CKEDITOR.tools.indexOf should allow to find functions within arrays

[Marek Lewandowski]

CKEDITOR.tools.indexOf should allow to find functions within arrays

Currently if you'll pass a function to CKEDITOR.tools.indexOf, it will be treated as an evaluator.

It makes finding functions in an array impossible.

Proposal:

IMHO priority is to keep backward compatibility. I think we might fix it by adding a param like bool preventEvaluator.

If it's set to true then value won't be treated as an evaluator.

TC:

'test indexOf': function() {
	var stack = [],
		needle = function( foo ) {
			return 'bar';
		};

	// Push one dummy funciton.
	stack.push( function() {
	} );

	// Push needle.
	stack.push( needle );

	// Note that stack.indexOf( needle ) returns 1.
	assert.areSame( 1, CKEDITOR.tools.indexOf( stack, needle ), 'Return value' );
},

Expected result:
1

Current result:
0

[Piotrek Koszuliński]

Hmm... this is really unfortunate and a good lesson for the future. I'm not even sure how we can do that the next time - whether a function which is more or less a shim should be identical with the native one or it can have extensions. For instance, lodash's functions don't mimic the native ones, so such situations must have concerned it.

Anyway, for now adding a new argument "notEvaluator" seems to be the only solution.

[Frederico Caldeira Knabben]

It is possible to pass an evaluation function that makes the function check. So I'm thinking that this is on purpose and that there is no real issue.

@m.lewandowski: Do you feel that this shortcutting is really necessary? I mean, is it worth?

[Marek Lewandowski]

@fredck: Nice trick, it does the job.

It passes:

'test indexOf': function() {
	var stack = [],
		needle = function( foo ) {
			return 'bar';
		},
		evaluator = function( val ) {
			return val === needle;
		};

	// Push one dummy funciton.
	stack.push( function() {
	} );

	// Push needle.
	stack.push( needle );

	// Note that stack.indexOf( needle ) returns 1.
	assert.areSame( 1, CKEDITOR.tools.indexOf( stack, evaluator ), 'Return value' );
},

Still, it makes it a little bit more complex.

Finding an array item is a trivial task, and it should be very simple to use without any special functions.

As for the problem I don't find it to be a super big issue, because it's limited to very particular case. Rarely it might surprise some developers blindly presuming standard interface.

[Frederico Caldeira Knabben]

I agree. Still developers would have to figure out that the third parameter exists and by then they'll understand that the function passed as is is an evaluator.

I assume that dealing with functions inside arrays is quite uncommon and considering that in any case there is a way to make it work, I would vote to not change the API.