I'm really confused by the answers that have been given - most of them are just outright incorrect. Of course you can have object properties that have undefined, null, or false values. So simply reducing the property check to typeof this[property]
or, even worse, x.key
will give you completely misleading results.
It depends on what you're looking for. If you want to know if an object physically contains a property (and it is not coming from somewhere up on the prototype chain) then object.hasOwnProperty
is the way to go. All modern browsers support it. (It was missing in older versions of Safari - 2.0.1 and older - but those versions of the browser are rarely used any more.)
If what you're looking for is if an object has a property on it that is iterable (when you iterate over the properties of the object, it will appear) then doing: prop in object
will give you your desired effect.
Since using hasOwnProperty
is probably what you want, and considering that you may want a fallback method, I present to you the following solution:
var obj = {
a: undefined,
b: null,
c: false
};
// a, b, c all found
for ( var prop in obj ) {
document.writeln( "Object1: " + prop );
}
function Class(){
this.a = undefined;
this.b = null;
this.c = false;
}
Class.prototype = {
a: undefined,
b: true,
c: true,
d: true,
e: true
};
var obj2 = new Class();
// a, b, c, d, e found
for ( var prop in obj2 ) {
document.writeln( "Object2: " + prop );
}
function hasOwnProperty(obj, prop) {
var proto = obj.__proto__ || obj.constructor.prototype;
return (prop in obj) &&
(!(prop in proto) || proto[prop] !== obj[prop]);
}
if ( Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty ) {
var hasOwnProperty = function(obj, prop) {
return obj.hasOwnProperty(prop);
}
}
// a, b, c found in modern browsers
// b, c found in Safari 2.0.1 and older
for ( var prop in obj2 ) {
if ( hasOwnProperty(obj2, prop) ) {
document.writeln( "Object2 w/ hasOwn: " + prop );
}
}
The above is a working, cross-browser, solution to hasOwnProperty
, with one caveat: It is unable to distinguish between cases where an identical property is on the prototype and on the instance - it just assumes that it's coming from the prototype. You could shift it to be more lenient or strict, based upon your situation, but at the very least this should be more helpful.
I read this question and implemented the approach that has been stated regarding setting the response HTTP status code to 278 in order to avoid the browser transparently handling the redirects. Even though this worked, I was a little dissatisfied as it is a bit of a hack.
After more digging around, I ditched this approach and used JSON. In this case, all responses to AJAX requests have the status code 200 and the body of the response contains a JSON object that is constructed on the server. The JavaScript on the client can then use the JSON object to decide what it needs to do.
I had a similar problem to yours. I perform an AJAX request that has 2 possible responses: one that redirects the browser to a new page and one that replaces an existing HTML form on the current page with a new one. The jQuery code to do this looks something like:
$.ajax({
type: "POST",
url: reqUrl,
data: reqBody,
dataType: "json",
success: function(data, textStatus) {
if (data.redirect) {
// data.redirect contains the string URL to redirect to
window.location.href = data.redirect;
} else {
// data.form contains the HTML for the replacement form
$("#myform").replaceWith(data.form);
}
}
});
The JSON object "data" is constructed on the server to have 2 members: data.redirect
and data.form
. I found this approach to be much better.
Best Solution
Thanks - both good answers. I went with the client side script "pageloaded" in the end. That is a fairly buried method that google did not reveal to me. For those who are interested, this code works with FireBug to give a good demo of the PageLoaded method working to find the updated panels: