js
var tools = require("./cal.js");
var value = tools.sum(10,20);
console.log("Value: "+value);
Console Output
Value: 30
create two files e.g app.js and tools.js
app.js
const tools= require("./tools.js")
var x = tools.add(4,2) ;
var y = tools.subtract(4,2);
console.log(x);
console.log(y);
tools.js
const add = function(x, y){
return x+y;
}
const subtract = function(x, y){
return x-y;
}
module.exports ={
add,subtract
}
output
6
2
Here is a plain and simple explanation:
Server.js content:
// Include the public functions from 'helpers.js'
var helpers = require('./helpers');
// Let's assume this is the data which comes from the database or somewhere else
var databaseName = 'Walter';
var databaseSurname = 'Heisenberg';
// Use the function from 'helpers.js' in the main file, which is server.js
var fullname = helpers.concatenateNames(databaseName, databaseSurname);
Helpers.js content:
// 'module.exports' is a node.JS specific feature, it does not work with regular JavaScript
module.exports =
{
// This is the function which will be called in the main file, which is server.js
// The parameters 'name' and 'surname' will be provided inside the function
// when the function is called in the main file.
// Example: concatenameNames('John,'Doe');
concatenateNames: function (name, surname)
{
var wholeName = name + " " + surname;
return wholeName;
},
sampleFunctionTwo: function ()
{
}
};
// Private variables and functions which will not be accessible outside this file
var privateFunction = function ()
{
};
I was also looking for a NodeJS 'include' function and I checked the solution proposed by Udo G - see message https://stackoverflow.com/a/8744519/2979590. His code doesn't work with my included JS files.
Finally I solved the problem like that:
var fs = require("fs");
function read(f) {
return fs.readFileSync(f).toString();
}
function include(f) {
eval.apply(global, [read(f)]);
}
include('somefile_with_some_declarations.js');
Sure, that helps.
Create two JavaScript files. E.g. import_functions.js and main.js
1.) import_functions.js
// Declaration --------------------------------------
module.exports =
{
add,
subtract
// ...
}
// Implementation ----------------------------------
function add(x, y)
{
return x + y;
}
function subtract(x, y)
{
return x - y;
}
// ...
2.) main.js
// include ---------------------------------------
const sf= require("./import_functions.js")
// use -------------------------------------------
var x = sf.add(4,2);
console.log(x);
var y = sf.subtract(4,2);
console.log(y);
output
6
2
The vm module in Node.js provides the ability to execute JavaScript code within the current context (including global object). See http://nodejs.org/docs/latest/api/vm.html#vm_vm_runinthiscontext_code_filename
Note that, as of today, there's a bug in the vm module that prevenst runInThisContext from doing the right when invoked from a new context. This only matters if your main program executes code within a new context and then that code calls runInThisContext. See https://github.com/joyent/node/issues/898
Sadly, the with(global) approach that Fernando suggested doesn't work for named functions like "function foo() {}"
In short, here's an include() function that works for me:
function include(path) {
var code = fs.readFileSync(path, 'utf-8');
vm.runInThisContext(code, path);
}
say we wants to call function ping() and add(30,20) which is in lib.js file
from main.js
main.js
lib = require("./lib.js")
output = lib.ping();
console.log(output);
//Passing Parameters
console.log("Sum of A and B = " + lib.add(20,30))
lib.js
this.ping=function ()
{
return "Ping Success"
}
//Functions with parameters
this.add=function(a,b)
{
return a+b
}
Udo G. said:
The eval() can't be used inside a function and must be called inside
the global scope otherwise no functions or variables will be
accessible (i.e. you can't create a include() utility function or
something like that).
He's right, but there's a way to affect the global scope from a function. Improving his example:
function include(file_) {
with (global) {
eval(fs.readFileSync(file_) + '');
};
};
include('somefile_with_some_declarations.js');
// the declarations are now accessible here.
Hope, that helps.
app.js
let { func_name } = require('path_to_tools.js');
func_name(); //function calling
tools.js
let func_name = function() {
...
//function body
...
};
module.exports = { func_name };
It worked with me like the following....
Lib1.js
//Any other private code here
// Code you want to export
exports.function1 = function(params) {.......};
exports.function2 = function(params) {.......};
// Again any private code
now in the Main.js file you need to include Lib1.js
var mylib = requires('lib1.js');
mylib.function1(params);
mylib.function2(params);
Please remember to put the Lib1.js in node_modules folder.
Another way to do this in my opinion, is to execute everything in the lib file when you call require() function using (function(/* things here */){})(); doing this will make all these functions global scope, exactly like the eval() solution
src/lib.js
(function () {
funcOne = function() {
console.log('mlt funcOne here');
}
funcThree = function(firstName) {
console.log(firstName, 'calls funcThree here');
}
name = "Mulatinho";
myobject = {
title: 'Node.JS is cool',
funcFour: function() {
return console.log('internal funcFour() called here');
}
}
})();
And then in your main code you can call your functions by name like:
main.js
require('./src/lib')
funcOne();
funcThree('Alex');
console.log(name);
console.log(myobject);
console.log(myobject.funcFour());
Will make this output
bash-3.2$ node -v
v7.2.1
bash-3.2$ node main.js
mlt funcOne here
Alex calls funcThree here
Mulatinho
{ title: 'Node.JS is cool', funcFour: [Function: funcFour] }
internal funcFour() called here
undefined
Pay atention to the undefined when you call my object.funcFour(), it will be the same if you load with eval(). Hope it helps :)
You can put your functions in global variables, but it's better practice to just turn your tools script into a module. It's really not too hard – just attach your public API to the exports object. Take a look at Understanding Node.js' exports module for some more detail.
I just want to add, in case you need just certain functions imported from your tools.js, then you can use a destructuring assignment which is supported in node.js since version 6.4 - see node.green.
Example:
(both files are in the same folder)
tools.js
module.exports = {
sum: function(a,b) {
return a + b;
},
isEven: function(a) {
return a % 2 == 0;
}
};
main.js
const { isEven } = require('./tools.js');
console.log(isEven(10));
output: true
This also avoids that you assign those functions as properties of another object as its the case in the following (common) assignment:
const tools = require('./tools.js');
where you need to call tools.isEven(10).
NOTE:
Don't forget to prefix your file name with the correct path - even if both files are in the same folder, you need to prefix with ./
From Node.js docs:
Without a leading '/', './', or '../' to indicate a file, the module
must either be a core module or is loaded from a node_modules folder.
Include file and run it in given (non-global) context
fileToInclude.js
define({
"data": "XYZ"
});
main.js
var fs = require("fs");
var vm = require("vm");
function include(path, context) {
var code = fs.readFileSync(path, 'utf-8');
vm.runInContext(code, vm.createContext(context));
}
// Include file
var customContext = {
"define": function (data) {
console.log(data);
}
};
include('./fileToInclude.js', customContext);
Using the ESM module system:
a.js:
export default function foo() {};
export function bar() {};
b.js:
import foo, {bar} from './a.js';
This is the best way i have created so far.
var fs = require('fs'),
includedFiles_ = {};
global.include = function (fileName) {
var sys = require('sys');
sys.puts('Loading file: ' + fileName);
var ev = require(fileName);
for (var prop in ev) {
global[prop] = ev[prop];
}
includedFiles_[fileName] = true;
};
global.includeOnce = function (fileName) {
if (!includedFiles_[fileName]) {
include(fileName);
}
};
global.includeFolderOnce = function (folder) {
var file, fileName,
sys = require('sys'),
files = fs.readdirSync(folder);
var getFileName = function(str) {
var splited = str.split('.');
splited.pop();
return splited.join('.');
},
getExtension = function(str) {
var splited = str.split('.');
return splited[splited.length - 1];
};
for (var i = 0; i < files.length; i++) {
file = files[i];
if (getExtension(file) === 'js') {
fileName = getFileName(file);
try {
includeOnce(folder + '/' + file);
} catch (err) {
// if (ext.vars) {
// console.log(ext.vars.dump(err));
// } else {
sys.puts(err);
// }
}
}
}
};
includeFolderOnce('./extensions');
includeOnce('./bin/Lara.js');
var lara = new Lara();
You still need to inform what you want to export
includeOnce('./bin/WebServer.js');
function Lara() {
this.webServer = new WebServer();
this.webServer.start();
}
Lara.prototype.webServer = null;
module.exports.Lara = Lara;
You can simple just require('./filename').
Eg.
// file: index.js
var express = require('express');
var app = express();
var child = require('./child');
app.use('/child', child);
app.get('/', function (req, res) {
res.send('parent');
});
app.listen(process.env.PORT, function () {
console.log('Example app listening on port '+process.env.PORT+'!');
});
// file: child.js
var express = require('express'),
child = express.Router();
console.log('child');
child.get('/child', function(req, res){
res.send('Child2');
});
child.get('/', function(req, res){
res.send('Child');
});
module.exports = child;
Please note that:
you can't listen PORT on the child file, only parent express module has PORT listener
Child is using 'Router', not parent Express moudle.
Node works based on commonjs modules and more recently, esm modules. Basically, you should create modules in separated .js files and make use of imports/exports (module.exports and require).
Javascript on the browser works differently, based on scope. There is the global scope, and through clojures (functions inside other functions) you have private scopes.
So,in node, export functions and objects that you will consume in other modules.
The cleanest way IMO is the following, In tools.js:
function A(){
.
.
.
}
function B(){
.
.
.
}
module.exports = {
A,
B
}
Then, in app.js, just require the tools.js as following: const tools = require("tools");
I was as well searching for an option to include code without writing modules, resp. use the same tested standalone sources from a different project for a Node.js service - and jmparattes answer did it for me.
The benefit is, you don't pollute the namespace, I don't have trouble with "use strict"; and it works well.
Here a full sample:
Script to load - /lib/foo.js
"use strict";
(function(){
var Foo = function(e){
this.foo = e;
}
Foo.prototype.x = 1;
return Foo;
}())
SampleModule - index.js
"use strict";
const fs = require('fs');
const path = require('path');
var SampleModule = module.exports = {
instAFoo: function(){
var Foo = eval.apply(
this, [fs.readFileSync(path.join(__dirname, '/lib/foo.js')).toString()]
);
var instance = new Foo('bar');
console.log(instance.foo); // 'bar'
console.log(instance.x); // '1'
}
}
Hope this was helpfull somehow.
Like you are having a file abc.txt and many more?
Create 2 files: fileread.js and fetchingfile.js, then in fileread.js write this code:
function fileread(filename) {
var contents= fs.readFileSync(filename);
return contents;
}
var fs = require("fs"); // file system
//var data = fileread("abc.txt");
module.exports.fileread = fileread;
//data.say();
//console.log(data.toString());
}
In fetchingfile.js write this code:
function myerror(){
console.log("Hey need some help");
console.log("type file=abc.txt");
}
var ags = require("minimist")(process.argv.slice(2), { string: "file" });
if(ags.help || !ags.file) {
myerror();
process.exit(1);
}
var hello = require("./fileread.js");
var data = hello.fileread(ags.file); // importing module here
console.log(data.toString());
Now, in a terminal:
$ node fetchingfile.js --file=abc.txt
You are passing the file name as an argument, moreover include all files in readfile.js instead of passing it.
Thanks
Another method when using node.js and express.js framework
var f1 = function(){
console.log("f1");
}
var f2 = function(){
console.log("f2");
}
module.exports = {
f1 : f1,
f2 : f2
}
store this in a js file named s and in the folder statics
Now to use the function
var s = require('../statics/s');
s.f1();
s.f2();
To turn "tools" into a module, I don't see hard at all. Despite all the other answers I would still recommend use of module.exports:
//util.js
module.exports = {
myFunction: function () {
// your logic in here
let message = "I am message from myFunction";
return message;
}
}
Now we need to assign this exports to global scope (in your app|index|server.js )
var util = require('./util');
Now you can refer and call function as:
//util.myFunction();
console.log(util.myFunction()); // prints in console :I am message from myFunction
To interactively test the module ./test.js in a Unix environment, something like this could be used:
>> node -e "eval(''+require('fs').readFileSync('./test.js'))" -i
...
Use:
var mymodule = require("./tools.js")
app.js:
module.exports.<your function> = function () {
<what should the function do>
}
I've been working with nodejs lately and still getting to grips with the module system, so apologies if this is an obvious question. I want code roughly like the below:
a.js (the main file run with node)
var ClassB = require("./b");
var ClassA = function() {
this.thing = new ClassB();
this.property = 5;
}
var a = new ClassA();
module.exports = a;
b.js
var a = require("./a");
var ClassB = function() {
}
ClassB.prototype.doSomethingLater() {
util.log(a.property);
}
module.exports = ClassB;
My problem seems to be that I can't access the instance of ClassA from within an instance of ClassB.
Is there any correct / better way to structure modules to achieve what I want?
Is there a better way to share variables across modules?
Try to set properties on module.exports, instead of replacing it completely. E.g., module.exports.instance = new ClassA() in a.js, module.exports.ClassB = ClassB in b.js. When you make circular module dependencies, the requiring module will get a reference to an incomplete module.exports from the required module, which you can add other properties latter on, but when you set the entire module.exports, you actually create a new object which the requiring module has no way to access.
While node.js does allow circular require dependencies, as you've found it can be pretty messy and you're probably better off restructuring your code to not need it. Maybe create a third class that uses the other two to accomplish what you need.
[EDIT] it's not 2015 and most libraries (i.e. express) have made updates with better patterns so circular dependencies are no longer necessary. I recommend simply not using them.
I know I'm digging up an old answer here...
The issue here is that module.exports is defined after you require ClassB.
(which JohnnyHK's link shows)
Circular dependencies work great in Node, they're just defined synchronously.
When used properly, they actually solve a lot of common node issues (like accessing express.js app from other files)
Just make sure your necessary exports are defined before you require a file with a circular dependency.
This will break:
var ClassA = function(){};
var ClassB = require('classB'); //will require ClassA, which has no exports yet
module.exports = ClassA;
This will work:
var ClassA = module.exports = function(){};
var ClassB = require('classB');
I use this pattern all the time for accessing the express.js app in other files:
var express = require('express');
var app = module.exports = express();
// load in other dependencies, which can now require this file and use app
Sometimes it is really artificial to introduce a third class (as JohnnyHK advises), so in addition to Ianzz:
If you do want to replace the module.exports, for example if you're creating a class (like the b.js file in the above example), this is possible as well, just make sure that in the file that is starting the circular require, the 'module.exports = ...' statement happens before the require statement.
a.js (the main file run with node)
var ClassB = require("./b");
var ClassA = function() {
this.thing = new ClassB();
this.property = 5;
}
var a = new ClassA();
module.exports = a;
b.js
var ClassB = function() {
}
ClassB.prototype.doSomethingLater() {
util.log(a.property);
}
module.exports = ClassB;
var a = require("./a"); // <------ this is the only necessary change
The solution is to 'forward declare' your exports object before requiring any other controller. So if you structure all your modules like this and you won't run into any issues like that:
// Module exports forward declaration:
module.exports = {
};
// Controllers:
var other_module = require('./other_module');
// Functions:
var foo = function () {
};
// Module exports injects:
module.exports.foo = foo;
What about lazy requiring only when you need to? So your b.js looks as follows
var ClassB = function() {
}
ClassB.prototype.doSomethingLater() {
var a = require("./a"); //a.js has finished by now
util.log(a.property);
}
module.exports = ClassB;
Of course it is good practice to put all require statements on top of the file. But there are occasions, where I forgive myself for picking something out of an otherwise unrelated module. Call it a hack, but sometimes this is better than introducing a further dependency, or adding an extra module or adding new structures (EventEmitter, etc)
You can solve this easily: just export your data before you require anything else in modules where you use module.exports:
classA.js
class ClassA {
constructor(){
ClassB.someMethod();
ClassB.anotherMethod();
};
static someMethod () {
console.log( 'Class A Doing someMethod' );
};
static anotherMethod () {
console.log( 'Class A Doing anotherMethod' );
};
};
module.exports = ClassA;
var ClassB = require( "./classB.js" );
let classX = new ClassA();
classB.js
class ClassB {
constructor(){
ClassA.someMethod();
ClassA.anotherMethod();
};
static someMethod () {
console.log( 'Class B Doing someMethod' );
};
static anotherMethod () {
console.log( 'Class A Doing anotherMethod' );
};
};
module.exports = ClassB;
var ClassA = require( "./classA.js" );
let classX = new ClassB();
A solution which require minimal change is extending module.exports instead of overriding it.
a.js - app entry point and module which use method do from b.js*
_ = require('underscore'); //underscore provides extend() for shallow extend
b = require('./b'); //module `a` uses module `b`
_.extend(module.exports, {
do: function () {
console.log('doing a');
}
});
b.do();//call `b.do()` which in turn will circularly call `a.do()`
b.js - module which use method do from a.js
_ = require('underscore');
a = require('./a');
_.extend(module.exports, {
do: function(){
console.log('doing b');
a.do();//Call `b.do()` from `a.do()` when `a` just initalized
}
})
It will work and produce:
doing b
doing a
While this code will not work:
a.js
b = require('./b');
module.exports = {
do: function () {
console.log('doing a');
}
};
b.do();
b.js
a = require('./a');
module.exports = {
do: function () {
console.log('doing b');
}
};
a.do();
Output:
node a.js
b.js:7
a.do();
^
TypeError: a.do is not a function
The important thing is not to re-assign the module.exports object that you have been given, because that object may have already been given to other modules in the cycle! Just assign properties inside module.exports and other modules will see them appear.
So a simple solution is:
module.exports.firstMember = ___;
module.exports.secondMember = ___;
The only real downside is the need to repeat module.exports. many times.
Similar to lanzz and setec's answers, I have been using the following pattern, which feels more declarative:
module.exports = Object.assign(module.exports, {
firstMember: ___,
secondMember: ___,
});
The Object.assign() copies the members into the exports object that has already been given to other modules.
The = assignment is logically redundant, since it is just setting module.exports to itself, but I am using it because it helps my IDE (WebStorm) to recognise that firstMember is a property of this module, so "Go To -> Declaration" (Cmd-B) and other tooling will work from other files.
This pattern is not very pretty, so I only use it when a cyclic dependency issue needs to be resolved.
It is fairly well suited to the reveal pattern, because you can easily add and remove exports from the object, especially when using ES6's property shorthand.
Object.assign(module.exports, {
firstMember,
//secondMember,
});
the extremely simple solution is often:
usually you'd have the require at the top of the file ...
var script = require('./script')
function stuff() {
script.farfunction()
}
instead, just require it "in the function"
function stuff() {
var _script = require('./script')
_script.farfunction()
}
An other method I've seen people do is exporting at the first line and saving it as a local variable like this:
let self = module.exports = {};
const a = require('./a');
// Exporting the necessary functions
self.func = function() { ... }
I tend to use this method, do you know about any downsides of it?
TL;DR
Just use exports.someMember = someMember instead of module.exports = { // new object }.
Extended Answer
After reading lanzz's response I could finally figure it out what is happening here, so I'll give my two cents on the subject, extending his answer.
Let's see this example:
a.js
console.log("a starting");
console.log("a requires b");
const b = require("./b");
console.log("a gets b =", b);
function functionA() {
console.log("function a");
}
console.log("a done");
exports.functionA = functionA;
b.js
console.log("b starting");
console.log("b requires a");
const a = require("./a");
console.log("b gets a =", a);
function functionB() {
console.log("On b, a =", a)
}
console.log("b done");
exports.functionB = functionB;
main.js
const a = require("./a");
const b = require("./b");
b.functionB()
Output
a starting
a requires b
b starting
b requires a
b gets a = {}
b done
a gets b = { functionB: [Function: functionB] }
a done
On b, a = { functionA: [Function: functionA] }
Here we can see that at first b receives an empty object as a, and then once a is fully loaded, that reference is updated through exports.functionA = functionA. If you instead replace the entire module with another object, through module.exports, then b will lose the reference from a, since it will point out to the same empty object from the beginning, instead of pointing to the new one.
So if you export a like this: module.exports = { functionA: functionA }, then the output will be:
a starting
a requires b
b starting
b requires a
b gets a = {}
b done
a gets b = { functionB: [Function: functionB] }
a done
On b, a = {} // same empty object
Actually I ended up requiring my dependency with
var a = null;
process.nextTick(()=>a=require("./a")); //Circular reference!
not pretty, but it works. It is more understandable and honest than changing b.js (for example only augmenting modules.export), which otherwise is perfect as is.
Here is a quick workaround that I've found use full.
On file 'a.js'
let B;
class A{
constructor(){
process.nextTick(()=>{
B = require('./b')
})
}
}
module.exports = new A();
On the file 'b.js' write the following
let A;
class B{
constructor(){
process.nextTick(()=>{
A = require('./a')
})
}
}
module.exports = new B();
This way on the next iteration of the event loop classes will be defined correctly and those require statements will work as expected.
One way to avoid it is to don't require one file in other just pass it as an argument to a function what ever you need in an another file.
By this way circular dependency will never arise.
If you just can't eliminate circular dependencies (e.g useraccount <---> userlogin), there's one more option...
Its as simple as using setTimeout()
//useraccount.js
let UserLogin = {};
setTimeout(()=>UserLogin=require('./userlogin.js'), 10);
class UserAccount{
getLogin(){
return new UserLogin(this.email);
}
}
//userlogin.js
let UserAccount ={};
setTimeout(()=>UserAccount=require('./useraccount.js'), 15);
class UserLogin{
getUser(){
return new User(this.token);
}
}
I want to import a dependency of a dependency. For example, I want to import jade-load directly into my app:
my-app
┗━jade
┗━jade-load
I could do require('jade/node_modules/jade-load'), but this won't work if the node_modules tree has been flattened or deduped.
I thought of using require.resolve() to find out where jade-load really is, but there doesn't seem to be a way to tell it the starting point for the resolution. I need to be able to say "require jade-load from wherever jade is".
NB. I do not want to install jade-load as a direct dependency of my app; the point is to import the same instance that jade uses, so I can monkeypatch it.
I guess you may want to use proxyquire for managing dependencies of required modules. You can set proxyquire to globally override methods of the submodule when it will be loaded.
main.js
var proxyquire = require('proxyquire');
// use default childModule properties and methods unless they are redefined here
var childModuleStub = {
/* redefine here some necessary methods */
'#global': true
};
// parent module itself does't require childModule
var parentModuleStubs = {
'./childModule': childModuleStub
};
var parentModule = proxyquire('./parentModule', parentModuleStubs);
var result;
result = parentModule.exec();
console.log(result);
childModuleStub.data.sentence = "Overridden property.";
result = parentModule.exec();
console.log(result);
childModuleStub._exec = function () {
return "Overridden function.";
};
result = parentModule.exec();
console.log(result);
parentModule.js
var intermediateLibrary = require('./intermediateLibrary');
module.exports = {
exec: function() {
return intermediateLibrary.exec();
}
};
intermediateLibrary.js
var childModule = require('./childModule');
module.exports = {
exec: function() {
return childModule._exec();
}
};
childModule.js
var lib = {};
lib.data = {};
lib.data.sentence = "Hello, World!";
lib._exec = function () {
return lib.data.sentence;
};
module.exports = lib;
Results:
Hello, World!
Overridden property.
Overridden function.
I have been try out many suggestions I found googling for circular dependency in node and requirejs. Unfortunately, I'm not getting it to work. The try which is closed to a solution (I think) is below:
// run.js
var requirejs = require('requirejs');
requirejs.config({
baseUrl: __dirname,
nodeRequire: require
});
requirejs(['A'], function(A) {
var a = new A.Go();
console.log(a.toon())
});
// A.js
define(['B', 'exports'], function(B, exports) {
exports.Go = function() {
var b = new require('B').Ho();
var toon = function() {
return 'me tarzan';
};
return {
b: b,
toon: toon
}
};
});
// B.js
define(['A', 'exports'], function(A, exports) {
exports.Ho = function() {
var a = new require('A').Go();
var show = function() {
return 'you jane';
}
return {
a: a,
show: show
}
};
});
Running this code in node results in a RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded
We the dependency of B is removed from A.js, 'me tarzan' is returned
Any suggestion is appreciated!
Circular references are fine and not necessarily a symptom of bad design. You might argue that having many tiny modules could be equally detrimental because code/logic is scattered.
To avoid the dreaded TypeError: Object #<Object> has no method you need to take some care in how you initialize module.exports. I'm sure something similar applies when using requirejs in node, but I haven't used requirejs in node.
The problem is caused by node having an empty reference for the module. It is easily fixed by assigning a value to the exports before you call require.
function ModuleA() {
}
module.exports = ModuleA; // before you call require the export is initialized
var moduleB = require('./b'); //now b.js can safely include ModuleA
ModuleA.hello = function () {
console.log('hello!');
};
This sample is from https://coderwall.com/p/myzvmg where more info available.
I've been working with nodejs lately and still getting to grips with the module system, so apologies if this is an obvious question. I want code roughly like the below:
a.js (the main file run with node)
var ClassB = require("./b");
var ClassA = function() {
this.thing = new ClassB();
this.property = 5;
}
var a = new ClassA();
module.exports = a;
b.js
var a = require("./a");
var ClassB = function() {
}
ClassB.prototype.doSomethingLater() {
util.log(a.property);
}
module.exports = ClassB;
My problem seems to be that I can't access the instance of ClassA from within an instance of ClassB.
Is there any correct / better way to structure modules to achieve what I want?
Is there a better way to share variables across modules?
Try to set properties on module.exports, instead of replacing it completely. E.g., module.exports.instance = new ClassA() in a.js, module.exports.ClassB = ClassB in b.js. When you make circular module dependencies, the requiring module will get a reference to an incomplete module.exports from the required module, which you can add other properties latter on, but when you set the entire module.exports, you actually create a new object which the requiring module has no way to access.
While node.js does allow circular require dependencies, as you've found it can be pretty messy and you're probably better off restructuring your code to not need it. Maybe create a third class that uses the other two to accomplish what you need.
[EDIT] it's not 2015 and most libraries (i.e. express) have made updates with better patterns so circular dependencies are no longer necessary. I recommend simply not using them.
I know I'm digging up an old answer here...
The issue here is that module.exports is defined after you require ClassB.
(which JohnnyHK's link shows)
Circular dependencies work great in Node, they're just defined synchronously.
When used properly, they actually solve a lot of common node issues (like accessing express.js app from other files)
Just make sure your necessary exports are defined before you require a file with a circular dependency.
This will break:
var ClassA = function(){};
var ClassB = require('classB'); //will require ClassA, which has no exports yet
module.exports = ClassA;
This will work:
var ClassA = module.exports = function(){};
var ClassB = require('classB');
I use this pattern all the time for accessing the express.js app in other files:
var express = require('express');
var app = module.exports = express();
// load in other dependencies, which can now require this file and use app
Sometimes it is really artificial to introduce a third class (as JohnnyHK advises), so in addition to Ianzz:
If you do want to replace the module.exports, for example if you're creating a class (like the b.js file in the above example), this is possible as well, just make sure that in the file that is starting the circular require, the 'module.exports = ...' statement happens before the require statement.
a.js (the main file run with node)
var ClassB = require("./b");
var ClassA = function() {
this.thing = new ClassB();
this.property = 5;
}
var a = new ClassA();
module.exports = a;
b.js
var ClassB = function() {
}
ClassB.prototype.doSomethingLater() {
util.log(a.property);
}
module.exports = ClassB;
var a = require("./a"); // <------ this is the only necessary change
The solution is to 'forward declare' your exports object before requiring any other controller. So if you structure all your modules like this and you won't run into any issues like that:
// Module exports forward declaration:
module.exports = {
};
// Controllers:
var other_module = require('./other_module');
// Functions:
var foo = function () {
};
// Module exports injects:
module.exports.foo = foo;
What about lazy requiring only when you need to? So your b.js looks as follows
var ClassB = function() {
}
ClassB.prototype.doSomethingLater() {
var a = require("./a"); //a.js has finished by now
util.log(a.property);
}
module.exports = ClassB;
Of course it is good practice to put all require statements on top of the file. But there are occasions, where I forgive myself for picking something out of an otherwise unrelated module. Call it a hack, but sometimes this is better than introducing a further dependency, or adding an extra module or adding new structures (EventEmitter, etc)
You can solve this easily: just export your data before you require anything else in modules where you use module.exports:
classA.js
class ClassA {
constructor(){
ClassB.someMethod();
ClassB.anotherMethod();
};
static someMethod () {
console.log( 'Class A Doing someMethod' );
};
static anotherMethod () {
console.log( 'Class A Doing anotherMethod' );
};
};
module.exports = ClassA;
var ClassB = require( "./classB.js" );
let classX = new ClassA();
classB.js
class ClassB {
constructor(){
ClassA.someMethod();
ClassA.anotherMethod();
};
static someMethod () {
console.log( 'Class B Doing someMethod' );
};
static anotherMethod () {
console.log( 'Class A Doing anotherMethod' );
};
};
module.exports = ClassB;
var ClassA = require( "./classA.js" );
let classX = new ClassB();
A solution which require minimal change is extending module.exports instead of overriding it.
a.js - app entry point and module which use method do from b.js*
_ = require('underscore'); //underscore provides extend() for shallow extend
b = require('./b'); //module `a` uses module `b`
_.extend(module.exports, {
do: function () {
console.log('doing a');
}
});
b.do();//call `b.do()` which in turn will circularly call `a.do()`
b.js - module which use method do from a.js
_ = require('underscore');
a = require('./a');
_.extend(module.exports, {
do: function(){
console.log('doing b');
a.do();//Call `b.do()` from `a.do()` when `a` just initalized
}
})
It will work and produce:
doing b
doing a
While this code will not work:
a.js
b = require('./b');
module.exports = {
do: function () {
console.log('doing a');
}
};
b.do();
b.js
a = require('./a');
module.exports = {
do: function () {
console.log('doing b');
}
};
a.do();
Output:
node a.js
b.js:7
a.do();
^
TypeError: a.do is not a function
The important thing is not to re-assign the module.exports object that you have been given, because that object may have already been given to other modules in the cycle! Just assign properties inside module.exports and other modules will see them appear.
So a simple solution is:
module.exports.firstMember = ___;
module.exports.secondMember = ___;
The only real downside is the need to repeat module.exports. many times.
Similar to lanzz and setec's answers, I have been using the following pattern, which feels more declarative:
module.exports = Object.assign(module.exports, {
firstMember: ___,
secondMember: ___,
});
The Object.assign() copies the members into the exports object that has already been given to other modules.
The = assignment is logically redundant, since it is just setting module.exports to itself, but I am using it because it helps my IDE (WebStorm) to recognise that firstMember is a property of this module, so "Go To -> Declaration" (Cmd-B) and other tooling will work from other files.
This pattern is not very pretty, so I only use it when a cyclic dependency issue needs to be resolved.
It is fairly well suited to the reveal pattern, because you can easily add and remove exports from the object, especially when using ES6's property shorthand.
Object.assign(module.exports, {
firstMember,
//secondMember,
});
the extremely simple solution is often:
usually you'd have the require at the top of the file ...
var script = require('./script')
function stuff() {
script.farfunction()
}
instead, just require it "in the function"
function stuff() {
var _script = require('./script')
_script.farfunction()
}
An other method I've seen people do is exporting at the first line and saving it as a local variable like this:
let self = module.exports = {};
const a = require('./a');
// Exporting the necessary functions
self.func = function() { ... }
I tend to use this method, do you know about any downsides of it?
TL;DR
Just use exports.someMember = someMember instead of module.exports = { // new object }.
Extended Answer
After reading lanzz's response I could finally figure it out what is happening here, so I'll give my two cents on the subject, extending his answer.
Let's see this example:
a.js
console.log("a starting");
console.log("a requires b");
const b = require("./b");
console.log("a gets b =", b);
function functionA() {
console.log("function a");
}
console.log("a done");
exports.functionA = functionA;
b.js
console.log("b starting");
console.log("b requires a");
const a = require("./a");
console.log("b gets a =", a);
function functionB() {
console.log("On b, a =", a)
}
console.log("b done");
exports.functionB = functionB;
main.js
const a = require("./a");
const b = require("./b");
b.functionB()
Output
a starting
a requires b
b starting
b requires a
b gets a = {}
b done
a gets b = { functionB: [Function: functionB] }
a done
On b, a = { functionA: [Function: functionA] }
Here we can see that at first b receives an empty object as a, and then once a is fully loaded, that reference is updated through exports.functionA = functionA. If you instead replace the entire module with another object, through module.exports, then b will lose the reference from a, since it will point out to the same empty object from the beginning, instead of pointing to the new one.
So if you export a like this: module.exports = { functionA: functionA }, then the output will be:
a starting
a requires b
b starting
b requires a
b gets a = {}
b done
a gets b = { functionB: [Function: functionB] }
a done
On b, a = {} // same empty object
Actually I ended up requiring my dependency with
var a = null;
process.nextTick(()=>a=require("./a")); //Circular reference!
not pretty, but it works. It is more understandable and honest than changing b.js (for example only augmenting modules.export), which otherwise is perfect as is.
Here is a quick workaround that I've found use full.
On file 'a.js'
let B;
class A{
constructor(){
process.nextTick(()=>{
B = require('./b')
})
}
}
module.exports = new A();
On the file 'b.js' write the following
let A;
class B{
constructor(){
process.nextTick(()=>{
A = require('./a')
})
}
}
module.exports = new B();
This way on the next iteration of the event loop classes will be defined correctly and those require statements will work as expected.
One way to avoid it is to don't require one file in other just pass it as an argument to a function what ever you need in an another file.
By this way circular dependency will never arise.
If you just can't eliminate circular dependencies (e.g useraccount <---> userlogin), there's one more option...
Its as simple as using setTimeout()
//useraccount.js
let UserLogin = {};
setTimeout(()=>UserLogin=require('./userlogin.js'), 10);
class UserAccount{
getLogin(){
return new UserLogin(this.email);
}
}
//userlogin.js
let UserAccount ={};
setTimeout(()=>UserAccount=require('./useraccount.js'), 15);
class UserLogin{
getUser(){
return new User(this.token);
}
}