Monday 28 November 2016

jQuery plugin: Define defaults for NESTED options




I would like to define defaults for nested options like this:



$("div").filters({
url : 'url.example.com'
filters : {
'projects' : {
'type' : 'dropdown',
'min' : 1,
'max' : 10,

'htmlOptions': {
'name' : 'projects',
'class': 'filters',
'id' : 'project-filter',
}
},
'another' : {
'type' : 'dropdown'
}
...

}
});


I use jQuery $.extend() to merge these with the defaults in my plugin code like this:



settings = $.extend(defaults,options);


My code is too big, so I can put all of it here.




The problem I am having is that settings.url works, but I don't know how to do the same with settings.filters because I don't know how many filters the developer is going to want to put here.



Can anyone suggest a better method of dealing with this maybe?



I'm stuck. Thank you


Answer



Because you want to allow the developer to name the filters whatever they want, I assume you don't want to set any defaults for each specific filter (you don't know their names!).



However, you need to set a default empty object for filters.

So your defaults could be:



var defaults = {
url : '',
filters: {}
};


Now, after the merge, you need to iterate over the filters object to see if there are any filters passed in.




See this SO question:
iterating-a-javascript-objects-properties-using-jquery



So you need something like this:



$.each(settings.filters, function(filterName, value) {
alert(filterName + ": " + value);
});



where value will be your filter object {}



You can use this each loop to access all properties inside a filter object.



However, if you want the developer to be able to initialise only some properties of a filter - like in your example, where filter another has only type specified - you need to extend each filter with a set of default filter properties.


No comments:

Post a Comment

c++ - Does curly brackets matter for empty constructor?

Those brackets declare an empty, inline constructor. In that case, with them, the constructor does exist, it merely does nothing more than t...