Reputation: 313
Dabbling in jQuery, there's an awkward situation I find myself running into often. Say I want to construct a big chunk of HTML, with a jQuery-wrapped element somewhere in the middle. I want to be able to use a template literal to do the HTML, and then efficiently drop the jQuery-wrapped element in, to avoid writing loads of JavaScript code to build each element individually in the tree.
For example, say I wanted to insert a button at the position described:
const $btn = $(`<button>Click Me</button>`).click(() => { /* complex handler... */ });
const $ele = $(`<div><h1>Some content</h1><p>Press this button: [button should go here]</p></div>`);
I could laboriously create the outer div
, the p
, append the p
to the div
, and append the button
to the p
. This feels like a lot of clunky boilerplate.
I could, instead, add the button
directly to the template literal:
<div><h1>Some content</h1><p>Press this button: <button>Click Me</button></p></div>
And then find()
it and bind handlers that way--this seems a little better, but I'm still going to have to give my button
a unique id
or class
in order to be able to find
it, depending on the context. It also doesn't "chain" well, as, for example above, tacking a find()
to the end of my const $ele = ..
statement will result in $ele
storing the button
, and not the div
. This is undesirable more often than not.
So, is there a better solution?
Upvotes: -1
Views: 2674
Reputation: 664548
Let's have some fun with tagged template literals:
const $btn = jQuery(`<button>Click Me</button>`).click(e => alert("complex handler…"));
const $ele = $`<div><h1>Some content</h1><p>Press this button: ${$btn}</p></div>`;
// ^^ ^^^^^^^ ^
jQuery("body").append($ele);
function $(parts, ...args) {
const uid = Math.round(Math.random()*0xFFFF).toString(16).padStart(4, "0");
const res = jQuery(parts.reduce((html, p, i) => {
return html + "<slot name=x-replace-"+uid+"></slot>" + p;
}));
res.find("slot[name=x-replace-"+uid+"]").replaceWith(i => args[i]);
return res;
}
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
Upvotes: 4
Reputation: 313
Seems this is a hot topic, so, combining some of the ideas here, is this stupid?:
$.fn.extend({
swapIn: function (toSwap) {
Object.entries(toSwap)
.forEach(([k, $v]) => this.find(`[data-swap="${k}"]`).replaceWith($v));
return this;
}
});
const $btn1 = $(`<button>Click Me</button>`).click(() => { /* complex handler... */ });
const $btn2 = $(`<button>Don't Click Me</button>`).click(() => { /* complex handler... */ });
const $ele = $(`<div><h1>Some content</h1><p>Press this button: <div data-swap="$btn1"/> but not this button: <div data-swap="$btn2"/></p></div>`)
.swapIn({$btn1, $btn2});
console.log($ele[0].innerHTML); // the desired resut, while keeping the jQuery objects handy for further manipulation
It satisfies the requirements of:
Upvotes: 1
Reputation: 25351
Instead of find()
it in string and then add properties to it, you can find()
the p
element and append the button to it. This way an id
is not required like in the other case as you mentioned:
const $btn = $("<button>Click Me</button>").click(() => { /* complex handler... */ });
const $ele = $("<div><h1>Some content</h1><p>Press this button: </p></div>");
$ele.find("p").append($btn)
//This line is only for testing:
$ele.appendTo(document.body);
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.12.4/jquery.min.js"></script>
Upvotes: 1