How to access a component bound to a property in QML - qml

It's come up several times that I have wanted to access a property of a component which is bound to another property. I've spent days trying to figure out how to do this and failed. Below is a simple example of what I'm trying to do.
TabView {
Component.onCompleted: console.log(style.frameOverlap)
// OR tvStyle.frameOverlap
style: TabViewStyle {
id: tvStyle
frameOverlap: 5
}
}
Nothing like this works. I'm completely baffled about how to access these members either statically or as an instance. Can someone please explain to me whether something like this is possible?
Thanks.

The short answer is that you need to write:
Component.onCompleted: console.log(__styleItem.frameOverlap)
The longer answer is that the 'style' property is a Component. Component is something that remembers a tree of declarations, and can create objects as needed. However, it does not expose that remembered declaration, so when you try to access the frameOverlap property, it's not there.
In theory, you can call style.createObject to create an object, and examine its properties, but that would create another unnecessary instance, so you can look at TabView.qml, notice that it creates an instance already using Loader, and stores that in a property called __styleItem, and so use the code I gave above.
Of course, accessing internal properties is not a particularly good idea, but might be OK in practice. Ideally, one should be able to instantiate TabViewStyle and bind the instance to the style property, with TabView figuring out whether it's Component or object, but I'm not sure it's possible.

Related

(in Vue) How to update props has reference types in child component without affecting main component?

I am trying to create sub components under a main component and sending props from main to sub components. I would like to have possibility if user makes changes on sub component it will not affect main component. I mean one way binding.
to see full repository https://github.com/saidakyuz/test-vue-props-wih-cypress
As a solution SubComp3 returns individual element of reference types, but I would like to have possibility to return full array or object in case I need to use it.
Can someone help me to find out a solution?
I found a good way copying reference objects without it's reference connection. So that main component won't be affected from changes on child component.
Changes I made(shallow);
from:
var cObjectString=this.pObjectString
to:
var cObjectString={...this.pObjectString}
But shallow doesn't work for array object. For that I have used deepclone as following;
from:
var cObjectArray =this.pObjectArray
to:
var cObjectArray = cloneDeep(this.pObjectArray)
In this article you can get more information about shallow or deep clone reference types

Reacting to changes within observed object's unobserved properties

I have an external library with TypeScript class instances in observed variable of my app's store:
class Store:
#observable active_obj:ExternalClass;
This instance has a method which, when called, updates its internal state leaving the object as is:
store.active_obj.change()
Now, since Mobx is not observing this object itself nor its (I assume) properties, only changes happening directly on the field active_obj (like new value assigned to it). Since instances of MyClass are provided by external library and ultimately get rendered inside this library's components I can't add observables and observers to its class structure nor React components. Mind you, this is only what I think is the reason that changing the object's properties doesn't trigger re-render...
I had to cheat a bit by using other, observed variable I change directly with nonsense data at the same time I'm calling to unobserved instance for change. Adding references to this variable on components higher up the tree, I can trigger re-render that produces updates on the (unobserving) components of the external library.
My question is, how best to make Mobx aware of change so it can notify observers of store.active_obj instance?
I think this part of Mobx documentation warns about this, but there's no workarounds or solutions for it:
** If likes where objects instead of strings, and if they were rendered by their own Like component, the Likes component would not rerender for changes happening inside a specific like.
from here, at end of the page
Edit
As per #mweststrate's question, I provide some context:
My app controls its data, but it has to create external class' instances from that
Instance's data is encapsulated and mutated in place, but it's done by asking from my app's side through user triggered events (meaning, I know when data is updated)
Basically class uses app's data to provide different views into data based on user selection and renders it with its React components
I also use this changed data elsewhere in the app in components I control
Changed data is part of external class' internals and I can't depend on it
Since Mobx tracks mutations it can see, using Observable doesn't directly work
Some possible solutions I thought:
manually notify observers that observable active_object has changed when I have called the instance it references to change
have a container object that Mobx can track and when I change its sentinel property, that update is noticed and actual instance with it

Angular 2 access component variable from service, that is bound to another service, which is bound to component

Question is simple: how do I access variable from a service without passing down that components variable through function itself?
I don't want to pass it through function, because I want to access the variable located in AppComponent called thingies from tabs.service BUT called from sitetree.service. Function f_in_sitetreeService is gona be called somewhere at some time, dynamically (in plunker I call it from appcomponent, but in reality it will be from another place).
In other words, I have a service which is calling another service function, which in turn accesses it's components variable.
What I want:
In tabs.service I commented out 2 lines, which pushes a new thingy, and then logs the array. Commented them out because I don't know how to correctly declare/access that components array there, and that's what I need to know.
Plunker:
http://plnkr.co/edit/rFSW1UXz7Gw1rMXlD2Md?p=preview
I'm not sure I understand your question, but I'll try answering...
It sounds like you want TabsService to manipulate a property defined on some component (in your example, the AppComponent). First comment: this is likely not a good approach. Normally services should own application data, not components.
However, if you really need/want to do that, you have to somehow pass a reference to the array to your service, say in ngOnInit in the AppComponent:
ngOnInit() {
this.tabsService.setArrayReference(this.thingies);
}
Then in TabsService:
setArrayReference(ref) { this.thingies = ref; }
Since we're dealing with a JavaScript reference type, both the AppComponent and the TabsService will now both reference the same/one array.
Now you can access and manipulate the array from the AppComponent and the TabsService.
Updated plunker.

Is it possible to HIDE Javascript Object's prototype! What's the MYSTERY behind this?

I'm using openui5. There is a constructor Function for UI control Button,unable to see the prototype properties of the Button but the same thing when executed in browser console, shows up!
sap.m.Button.prototype.Move = function(){
console.log('Move');
}
var oButton = new sap.m.Button({text:"Hello"});
oButton.Move(); // throws undefined function!
The same code when executed browser in console, it works!
jsbin --> http://jsbin.com/tepum/1/edit
After running the code I find that creating the first instance of sap.m.Button causes script to change the prototype of sap.m.Button. It's valid in JavaScript but not very smart if you ask me.
A first creation causes a synchronous request (no no as well) to fetch library-parameters.json.
If you run the code the second time it will have prototype.move because creating an instance of Button will not change the Button.prototype.
The capital M in Move would suggest a constructor function so I would advice changing it to lower case.
Since fetching the parameters is synchronous you can create the first instance and then set the prototype:
console.log("First Button creation changes Button.prototype");
var oButton = new sap.m.Button({text:"Hello"});
sap.m.Button.prototype.move = function(){
console.log('Move');
}
oButton.placeAt('content');
oButton.move(); // logs Move
My guess is that this is done to lazy load controls, if a Button is never created then the json config files are never loaded for these unused controls. It has a couple of drawbacks though.
You have to create an instance first before you can set the prototype.
The config files are synchronously loaded so when creating first instance of many controls with a slow connection would cause the app to be unresponsive.
A better way would be for a factory function to return a promise so you create the control the same way every time and the config files can be fetched asynchronously.
[update]
Looking at the config it seems to be config for the whole gui library so I can't see any reason why this is loaded only after creating a first instance. A library that changes it's object definitions when creating instances is not very easy to extend because it's unpredictable. If it only changes prototype on first creation then it should be fine but it looks like the makers of the library didn't want people to extend it or they would not make the object definition unpredictable. If there is an api documentation available then maybe try to check that.
[update]
It seems the "correct" way to extend controls is to use extend.
#HMR is right the correct way to extend a control is by using the extend function provided by UI5 managed objects, see http://jsbin.com/linob/1/edit
in the example below when debugging as mentoned by others you will notice that the control is lazy loaded when required, any changes you make prior are lost when loaded
jQuery.sap.declare("my.Button");
jQuery.sap.require("sap.m.Button");
sap.m.Button.extend("my.Button", {
renderer: {}
});
my.Button.prototype.Move = function() {
console.log('Move');
};
var oButton = new my.Button({
text: "Hello"
});
oButton.placeAt('content');
oButton.Move();
It's not hiding the prototype per se. If a constructor function exits normally then you get that function's prototype. But, if a constructor function actually returns some other object then you get that other object's prototype, so it's not valid to assume that just because you added to the Button prototype that when you call new Button() that you will see your method on whatever you get back. I'm sure if you de-obfuscate that code you'll find that the constructor you are calling has a "return new SomeOtherInstanceOfButton()" or similar at the end of it.
Edit: Ok it's a bit difficult to see what's really going on in that sap code but, it looks like they have code that overwrites the prototypes of controls to add features to them, such as: sap.ui.core.EnabledPropagator, and those things aren't run until you actually instantiate a button. So if you change your code to instantiate the button on the page, then add to it's prototype, then construct and call the method, it works fine. Like so:
http://jsbin.com/benajuko/2/edit
So I guess my answer is, when you run it from console it's finished mucking around with that prototype, whereas in your test you were adding to the prototype, then constructing the button for the first time (which changes the prototype again) then trying to call your old one, which is no longer there.

Extjs configoptions vs properties

A Java class has properties and methods for manipulating those properties. An ExtJS class has properties, methods and configOptions.
Conceptually, what is the difference between configOptions and properties? Why we need both?
As per my understanding…
configs - are passed in the constructor, which defines behavior of the class, configs should not be changed at run-time because it will not have any effect, suppose you need to specify a title for the panel then you can add a config e.g. { title : 'some title' } that will be used by panel to set title of the panel at render time, but after that, even if you try to change title, you can't alter the property by simply changing that config option.
properties - are used to store information which is useful for that class, this is normally not passed through constructor but should have getter and setter methods, you can change property at run-time (if setter method is defined) and class object should detect this change, there can be read only properties also which are modified by class object only we shouldn't change it all.
More Info
Sencha: Properties vs Configs, in the Ext 4 Documentation
My answer to this question is a little simplistic and idealistic. I'm afraid trying to give a full answer that covers all the subtleties is more likely to add to the confusion rather than clarifying the situation.
Config options are used to configure an object when it is created. Trying to set them as properties on the object after it has been instantiated will often have no effect.
Ext.create('Ext.panel.Panel', {
// config options go here
});
An object will have lots of properties but only the ones listed in the Properties section should be considered public properties. While there's nothing to stop you accessing the private properties you should only do it as a last resort, try to use the documented methods to manipulate them instead where possible.
// rendered is a public property used to indicate whether the panel has been rendered
if (panel.rendered) {
// could just do panel.el but that isn't a public property, so use getEl instead
var el = panel.getEl();
...
}
One reason why the lines get blurred is that objects generally copy their configs onto themselves like this:
Ext.apply(this, config);
This results in all the config options becoming private properties, at least initially. Internally classes can then manipulate those properties as appropriate but externally accessing those properties is a breach of encapsulation and should be avoided.