Backbone model new instance - backbone.js

I'm learning backbone and I have a very simple question, Code below works fine:
var segments = Backbone.Model.extend({
url: url;
});
var segments = new Segments();
but if I put new while extending then it doesn't. for eg:
var segments = new Backbone.Model.extend({
url: url;
});
Can someone explain why?

The keyword new is used to instantiate a model not to define it or extend it.
so
var Segments = Backbone.Model.extend({ /// Capitalize your model definition
url: url // no semicolon here
}); ///here you are defining a regular Backbone Model
var OtherSegments = Segments.extend({
url: url
}); ///here you are extending your model
var segments = new Segments(); //this is how you instanciate a BB model
//and use lower case to differentiate the definition
//for the instanciation set to variable.
var otherSegments = new OtherSegments();
var mySegments = new Segments({ url : url}); // you can pass values at the time of
//instanciatation

This is not really backbone related but more javascript in general.
In your example:
var segments = new Backbone.Model.extend({
url: url
});
"new" operator has the highest precedence so it's evaluated first (before Backbone.Model.extend() is executed). So you are really trying to instantiate an object from the extend() function, not its return value.
It should work if you change it to :
var segments = new (Backbone.Model.extend({
url: url
}));
In this case. extend() function gets called first and returns an object (which is a model definition in backbone).
But it's not a good practice. You are defining a model(in the parentheses) and throwing it away(not keeping the definition in a variable) at the same time.
You can find more about javascript operator precedence here:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Operators/Operator_Precedence

You are trying to instantiate extend method,which is used to copy properties to a constructor for later instantiation.
Here is that extend method:
var extend = function(protoProps, staticProps) {
1520 var parent = this;
1521 var child;
1522
1523 // The constructor function for the new subclass is either defined by you
1524 // (the "constructor" property in your `extend` definition), or defaulted
1525 // by us to simply call the parent's constructor.
1526 if (protoProps && _.has(protoProps, 'constructor')) {
1527 child = protoProps.constructor;
1528 } else {
1529 child = function(){ return parent.apply(this, arguments); };
1530 }
1531
1532 // Add static properties to the constructor function, if supplied.
1533 _.extend(child, parent, staticProps);
1534
1535 // Set the prototype chain to inherit from `parent`, without calling
1536 // `parent`'s constructor function.
1537 var Surrogate = function(){ this.constructor = child; };
1538 Surrogate.prototype = parent.prototype;
1539 child.prototype = new Surrogate;
1540
1541 // Add prototype properties (instance properties) to the subclass,
1542 // if supplied.
1543 if (protoProps) _.extend(child.prototype, protoProps);
1544
1545 // Set a convenience property in case the parent's prototype is needed
1546 // later.
1547 child.__super__ = parent.prototype;
1548
1549 return child;
1550 };
With Backbone.Model.extend({}) you are just calling a function, with provided arguments.

Related

backbone.js set in model initialize not effecting models in collection

While performing a fetch() on my backbone collection, and instantiating models as children of that collection, I want to add one more piece of information to each model.
I thought that I could do this using set in the model initialize. (My assumption is that fetch() is instantiating a new model for each object passed into it. And therefore as each initialize occurs the extra piece of data would be set.
To illustrate my problem I've pasted in four snippets, first from my collection class. Second the initialize function in my model class. Third, two functions that I use in the initialize function to get the needed information from the flickr api. Fourth, and finally, the app.js which performs the fetch().
First the collection class:
var ArmorApp = ArmorApp || {};
ArmorApp.ArmorCollection = Backbone.Collection.extend({
model: ArmorApp.singleArmor,
url: "https://spreadsheets.google.com/feeds/list/1SjHIBLTFb1XrlrpHxZ4SLE9lEJf4NyDVnKnbVejlL4w/1/public/values?alt=json",
//comparator: "Century",
parse: function(data){
var armorarray = [];
var entryarray = data.feed.entry;
for (var x in entryarray){
armorarray.push({"id": entryarray[x].gsx$id.$t,
"Filename": entryarray[x].gsx$filename.$t,
"Century": entryarray[x].gsx$century.$t,
"Date": entryarray[x].gsx$date.$t,
"Country": entryarray[x].gsx$country.$t,
"City": entryarray[x].gsx$city.$t,
"Type": entryarray[x].gsx$type.$t,
"Maker": entryarray[x].gsx$maker.$t,
"Recepient": entryarray[x].gsx$recipient.$t,
"Flickrid": entryarray[x].gsx$flickrid.$t,
"FlickrUrl": "", //entryarray[x].gsx$flickrurl.$t,
"FlickrUrlBig": ""//entryarray[x].gsx$flickrurlbig.$t,
});
}
return armorarray;
}
});
Second, the initialization in my model.
initialize: function(){
//console.log("A model instance named " + this.get("Filename"));
item = this;
var flickrapi = "https://api.flickr.com/services/rest/?&method=flickr.photos.getSizes&api_key=<my_apikey>&photo_id=" + this.get("Flickrid") + "&format=json&jsoncallback=?";
sources = getFlickrSources(flickrapi);
sources.then(function(data){
sourceArray = parseFlickrResponse(data);
FlickrSmall = sourceArray[0].FlickrSmall;
console.log (FlickrSmall);
item.set("FlickrUrl", FlickrSmall);
console.log(item);
});
Notice here how I'm getting the "Flickrid" and using to get one more piece of information and then trying to add it back into the model with item.set("FlickrUrl", FlickerSmall);
console.log confirms that the property "FlickrUrl" has been set to the desired value.
Third, these are the functions my model uses to get the information it needs for the flicker api.
var getFlickrSources = function(flickrapi){
flickrResponse = $.ajax({
url: flickrapi,
// The name of the callback parameter, as specified by the YQL service
jsonp: "callback",
// Tell jQuery we're expecting JSONP
dataType: "jsonp"})
return flickrResponse;
}
var parseFlickrResponse = function(data){
flickrSourceArray = []
if (data.stat == "ok"){
sizeArray = data.sizes.size;
for (var y in sizeArray){
if (sizeArray[y].label == "Small"){
flickrSourceArray.push({"FlickrSmall": sizeArray[y].source});
}
else if (sizeArray[y].label == "Large"){
flickrSourceArray.push({"FlickrLarge": sizeArray[y].source});
}
}
}
return flickrSourceArray
}
But, fourth, when I try to perform the fetch and render the collection, I only get objects in my collection without the FlickrUrl property set.
//create an array of models and then pass them in collection creation method
var armorGroup = new ArmorApp.ArmorCollection();
armorGroup.fetch().then(function(){
console.log(armorGroup.toJSON());
var armorGroupView = new ArmorApp.allArmorView({collection: armorGroup});
$("#allArmor").html(armorGroupView.render().el);
});
var armorRouter = new ArmorApp.Router();
Backbone.history.start();
The console.log in this last snippet prints out all the objects/models supposedly instantiated through the fetch. But none of them include the extra property that should have been set during the initialization.
Any ideas what is happening?
What is this function ? getFlickrSources(flickrapi)
Why are you using this.get in the initialize function. Honestly it looks over-complicated for what you are trying to do.
If you want to set some parameter when you instantiate your model then do this var model = new Model({ param:"someparam", url:"someurl",wtv:"somewtv"});
If the point is to update your model just write an update function in your model something like update: function (newparam) { this.set;... etc and call it when you need it.
If I read you well you just want to set some params when your model is instantiated, so just use what I specified above. Here is some more doc : http://backbonejs.org/#Model-constructor
I hope it helps.
edit:
Put your call outside your model, you shouldn't (imo) make call inside your model this way it seems kinda dirty.
Sources.then(function(flickrdata) {
var mymodel = new Model({flicker:flickrdata.wtv});
});
It would be cleaner in my opinion.

listening every time a model attribute sets

I have a backbone model like -
ModelA = Backbone.Model.extend({
this.set("prop1",true);
})
and View like -
ViewA = Backbone.View.extend({
initialize : function(){
this.listenTo(this.model,"change:prop1",this.changeProp1)l;
this.model.set("prop1",true);
},
changeProp1 : function(){
// callback doesn't call because I'm setting the same value
}
});
var model1 = new ModelA();
var view1 = new ViewA({model:model1});
Here the callback changeProp1 triggers whenever prop1 changes from true -> false -> true .
But I want to listen everytime whenever I'm setting the same value or different value.
I'd say it's best to leave the change event alone, and implement a new set event (or whatever you want to call it). After all, you want to be notified about things that aren't strictly 'changes'.
You could implement your own version of set() in your model which fires a custom 'set' event and then calls backbone's usual set method afterwards.
var MyModel = Backbone.Model.extend({
set: function(key, val, options) {
// Deal with single name/value or object being passed in
var changes;
if (typeof key === 'object') {
changes = key;
options = val;
} else {
(changes = {})[key] = val;
}
options || (options = {});
// Trigger 'set' event on each property passed in
for (var i = 0, l = changes.length; i < l; i++) {
this.trigger('set:' + changes[i], this, this.attributes[changes[i]], options);
}
// Call the usual backbone 'set' method
Backbone.Model.prototype.set.apply(this, arguments);
}
});
and then listen for your new event instead of (or as well as) 'change', where appropriate:
ViewA = Backbone.View.extend({
initialize : function(){
this.listenTo(this.model,"set:prop1",this.changeProp1)l;
this.model.set("prop1",true);
},
However, most of this code is just lifted from Backbone's default set method, and doesn't deal with some other issues such as some option flags and nested events. If you wanted to change the Backbone source itself, the line you want to look for is:
if (!_.isEqual(current[attr], val)) changes.push(attr);
(line 347 in version 1.0.0) and try removing that if clause.
(Code above isn't tested, sorry for any syntax errors)
For implementing above , you have to make changes in change function in backbone.js . Change checks whether the value of the property changed if yes than only it calls the binded function.

How to pass collection inside jeditable function?

I want to edit my collection using jeditable, where modifyCollection is a function associated with the event dblclick. I have the following code:
initialize : function(options) {
view.__super__.initialize.apply(this, arguments);
this.collection = this.options.collection;
this.render();
},
render : function() {
var template = _.template(tpl, {
collectionForTemplate : this.collection ,
});
this.el.html(template);
return this;
},
modifyCollection : function (event){
$('#name').editable(function(value, settings) {
return (value);
}
,
{ onblur: function(value) {
this.modelID=event.target.nameID;
this.collection = this.options.collection;
console.log("This Collection is: " + this.collection); //Shows : undefined
//
this.reset(value);
$(this).html(value);
return (value);
}
});
The idee is to update the model and subsequently, the collection by means of jeditable. The in place editing works fine, but the problem is, I am not able to pass the collection into the function. I want to save all the changes to my collection locally and send them to the server at a later time. What am I doing wrong here?
Moved the comment to a formal answer in case other people find this thread.
The this inside your onblur() function is not pointing to this collection. Try adding var self = this; inside your modifyCollection() function then in your onblur() change this.collection to self.collection like so:
modifyCollection : function (event) {
var self = this; // Added this line
// When working with functions within functions, we need
// to be careful of what this actually points to.
$('#name').editable(function(value, settings) {
return (value);
}, {
onblur: function(value) {
// Since modelID and collection are part of the larger Backbone object,
// we refer to it through the self var we initialized.
self.modelID = event.target.nameID;
self.collection = self.options.collection;
// Self, declared outside of the function refers to the collection
console.log("This Collection is: " + self.collection);
self.reset(value);
// NOTICE: here we use this instead of self...
$(this).html(value); // this correctly refers to the jQuery element $('#name')
return (value);
}
});
});
UPDATE - Foreboding Note on self
#muistooshort makes a good mention that self is actually a property of window so if you don't declare the var self = this; in your code, you'll be referring to a window obj. Can be aggravating if you're not sure why self seems to exist but doesn't seem to work.
Common use of this kind of coding tends to favor using that or _this instead of self. You have been warned. ;-)

Subclassing Backbone.View

I have several views that have common code I'd like to abstract into a custom Backbone.View class. Is there any best practices for doing this?
is a good pattern to do something like this? :
// Base Grid view
var GridView = Backbone.View.extend({
initialize : function(){
//common view init code ..
//do the plug in overrides
if (options.addHandler)
this.addHandler = options.addHandler;
if (options.events)
//?? extend default events or override?
this.events = $.extend(this.events, options.events);
},
addHandler : function() {
//defaulthandler this code can be overridden
});
});
// in another object create some views from the GridView base
....
var overrides = { events:"xxx yyy", el: ulElement addHandler: myAddFunction }
var UserList = GridView.extend(overrides)
var userList = new UserList(users, options);
....
var coursesOverrides : {addHandler: ...}
var coursesOptions: {el: courseElement, ...}
var CourseList = GridView.extend(coursesOverrides)
var courseList= new CourseList (courses, coursesOptions)
// along the same lines maybe there's an abstraction for toolbar views
var ClassToolbarView = ToolbarBase.extend(toolOverrides)
var classtoolbar = new ClassToolbarView(actions, toolbaropts)
Any pointers to good examples of extending a View for refactoring common view code is appreciated.
First, I don't see the options being passed in your initializer(), so that's a bug.
Secondly, the .extend() method is inherited:
var GridView = Backbone.View.extend({ ... })
var GridViewWithNewFunctionsAndEvents = GridView.extend({ ... })
And you can replace or extend GridView's functionality, and call new GridViewWithNewFunctionsAndEvents() and get the extra functionality in a new object you need, just like you extend the Backbone stock View class.
If you need to extend the initializer, you can do this to call the initializer on the superclass:
var GridViewWithNewFunctionsAndEvents = GridView.extend({
initializer: function(options) {
GridView.prototype.initializer.call(this, options);
/* Your stuff goes here */
}
});

Backbone.js Collection model value not used

Backbone is not using the model specified for the collection. I must be missing something.
App.Models.Folder = Backbone.Model.extend({
initialize: function() {
_.extend(this, Backbone.Events);
this.url = "/folders";
this.items = new App.Collections.FolderItems();
this.items.url = '/folders/' + this.id + '/items';
},
get_item: function(id) {
return this.items.get(id);
}
});
App.Collections.FolderItems = Backbone.Collection.extend({
model: App.Models.FolderItem
});
App.Models.FolderItem = Backbone.Model.extend({
initialize: function() {
console.log("FOLDER ITEM INIT");
}
});
var folder = new App.Models.Folder({id:id})
folder.fetch();
// later on change event in a view
folder.items.fetch();
The folder is loaded, the items are then loaded, but they are not FolderItem objects and FOLDER ITEM INIT is never called. They are basic Model objects.
What did I miss? Should I do this differently?
EDIT:
Not sure why this works vs the documentation, but the following works. Backbone 5.3
App.Collections.FolderItems = Backbone.Collection.extend({
model: function(attributes) {
return new App.Models.FolderItem(attributes);
}
});
the problem is order of declaration for your model vs collection. basically, you need to define the model first.
App.Models.FolderItem = Backbone.Model.extend({...});
App.Collections.FolderItems = Backbone.Collection.extend({
model: App.Models.FolderItem
});
the reason is that backbone objects are defined with object literal syntax, which means they are evaluated immediately upon definition.
this code is functionality the same, but illustrates the object literal nature:
var folderItemDef = { ... };
var folderItemsDef = {
model: App.Models.FolderItem
}
App.Models.FolderItem = Backbone.Model.extend(folderItemDef);
App.Collections.FolderItems = Backbone.Collection.extend(folderItemsDef);
you can see in this example that folderItemDef and folderItems Def are both object literals, which have their key: value pairs evaluated immediately upon definition of the literal.
in your original code, you defined the collection first. this means App.Models.FolderItem is undefined when the collection is defined. so you are essentially doing this:
App.Collection.extend({
model: undefined
});
By moving the model definition above the collection definition, though, the collection will be able to find the model and it will be associated correctly.
FWIW: the reason your function version of setting the collection's model works, is that the function is not evaluated until the app is executed and a model is loaded into the collection. at that point, the javascript interpreter has already found the model's definition and it loads it correctly.

Resources