I'm currently developing two different React applications which use Deck.GL to render two maps, each with a different type of layer.
When using them as standalone they both work perfectly, however, when the two get mounted in the same parent application, the second map I visit crashes (due to loading the library two times or so it seems).
Given that, I added Deck.GL to Webpack externals of both applications and added an unpkg link to the parent application. However, this gives an "Unable to resolve 'h3'" error, so I also put h3-js in externals but it keeps searching for it on Deck.GL javascript.
My next step was to import from the #deck.gl/core, #deck.gl/react, #deck.gl/layers, etc instead and only load what is needed, but I got a similar error as it was searching for 'luma' in #deck.gl/layers.
So, how do I correctly define Deck.GL as a Webpack external?
Edit:
The error I get when adding deck.gl to externals:
Unable to resolve bare specifier "h3" from https://unpkg.com/deck.gl#7.3.6/dist.min.js
The errors when I navigate to the second map which uses different layers:
It seems this error is launched when using Angular routing to navigate through the page, if I use simple <a href> they work perfectly because it reloads the whole page and doesn't load two instances of the library.
The problem was caused by incorrect webpack externals configurations and mistakes selecting what bundles to import from unpkg/jsdelivr. If anyone runs into the same problem just look at Deck's own website:
config.externals = {
'highlight.js': 'hljs',
'h3-js': 'h3',
'deck.gl': 'deck',
'#deck.gl/aggregation-layers': 'deck',
'#deck.gl/core': 'deck',
'#deck.gl/extensions': 'deck',
'#deck.gl/geo-layers': 'deck',
'#deck.gl/layers': 'deck',
'#deck.gl/mesh-layers': 'deck',
'#loaders.gl/core': 'loaders',
'#luma.gl/core': 'luma',
'mapbox-gl': 'mapboxgl'
};
https://github.com/uber/deck.gl/blob/94bad4bb209a5da0686fb03f107e86b18199c108/website/webpack.config.js#L128-L141
<script src='https://api.tiles.mapbox.com/mapbox-gl-js/v1.3.1/mapbox-gl.js'></script>
<script src="https://unpkg.com/h3-js"></script>
<script src="https://bundle.run/s2-geometry#1.2.10"></script>
<script src="https://unpkg.com/deck.gl#^8.0.0/dist.min.js"></script>
https://github.com/uber/deck.gl/blob/94bad4bb209a5da0686fb03f107e86b18199c108/website/src/static/index-prod.html#L17-L19
Related
I have a project made with react and rest api(php+mysql).I have to put it through a codeceptjs test.The app is working properly with countless of manual testing, and as far as I can see, the codeceptjs test is working too, but it gives the following error:
Error: Clickable element "ADD" was not found by text|CSS|XPath
at new ElementNotFound (node_modules/codeceptjs/lib/helper/errors/ElementNotFound.js:14:11)
at assertElementExists (node_modules/codeceptjs/lib/helper/WebDriver.js:2835:11)
at WebDriver.click (node_modules/codeceptjs/lib/helper/WebDriver.js:917:7)
at processTicksAndRejections (internal/process/task_queues.js:97:5)I }) => {
I.amOnPage('/');
I.click('ADD');
I.seeElement('#product_form');
I.fillField('#sku', 'SKUTest000');
I.fillField('#name', 'NameTest000');
I.fillField('#price', '25');
I.waitForElement('#productType');
I.selectOption('#productType','DVD');
I.waitForElement('#size');
I.fillField('#size','200');
I.click('Save');
My add element looks like this:
<Link title="ADD" to="/add-product">ADD</Link>
Can someone please help me out why is this error appearing and how can I solve it? Thanks in advance!
Update:
I did a couple more tests, and I noticed that sometimes it gives back less/different errors depending on the test's time. For example:
http://165.227.98.170/open?testName=ed
http://165.227.98.170/open?testName=ah
http://165.227.98.170/open?testName=bc
My guess is that is has to do with how react loads in the html elements and manages the rest api calls. How/what should I change in the app to accomodate the test script?
Seems like the problem was I put the whole home page's load after the rest api call by accident.
My reactjs app consists of a bunch of typescript files with a clean separation of GUI and model. The webworker needs most of model files, so maybe half of all files. I could imagine loading the webworker from exactly the same URL as the app as the model does reference neither the GUI nor React nor other unavailable stuff (At least, it shouldn't, and if so, it'd easy to clean it up).
There seem to be some problems:
finding the correct javascript files
injecting proper start up code into them
and probably others I haven't thought about yet.
The communication to the webworker is not a problem as all I need is a single async call passing and receiving some simple data.
There may be more issues like e.g., https://github.com/microsoft/TypeScript/issues/20595.
Before I learnt what I really need, I tried e.g., ttps://www.npmjs.com/package/#koale/useworker, which is nice, but seems to be able to deal with plain javascript dependencies only.
Finding the correct javascript files
What I can see in index.html is
<script src="/myapp/static/js/bundle.js"></script>
<script src="/myapp/static/js/0.chunk.js"></script>
<script src="/myapp/static/js/main.chunk.js"></script>
<script src="/myapp/main.4e45e2b4b645351b7733.hot-update.js"></script>
I guess, I could live without hot updates, however the names of the other three files change in production to something like "/myapp/static/js/2.28cf00cf.chunk.js".
Injecting proper start up code into them
When the worker loads, it executes some webpack code generated code which most probably crashes it. I'd need to avoid it somehow.
The questions
Is this doable at all?
Does it make sense or is there a better approach?
For a seamless integration of worker code with main-thread code, I recommend using comlink-loader. For example, if you have a main.ts file and a thingy.worker.ts file, you could seamlessly load it as a worker by using TS imports:
// main.ts
import { getThing } from "./thingy.worker.ts"; // make sure the file name ends with .worker.ts
async function test() {
console.log(`the thingy is: ${await getThing()}`);
}
// thingy.worker.ts
export async function getThing() {
return 3;
}
You'll need to add it to your webpack config like this:
// webpack.config.js
module.exports = {
module: {
rules: [
{
test: /\.worker\.(js|ts)$/i,
use: [{
loader: 'comlink-loader',
options: {
singleton: true
}
}]
}
]
}
}
The best part is that your editor's intellisense will work across modules and type safety will not be compromised. More documentation is available here.
You need to compile a separate js file for your WebWorker. There is a React lib called react-webworker that makes this easier for you. It in turn uses WebPack’s worker-plugin.
I'm getting this error when I browse my webapp for the first time (usually in a browser with disabled cache).
Error: Mismatched anonymous define() module: function (require) {
HTML:
<html>
.
.
.
<script src="//ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.8.0/jquery.min.js"></script>
<script> var require = { urlArgs: "v=0.4.1.32" }; </script>
<script data-main="assets/js/main" src="assets/js/libs/require.js"></script>
<script src="assets/js/ace/ace.js?v=0.4.1.32"></script>
</body>
</html>
JS:
$(function () {
define(function (require) {
// do something
});
});
Anyone know exactly what this error means and why its happening?
source file, a short discussion about it in the github issues page
Like AlienWebguy said, per the docs, require.js can blow up if
You have an anonymous define ("modules that call define() with no string ID") in its own script tag (I assume actually they mean anywhere in global scope)
You have modules that have conflicting names
You use loader plugins or anonymous modules but don't use require.js's optimizer to bundle them
I had this problem while including bundles built with browserify alongside require.js modules. The solution was to either:
A. load the non-require.js standalone bundles in script tags before require.js is loaded, or
B. load them using require.js (instead of a script tag)
In getting started with require.js I ran into the issue and as a beginner the docs may as well been written in greek.
The issue I ran into was that most of the beginner examples use "anonymous defines" when you should be using a "string id".
anonymous defines
define(function() {
return { helloWorld: function() { console.log('hello world!') } };
})
define(function() {
return { helloWorld2: function() { console.log('hello world again!') } };
})
define with string id
define('moduleOne',function() {
return { helloWorld: function() { console.log('hello world!') } };
})
define('moduleTwo', function() {
return { helloWorld2: function() { console.log('hello world again!') } };
})
When you use define with a string id then you will avoid this error when you try to use the modules like so:
require([ "moduleOne", "moduleTwo" ], function(moduleOne, moduleTwo) {
moduleOne.helloWorld();
moduleTwo.helloWorld2();
});
I had this error because I included the requirejs file along with other librairies included directly in a script tag. Those librairies (like lodash) used a define function that was conflicting with require's define. The requirejs file was loading asynchronously so I suspect that the require's define was defined after the other libraries define, hence the conflict.
To get rid of the error, include all your other js files by using requirejs.
Per the docs:
If you manually code a script tag in HTML to load a script with an
anonymous define() call, this error can occur.
Also seen if you
manually code a script tag in HTML to load a script that has a few
named modules, but then try to load an anonymous module that ends up
having the same name as one of the named modules in the script loaded
by the manually coded script tag.
Finally, if you use the loader
plugins or anonymous modules (modules that call define() with no
string ID) but do not use the RequireJS optimizer to combine files
together, this error can occur. The optimizer knows how to name
anonymous modules correctly so that they can be combined with other
modules in an optimized file.
To avoid the error:
Be sure to load all scripts that call define() via the RequireJS API.
Do not manually code script tags in HTML to load scripts that have
define() calls in them.
If you manually code an HTML script tag, be
sure it only includes named modules, and that an anonymous module that
will have the same name as one of the modules in that file is not
loaded.
If the problem is the use of loader plugins or anonymous
modules but the RequireJS optimizer is not used for file bundling, use
the RequireJS optimizer.
The existing answers explain the problem well but if including your script files using or before requireJS is not an easy option due to legacy code a slightly hacky workaround is to remove require from the window scope before your script tag and then reinstate it afterwords. In our project this is wrapped behind a server-side function call but effectively the browser sees the following:
<script>
window.__define = window.define;
window.__require = window.require;
window.define = undefined;
window.require = undefined;
</script>
<script src="your-script-file.js"></script>
<script>
window.define = window.__define;
window.require = window.__require;
window.__define = undefined;
window.__require = undefined;
</script>
Not the neatest but seems to work and has saved a lot of refractoring.
Be aware that some browser extensions can add code to the pages.
In my case I had an "Emmet in all textareas" plugin that messed up with my requireJs.
Make sure that no extra code is beign added to your document by inspecting it in the browser.
Or you can use this approach.
Add require.js in your code base
then load your script through that code
<script data-main="js/app.js" src="js/require.js"></script>
What it will do it will load your script after loading require.js.
I was also seeing the same error on browser console for a project based out of require.js. As stated under MISMATCHED ANONYMOUS DEFINE() MODULES at https://requirejs.org/docs/errors.html, this error has multiple causes, the interesting one in my case being: If the problem is the use of loader plugins or anonymous modules but the RequireJS optimizer is not used for file bundling, use the RequireJS optimizer. As it turns out, Google Closure compiler was getting used to merge/minify the Javascript code during build. Solution was to remove the Google closure compiler, and instead use require.js's optimizer (r.js) to merge the js files.
I have a situation using system.js with an angular application where I need to be able to include specific System.import(f) statements on a per-page basis, but it was imperative that they all be included before angular finishes bootstrapping and loading up its module.
I spent a long time on this problem and eventually this is the workaround I devised;
in my config.js, I am doing this...
config.js
// .... configuration ... //
Promise.all([
System.import('jquery'),
System.import('angular'),
System.import('angular.ng'),
System.import('bootstrap')
]).then(function() {
$(document).on('angular', function() {
angular.bootstrap(document, ['module-name']); $('body').removeClass('cloak');
});
});
Then I have a css class named .cloak. I tried ng-cloak but found it wasn't doing the job (I suspect because I'm deferring the angular bootstrapping)
.cloak { visibility: hidden; }
then on my individual page, I use this sort of code to shoe-horn my page-specific imports and finalize the process.
<!-- Load SystemJS -->
<script src="assets/js/system.js"></script>
<script src="config.js"></script>
<script>
System.import('app/main').then(function (e) {
Promise.all([
System.import('app/controllers/index'),
System.import('app/controllers/read'),
System.import('app/controllers/edit/article'),
System.import('scripts/lib/init')
]).then(function (m) {
$(document).trigger('angular');
});
});
</script>
So that's the basic idea; I don't allow angular to finish wiring up its module until everything has been imported through system.js. At present, this seems to work fine.
My problem is that I'm not a very good programmer, nor am I very clever. This seems like an extremely standard, normal problem that comes with the way system.js is designed and it occurs to me that there has to be a better, built in solution that I'm missing or haven't found.
Has anyone else dealt with this before that can offer some advice?
The reason I need to defer the module wiring is because I've got various angular controllers and models and such and I don't want them all to load on every page. (I mean, trimming down the scripts to only the ones needed at the moment is one of the points of a module loader, aside dependency resolution).
Trying to use the ng-app directive was constantly causing trouble - as angular would try to load before everything was finished and loaded in, so it had trouble finding things like certain controllers and the like on certain pages.
The biggest reason I need an alternative is that this method doesn't work well for minifying typescript.
This is an extremely standard issue with ng-cloak in general. Perhaps a better way has come around, but pretty much since I started working with angular I've just defined ng-cloak in the header of my index.html file like this:
<style>
[ng\:cloak],[ng-cloak],[data-ng-cloak],[x-ng-cloak],.ng-cloak,.x-ng-cloak {
display: none !important;
}
</style>
and added class="ng-cloak" to the body tag of my page. It works great and when Angular finishes loading it's internal ng-cloak styles effectively overwrite mine.
It seems like moving the inline script basically as is, to an external file, would still allow it to run exactly as you have it and then minification and such would be fine.
It also sounds like you're not creating a SPA here, since if I understand you correctly, you're calling config.jss from each page. You may want to reconsider that and go with a SPA. You will likely end up loading everything up front, but you'll load it all only once.
I understand that requirejs and browserify can load my files dependent on its current context, and that it is amazing. I would really prefer to use the #section sections syntax that the razor engine uses. Was just wondering if there is a way to implement this into a typescript / angularjs application.
for example
index.html
#renderSection scripts;
// which could turn into something like
<script data-render="scripts"></scripts>
// the app.run() could declare all the scripts that will be needed on every
// page view
view.html
<script ng-section-repeat="injected in injection"></script>
// the ng-section-repeat is basically taking all the items in the
// typescript constructor and then finding out which ones are needed for
// that view.
I like the idea injecting application file dependencies in the view , without a configuration file and all the added extras that comes with the loaders.
I just want to easily define what files are needed in the actual view and get them loaded, with angular's dependency injection handling the dependency itself.
If you are handling all your dependencies with $inject then , as far as i can tell, dependency is technically already setup in the controllers, all one would need, is to load this as it is called. Which could even eliminate the need for the #section scripts completely
Update:
What i have done to sort of replicate the module loaders is to just use gulp-concat and define the file order in my gulp.config.js and then pass it to the gulp-src before running $.concat .this allows me to have the files in the gulp steam , in dependent order . They are however loaded on the first load. With gulp-uglify the files are tiny ( its now at 566Kb with 16 external libraries loading in 69ms . To put that into perspective it takes 209ms to load one google font ).
I dont know maybe i am not understanding browserify correctly but i honestly struggle to see the need for it, its seems extremely convoluted for something so simple
It is possible using external modules and an injector to do what you asked for:
I just want to easily define what files are needed in the actual view
import {UserFactory} from 'models/userFactory';
import {UserValidator} from 'models/userValidator';
import {Inject} from 'angular2/di';
and get them loaded, with angular's dependency injection handling the dependency itself.
Note: My example uses angular 2.x because I less familiar with angular 1.x and I'm sure you can do something really similar...
class SomeComponent {
userName: string;
userRating: number;
rating: number;
constructor(
#Inject(UserFactory) UserFactory
#Inject(UserValidator) UserValidator
)
{
this.UserFactory = UserFactory;
this.UserValidator = UserValidator;
}
}
Then you can use Browserify to create a bundle.js file that can be executed in a web browser.