I don't know whether all coffeescript compilers wrap their scripts in anonymous functions, but that's what I see Rails doing. How can I disable this encapsulation?
I want to put several initializing functions in a single coffeescript file, then call one of them from an on-page <script> tag (so that each page calls a different initializer). This can't be if the initializing functions are encapsulated.
Coffeescript initializer functions:
initializerA = -> console.log 'foo'
initializerB = -> console.log 'bar'
On-page code:
<script>$(document).ready(initializerA)</script>
Sys: coffee-rails 3.2.1, Rails 3.2.3, Ruby 1.9.3
Coffeescript documentation says that all script will be wrapped in an anonymous function for the sake of encapsulation/safety. To make something accessible within the global scope do the following:
window.myvar = myvar
You can put several into a single file by doing something like this:
((Demo, $, undefined_) ->
Demo.utils = Demo.utils or {}
Demo.utils.bacon = (->
alert("bacon called")
)()
Demo.utils.eggs = (->
alert("eggs called")
)()
) window.Demo = window.Demo or {}, jQuery
Then in your page just call the appropriate method:
Demo.utils.bacon();
A good explanation of this pattern can be found here.
Related
I have a Spock class, that when run as a test suite, throws Unable to resolve iconRow as content for geb.Page, or as a property on its Navigator context. Is iconRow a class you forgot to import? unless I annotate my class with #Stepwise. However, I really don't want the test execution to stop on the first failure, which #Stepwise does.
I've tried writing (copy and pasting) my own extension using this post, but I still get these errors. It is using my extension, as I added some logging statements that were printed out to the console.
Here is one of my modules:
class IconRow extends Module {
static content = {
iconRow (required: false) {$("div.report-toolbar")}
}
}
And a page that uses it:
class Report extends SomeOtherPage {
static at = {$("div.grid-container").displayed}
static content = {
iconRow { module IconRow }
}
}
And a snippet of the test that is failing:
class MyFailingTest extends GebReportingSpec {
def setupSpec() {
via Dashboard
SomeClass.login("SourMonk", "myPassword")
assert page instanceof Dashboard
nav.goToReport("Some report name")
assert page instanceof Report
}
#Unroll
def "I work"() {
given:
at Report
expect:
this == that
where:
this << ["some list", "of values"]
that << anotherModule.someContent*.#id
}
#Unroll
def "I don't work"() {
given:
at Report
expect:
this == that
where:
this << ["some other", "list", "of values"]
that << iconRow.columnHeaders*.attr("innerText")*.toUpperCase()
}
}
When executed as a suite I work passes and I don't work fails because it cannot identify "iconRow" as content for the page. If I switch the order of the test cases, I don't work will pass and I work will fail. Alternatively, if I execute each test separately, they both pass.
What I have tried:
Adding/removing the required: true property from content in the modules
Prefixing the module name with the class, such as IconRow.iconRow
Defining my modules as static #Shared properties
Initialize the modules both in and outside of my setupSpec()
Making simple getter methods in each module's class that return the module, and referencing content such as IconRow.getIconRow().columnHeaders*.attr("innerText")*.toUpperCase()
Moving the contents of my setupSpec() into setup()
Adding autoClearCookies = false into my GebConfig.groovy
Making a #Shared Report report variable and prefix all modules with that such as report.iconRow
Very peculiar note about that last bullet point -- it magically resolves the modules that don't have the prefix -- so it won't resolve report.IconRow but will resolve just iconRow -- absolutely bizarre, because if I remove that variable the module that was just previously working suddenly can't be resolved again. I even tried declaring this variable and then not prefixing anything, and that did not work either.
Another problem that I keep banging my head against the wall with is that I'm also not sure of where the problem is. The error it throws leads me to believe that it's a project setup issue, but running each feature individually works fine, so it appears to be resolving the classes just fine.
On the other hand, perhaps it's an issue with the session and/or cookies? Although I have yet to see any official documentation on this, it seems to be the general consensus (from other posts and articles I've read) that only using #Stepwise will maintain your session between feature methods. If this is the case, why is my extension not working? It's pretty much a copy and paste of #Stepwise without the skipFeaturesAfterFirstFailingFeature method (I can post if needed), unless there is some other stuff going on behind the scenes with #Stepwise.
Apologies for the wall of text, but I've been trying to figure this out for about 6 hours now, so my brain is pretty fried.
Geb has special support for #Stepwise, if a spec is annotated with it it does not call resetBrowser() after each test, instead it is called after the spec is completed. See the code on github
So basically you need to change your setupSpec to setup so that it will be executed before each test.
Regarding your observation, if you just run a focused test the setupSpec is executed for that test and thus it passes. The problem arises, that the cleanup is invoked afterwards and resets the browser, breaking subsequent tests.
EDIT
I overlooked your usage of where blocks, everything in the where block needs to be statically (#Shared) available, so using instance level constructs won't work. Resetting the browser will also kill every reference so just getting it before wont work either. Basically, don't use Geb objects in where blocks!
Looking at your code however I don't see any reason to use data driven tests here.
This can be easily done with one assertion in a normal test
It is good practice for unit tests to just test one thing. Geb however, is not an unit test but an acceptance/frontend test. The problem here is that they are way slower than unit tests and it makes sense to combine sensible assertions into one test.
class MyFailingTest extends GebReportingSpec {
def setup() {
via Dashboard
SomeClass.login("SourMonk", "myPassword")
assert page instanceof Dashboard
nav.goToReport("Some report name")
assert page instanceof Report
}
def "I work"() {
given:
at Report
expect:
["some list", "of values"] == anotherModule.someContent*.#id
}
def "I don't work"() {
given:
at Report
expect:
["some other", "list", "of values"] == iconRow.columnHeaders*.attr("innerText")*.toUpperCase()
}
}
I know you're not supposed to do this, but I'm trying to write some tests with legacy code still using requirejs that have a few window variables floating around.
Basically I'm trying to write a mocha test and include some predefined global variables that a different file would use later. I'm trying to do the following, but it seems the global variable "container" isn't populated when accessing it later.
global.document = require('jsdom').jsdom('<html></html>');
global.window = document.defaultView;
global.$ = require('jquery')(window);
// this should be available everywhere as far as I can tell...
global.container= {};
global.window.container= global.container;
// legacy scripts still using requirejs, so we need to load the require config here
var requirejs = require('testing-setup').requirejs;
// chai is nice
require('chai').should();
describe('model tests', function () {
var model;
// before we begin the tests, we need to require in all the necessary modules
before(function (done) {
window.container= {
dateFormat: false
};
requirejs(['Model', 'common', 'date'], function (Model) {
// load some dummy data out of a file
model= new Model(require('./test-data.js').item);
done();
});
});
// run some more tests down here, I'll spare you those
});
The script being loaded called "common" above has a reference to the global "container" object that lives on the window. Apparently what I have is not correct. Is there no way to set up a shared global variable in jsdom? I know it's not the standard way of doing things, so please spare the lectures. Refactoring all that legacy code right now is not really a feasible option.
Ah, it turns out this is the correct way of doing it. It appears the jsdom/nodejs differentiate the difference between window and global. If you want something to be available everywhere in every file in that session, it needs to be on the global namespace. The window is explicitly window.
I was hoping I could get some input on how to use Knockout components in an object-oriented fashion using Object.create (or equivalent). I'm also using Postbox and Lodash, in case some of my code seems confusing. I've currently built a bunch of components and would like to refactor them to reduce code redundancy. My components, so far, are just UI elements. I have custom input boxes and such. My initial approach was as follows, with some discretion taken to simplify the code and not get me fired :)
// Component.js
function Component() {
var self = this
self.value = ko.observable()
self.initial = ko.observable()
...
self.value.subscribeTo('revert', function() {
console.log('value reverted')
self.value(self.initial())
}
}
module.exports = Component
// InputBox.js
var Component = require('./Component')
var _ = require('lodash')
function InputBox(params) {
var self = this
_.merge(self, params) // quick way to attach passed in params to 'self'
...
}
InputBox.prototype = Object.create(new Component)
ko.components.register('input-box', InputBox)
Now this kind of works, but the issue I'm having is that when I use the InputBox in my HTML, I pass in the current value as a parameter (and it's also an observable because the value is retrieved from the server and passed down through several parent components before getting to the InputBox component). Then Lodash merges the params object with self, which already has a value observable, so that gets overwritten, as expected. The interesting part for me is that when I use postbox to broadcast the 'revert' event, the console.log fires, so the event subscription is still there, but the value doesn't revert. When I do this in the revert callback, console.log(self.value(), self.initial()), I get undefined. So somehow, passing in the value observable as a parameter to the InputBox viewmodel causes something to go haywire. When the page initially loads, the input box has the value retrieved from the server, so the value observable isn't completely broken, but changing the input field and then hitting cancel to revert it doesn't revert it.
I don't know if this makes much sense, but if it does and someone can help, I'd really appreciate it! And if I can provide more information, please let me know. Thanks!
JavaScript does not do classical inheritance like C++ and such. Prototypes are not superclasses. In particular, properties of prototypes are more like static class properties than instance properties: they are shared by all instances. It is usual in JS to have prototypes that only contain methods.
There are some libraries that overlay a classical-inheritance structure onto JavaScript. They usually use "extends" to create subclasses. I don't use them, so I can't recommmend any in particular, but you might look at Coffeescript if you like the classical-inheritance pattern.
I often hear "favor composition over inheritance," but I generally see a lot of emphasis on inheritance. As an alternative, consider Douglas Crockford's "class-free object-oriented programming", which does away with inheritance entirely.
For what you're trying to do here, you probably want to have InputBox initialize itself with Component, something like:
function InputBox(params) {
var self = this
Component.bind(self)(); // super()
_.merge(self, params) // quick way to attach passed in params to 'self'
...
}
The new, merged, value will not have the subscription from Component, because the subscription is particular to Component's instance of the observable, which will have been overwritten.
To everyone who responded, thank you very much! I've found a solution that works better for me and will share it here in case anyone is interested.
// Component.js (only relevant parts shown)
function Component(params) {
var self = this
_.merge(self, params)
self.value.subscribeTo('some event', function() {
// do some processing
return <new value for self.value>
}
module.exports = Component
// InputBox.js
var Component = require('./component')
function InputBox(params) {
var self = this
Component.call(self, params)
}
By taking this approach, I avoid the headache of using prototypes and worrying about the prototype chain since everything Component does is done directly to the "inheriting" class. Hope this helps someone else!
[I'm a YUI newbie]
I'm writing a Chrome extension that needs to change the contents of a web page created using the YUI3 framework.
I've identified that the extension, which injects javascript that runs in the page after it is loaded, must call a function that was previously defined in a YUI.add() call.
The original YUI code that runs is something like this:
YUI.add("uuu", function (c) {
...
c.theObject = niceStuff;
}
...
YUI().use("uuu", function (c) {
c.theObject.doSomething();
}
Is it possible that after this code runs, I can access a function of c.theObject?
(I understand this might go against YUI3's nice sandbox mechanism, but it's what I need to get the job done here).
You might have problems because any time a YUI() instance is created, it builds you a new sandbox. With a few exceptions, YUI modules are completely boxed by their sandbox context. For example:
YUI().use('node', function(Y1) {
YUI().use('node', function(Y2) {
assert(Y1.Node === Y2.Node) // fails!
});
});
It's very possible that you may not be able to access the specific instance of theObject that you need, if it's never assigned to a variable outside the sandbox function scope. If any instance of theObject will do, you can just call into the YUI API and get your own version to play with.
This works for me: http://jsfiddle.net/sMAQx/1/
One way to do it is to capture the YUI() instance after you 'use' it. Like this:
YUI().add("uuu", function (c) {
c.theObject = 'foo';
})
var yInstance = YUI().use("uuu", function (c) {
c.theObject = 'booyaa';
})
yInstance.use('uuu',function(c){
console.log(c.theObject)
})
// booyaa
I'm doing an experiment with wxWebConnect test application, incorporating the xpcom tutorial at "http://nerdlife.net/building-a-c-xpcom-component-in-windows/"
I adapt MyComponent class as necessary to compile together with testapp.exe (not as separate dll), and on MyApp::OnInit I have the following lines:
ns_smartptr<nsIComponentRegistrar> comp_reg;
res = NS_GetComponentRegistrar(&comp_reg.p);
if (NS_FAILED(res))
return false;
ns_smartptr<nsIFactory> prompt_factory;
CreateMyComponentFactory(&prompt_factory.p);
nsCID prompt_cid = MYCOMPONENT_CID;
res = comp_reg->RegisterFactory(prompt_cid,
"MyComponent",
"#mozilla.org/mycomp;1",
prompt_factory);
Those lines are copied from GeckoEngine::Init(), using the same mechanism to register PromptService, etc. The code compiles well and testapp.exe is running as expected.
I put javascript test as below :
try {
netscape.security.PrivilegeManager.enablePrivilege("UniversalXPConnect");
const cid = "#mozilla.org/mycomp;1";
obj = Components.classes[cid].createInstance();
alert(typeof obj);
// bind the instance we just created to our interface
alert(Components.interfaces.nsIMyComponent);
obj = obj.QueryInterface(Components.interfaces.nsIMyComponent);
} catch (err) {
alert(err);
return;
}
and get the following exception:
Could not convert JavaScript argument arg 0 [nsISupport.QueryInterface]
The first alert says "object", so the line
Components.classes[cid].createInstance()
is returning the created instance.
The second alert says "undefined", so the interface nsIMyComponent is not recognized by XULRunner.
How to dynamically registering nsIMyComponent interface in wxWebConnect environment ?
Thx
I'm not sure what is happening here. The first thing I would check is that your component is scriptable (I assume it is, since the demo you copy from is). The next thing I would check is whether you can instantiate other, standard XULRunner components and get their interface (try something like "alert('Components.interfaces.nsIFile');" - at least in my version of wxWebConnect this shows an alert box with string "nsIFile".
Also, I think it would be worth checking the Error Console to make sure there are no errors or warnings reported. A magic string to do that (in Javascript) is:
window.open('chrome://global/content/console.xul', '', 'chrome,dialog=no,toolbar,resizable');