refactor objects, add optional chaining
This commit is contained in:
parent
09a964e969
commit
b057341f6c
35 changed files with 579 additions and 435 deletions
176
1-js/04-object-basics/07-optional-chaining/article.md
Normal file
176
1-js/04-object-basics/07-optional-chaining/article.md
Normal file
|
@ -0,0 +1,176 @@
|
|||
|
||||
# Optional chaining '?.'
|
||||
|
||||
[recent browser="new"]
|
||||
|
||||
The optional chaining `?.` is an error-prone way to access nested object properties, even if an intermediate property doesn't exist.
|
||||
|
||||
## The problem
|
||||
|
||||
If you've just started to read the tutorial and learn JavaScript, maybe the problem hasn't touched you yet, but it's quite common.
|
||||
|
||||
For example, some of our users have addresses, but few did not provide them. Then we can't safely read `user.address.street`:
|
||||
|
||||
```js run
|
||||
let user = {}; // the user happens to be without address
|
||||
|
||||
alert(user.address.street); // Error!
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Or, in the web development, we'd like to get an information about an element on the page, but it may not exist:
|
||||
|
||||
```js run
|
||||
// Error if the result of querySelector(...) is null
|
||||
let html = document.querySelector('.my-element').innerHTML;
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Before `?.` appeared in the language, the `&&` operator was used to work around that.
|
||||
|
||||
For example:
|
||||
|
||||
```js run
|
||||
let user = {}; // user has no address
|
||||
|
||||
alert( user && user.address && user.address.street ); // undefined (no error)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
AND'ing the whole path to the property ensures that all components exist, but is cumbersome to write.
|
||||
|
||||
## Optional chaining
|
||||
|
||||
The optional chaining `?.` stops the evaluation and returns `undefined` if the part before `?.` is `undefined` or `null`.
|
||||
|
||||
Further in this article, for brewity, we'll be saying that something "exists" if it's not `null` and not `undefined`.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Here's the safe way to access `user.address.street`:
|
||||
|
||||
```js run
|
||||
let user = {}; // user has no address
|
||||
|
||||
alert( user?.address?.street ); // undefined (no error)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Reading the address with `user?.address` works even if `user` object doesn't exist:
|
||||
|
||||
```js run
|
||||
let user = null;
|
||||
|
||||
alert( user?.address ); // undefined
|
||||
|
||||
alert( user?.address.street ); // undefined
|
||||
alert( user?.address.street.anything ); // undefined
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Please note: the `?.` syntax works exactly where it's placed, not any further.
|
||||
|
||||
In the last two lines the evaluation stops immediately after `user?.`, never accessing further properties. But if the `user` actually exists, then the further intermediate properties, such as `user.address` must exist.
|
||||
|
||||
```warn header="Don't overuse the optional chaining"
|
||||
We should use `?.` only where it's ok that something doesn't exist.
|
||||
|
||||
For example, if according to our coding logic `user` object must be there, but `address` is optional, then `user.address?.street` would be better.
|
||||
|
||||
So, if `user` happens to be undefined due to a mistake, we'll know about it and fix it. Otherwise, coding errors can be silenced where not appropriate, and become more difficult to debug.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
````warn header="The variable before `?.` must exist"
|
||||
If there's no variable `user`, then `user?.anything` triggers an error:
|
||||
|
||||
```js run
|
||||
// ReferenceError: user is not defined
|
||||
user?.address;
|
||||
```
|
||||
The optional chaining only tests for `null/undefined`, doesn't interfere with any other language mechanics.
|
||||
````
|
||||
|
||||
## Short-circuiting
|
||||
|
||||
As it was said before, the `?.` immediately stops ("short-circuits") the evaluation if the left part doesn't exist.
|
||||
|
||||
So, if there are any further function calls or side effects, they don't occur:
|
||||
|
||||
```js run
|
||||
let user = null;
|
||||
let x = 0;
|
||||
|
||||
user?.sayHi(x++); // nothing happens
|
||||
|
||||
alert(x); // 0, value not incremented
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Other cases: ?.(), ?.[]
|
||||
|
||||
The optional chaining `?.` is not an operator, but a special syntax construct, that also works with functions and square brackets.
|
||||
|
||||
For example, `?.()` is used to call a function that may not exist.
|
||||
|
||||
In the code below, some of our users have `admin` method, and some don't:
|
||||
|
||||
```js run
|
||||
let user1 = {
|
||||
admin() {
|
||||
alert("I am admin");
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
let user2 = {};
|
||||
|
||||
*!*
|
||||
user1.admin?.(); // I am admin
|
||||
user2.admin?.();
|
||||
*/!*
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Here, in both lines we first use the dot `.` to get `admin` property, because the user object must exist, so it's safe read from it.
|
||||
|
||||
Then `?.()` checks the left part: if the user exists, then it runs (for `user1`). Otherwise (for `user2`) the evaluation stops without errors.
|
||||
|
||||
The `?.[]` syntax also works, if we'd like to use brackets `[]` to access properties instead of dot `.`. Similar to previous cases, it allows to safely read a property from an object that may not exist.
|
||||
|
||||
```js run
|
||||
let user1 = {
|
||||
firstName: "John"
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
let user2 = null; // Imagine, we couldn't authorize the user
|
||||
|
||||
let key = "firstName";
|
||||
|
||||
alert( user1?.[key] ); // John
|
||||
alert( user2?.[key] ); // undefined
|
||||
|
||||
alert( user1?.[key]?.something?.not?.existing); // undefined
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Also we can use `?.` with `delete`:
|
||||
|
||||
```js run
|
||||
delete user?.name; // delete user.name if user exists
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
```warn header="We can use `?.` for safe reading and deleting, but not writing"
|
||||
The optional chaining `?.` has no use at the left side of an assignment:
|
||||
|
||||
```js run
|
||||
// the idea of the code below is to write user.name, if user exists
|
||||
|
||||
user?.name = "John"; // Error, doesn't work
|
||||
// because it evaluates to undefined = "John"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Summary
|
||||
|
||||
The `?.` syntax has three forms:
|
||||
|
||||
1. `obj?.prop` -- returns `obj.prop` if `obj` exists, otherwise `undefined`.
|
||||
2. `obj?.[prop]` -- returns `obj[prop]` if `obj` exists, otherwise `undefined`.
|
||||
3. `obj?.method()` -- calls `obj.method()` if `obj` exists, otherwise returns `undefined`.
|
||||
|
||||
As we can see, all of them are straightforward and simple to use. The `?.` checks the left part for `null/undefined` and allows the evaluation to proceed if it's not so.
|
||||
|
||||
A chain of `?.` allows to safely access nested properties.
|
||||
|
||||
Still, we should apply `?.` carefully, only where it's ok that the left part doesn't to exist.
|
||||
|
||||
So that it won't hide programming errors from us, if they occur.
|
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue