DDevelopment & Design

Not so easy functional programming in JavaScript

Introduction

JavaScript allows for operating on arrays in a functional way, e.g. using filter or map functions. As an argument for these functions we can pass lambda expression or function reference. Is there a difference between them? The answer is yes.

What’s the problem?

In our project we are building a mapping using String.fromCharCode function. To simplify the usage of this function looked similar to:

[66, 67, 68].map(v => String.fromCharCode(v))

When we run this code with node we received [ 'B', 'C', 'D' ], but when we decided to refactor it to use function reference the result was different:

> [66, 67, 68].map(String.fromCharCode)
[ 'B\u0000\u0000', 'C\u0001\u0000', 'D\u0002\u0000' ]

What happened?

To find the reason for this behavior, let’s first play with function String.fromCharCode alone:

> String.fromCharCode(66)
'B'
> String.fromCharCode([66, 67, 68])
'\u0000'
> String.fromCharCode(66, 67, 68)
'BCD'

String.fromCharCode deals with various types and numbers of arguments.

Now, let’s examine the function map:

> [66, 67, 68].map(v => v)
[ 66, 67, 68 ]
> [66, 67, 68].map((v, u) => [v, u])
[ [ 66, 0 ], [ 67, 1 ], [ 68, 2 ] ]
> [66, 67, 68].map((v, u, w) => [v, u, w])
[ [ 66, 0, [ 66, 67, 68 ] ],
  [ 67, 1, [ 66, 67, 68 ] ],
  [ 68, 2, [ 66, 67, 68 ] ] ]

map, like many other array functions, passes always three arguments to function. First is the current value, the second is the index of the current value and third is the whole array.

It means that passing String.fromCharCode to map function under the hood looks like this:

> [66, 67, 68].map((v, u, w) => String.fromCharCode(v, u, w))
[ 'B\u0000\u0000', 'C\u0001\u0000', 'D\u0002\u0000' ]

and it is equal to the initial example.

Conclusion

We must be careful when we want to use a function that can take more than one argument, but we want to pass only the value. We have to pass the function as a lambda expression:

> [66, 67, 68].map(v => String.fromCharCode(v))
[ 'B', 'C', 'D' ]

or create another function which ensures that only the first argument will be passed to desired function:

> const useOnlyValue = f => v => f(v);
undefined
> [66, 67, 68].map(useOnlyValue(String.fromCharCode))
[ 'B', 'C', 'D' ]

— Previous article

Testing NiFi Flow - The good, the bad and the ugly

Next article —

How we use Kotlin with Exposed at TouK

You May Also Like
DDevelopment & Design

Grails with Spock unit test + IntelliJ IDEA = No thread-bound request found

During my work with Grails project using Spock test in IntelliJ IDEA I've encountered this error:

java.lang.IllegalStateException: No thread-bound request found: Are you referring to request attributes outside of an actual web request, or processing a request outside of the originally receiving thread? If you are actually operating within a web request and still receive this message, your code is probably running outside of DispatcherServlet/DispatcherPortlet: In this case, use RequestContextListener or RequestContextFilter to expose the current request.
 at org.springframework.web.context.request.RequestContextHolder.currentRequestAttributes(RequestContextHolder.java:131)
 at org.codehaus.groovy.grails.plugins.web.api.CommonWebApi.currentRequestAttributes(CommonWebApi.java:205)
 at org.codehaus.groovy.grails.plugins.web.api.CommonWebApi.getParams(CommonWebApi.java:65)
... // and few more lines of stacktrace ;)

It occurred when I tried to debug one of test from IDEA level. What is interesting, this error does not happen when I'm running all test using grails test-app for instance.

So what was the issue? With little of reading and tip from Tomek Kalkosiński (http://refaktor.blogspot.com/) it turned out that our test was missing @TestFor annotation and adding it solved all problems.

This annotation, according to Grails docs (link), indicates Spock what class is being tested and implicitly creates field with given type in test class. It is somehow strange as problematic test had explicitly and "manually" created field with proper controller type. Maybe there is a problem with mocking servlet requests?