Is there an “exists” function for jQuery?
How can I check the existence of an element in jQuery?
The current code that I have is this:
if ($(selector).length > 0) {
// Do something
}
Is there a more elegant way to approach this? Perhaps a plugin or a function?
javascript jquery
add a comment |
How can I check the existence of an element in jQuery?
The current code that I have is this:
if ($(selector).length > 0) {
// Do something
}
Is there a more elegant way to approach this? Perhaps a plugin or a function?
javascript jquery
I don't know, what is 'in-elegant' in the first place.
– yunzen
Nov 20 '18 at 13:06
add a comment |
How can I check the existence of an element in jQuery?
The current code that I have is this:
if ($(selector).length > 0) {
// Do something
}
Is there a more elegant way to approach this? Perhaps a plugin or a function?
javascript jquery
How can I check the existence of an element in jQuery?
The current code that I have is this:
if ($(selector).length > 0) {
// Do something
}
Is there a more elegant way to approach this? Perhaps a plugin or a function?
javascript jquery
javascript jquery
edited Dec 16 '17 at 11:29
René
3,51221635
3,51221635
asked Aug 27 '08 at 19:49
Jake McGrawJake McGraw
33.2k104162
33.2k104162
I don't know, what is 'in-elegant' in the first place.
– yunzen
Nov 20 '18 at 13:06
add a comment |
I don't know, what is 'in-elegant' in the first place.
– yunzen
Nov 20 '18 at 13:06
I don't know, what is 'in-elegant' in the first place.
– yunzen
Nov 20 '18 at 13:06
I don't know, what is 'in-elegant' in the first place.
– yunzen
Nov 20 '18 at 13:06
add a comment |
40 Answers
40
active
oldest
votes
1 2
next
In JavaScript, everything is 'truthy' or 'falsy', and for numbers 0 (and NaN) means false, everything else true. So you could write:
if ($(selector).length)
You don't need that >0 part.
6
this will throw error if you use Id selector if element doesn't exist. checkout the various tests i have done ...in my answer
– abhirathore2006
Jul 31 '16 at 6:46
41
@abhirathore2006 If you use an id selector and the element doesn't exist then length is 0 and doesn't throw exceptions.
– Robert
Jun 29 '17 at 20:35
12
Interestingly enoughNaN != false.
– Robert
Jun 29 '17 at 20:52
22
@Robert and+=""... ahh I love javascript
– James
Jul 4 '17 at 15:55
3
@James That's because.toString() === .join(',') === ""and"" === "".
– Ismael Miguel
Jul 8 '17 at 22:09
|
show 13 more comments
Yes!
jQuery.fn.exists = function(){ return this.length > 0; }
if ($(selector).exists()) {
// Do something
}
This is in response to: Herding Code podcast with Jeff Atwood
248
I just write: if( $(selector).length ){ ... } without the '> 0'
– vsync
Nov 24 '09 at 9:22
355
Your$.fn.existsexample is replacing a property lookup (cheap!) with two function calls, which are much more expensive—and one of those function calls recreates a jQuery object that you already have, which is just silly.
– C Snover
May 30 '10 at 4:14
204
@redsquare: Code readability is the best rationale for adding this sort of function on jQuery. Having something called.existsreads cleanly, whereas.lengthreads as something semantically different, even if the semantics coincide with an identical result.
– Ben Zotto
Aug 2 '10 at 20:52
45
@quixoto, sorry but .length is a standard across many languages that does not need wrapping. How else do you interpret .length?
– redsquare
Aug 3 '10 at 0:13
132
In my opinion, it's at least one logical indirection from the concept of "a list length that is greater than zero" to the concept of "the element(s) I wrote a selector for exist". Yeah, they're the same thing technically, but the conceptual abstraction is at a different level. This causes some people to prefer a more explicit indicator, even at some performance cost.
– Ben Zotto
Aug 3 '10 at 0:29
|
show 6 more comments
If you used
jQuery.fn.exists = function(){return ($(this).length > 0);}
if ($(selector).exists()) { }
you would imply that chaining was possible when it is not.
This would be better:
jQuery.exists = function(selector) {return ($(selector).length > 0);}
if ($.exists(selector)) { }
Alternatively, from the FAQ:
if ( $('#myDiv').length ) { /* Do something */ }
You could also use the following. If there are no values in the jQuery object array then getting the first item in the array would return undefined.
if ( $('#myDiv')[0] ) { /* Do something */ }
10
The first method reads better. $("a").exists() reads as "if <a> elements exist." $.exists("a") reads as "if there exists <a> elements."
– strager
Jan 14 '09 at 20:00
15
true but again, you're implying that chaining is possible and if I tried to do something like $(selector).exists().css("color", "red") it wouldn't work and then I would be =*(
– Jon Erickson
Jan 15 '09 at 0:31
16
There are already methods that aren't chainable, like attr and data functions. I do see your point though and, for what it's worth, I just test for length > 0 anyways.
– Matthew Crumley
Jan 16 '09 at 5:42
36
Why on earth would you need to chain this?$(".missing").css("color", "red")already does the right thing… (i.e. nothing)
– Ben Blank
Sep 8 '10 at 6:43
8
The stuff about chaining is complete tosh - there are plenty of jQuery$.fnmethods that return something other than a new jQuery object and therefore don't chain.
– Alnitak
Jul 18 '14 at 8:12
|
show 5 more comments
You can use this:
// if element exists
if($('selector').length){ /* do something */ }
// if element does not exist
if(!$('selector').length){ /* do something */ }
123
Did you not see that Tim Büthe had already given this answer 2 years prior to you?
– Th4t Guy
Jul 31 '14 at 17:28
88
Pfft, Tim never showed how to test if the element does not exist.
– Jeremy W
Aug 5 '15 at 15:03
You mean life "else"? My Q is this : err, it must exist or the selector doesn't match. The length is superfluous.
– RichieHH
Jul 2 '17 at 12:55
14
this answer and comments sums up how stackoverflow works
– aswzen
Apr 3 '18 at 8:48
add a comment |
The fastest and most semantically self explaining way to check for existence is actually by using plain JavaScript:
if (document.getElementById('element_id')) {
// Do something
}
It is a bit longer to write than the jQuery length alternative, but executes faster since it is a native JS method.
And it is better than the alternative of writing your own jQuery function. That alternative is slower, for the reasons @snover stated. But it would also give other programmers the impression that the exists() function is something inherent to jQuery. JavaScript would/should be understood by others editing your code, without increased knowledge debt.
NB: Notice the lack of an '#' before the element_id (since this is plain JS, not jQuery).
51
Totally not the same thing. JQuery selectors can be used for any CSS rule - for example$('#foo a.special'). And it can return more than one element.getElementByIdcan't begin to approach that.
– kikito
Mar 7 '12 at 16:30
7
You are correct in that it isn't as broadly applicable as selectors. However, it does the job quite well in the most common case (checking if a single element exists). The arguments of self-explanation and speed still stands.
– Magne
May 10 '12 at 8:55
28
@Nozif(document.querySelector("#foo a.special"))would work. No jQuery needed.
– Blue Skies
Dec 8 '13 at 0:43
33
The argument of speed in JS engines is only dead in the mind of people who can't function without jQuery, since it's an argument they can't win.
– Blue Skies
Dec 8 '13 at 0:45
22
Remember the good old days when document.getElementById was all we had? And I always forgot the document. and couldn't figure out why it didn't work. And I always spelled it wrong and got the character casing wrong.
– JustJohn
Nov 18 '14 at 21:05
|
show 6 more comments
You can save a few bytes by writing:
if ($(selector)[0]) { ... }
This works because each jQuery object also masquerades as an array, so we can use the array dereferencing operator to get the first item from the array. It returns undefined if there is no item at the specified index.
1
I came here to post this exact answer... obligatory fiddle: jsfiddle.net/jasonwilczak/ekjj80gy/2
– JasonWilczak
Mar 25 '15 at 15:08
3
@JasonWilczak Care to comment why not instead: .eq[0] or .first() to refer to a first element found rather than type casting?
– Jean Paul A.K.A el_vete
Jul 21 '15 at 13:51
5
No,jQuery.first()orjQuery.eq(0)both return objects, objects are truthy even if they are empty-ish. This example should illustrate why these functions cannot be used as-is:if(jQuery("#does-not-exist").eq(0)) alert("#does-not-exist exists")
– Salman A
Jul 21 '15 at 15:16
1
Correct..eq(0)returns just another jQuery object truncated to length 1 or 0..first()is just a convenience method for.eq(0). But.get(0)returns the first DOM element orundefinedand is the same as[0]. The first DOM element in a jQuery object is stored in the regular object property with the name'0'. That's a simple property access. The only type casting stems from the implicit conversion of the number0to the string'0'. So if type casting is a problem you could use$.find(selector)['0']instead.
– Robert
Jun 29 '17 at 20:20
add a comment |
You can use:
if ($(selector).is('*')) {
// Do something
}
A little more elegant, perhaps.
36
This is too much for such a simple thing. see Tim Büthe answer
– vsync
Nov 24 '09 at 9:28
This is the correct answer. The 'length' method has the problem that it gives false positive with any number, for example: $(666).length // returns 1, but it's not a valid selector
– earnaz
Sep 16 '15 at 16:23
This is extremely expensive for very simple task. Just look into jquery implementation if .is() and you will see how much code it needs to process to answer you this simple question. Also it is not obvious what you want to do exactly, so it is same or maybe less elegant then solution in question.
– micropro.cz
Feb 22 '16 at 19:59
1
@earnaz great point, nice catch. I don't see where that's actually a worthwhile concern, though. Devs identifying elements with666probably have plenty of other reasons their code's broken. While it is an invalid selector, $(666).length is valid javascript: It evaluates to truthy, and therefore should satisfy the condition.
– Todd
Mar 8 '16 at 12:55
@earnaz to avoid that specific case,$.find(666).lengthworks.
– Emile Bergeron
Oct 8 '16 at 0:41
add a comment |
This plugin can be used in an if statement like if ($(ele).exist()) { /* DO WORK */ } or using a callback.
Plugin
;;(function($) {
if (!$.exist) {
$.extend({
exist: function() {
var ele, cbmExist, cbmNotExist;
if (arguments.length) {
for (x in arguments) {
switch (typeof arguments[x]) {
case 'function':
if (typeof cbmExist == "undefined") cbmExist = arguments[x];
else cbmNotExist = arguments[x];
break;
case 'object':
if (arguments[x] instanceof jQuery) ele = arguments[x];
else {
var obj = arguments[x];
for (y in obj) {
if (typeof obj[y] == 'function') {
if (typeof cbmExist == "undefined") cbmExist = obj[y];
else cbmNotExist = obj[y];
}
if (typeof obj[y] == 'object' && obj[y] instanceof jQuery) ele = obj[y];
if (typeof obj[y] == 'string') ele = $(obj[y]);
}
}
break;
case 'string':
ele = $(arguments[x]);
break;
}
}
}
if (typeof cbmExist == 'function') {
var exist = ele.length > 0 ? true : false;
if (exist) {
return ele.each(function(i) { cbmExist.apply(this, [exist, ele, i]); });
}
else if (typeof cbmNotExist == 'function') {
cbmNotExist.apply(ele, [exist, ele]);
return ele;
}
else {
if (ele.length <= 1) return ele.length > 0 ? true : false;
else return ele.length;
}
}
else {
if (ele.length <= 1) return ele.length > 0 ? true : false;
else return ele.length;
}
return false;
}
});
$.fn.extend({
exist: function() {
var args = [$(this)];
if (arguments.length) for (x in arguments) args.push(arguments[x]);
return $.exist.apply($, args);
}
});
}
})(jQuery);
jsFiddle
You may specify one or two callbacks. The first one will fire if the element exists, the second one will fire if the element does not exist. However, if you choose to pass only one function, it will only fire when the element exists. Thus, the chain will die if the selected element does not exist. Of course, if it does exist, the first function will fire and the chain will continue.
Keep in mind that using the callback variant helps maintain chainability – the element is returned and you can continue chaining commands as with any other jQuery method!
Example Uses
if ($.exist('#eleID')) { /* DO WORK */ } // param as STRING
if ($.exist($('#eleID'))) { /* DO WORK */ } // param as jQuery OBJECT
if ($('#eleID').exist()) { /* DO WORK */ } // enduced on jQuery OBJECT
$.exist('#eleID', function() { // param is STRING && CALLBACK METHOD
/* DO WORK */
/* This will ONLY fire if the element EXIST */
}, function() { // param is STRING && CALLBACK METHOD
/* DO WORK */
/* This will ONLY fire if the element DOES NOT EXIST */
})
$('#eleID').exist(function() { // enduced on jQuery OBJECT with CALLBACK METHOD
/* DO WORK */
/* This will ONLY fire if the element EXIST */
})
$.exist({ // param is OBJECT containing 2 key|value pairs: element = STRING, callback = METHOD
element: '#eleID',
callback: function() {
/* DO WORK */
/* This will ONLY fire if the element EXIST */
}
})
1
On the callback version, shouldn't theHas Itemscallback actually pass in the object as an argument?
– Chris Marisic
Jun 16 '16 at 17:46
add a comment |
I see most of the answers here are not accurate as they should be, they check element length, it can be OK in many cases, but not 100%, imagine if number pass to the function instead, so I prototype a function which check all conditions and return the answer as it should be:
$.fn.exists = $.fn.exists || function() {
return !!(this.length && (this[0] instanceof HTMLDocument || this[0] instanceof HTMLElement));
}
This will check both length and type, Now you can check it this way:
$(1980).exists(); //return false
$([1,2,3]).exists(); //return false
$({name: 'stackoverflow', url: 'http://www.stackoverflow.com'}).exists(); //return false
$([{nodeName: 'foo'}]).exists() // returns false
$('div').exists(); //return true
$('.header').exists(); //return true
$(document).exists(); //return true
$('body').exists(); //return true
add a comment |
There's no need for jQuery really. With plain JavaScript it's easier and semantically correct to check for:
if(document.getElementById("myElement")) {
//Do something...
}
If for any reason you don't want to put an id to the element, you can still use any other JavaScript method designed to access the DOM.
jQuery is really cool, but don't let pure JavaScript fall into oblivion...
5
I know: it doesn't answer directly the original question (which asks for a jquery function), but in that case the answer would be "No" or "not a semantically correct solution".
– amypellegrini
Nov 14 '11 at 14:24
add a comment |
You could use this:
jQuery.fn.extend({
exists: function() { return this.length }
});
if($(selector).exists()){/*do something*/}
add a comment |
The reason all of the previous answers require the .length parameter is that they are mostly using jquery's $() selector which has querySelectorAll behind the curtains (or they are using it directly). This method is rather slow because it needs to parse the entire DOM tree looking for all matches to that selector and populating an array with them.
The ['length'] parameter is not needed or useful and the code will be a lot faster if you directly use document.querySelector(selector) instead, because it returns the first element it matches or null if not found.
function elementIfExists(selector){ //named this way on purpose, see below
return document.querySelector(selector);
}
/* usage: */
var myelement = elementIfExists("#myid") || myfallbackelement;
However this method leaves us with the actual object being returned; which is fine if it isn't going to be saved as variable and used repeatedly (thus keeping the reference around if we forget).
var myel=elementIfExists("#myid");
// now we are using a reference to the element which will linger after removal
myel.getParentNode.removeChild(myel);
console.log(elementIfExists("#myid")); /* null */
console.log(myel); /* giant table lingering around detached from document */
myel=null; /* now it can be garbage collected */
In some cases this may be desired. It can be used in a for loop like this:
/* locally scoped myel gets garbage collected even with the break; */
for (var myel; myel = elementIfExist(sel); myel.getParentNode.removeChild(myel))
if (myel == myblacklistedel) break;
If you don't actually need the element and want to get/store just a true/false, just double not it !! It works for shoes that come untied, so why knot here?
function elementExists(selector){
return !!document.querySelector(selector);
}
/* usage: */
var hastables = elementExists("table"); /* will be true or false */
if (hastables){
/* insert css style sheet for our pretty tables */
}
setTimeOut(function (){if (hastables && !elementExists("#mytablecss"))
alert("bad table layouts");},3000);
add a comment |
I have found if ($(selector).length) {} to be insufficient. It will silently break your app when selector is an empty object {}.
var $target = $({});
console.log($target, $target.length);
// Console output:
// -------------------------------------
// [▼ Object ] 1
// ► __proto__: Object
My only suggestion is to perform an additional check for {}.
if ($.isEmptyObject(selector) || !$(selector).length) {
throw new Error('Unable to work with the given selector.');
}
I'm still looking for a better solution though as this one is a bit heavy.
Edit: WARNING! This doesn't work in IE when selector is a string.
$.isEmptyObject('hello') // FALSE in Chrome and TRUE in IE
12
How often do you find yourself calling$()with an empty object as an argument?
– nnnnnn
Dec 22 '14 at 11:24
@nnnnnn Actually never (I don't use jQuery anymore). But I guess 3 years ago I had a case of exposing an API that would take a selector and return the number of elements for that selector. If another dev would pass in an empty object, it would incorrectly respond with 1.
– Oleg
Dec 22 '14 at 15:03
3
Why on earth would you pass an empty object{}to$()?
– cpburnz
Mar 26 '15 at 15:46
6
@cpburnz why do you ask me? I was just an API provider... People pass all kinds of stupid things to APIs.
– Oleg
Mar 26 '15 at 15:48
4
Just noticed, the jquery issue thread that @FagnerBrack referenced was updated shortly after his comment; it looks like it's not going away after all.
– Joseph Gabriel
Apr 18 '16 at 21:09
add a comment |
Is $.contains() what you want?
jQuery.contains( container, contained )
The
$.contains()method returns true if the DOM element provided by the second argument is a descendant of the DOM element provided by the first argument, whether it is a direct child or nested more deeply. Otherwise, it returns false. Only element nodes are supported; if the second argument is a text or comment node,$.contains()will return false.
Note: The first argument must be a DOM element, not a jQuery object or plain JavaScript object.
3
This doesn't accept a selector, which means he would have to select it, which means he could just check the result of his selection.
– user1106925
Jun 4 '16 at 13:28
add a comment |
You can check element is present or not using length in java script.
If length is greater than zero then element is present if length is zero then
element is not present
// These by Id
if( $('#elementid').length > 0){
// Element is Present
}else{
// Element is not Present
}
// These by Class
if( $('.elementClass').length > 0){
// Element is Present
}else{
// Element is not Present
}
4
You need not to check weather length is greater than 0, if( $('#elementid').length ) { } will be sufficient.
– Pranav Labhe
Aug 22 '15 at 11:22
13
Have you actually read the question? It's exactly the same method OP is using.
– A1rPun
Mar 16 '16 at 16:01
add a comment |
Checking for existence of an element is documented neatly in the official jQuery website itself!
Use the .length property of the jQuery collection returned by your
selector:
if ($("#myDiv").length) {
$("#myDiv").show();
}
Note that it isn't always necessary to test whether an element exists.
The following code will show the element if it exists, and do nothing
(with no errors) if it does not:
$("#myDiv").show();
add a comment |
this is very similar to all of the answers, but why not use the ! operator twice so you can get a boolean:
jQuery.fn.exists = function(){return !!this.length};
if ($(selector).exists()) {
// the element exists, now what?...
}
2
BecauseBoolean(x)can sometimes be more efficient.
– user7892745
May 22 '17 at 21:47
add a comment |
$(selector).length && //Do something
17
I hate these clever ways of avoiding to use anifwhere anifwould improve readability at the cost of 2 bytes.
– Emile Bergeron
Oct 8 '16 at 0:35
Plus, minifiers will do all these&&for you.
– user7892745
May 22 '17 at 21:46
add a comment |
Try testing for DOM element
if (!!$(selector)[0]) // do stuff
add a comment |
Inspired by hiway's answer I came up with the following:
$.fn.exists = function() {
return $.contains( document.documentElement, this[0] );
}
jQuery.contains takes two DOM elements and checks whether the first one contains the second one.
Using document.documentElement as the first argument fulfills the semantics of the exists method when we want to apply it solely to check the existence of an element in the current document.
Below, I've put together a snippet that compares jQuery.exists() against the $(sel)[0] and $(sel).length approaches which both return truthy values for $(4) while $(4).exists() returns false. In the context of checking for existence of an element in the DOM this seems to be the desired result.
$.fn.exists = function() {
return $.contains(document.documentElement, this[0]);
}
var testFuncs = [
function(jq) { return !!jq[0]; },
function(jq) { return !!jq.length; },
function(jq) { return jq.exists(); },
];
var inputs = [
["$()",$()],
["$(4)",$(4)],
["$('#idoexist')",$('#idoexist')],
["$('#idontexist')",$('#idontexist')]
];
for( var i = 0, l = inputs.length, tr, input; i < l; i++ ) {
input = inputs[i][1];
tr = "<tr><td>" + inputs[i][0] + "</td><td>"
+ testFuncs[0](input) + "</td><td>"
+ testFuncs[1](input) + "</td><td>"
+ testFuncs[2](input) + "</td></tr>";
$("table").append(tr);
}td { border: 1px solid black }<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.1.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
<div id="idoexist">#idoexist</div>
<table style>
<tr>
<td>Input</td><td>!!$(sel)[0]</td><td>!!$(sel).length</td><td>$(sel).exists()</td>
</tr>
</table>
<script>
$.fn.exists = function() {
return $.contains(document.documentElement, this[0]);
}
</script>add a comment |
I just like to use plain vanilla javascript to do this.
function isExists(selector){
return document.querySelectorAll(selector).length>0;
}
add a comment |
No need for jQuery
if(document.querySelector('.a-class')) {
// do something
}
add a comment |
I stumbled upon this question and i'd like to share a snippet of code i currently use:
$.fn.exists = function(callback) {
var self = this;
var wrapper = (function(){
function notExists () {}
notExists.prototype.otherwise = function(fallback){
if (!self.length) {
fallback.call();
}
};
return new notExists;
})();
if(self.length) {
callback.call();
}
return wrapper;
}
And now i can write code like this -
$("#elem").exists(function(){
alert ("it exists");
}).otherwise(function(){
alert ("it doesn't exist");
});
It might seem a lot of code, but when written in CoffeeScript it is quite small:
$.fn.exists = (callback) ->
exists = @length
callback.call() if exists
new class
otherwise: (fallback) ->
fallback.call() if not exists
8
I find OP's original approach not only to be much more minimal but more elegant than this. Seems like overkill to write this much code when OP's method is shorter, and doesn't involve callbacks.
– Lev
Aug 5 '14 at 7:31
For simple cases - you're right. But for more complex situations involving a lot of code on both cases i think my approach is better.
– Eternal1
Aug 5 '14 at 7:38
3
In what complex situation would this approach be better than a simple if/else statement?
– Jarvl
Jun 24 '16 at 18:55
add a comment |
I had a case where I wanted to see if an object exists inside of another so I added something to the first answer to check for a selector inside the selector..
// Checks if an object exists.
// Usage:
//
// $(selector).exists()
//
// Or:
//
// $(selector).exists(anotherSelector);
jQuery.fn.exists = function(selector) {
return selector ? this.find(selector).length : this.length;
};
add a comment |
How about:
function exists(selector) {
return $(selector).length;
}
if (exists(selector)) {
// do something
}
It's very minimal and saves you having to enclose the selector with $() every time.
3
This reads as "if exists thing" instead of "if thing exists" whichif($("#thing").exists(){}reads as. Also, it's not the jQuery way.
– 1j01
Jun 21 '15 at 21:48
add a comment |
I'm using this:
$.fn.ifExists = function(fn) {
if (this.length) {
$(fn(this));
}
};
$("#element").ifExists(
function($this){
$this.addClass('someClass').animate({marginTop:20},function(){alert('ok')});
}
);
Execute the chain only if a jQuery element exist - http://jsfiddle.net/andres_314/vbNM3/2/
add a comment |
$("selector") returns an object which has the length property. If the selector finds any elements, they will be included in the object. So if you check its length you can see if any elements exist. In JavaScript 0 == false, so if you don't get 0 your code will run.
if($("selector").length){
//code in the case
}
5
"give an array" — No, it doesn't. It gives you a jQuery object (which shares some properties with an array). Your answer is essentially the same as Tim Büthe's from 2009 too.
– Quentin
Apr 27 '16 at 12:33
add a comment |
Here is my favorite exist method in jQuery
$.fn.exist = function(callback) {
return $(this).each(function () {
var target = $(this);
if (this.length > 0 && typeof callback === 'function') {
callback.call(target);
}
});
};
and other version which supports callback when selector does not exist
$.fn.exist = function(onExist, onNotExist) {
return $(this).each(function() {
var target = $(this);
if (this.length > 0) {
if (typeof onExist === 'function') {
onExist.call(target);
}
} else {
if (typeof onNotExist === 'function') {
onNotExist.call(target);
}
}
});
};
Example:
$('#foo .bar').exist(
function () {
// Stuff when '#foo .bar' exists
},
function () {
// Stuff when '#foo .bar' does not exist
}
);
add a comment |
You don't have to check if it's greater than 0 like $(selector).length > 0, $(selector).length it's enough and a elegant way to check the existence of elements. I don't think that is worth to write a function only for this, if you want to do more extra things, yes.
if($(selector).length){
// true if length is not 0
} else {
// false if length is 0
}
add a comment |
Here is the complete example of different situations and way to check if element exists using direct if on jQuery selector may or may not work because it returns array or elements.
var a = null;
var b =
var c = undefined ;
if(a) { console.log(" a exist")} else { console.log("a doesn't exit")}
// output: a doesn't exit
if(b) { console.log(" b exist")} else { console.log("b doesn't exit")}
// output: b exist
if(c) { console.log(" c exist")} else { console.log("c doesn't exit")}
// output: c doesn't exit
FINAL SOLUTION
if($("#xysyxxs").length){ console.log("xusyxxs exist")} else { console.log("xusyxxs doesnn't exist") }
//output : xusyxxs doesnn't exist
if($(".xysyxxs").length){ console.log("xusyxxs exist")} else { console.log("xusyxxs doesnn't exist") }
//output : xusyxxs doesnn't exist
You can try $("#xysyxxs") in your debugger, you'll see that jquery doesn't return null or undefined. So the final solution would not work
– Béranger
Sep 9 '16 at 12:27
add a comment |
1 2
next
protected by Andrew Barber Apr 8 '13 at 3:55
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
40 Answers
40
active
oldest
votes
40 Answers
40
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
1 2
next
In JavaScript, everything is 'truthy' or 'falsy', and for numbers 0 (and NaN) means false, everything else true. So you could write:
if ($(selector).length)
You don't need that >0 part.
6
this will throw error if you use Id selector if element doesn't exist. checkout the various tests i have done ...in my answer
– abhirathore2006
Jul 31 '16 at 6:46
41
@abhirathore2006 If you use an id selector and the element doesn't exist then length is 0 and doesn't throw exceptions.
– Robert
Jun 29 '17 at 20:35
12
Interestingly enoughNaN != false.
– Robert
Jun 29 '17 at 20:52
22
@Robert and+=""... ahh I love javascript
– James
Jul 4 '17 at 15:55
3
@James That's because.toString() === .join(',') === ""and"" === "".
– Ismael Miguel
Jul 8 '17 at 22:09
|
show 13 more comments
In JavaScript, everything is 'truthy' or 'falsy', and for numbers 0 (and NaN) means false, everything else true. So you could write:
if ($(selector).length)
You don't need that >0 part.
6
this will throw error if you use Id selector if element doesn't exist. checkout the various tests i have done ...in my answer
– abhirathore2006
Jul 31 '16 at 6:46
41
@abhirathore2006 If you use an id selector and the element doesn't exist then length is 0 and doesn't throw exceptions.
– Robert
Jun 29 '17 at 20:35
12
Interestingly enoughNaN != false.
– Robert
Jun 29 '17 at 20:52
22
@Robert and+=""... ahh I love javascript
– James
Jul 4 '17 at 15:55
3
@James That's because.toString() === .join(',') === ""and"" === "".
– Ismael Miguel
Jul 8 '17 at 22:09
|
show 13 more comments
In JavaScript, everything is 'truthy' or 'falsy', and for numbers 0 (and NaN) means false, everything else true. So you could write:
if ($(selector).length)
You don't need that >0 part.
In JavaScript, everything is 'truthy' or 'falsy', and for numbers 0 (and NaN) means false, everything else true. So you could write:
if ($(selector).length)
You don't need that >0 part.
edited Oct 17 '16 at 14:52
answered Feb 25 '09 at 19:16
Tim BütheTim Büthe
48.2k1273120
48.2k1273120
6
this will throw error if you use Id selector if element doesn't exist. checkout the various tests i have done ...in my answer
– abhirathore2006
Jul 31 '16 at 6:46
41
@abhirathore2006 If you use an id selector and the element doesn't exist then length is 0 and doesn't throw exceptions.
– Robert
Jun 29 '17 at 20:35
12
Interestingly enoughNaN != false.
– Robert
Jun 29 '17 at 20:52
22
@Robert and+=""... ahh I love javascript
– James
Jul 4 '17 at 15:55
3
@James That's because.toString() === .join(',') === ""and"" === "".
– Ismael Miguel
Jul 8 '17 at 22:09
|
show 13 more comments
6
this will throw error if you use Id selector if element doesn't exist. checkout the various tests i have done ...in my answer
– abhirathore2006
Jul 31 '16 at 6:46
41
@abhirathore2006 If you use an id selector and the element doesn't exist then length is 0 and doesn't throw exceptions.
– Robert
Jun 29 '17 at 20:35
12
Interestingly enoughNaN != false.
– Robert
Jun 29 '17 at 20:52
22
@Robert and+=""... ahh I love javascript
– James
Jul 4 '17 at 15:55
3
@James That's because.toString() === .join(',') === ""and"" === "".
– Ismael Miguel
Jul 8 '17 at 22:09
6
6
this will throw error if you use Id selector if element doesn't exist. checkout the various tests i have done ...in my answer
– abhirathore2006
Jul 31 '16 at 6:46
this will throw error if you use Id selector if element doesn't exist. checkout the various tests i have done ...in my answer
– abhirathore2006
Jul 31 '16 at 6:46
41
41
@abhirathore2006 If you use an id selector and the element doesn't exist then length is 0 and doesn't throw exceptions.
– Robert
Jun 29 '17 at 20:35
@abhirathore2006 If you use an id selector and the element doesn't exist then length is 0 and doesn't throw exceptions.
– Robert
Jun 29 '17 at 20:35
12
12
Interestingly enough
NaN != false.– Robert
Jun 29 '17 at 20:52
Interestingly enough
NaN != false.– Robert
Jun 29 '17 at 20:52
22
22
@Robert and
+ = ""... ahh I love javascript– James
Jul 4 '17 at 15:55
@Robert and
+ = ""... ahh I love javascript– James
Jul 4 '17 at 15:55
3
3
@James That's because
.toString() === .join(',') === "" and "" === "".– Ismael Miguel
Jul 8 '17 at 22:09
@James That's because
.toString() === .join(',') === "" and "" === "".– Ismael Miguel
Jul 8 '17 at 22:09
|
show 13 more comments
Yes!
jQuery.fn.exists = function(){ return this.length > 0; }
if ($(selector).exists()) {
// Do something
}
This is in response to: Herding Code podcast with Jeff Atwood
248
I just write: if( $(selector).length ){ ... } without the '> 0'
– vsync
Nov 24 '09 at 9:22
355
Your$.fn.existsexample is replacing a property lookup (cheap!) with two function calls, which are much more expensive—and one of those function calls recreates a jQuery object that you already have, which is just silly.
– C Snover
May 30 '10 at 4:14
204
@redsquare: Code readability is the best rationale for adding this sort of function on jQuery. Having something called.existsreads cleanly, whereas.lengthreads as something semantically different, even if the semantics coincide with an identical result.
– Ben Zotto
Aug 2 '10 at 20:52
45
@quixoto, sorry but .length is a standard across many languages that does not need wrapping. How else do you interpret .length?
– redsquare
Aug 3 '10 at 0:13
132
In my opinion, it's at least one logical indirection from the concept of "a list length that is greater than zero" to the concept of "the element(s) I wrote a selector for exist". Yeah, they're the same thing technically, but the conceptual abstraction is at a different level. This causes some people to prefer a more explicit indicator, even at some performance cost.
– Ben Zotto
Aug 3 '10 at 0:29
|
show 6 more comments
Yes!
jQuery.fn.exists = function(){ return this.length > 0; }
if ($(selector).exists()) {
// Do something
}
This is in response to: Herding Code podcast with Jeff Atwood
248
I just write: if( $(selector).length ){ ... } without the '> 0'
– vsync
Nov 24 '09 at 9:22
355
Your$.fn.existsexample is replacing a property lookup (cheap!) with two function calls, which are much more expensive—and one of those function calls recreates a jQuery object that you already have, which is just silly.
– C Snover
May 30 '10 at 4:14
204
@redsquare: Code readability is the best rationale for adding this sort of function on jQuery. Having something called.existsreads cleanly, whereas.lengthreads as something semantically different, even if the semantics coincide with an identical result.
– Ben Zotto
Aug 2 '10 at 20:52
45
@quixoto, sorry but .length is a standard across many languages that does not need wrapping. How else do you interpret .length?
– redsquare
Aug 3 '10 at 0:13
132
In my opinion, it's at least one logical indirection from the concept of "a list length that is greater than zero" to the concept of "the element(s) I wrote a selector for exist". Yeah, they're the same thing technically, but the conceptual abstraction is at a different level. This causes some people to prefer a more explicit indicator, even at some performance cost.
– Ben Zotto
Aug 3 '10 at 0:29
|
show 6 more comments
Yes!
jQuery.fn.exists = function(){ return this.length > 0; }
if ($(selector).exists()) {
// Do something
}
This is in response to: Herding Code podcast with Jeff Atwood
Yes!
jQuery.fn.exists = function(){ return this.length > 0; }
if ($(selector).exists()) {
// Do something
}
This is in response to: Herding Code podcast with Jeff Atwood
edited Feb 13 '17 at 22:37
vaxquis
7,74853958
7,74853958
answered Aug 27 '08 at 19:50
Jake McGrawJake McGraw
33.2k104162
33.2k104162
248
I just write: if( $(selector).length ){ ... } without the '> 0'
– vsync
Nov 24 '09 at 9:22
355
Your$.fn.existsexample is replacing a property lookup (cheap!) with two function calls, which are much more expensive—and one of those function calls recreates a jQuery object that you already have, which is just silly.
– C Snover
May 30 '10 at 4:14
204
@redsquare: Code readability is the best rationale for adding this sort of function on jQuery. Having something called.existsreads cleanly, whereas.lengthreads as something semantically different, even if the semantics coincide with an identical result.
– Ben Zotto
Aug 2 '10 at 20:52
45
@quixoto, sorry but .length is a standard across many languages that does not need wrapping. How else do you interpret .length?
– redsquare
Aug 3 '10 at 0:13
132
In my opinion, it's at least one logical indirection from the concept of "a list length that is greater than zero" to the concept of "the element(s) I wrote a selector for exist". Yeah, they're the same thing technically, but the conceptual abstraction is at a different level. This causes some people to prefer a more explicit indicator, even at some performance cost.
– Ben Zotto
Aug 3 '10 at 0:29
|
show 6 more comments
248
I just write: if( $(selector).length ){ ... } without the '> 0'
– vsync
Nov 24 '09 at 9:22
355
Your$.fn.existsexample is replacing a property lookup (cheap!) with two function calls, which are much more expensive—and one of those function calls recreates a jQuery object that you already have, which is just silly.
– C Snover
May 30 '10 at 4:14
204
@redsquare: Code readability is the best rationale for adding this sort of function on jQuery. Having something called.existsreads cleanly, whereas.lengthreads as something semantically different, even if the semantics coincide with an identical result.
– Ben Zotto
Aug 2 '10 at 20:52
45
@quixoto, sorry but .length is a standard across many languages that does not need wrapping. How else do you interpret .length?
– redsquare
Aug 3 '10 at 0:13
132
In my opinion, it's at least one logical indirection from the concept of "a list length that is greater than zero" to the concept of "the element(s) I wrote a selector for exist". Yeah, they're the same thing technically, but the conceptual abstraction is at a different level. This causes some people to prefer a more explicit indicator, even at some performance cost.
– Ben Zotto
Aug 3 '10 at 0:29
248
248
I just write: if( $(selector).length ){ ... } without the '> 0'
– vsync
Nov 24 '09 at 9:22
I just write: if( $(selector).length ){ ... } without the '> 0'
– vsync
Nov 24 '09 at 9:22
355
355
Your
$.fn.exists example is replacing a property lookup (cheap!) with two function calls, which are much more expensive—and one of those function calls recreates a jQuery object that you already have, which is just silly.– C Snover
May 30 '10 at 4:14
Your
$.fn.exists example is replacing a property lookup (cheap!) with two function calls, which are much more expensive—and one of those function calls recreates a jQuery object that you already have, which is just silly.– C Snover
May 30 '10 at 4:14
204
204
@redsquare: Code readability is the best rationale for adding this sort of function on jQuery. Having something called
.exists reads cleanly, whereas .length reads as something semantically different, even if the semantics coincide with an identical result.– Ben Zotto
Aug 2 '10 at 20:52
@redsquare: Code readability is the best rationale for adding this sort of function on jQuery. Having something called
.exists reads cleanly, whereas .length reads as something semantically different, even if the semantics coincide with an identical result.– Ben Zotto
Aug 2 '10 at 20:52
45
45
@quixoto, sorry but .length is a standard across many languages that does not need wrapping. How else do you interpret .length?
– redsquare
Aug 3 '10 at 0:13
@quixoto, sorry but .length is a standard across many languages that does not need wrapping. How else do you interpret .length?
– redsquare
Aug 3 '10 at 0:13
132
132
In my opinion, it's at least one logical indirection from the concept of "a list length that is greater than zero" to the concept of "the element(s) I wrote a selector for exist". Yeah, they're the same thing technically, but the conceptual abstraction is at a different level. This causes some people to prefer a more explicit indicator, even at some performance cost.
– Ben Zotto
Aug 3 '10 at 0:29
In my opinion, it's at least one logical indirection from the concept of "a list length that is greater than zero" to the concept of "the element(s) I wrote a selector for exist". Yeah, they're the same thing technically, but the conceptual abstraction is at a different level. This causes some people to prefer a more explicit indicator, even at some performance cost.
– Ben Zotto
Aug 3 '10 at 0:29
|
show 6 more comments
If you used
jQuery.fn.exists = function(){return ($(this).length > 0);}
if ($(selector).exists()) { }
you would imply that chaining was possible when it is not.
This would be better:
jQuery.exists = function(selector) {return ($(selector).length > 0);}
if ($.exists(selector)) { }
Alternatively, from the FAQ:
if ( $('#myDiv').length ) { /* Do something */ }
You could also use the following. If there are no values in the jQuery object array then getting the first item in the array would return undefined.
if ( $('#myDiv')[0] ) { /* Do something */ }
10
The first method reads better. $("a").exists() reads as "if <a> elements exist." $.exists("a") reads as "if there exists <a> elements."
– strager
Jan 14 '09 at 20:00
15
true but again, you're implying that chaining is possible and if I tried to do something like $(selector).exists().css("color", "red") it wouldn't work and then I would be =*(
– Jon Erickson
Jan 15 '09 at 0:31
16
There are already methods that aren't chainable, like attr and data functions. I do see your point though and, for what it's worth, I just test for length > 0 anyways.
– Matthew Crumley
Jan 16 '09 at 5:42
36
Why on earth would you need to chain this?$(".missing").css("color", "red")already does the right thing… (i.e. nothing)
– Ben Blank
Sep 8 '10 at 6:43
8
The stuff about chaining is complete tosh - there are plenty of jQuery$.fnmethods that return something other than a new jQuery object and therefore don't chain.
– Alnitak
Jul 18 '14 at 8:12
|
show 5 more comments
If you used
jQuery.fn.exists = function(){return ($(this).length > 0);}
if ($(selector).exists()) { }
you would imply that chaining was possible when it is not.
This would be better:
jQuery.exists = function(selector) {return ($(selector).length > 0);}
if ($.exists(selector)) { }
Alternatively, from the FAQ:
if ( $('#myDiv').length ) { /* Do something */ }
You could also use the following. If there are no values in the jQuery object array then getting the first item in the array would return undefined.
if ( $('#myDiv')[0] ) { /* Do something */ }
10
The first method reads better. $("a").exists() reads as "if <a> elements exist." $.exists("a") reads as "if there exists <a> elements."
– strager
Jan 14 '09 at 20:00
15
true but again, you're implying that chaining is possible and if I tried to do something like $(selector).exists().css("color", "red") it wouldn't work and then I would be =*(
– Jon Erickson
Jan 15 '09 at 0:31
16
There are already methods that aren't chainable, like attr and data functions. I do see your point though and, for what it's worth, I just test for length > 0 anyways.
– Matthew Crumley
Jan 16 '09 at 5:42
36
Why on earth would you need to chain this?$(".missing").css("color", "red")already does the right thing… (i.e. nothing)
– Ben Blank
Sep 8 '10 at 6:43
8
The stuff about chaining is complete tosh - there are plenty of jQuery$.fnmethods that return something other than a new jQuery object and therefore don't chain.
– Alnitak
Jul 18 '14 at 8:12
|
show 5 more comments
If you used
jQuery.fn.exists = function(){return ($(this).length > 0);}
if ($(selector).exists()) { }
you would imply that chaining was possible when it is not.
This would be better:
jQuery.exists = function(selector) {return ($(selector).length > 0);}
if ($.exists(selector)) { }
Alternatively, from the FAQ:
if ( $('#myDiv').length ) { /* Do something */ }
You could also use the following. If there are no values in the jQuery object array then getting the first item in the array would return undefined.
if ( $('#myDiv')[0] ) { /* Do something */ }
If you used
jQuery.fn.exists = function(){return ($(this).length > 0);}
if ($(selector).exists()) { }
you would imply that chaining was possible when it is not.
This would be better:
jQuery.exists = function(selector) {return ($(selector).length > 0);}
if ($.exists(selector)) { }
Alternatively, from the FAQ:
if ( $('#myDiv').length ) { /* Do something */ }
You could also use the following. If there are no values in the jQuery object array then getting the first item in the array would return undefined.
if ( $('#myDiv')[0] ) { /* Do something */ }
edited Jun 30 '15 at 8:09
R3tep
8,00982962
8,00982962
answered Jan 14 '09 at 19:46
Jon EricksonJon Erickson
77.2k34125160
77.2k34125160
10
The first method reads better. $("a").exists() reads as "if <a> elements exist." $.exists("a") reads as "if there exists <a> elements."
– strager
Jan 14 '09 at 20:00
15
true but again, you're implying that chaining is possible and if I tried to do something like $(selector).exists().css("color", "red") it wouldn't work and then I would be =*(
– Jon Erickson
Jan 15 '09 at 0:31
16
There are already methods that aren't chainable, like attr and data functions. I do see your point though and, for what it's worth, I just test for length > 0 anyways.
– Matthew Crumley
Jan 16 '09 at 5:42
36
Why on earth would you need to chain this?$(".missing").css("color", "red")already does the right thing… (i.e. nothing)
– Ben Blank
Sep 8 '10 at 6:43
8
The stuff about chaining is complete tosh - there are plenty of jQuery$.fnmethods that return something other than a new jQuery object and therefore don't chain.
– Alnitak
Jul 18 '14 at 8:12
|
show 5 more comments
10
The first method reads better. $("a").exists() reads as "if <a> elements exist." $.exists("a") reads as "if there exists <a> elements."
– strager
Jan 14 '09 at 20:00
15
true but again, you're implying that chaining is possible and if I tried to do something like $(selector).exists().css("color", "red") it wouldn't work and then I would be =*(
– Jon Erickson
Jan 15 '09 at 0:31
16
There are already methods that aren't chainable, like attr and data functions. I do see your point though and, for what it's worth, I just test for length > 0 anyways.
– Matthew Crumley
Jan 16 '09 at 5:42
36
Why on earth would you need to chain this?$(".missing").css("color", "red")already does the right thing… (i.e. nothing)
– Ben Blank
Sep 8 '10 at 6:43
8
The stuff about chaining is complete tosh - there are plenty of jQuery$.fnmethods that return something other than a new jQuery object and therefore don't chain.
– Alnitak
Jul 18 '14 at 8:12
10
10
The first method reads better. $("a").exists() reads as "if <a> elements exist." $.exists("a") reads as "if there exists <a> elements."
– strager
Jan 14 '09 at 20:00
The first method reads better. $("a").exists() reads as "if <a> elements exist." $.exists("a") reads as "if there exists <a> elements."
– strager
Jan 14 '09 at 20:00
15
15
true but again, you're implying that chaining is possible and if I tried to do something like $(selector).exists().css("color", "red") it wouldn't work and then I would be =*(
– Jon Erickson
Jan 15 '09 at 0:31
true but again, you're implying that chaining is possible and if I tried to do something like $(selector).exists().css("color", "red") it wouldn't work and then I would be =*(
– Jon Erickson
Jan 15 '09 at 0:31
16
16
There are already methods that aren't chainable, like attr and data functions. I do see your point though and, for what it's worth, I just test for length > 0 anyways.
– Matthew Crumley
Jan 16 '09 at 5:42
There are already methods that aren't chainable, like attr and data functions. I do see your point though and, for what it's worth, I just test for length > 0 anyways.
– Matthew Crumley
Jan 16 '09 at 5:42
36
36
Why on earth would you need to chain this?
$(".missing").css("color", "red") already does the right thing… (i.e. nothing)– Ben Blank
Sep 8 '10 at 6:43
Why on earth would you need to chain this?
$(".missing").css("color", "red") already does the right thing… (i.e. nothing)– Ben Blank
Sep 8 '10 at 6:43
8
8
The stuff about chaining is complete tosh - there are plenty of jQuery
$.fn methods that return something other than a new jQuery object and therefore don't chain.– Alnitak
Jul 18 '14 at 8:12
The stuff about chaining is complete tosh - there are plenty of jQuery
$.fn methods that return something other than a new jQuery object and therefore don't chain.– Alnitak
Jul 18 '14 at 8:12
|
show 5 more comments
You can use this:
// if element exists
if($('selector').length){ /* do something */ }
// if element does not exist
if(!$('selector').length){ /* do something */ }
123
Did you not see that Tim Büthe had already given this answer 2 years prior to you?
– Th4t Guy
Jul 31 '14 at 17:28
88
Pfft, Tim never showed how to test if the element does not exist.
– Jeremy W
Aug 5 '15 at 15:03
You mean life "else"? My Q is this : err, it must exist or the selector doesn't match. The length is superfluous.
– RichieHH
Jul 2 '17 at 12:55
14
this answer and comments sums up how stackoverflow works
– aswzen
Apr 3 '18 at 8:48
add a comment |
You can use this:
// if element exists
if($('selector').length){ /* do something */ }
// if element does not exist
if(!$('selector').length){ /* do something */ }
123
Did you not see that Tim Büthe had already given this answer 2 years prior to you?
– Th4t Guy
Jul 31 '14 at 17:28
88
Pfft, Tim never showed how to test if the element does not exist.
– Jeremy W
Aug 5 '15 at 15:03
You mean life "else"? My Q is this : err, it must exist or the selector doesn't match. The length is superfluous.
– RichieHH
Jul 2 '17 at 12:55
14
this answer and comments sums up how stackoverflow works
– aswzen
Apr 3 '18 at 8:48
add a comment |
You can use this:
// if element exists
if($('selector').length){ /* do something */ }
// if element does not exist
if(!$('selector').length){ /* do something */ }
You can use this:
// if element exists
if($('selector').length){ /* do something */ }
// if element does not exist
if(!$('selector').length){ /* do something */ }
edited Jun 29 '16 at 4:43
Derek 朕會功夫
62.4k37141192
62.4k37141192
answered Apr 3 '11 at 12:17
YanniYanni
2,2072156
2,2072156
123
Did you not see that Tim Büthe had already given this answer 2 years prior to you?
– Th4t Guy
Jul 31 '14 at 17:28
88
Pfft, Tim never showed how to test if the element does not exist.
– Jeremy W
Aug 5 '15 at 15:03
You mean life "else"? My Q is this : err, it must exist or the selector doesn't match. The length is superfluous.
– RichieHH
Jul 2 '17 at 12:55
14
this answer and comments sums up how stackoverflow works
– aswzen
Apr 3 '18 at 8:48
add a comment |
123
Did you not see that Tim Büthe had already given this answer 2 years prior to you?
– Th4t Guy
Jul 31 '14 at 17:28
88
Pfft, Tim never showed how to test if the element does not exist.
– Jeremy W
Aug 5 '15 at 15:03
You mean life "else"? My Q is this : err, it must exist or the selector doesn't match. The length is superfluous.
– RichieHH
Jul 2 '17 at 12:55
14
this answer and comments sums up how stackoverflow works
– aswzen
Apr 3 '18 at 8:48
123
123
Did you not see that Tim Büthe had already given this answer 2 years prior to you?
– Th4t Guy
Jul 31 '14 at 17:28
Did you not see that Tim Büthe had already given this answer 2 years prior to you?
– Th4t Guy
Jul 31 '14 at 17:28
88
88
Pfft, Tim never showed how to test if the element does not exist.
– Jeremy W
Aug 5 '15 at 15:03
Pfft, Tim never showed how to test if the element does not exist.
– Jeremy W
Aug 5 '15 at 15:03
You mean life "else"? My Q is this : err, it must exist or the selector doesn't match. The length is superfluous.
– RichieHH
Jul 2 '17 at 12:55
You mean life "else"? My Q is this : err, it must exist or the selector doesn't match. The length is superfluous.
– RichieHH
Jul 2 '17 at 12:55
14
14
this answer and comments sums up how stackoverflow works
– aswzen
Apr 3 '18 at 8:48
this answer and comments sums up how stackoverflow works
– aswzen
Apr 3 '18 at 8:48
add a comment |
The fastest and most semantically self explaining way to check for existence is actually by using plain JavaScript:
if (document.getElementById('element_id')) {
// Do something
}
It is a bit longer to write than the jQuery length alternative, but executes faster since it is a native JS method.
And it is better than the alternative of writing your own jQuery function. That alternative is slower, for the reasons @snover stated. But it would also give other programmers the impression that the exists() function is something inherent to jQuery. JavaScript would/should be understood by others editing your code, without increased knowledge debt.
NB: Notice the lack of an '#' before the element_id (since this is plain JS, not jQuery).
51
Totally not the same thing. JQuery selectors can be used for any CSS rule - for example$('#foo a.special'). And it can return more than one element.getElementByIdcan't begin to approach that.
– kikito
Mar 7 '12 at 16:30
7
You are correct in that it isn't as broadly applicable as selectors. However, it does the job quite well in the most common case (checking if a single element exists). The arguments of self-explanation and speed still stands.
– Magne
May 10 '12 at 8:55
28
@Nozif(document.querySelector("#foo a.special"))would work. No jQuery needed.
– Blue Skies
Dec 8 '13 at 0:43
33
The argument of speed in JS engines is only dead in the mind of people who can't function without jQuery, since it's an argument they can't win.
– Blue Skies
Dec 8 '13 at 0:45
22
Remember the good old days when document.getElementById was all we had? And I always forgot the document. and couldn't figure out why it didn't work. And I always spelled it wrong and got the character casing wrong.
– JustJohn
Nov 18 '14 at 21:05
|
show 6 more comments
The fastest and most semantically self explaining way to check for existence is actually by using plain JavaScript:
if (document.getElementById('element_id')) {
// Do something
}
It is a bit longer to write than the jQuery length alternative, but executes faster since it is a native JS method.
And it is better than the alternative of writing your own jQuery function. That alternative is slower, for the reasons @snover stated. But it would also give other programmers the impression that the exists() function is something inherent to jQuery. JavaScript would/should be understood by others editing your code, without increased knowledge debt.
NB: Notice the lack of an '#' before the element_id (since this is plain JS, not jQuery).
51
Totally not the same thing. JQuery selectors can be used for any CSS rule - for example$('#foo a.special'). And it can return more than one element.getElementByIdcan't begin to approach that.
– kikito
Mar 7 '12 at 16:30
7
You are correct in that it isn't as broadly applicable as selectors. However, it does the job quite well in the most common case (checking if a single element exists). The arguments of self-explanation and speed still stands.
– Magne
May 10 '12 at 8:55
28
@Nozif(document.querySelector("#foo a.special"))would work. No jQuery needed.
– Blue Skies
Dec 8 '13 at 0:43
33
The argument of speed in JS engines is only dead in the mind of people who can't function without jQuery, since it's an argument they can't win.
– Blue Skies
Dec 8 '13 at 0:45
22
Remember the good old days when document.getElementById was all we had? And I always forgot the document. and couldn't figure out why it didn't work. And I always spelled it wrong and got the character casing wrong.
– JustJohn
Nov 18 '14 at 21:05
|
show 6 more comments
The fastest and most semantically self explaining way to check for existence is actually by using plain JavaScript:
if (document.getElementById('element_id')) {
// Do something
}
It is a bit longer to write than the jQuery length alternative, but executes faster since it is a native JS method.
And it is better than the alternative of writing your own jQuery function. That alternative is slower, for the reasons @snover stated. But it would also give other programmers the impression that the exists() function is something inherent to jQuery. JavaScript would/should be understood by others editing your code, without increased knowledge debt.
NB: Notice the lack of an '#' before the element_id (since this is plain JS, not jQuery).
The fastest and most semantically self explaining way to check for existence is actually by using plain JavaScript:
if (document.getElementById('element_id')) {
// Do something
}
It is a bit longer to write than the jQuery length alternative, but executes faster since it is a native JS method.
And it is better than the alternative of writing your own jQuery function. That alternative is slower, for the reasons @snover stated. But it would also give other programmers the impression that the exists() function is something inherent to jQuery. JavaScript would/should be understood by others editing your code, without increased knowledge debt.
NB: Notice the lack of an '#' before the element_id (since this is plain JS, not jQuery).
edited Feb 9 at 3:48
Randika Vishman
4,80724060
4,80724060
answered Jan 11 '12 at 12:27
MagneMagne
10.9k64759
10.9k64759
51
Totally not the same thing. JQuery selectors can be used for any CSS rule - for example$('#foo a.special'). And it can return more than one element.getElementByIdcan't begin to approach that.
– kikito
Mar 7 '12 at 16:30
7
You are correct in that it isn't as broadly applicable as selectors. However, it does the job quite well in the most common case (checking if a single element exists). The arguments of self-explanation and speed still stands.
– Magne
May 10 '12 at 8:55
28
@Nozif(document.querySelector("#foo a.special"))would work. No jQuery needed.
– Blue Skies
Dec 8 '13 at 0:43
33
The argument of speed in JS engines is only dead in the mind of people who can't function without jQuery, since it's an argument they can't win.
– Blue Skies
Dec 8 '13 at 0:45
22
Remember the good old days when document.getElementById was all we had? And I always forgot the document. and couldn't figure out why it didn't work. And I always spelled it wrong and got the character casing wrong.
– JustJohn
Nov 18 '14 at 21:05
|
show 6 more comments
51
Totally not the same thing. JQuery selectors can be used for any CSS rule - for example$('#foo a.special'). And it can return more than one element.getElementByIdcan't begin to approach that.
– kikito
Mar 7 '12 at 16:30
7
You are correct in that it isn't as broadly applicable as selectors. However, it does the job quite well in the most common case (checking if a single element exists). The arguments of self-explanation and speed still stands.
– Magne
May 10 '12 at 8:55
28
@Nozif(document.querySelector("#foo a.special"))would work. No jQuery needed.
– Blue Skies
Dec 8 '13 at 0:43
33
The argument of speed in JS engines is only dead in the mind of people who can't function without jQuery, since it's an argument they can't win.
– Blue Skies
Dec 8 '13 at 0:45
22
Remember the good old days when document.getElementById was all we had? And I always forgot the document. and couldn't figure out why it didn't work. And I always spelled it wrong and got the character casing wrong.
– JustJohn
Nov 18 '14 at 21:05
51
51
Totally not the same thing. JQuery selectors can be used for any CSS rule - for example
$('#foo a.special'). And it can return more than one element. getElementById can't begin to approach that.– kikito
Mar 7 '12 at 16:30
Totally not the same thing. JQuery selectors can be used for any CSS rule - for example
$('#foo a.special'). And it can return more than one element. getElementById can't begin to approach that.– kikito
Mar 7 '12 at 16:30
7
7
You are correct in that it isn't as broadly applicable as selectors. However, it does the job quite well in the most common case (checking if a single element exists). The arguments of self-explanation and speed still stands.
– Magne
May 10 '12 at 8:55
You are correct in that it isn't as broadly applicable as selectors. However, it does the job quite well in the most common case (checking if a single element exists). The arguments of self-explanation and speed still stands.
– Magne
May 10 '12 at 8:55
28
28
@Noz
if(document.querySelector("#foo a.special")) would work. No jQuery needed.– Blue Skies
Dec 8 '13 at 0:43
@Noz
if(document.querySelector("#foo a.special")) would work. No jQuery needed.– Blue Skies
Dec 8 '13 at 0:43
33
33
The argument of speed in JS engines is only dead in the mind of people who can't function without jQuery, since it's an argument they can't win.
– Blue Skies
Dec 8 '13 at 0:45
The argument of speed in JS engines is only dead in the mind of people who can't function without jQuery, since it's an argument they can't win.
– Blue Skies
Dec 8 '13 at 0:45
22
22
Remember the good old days when document.getElementById was all we had? And I always forgot the document. and couldn't figure out why it didn't work. And I always spelled it wrong and got the character casing wrong.
– JustJohn
Nov 18 '14 at 21:05
Remember the good old days when document.getElementById was all we had? And I always forgot the document. and couldn't figure out why it didn't work. And I always spelled it wrong and got the character casing wrong.
– JustJohn
Nov 18 '14 at 21:05
|
show 6 more comments
You can save a few bytes by writing:
if ($(selector)[0]) { ... }
This works because each jQuery object also masquerades as an array, so we can use the array dereferencing operator to get the first item from the array. It returns undefined if there is no item at the specified index.
1
I came here to post this exact answer... obligatory fiddle: jsfiddle.net/jasonwilczak/ekjj80gy/2
– JasonWilczak
Mar 25 '15 at 15:08
3
@JasonWilczak Care to comment why not instead: .eq[0] or .first() to refer to a first element found rather than type casting?
– Jean Paul A.K.A el_vete
Jul 21 '15 at 13:51
5
No,jQuery.first()orjQuery.eq(0)both return objects, objects are truthy even if they are empty-ish. This example should illustrate why these functions cannot be used as-is:if(jQuery("#does-not-exist").eq(0)) alert("#does-not-exist exists")
– Salman A
Jul 21 '15 at 15:16
1
Correct..eq(0)returns just another jQuery object truncated to length 1 or 0..first()is just a convenience method for.eq(0). But.get(0)returns the first DOM element orundefinedand is the same as[0]. The first DOM element in a jQuery object is stored in the regular object property with the name'0'. That's a simple property access. The only type casting stems from the implicit conversion of the number0to the string'0'. So if type casting is a problem you could use$.find(selector)['0']instead.
– Robert
Jun 29 '17 at 20:20
add a comment |
You can save a few bytes by writing:
if ($(selector)[0]) { ... }
This works because each jQuery object also masquerades as an array, so we can use the array dereferencing operator to get the first item from the array. It returns undefined if there is no item at the specified index.
1
I came here to post this exact answer... obligatory fiddle: jsfiddle.net/jasonwilczak/ekjj80gy/2
– JasonWilczak
Mar 25 '15 at 15:08
3
@JasonWilczak Care to comment why not instead: .eq[0] or .first() to refer to a first element found rather than type casting?
– Jean Paul A.K.A el_vete
Jul 21 '15 at 13:51
5
No,jQuery.first()orjQuery.eq(0)both return objects, objects are truthy even if they are empty-ish. This example should illustrate why these functions cannot be used as-is:if(jQuery("#does-not-exist").eq(0)) alert("#does-not-exist exists")
– Salman A
Jul 21 '15 at 15:16
1
Correct..eq(0)returns just another jQuery object truncated to length 1 or 0..first()is just a convenience method for.eq(0). But.get(0)returns the first DOM element orundefinedand is the same as[0]. The first DOM element in a jQuery object is stored in the regular object property with the name'0'. That's a simple property access. The only type casting stems from the implicit conversion of the number0to the string'0'. So if type casting is a problem you could use$.find(selector)['0']instead.
– Robert
Jun 29 '17 at 20:20
add a comment |
You can save a few bytes by writing:
if ($(selector)[0]) { ... }
This works because each jQuery object also masquerades as an array, so we can use the array dereferencing operator to get the first item from the array. It returns undefined if there is no item at the specified index.
You can save a few bytes by writing:
if ($(selector)[0]) { ... }
This works because each jQuery object also masquerades as an array, so we can use the array dereferencing operator to get the first item from the array. It returns undefined if there is no item at the specified index.
answered Jan 18 '14 at 9:04
Salman ASalman A
184k67343441
184k67343441
1
I came here to post this exact answer... obligatory fiddle: jsfiddle.net/jasonwilczak/ekjj80gy/2
– JasonWilczak
Mar 25 '15 at 15:08
3
@JasonWilczak Care to comment why not instead: .eq[0] or .first() to refer to a first element found rather than type casting?
– Jean Paul A.K.A el_vete
Jul 21 '15 at 13:51
5
No,jQuery.first()orjQuery.eq(0)both return objects, objects are truthy even if they are empty-ish. This example should illustrate why these functions cannot be used as-is:if(jQuery("#does-not-exist").eq(0)) alert("#does-not-exist exists")
– Salman A
Jul 21 '15 at 15:16
1
Correct..eq(0)returns just another jQuery object truncated to length 1 or 0..first()is just a convenience method for.eq(0). But.get(0)returns the first DOM element orundefinedand is the same as[0]. The first DOM element in a jQuery object is stored in the regular object property with the name'0'. That's a simple property access. The only type casting stems from the implicit conversion of the number0to the string'0'. So if type casting is a problem you could use$.find(selector)['0']instead.
– Robert
Jun 29 '17 at 20:20
add a comment |
1
I came here to post this exact answer... obligatory fiddle: jsfiddle.net/jasonwilczak/ekjj80gy/2
– JasonWilczak
Mar 25 '15 at 15:08
3
@JasonWilczak Care to comment why not instead: .eq[0] or .first() to refer to a first element found rather than type casting?
– Jean Paul A.K.A el_vete
Jul 21 '15 at 13:51
5
No,jQuery.first()orjQuery.eq(0)both return objects, objects are truthy even if they are empty-ish. This example should illustrate why these functions cannot be used as-is:if(jQuery("#does-not-exist").eq(0)) alert("#does-not-exist exists")
– Salman A
Jul 21 '15 at 15:16
1
Correct..eq(0)returns just another jQuery object truncated to length 1 or 0..first()is just a convenience method for.eq(0). But.get(0)returns the first DOM element orundefinedand is the same as[0]. The first DOM element in a jQuery object is stored in the regular object property with the name'0'. That's a simple property access. The only type casting stems from the implicit conversion of the number0to the string'0'. So if type casting is a problem you could use$.find(selector)['0']instead.
– Robert
Jun 29 '17 at 20:20
1
1
I came here to post this exact answer... obligatory fiddle: jsfiddle.net/jasonwilczak/ekjj80gy/2
– JasonWilczak
Mar 25 '15 at 15:08
I came here to post this exact answer... obligatory fiddle: jsfiddle.net/jasonwilczak/ekjj80gy/2
– JasonWilczak
Mar 25 '15 at 15:08
3
3
@JasonWilczak Care to comment why not instead: .eq[0] or .first() to refer to a first element found rather than type casting?
– Jean Paul A.K.A el_vete
Jul 21 '15 at 13:51
@JasonWilczak Care to comment why not instead: .eq[0] or .first() to refer to a first element found rather than type casting?
– Jean Paul A.K.A el_vete
Jul 21 '15 at 13:51
5
5
No,
jQuery.first() or jQuery.eq(0) both return objects, objects are truthy even if they are empty-ish. This example should illustrate why these functions cannot be used as-is: if(jQuery("#does-not-exist").eq(0)) alert("#does-not-exist exists")– Salman A
Jul 21 '15 at 15:16
No,
jQuery.first() or jQuery.eq(0) both return objects, objects are truthy even if they are empty-ish. This example should illustrate why these functions cannot be used as-is: if(jQuery("#does-not-exist").eq(0)) alert("#does-not-exist exists")– Salman A
Jul 21 '15 at 15:16
1
1
Correct.
.eq(0) returns just another jQuery object truncated to length 1 or 0. .first() is just a convenience method for .eq(0). But .get(0) returns the first DOM element or undefined and is the same as [0]. The first DOM element in a jQuery object is stored in the regular object property with the name '0'. That's a simple property access. The only type casting stems from the implicit conversion of the number 0 to the string '0'. So if type casting is a problem you could use $.find(selector)['0'] instead.– Robert
Jun 29 '17 at 20:20
Correct.
.eq(0) returns just another jQuery object truncated to length 1 or 0. .first() is just a convenience method for .eq(0). But .get(0) returns the first DOM element or undefined and is the same as [0]. The first DOM element in a jQuery object is stored in the regular object property with the name '0'. That's a simple property access. The only type casting stems from the implicit conversion of the number 0 to the string '0'. So if type casting is a problem you could use $.find(selector)['0'] instead.– Robert
Jun 29 '17 at 20:20
add a comment |
You can use:
if ($(selector).is('*')) {
// Do something
}
A little more elegant, perhaps.
36
This is too much for such a simple thing. see Tim Büthe answer
– vsync
Nov 24 '09 at 9:28
This is the correct answer. The 'length' method has the problem that it gives false positive with any number, for example: $(666).length // returns 1, but it's not a valid selector
– earnaz
Sep 16 '15 at 16:23
This is extremely expensive for very simple task. Just look into jquery implementation if .is() and you will see how much code it needs to process to answer you this simple question. Also it is not obvious what you want to do exactly, so it is same or maybe less elegant then solution in question.
– micropro.cz
Feb 22 '16 at 19:59
1
@earnaz great point, nice catch. I don't see where that's actually a worthwhile concern, though. Devs identifying elements with666probably have plenty of other reasons their code's broken. While it is an invalid selector, $(666).length is valid javascript: It evaluates to truthy, and therefore should satisfy the condition.
– Todd
Mar 8 '16 at 12:55
@earnaz to avoid that specific case,$.find(666).lengthworks.
– Emile Bergeron
Oct 8 '16 at 0:41
add a comment |
You can use:
if ($(selector).is('*')) {
// Do something
}
A little more elegant, perhaps.
36
This is too much for such a simple thing. see Tim Büthe answer
– vsync
Nov 24 '09 at 9:28
This is the correct answer. The 'length' method has the problem that it gives false positive with any number, for example: $(666).length // returns 1, but it's not a valid selector
– earnaz
Sep 16 '15 at 16:23
This is extremely expensive for very simple task. Just look into jquery implementation if .is() and you will see how much code it needs to process to answer you this simple question. Also it is not obvious what you want to do exactly, so it is same or maybe less elegant then solution in question.
– micropro.cz
Feb 22 '16 at 19:59
1
@earnaz great point, nice catch. I don't see where that's actually a worthwhile concern, though. Devs identifying elements with666probably have plenty of other reasons their code's broken. While it is an invalid selector, $(666).length is valid javascript: It evaluates to truthy, and therefore should satisfy the condition.
– Todd
Mar 8 '16 at 12:55
@earnaz to avoid that specific case,$.find(666).lengthworks.
– Emile Bergeron
Oct 8 '16 at 0:41
add a comment |
You can use:
if ($(selector).is('*')) {
// Do something
}
A little more elegant, perhaps.
You can use:
if ($(selector).is('*')) {
// Do something
}
A little more elegant, perhaps.
answered Sep 17 '08 at 17:53
DevonDevon
4,46943444
4,46943444
36
This is too much for such a simple thing. see Tim Büthe answer
– vsync
Nov 24 '09 at 9:28
This is the correct answer. The 'length' method has the problem that it gives false positive with any number, for example: $(666).length // returns 1, but it's not a valid selector
– earnaz
Sep 16 '15 at 16:23
This is extremely expensive for very simple task. Just look into jquery implementation if .is() and you will see how much code it needs to process to answer you this simple question. Also it is not obvious what you want to do exactly, so it is same or maybe less elegant then solution in question.
– micropro.cz
Feb 22 '16 at 19:59
1
@earnaz great point, nice catch. I don't see where that's actually a worthwhile concern, though. Devs identifying elements with666probably have plenty of other reasons their code's broken. While it is an invalid selector, $(666).length is valid javascript: It evaluates to truthy, and therefore should satisfy the condition.
– Todd
Mar 8 '16 at 12:55
@earnaz to avoid that specific case,$.find(666).lengthworks.
– Emile Bergeron
Oct 8 '16 at 0:41
add a comment |
36
This is too much for such a simple thing. see Tim Büthe answer
– vsync
Nov 24 '09 at 9:28
This is the correct answer. The 'length' method has the problem that it gives false positive with any number, for example: $(666).length // returns 1, but it's not a valid selector
– earnaz
Sep 16 '15 at 16:23
This is extremely expensive for very simple task. Just look into jquery implementation if .is() and you will see how much code it needs to process to answer you this simple question. Also it is not obvious what you want to do exactly, so it is same or maybe less elegant then solution in question.
– micropro.cz
Feb 22 '16 at 19:59
1
@earnaz great point, nice catch. I don't see where that's actually a worthwhile concern, though. Devs identifying elements with666probably have plenty of other reasons their code's broken. While it is an invalid selector, $(666).length is valid javascript: It evaluates to truthy, and therefore should satisfy the condition.
– Todd
Mar 8 '16 at 12:55
@earnaz to avoid that specific case,$.find(666).lengthworks.
– Emile Bergeron
Oct 8 '16 at 0:41
36
36
This is too much for such a simple thing. see Tim Büthe answer
– vsync
Nov 24 '09 at 9:28
This is too much for such a simple thing. see Tim Büthe answer
– vsync
Nov 24 '09 at 9:28
This is the correct answer. The 'length' method has the problem that it gives false positive with any number, for example: $(666).length // returns 1, but it's not a valid selector
– earnaz
Sep 16 '15 at 16:23
This is the correct answer. The 'length' method has the problem that it gives false positive with any number, for example: $(666).length // returns 1, but it's not a valid selector
– earnaz
Sep 16 '15 at 16:23
This is extremely expensive for very simple task. Just look into jquery implementation if .is() and you will see how much code it needs to process to answer you this simple question. Also it is not obvious what you want to do exactly, so it is same or maybe less elegant then solution in question.
– micropro.cz
Feb 22 '16 at 19:59
This is extremely expensive for very simple task. Just look into jquery implementation if .is() and you will see how much code it needs to process to answer you this simple question. Also it is not obvious what you want to do exactly, so it is same or maybe less elegant then solution in question.
– micropro.cz
Feb 22 '16 at 19:59
1
1
@earnaz great point, nice catch. I don't see where that's actually a worthwhile concern, though. Devs identifying elements with
666 probably have plenty of other reasons their code's broken. While it is an invalid selector, $(666).length is valid javascript: It evaluates to truthy, and therefore should satisfy the condition.– Todd
Mar 8 '16 at 12:55
@earnaz great point, nice catch. I don't see where that's actually a worthwhile concern, though. Devs identifying elements with
666 probably have plenty of other reasons their code's broken. While it is an invalid selector, $(666).length is valid javascript: It evaluates to truthy, and therefore should satisfy the condition.– Todd
Mar 8 '16 at 12:55
@earnaz to avoid that specific case,
$.find(666).length works.– Emile Bergeron
Oct 8 '16 at 0:41
@earnaz to avoid that specific case,
$.find(666).length works.– Emile Bergeron
Oct 8 '16 at 0:41
add a comment |
This plugin can be used in an if statement like if ($(ele).exist()) { /* DO WORK */ } or using a callback.
Plugin
;;(function($) {
if (!$.exist) {
$.extend({
exist: function() {
var ele, cbmExist, cbmNotExist;
if (arguments.length) {
for (x in arguments) {
switch (typeof arguments[x]) {
case 'function':
if (typeof cbmExist == "undefined") cbmExist = arguments[x];
else cbmNotExist = arguments[x];
break;
case 'object':
if (arguments[x] instanceof jQuery) ele = arguments[x];
else {
var obj = arguments[x];
for (y in obj) {
if (typeof obj[y] == 'function') {
if (typeof cbmExist == "undefined") cbmExist = obj[y];
else cbmNotExist = obj[y];
}
if (typeof obj[y] == 'object' && obj[y] instanceof jQuery) ele = obj[y];
if (typeof obj[y] == 'string') ele = $(obj[y]);
}
}
break;
case 'string':
ele = $(arguments[x]);
break;
}
}
}
if (typeof cbmExist == 'function') {
var exist = ele.length > 0 ? true : false;
if (exist) {
return ele.each(function(i) { cbmExist.apply(this, [exist, ele, i]); });
}
else if (typeof cbmNotExist == 'function') {
cbmNotExist.apply(ele, [exist, ele]);
return ele;
}
else {
if (ele.length <= 1) return ele.length > 0 ? true : false;
else return ele.length;
}
}
else {
if (ele.length <= 1) return ele.length > 0 ? true : false;
else return ele.length;
}
return false;
}
});
$.fn.extend({
exist: function() {
var args = [$(this)];
if (arguments.length) for (x in arguments) args.push(arguments[x]);
return $.exist.apply($, args);
}
});
}
})(jQuery);
jsFiddle
You may specify one or two callbacks. The first one will fire if the element exists, the second one will fire if the element does not exist. However, if you choose to pass only one function, it will only fire when the element exists. Thus, the chain will die if the selected element does not exist. Of course, if it does exist, the first function will fire and the chain will continue.
Keep in mind that using the callback variant helps maintain chainability – the element is returned and you can continue chaining commands as with any other jQuery method!
Example Uses
if ($.exist('#eleID')) { /* DO WORK */ } // param as STRING
if ($.exist($('#eleID'))) { /* DO WORK */ } // param as jQuery OBJECT
if ($('#eleID').exist()) { /* DO WORK */ } // enduced on jQuery OBJECT
$.exist('#eleID', function() { // param is STRING && CALLBACK METHOD
/* DO WORK */
/* This will ONLY fire if the element EXIST */
}, function() { // param is STRING && CALLBACK METHOD
/* DO WORK */
/* This will ONLY fire if the element DOES NOT EXIST */
})
$('#eleID').exist(function() { // enduced on jQuery OBJECT with CALLBACK METHOD
/* DO WORK */
/* This will ONLY fire if the element EXIST */
})
$.exist({ // param is OBJECT containing 2 key|value pairs: element = STRING, callback = METHOD
element: '#eleID',
callback: function() {
/* DO WORK */
/* This will ONLY fire if the element EXIST */
}
})
1
On the callback version, shouldn't theHas Itemscallback actually pass in the object as an argument?
– Chris Marisic
Jun 16 '16 at 17:46
add a comment |
This plugin can be used in an if statement like if ($(ele).exist()) { /* DO WORK */ } or using a callback.
Plugin
;;(function($) {
if (!$.exist) {
$.extend({
exist: function() {
var ele, cbmExist, cbmNotExist;
if (arguments.length) {
for (x in arguments) {
switch (typeof arguments[x]) {
case 'function':
if (typeof cbmExist == "undefined") cbmExist = arguments[x];
else cbmNotExist = arguments[x];
break;
case 'object':
if (arguments[x] instanceof jQuery) ele = arguments[x];
else {
var obj = arguments[x];
for (y in obj) {
if (typeof obj[y] == 'function') {
if (typeof cbmExist == "undefined") cbmExist = obj[y];
else cbmNotExist = obj[y];
}
if (typeof obj[y] == 'object' && obj[y] instanceof jQuery) ele = obj[y];
if (typeof obj[y] == 'string') ele = $(obj[y]);
}
}
break;
case 'string':
ele = $(arguments[x]);
break;
}
}
}
if (typeof cbmExist == 'function') {
var exist = ele.length > 0 ? true : false;
if (exist) {
return ele.each(function(i) { cbmExist.apply(this, [exist, ele, i]); });
}
else if (typeof cbmNotExist == 'function') {
cbmNotExist.apply(ele, [exist, ele]);
return ele;
}
else {
if (ele.length <= 1) return ele.length > 0 ? true : false;
else return ele.length;
}
}
else {
if (ele.length <= 1) return ele.length > 0 ? true : false;
else return ele.length;
}
return false;
}
});
$.fn.extend({
exist: function() {
var args = [$(this)];
if (arguments.length) for (x in arguments) args.push(arguments[x]);
return $.exist.apply($, args);
}
});
}
})(jQuery);
jsFiddle
You may specify one or two callbacks. The first one will fire if the element exists, the second one will fire if the element does not exist. However, if you choose to pass only one function, it will only fire when the element exists. Thus, the chain will die if the selected element does not exist. Of course, if it does exist, the first function will fire and the chain will continue.
Keep in mind that using the callback variant helps maintain chainability – the element is returned and you can continue chaining commands as with any other jQuery method!
Example Uses
if ($.exist('#eleID')) { /* DO WORK */ } // param as STRING
if ($.exist($('#eleID'))) { /* DO WORK */ } // param as jQuery OBJECT
if ($('#eleID').exist()) { /* DO WORK */ } // enduced on jQuery OBJECT
$.exist('#eleID', function() { // param is STRING && CALLBACK METHOD
/* DO WORK */
/* This will ONLY fire if the element EXIST */
}, function() { // param is STRING && CALLBACK METHOD
/* DO WORK */
/* This will ONLY fire if the element DOES NOT EXIST */
})
$('#eleID').exist(function() { // enduced on jQuery OBJECT with CALLBACK METHOD
/* DO WORK */
/* This will ONLY fire if the element EXIST */
})
$.exist({ // param is OBJECT containing 2 key|value pairs: element = STRING, callback = METHOD
element: '#eleID',
callback: function() {
/* DO WORK */
/* This will ONLY fire if the element EXIST */
}
})
1
On the callback version, shouldn't theHas Itemscallback actually pass in the object as an argument?
– Chris Marisic
Jun 16 '16 at 17:46
add a comment |
This plugin can be used in an if statement like if ($(ele).exist()) { /* DO WORK */ } or using a callback.
Plugin
;;(function($) {
if (!$.exist) {
$.extend({
exist: function() {
var ele, cbmExist, cbmNotExist;
if (arguments.length) {
for (x in arguments) {
switch (typeof arguments[x]) {
case 'function':
if (typeof cbmExist == "undefined") cbmExist = arguments[x];
else cbmNotExist = arguments[x];
break;
case 'object':
if (arguments[x] instanceof jQuery) ele = arguments[x];
else {
var obj = arguments[x];
for (y in obj) {
if (typeof obj[y] == 'function') {
if (typeof cbmExist == "undefined") cbmExist = obj[y];
else cbmNotExist = obj[y];
}
if (typeof obj[y] == 'object' && obj[y] instanceof jQuery) ele = obj[y];
if (typeof obj[y] == 'string') ele = $(obj[y]);
}
}
break;
case 'string':
ele = $(arguments[x]);
break;
}
}
}
if (typeof cbmExist == 'function') {
var exist = ele.length > 0 ? true : false;
if (exist) {
return ele.each(function(i) { cbmExist.apply(this, [exist, ele, i]); });
}
else if (typeof cbmNotExist == 'function') {
cbmNotExist.apply(ele, [exist, ele]);
return ele;
}
else {
if (ele.length <= 1) return ele.length > 0 ? true : false;
else return ele.length;
}
}
else {
if (ele.length <= 1) return ele.length > 0 ? true : false;
else return ele.length;
}
return false;
}
});
$.fn.extend({
exist: function() {
var args = [$(this)];
if (arguments.length) for (x in arguments) args.push(arguments[x]);
return $.exist.apply($, args);
}
});
}
})(jQuery);
jsFiddle
You may specify one or two callbacks. The first one will fire if the element exists, the second one will fire if the element does not exist. However, if you choose to pass only one function, it will only fire when the element exists. Thus, the chain will die if the selected element does not exist. Of course, if it does exist, the first function will fire and the chain will continue.
Keep in mind that using the callback variant helps maintain chainability – the element is returned and you can continue chaining commands as with any other jQuery method!
Example Uses
if ($.exist('#eleID')) { /* DO WORK */ } // param as STRING
if ($.exist($('#eleID'))) { /* DO WORK */ } // param as jQuery OBJECT
if ($('#eleID').exist()) { /* DO WORK */ } // enduced on jQuery OBJECT
$.exist('#eleID', function() { // param is STRING && CALLBACK METHOD
/* DO WORK */
/* This will ONLY fire if the element EXIST */
}, function() { // param is STRING && CALLBACK METHOD
/* DO WORK */
/* This will ONLY fire if the element DOES NOT EXIST */
})
$('#eleID').exist(function() { // enduced on jQuery OBJECT with CALLBACK METHOD
/* DO WORK */
/* This will ONLY fire if the element EXIST */
})
$.exist({ // param is OBJECT containing 2 key|value pairs: element = STRING, callback = METHOD
element: '#eleID',
callback: function() {
/* DO WORK */
/* This will ONLY fire if the element EXIST */
}
})
This plugin can be used in an if statement like if ($(ele).exist()) { /* DO WORK */ } or using a callback.
Plugin
;;(function($) {
if (!$.exist) {
$.extend({
exist: function() {
var ele, cbmExist, cbmNotExist;
if (arguments.length) {
for (x in arguments) {
switch (typeof arguments[x]) {
case 'function':
if (typeof cbmExist == "undefined") cbmExist = arguments[x];
else cbmNotExist = arguments[x];
break;
case 'object':
if (arguments[x] instanceof jQuery) ele = arguments[x];
else {
var obj = arguments[x];
for (y in obj) {
if (typeof obj[y] == 'function') {
if (typeof cbmExist == "undefined") cbmExist = obj[y];
else cbmNotExist = obj[y];
}
if (typeof obj[y] == 'object' && obj[y] instanceof jQuery) ele = obj[y];
if (typeof obj[y] == 'string') ele = $(obj[y]);
}
}
break;
case 'string':
ele = $(arguments[x]);
break;
}
}
}
if (typeof cbmExist == 'function') {
var exist = ele.length > 0 ? true : false;
if (exist) {
return ele.each(function(i) { cbmExist.apply(this, [exist, ele, i]); });
}
else if (typeof cbmNotExist == 'function') {
cbmNotExist.apply(ele, [exist, ele]);
return ele;
}
else {
if (ele.length <= 1) return ele.length > 0 ? true : false;
else return ele.length;
}
}
else {
if (ele.length <= 1) return ele.length > 0 ? true : false;
else return ele.length;
}
return false;
}
});
$.fn.extend({
exist: function() {
var args = [$(this)];
if (arguments.length) for (x in arguments) args.push(arguments[x]);
return $.exist.apply($, args);
}
});
}
})(jQuery);
jsFiddle
You may specify one or two callbacks. The first one will fire if the element exists, the second one will fire if the element does not exist. However, if you choose to pass only one function, it will only fire when the element exists. Thus, the chain will die if the selected element does not exist. Of course, if it does exist, the first function will fire and the chain will continue.
Keep in mind that using the callback variant helps maintain chainability – the element is returned and you can continue chaining commands as with any other jQuery method!
Example Uses
if ($.exist('#eleID')) { /* DO WORK */ } // param as STRING
if ($.exist($('#eleID'))) { /* DO WORK */ } // param as jQuery OBJECT
if ($('#eleID').exist()) { /* DO WORK */ } // enduced on jQuery OBJECT
$.exist('#eleID', function() { // param is STRING && CALLBACK METHOD
/* DO WORK */
/* This will ONLY fire if the element EXIST */
}, function() { // param is STRING && CALLBACK METHOD
/* DO WORK */
/* This will ONLY fire if the element DOES NOT EXIST */
})
$('#eleID').exist(function() { // enduced on jQuery OBJECT with CALLBACK METHOD
/* DO WORK */
/* This will ONLY fire if the element EXIST */
})
$.exist({ // param is OBJECT containing 2 key|value pairs: element = STRING, callback = METHOD
element: '#eleID',
callback: function() {
/* DO WORK */
/* This will ONLY fire if the element EXIST */
}
})
edited Jun 12 '16 at 9:10
community wiki
22 revs, 6 users 64%
SpYk3HH
1
On the callback version, shouldn't theHas Itemscallback actually pass in the object as an argument?
– Chris Marisic
Jun 16 '16 at 17:46
add a comment |
1
On the callback version, shouldn't theHas Itemscallback actually pass in the object as an argument?
– Chris Marisic
Jun 16 '16 at 17:46
1
1
On the callback version, shouldn't the
Has Items callback actually pass in the object as an argument?– Chris Marisic
Jun 16 '16 at 17:46
On the callback version, shouldn't the
Has Items callback actually pass in the object as an argument?– Chris Marisic
Jun 16 '16 at 17:46
add a comment |
I see most of the answers here are not accurate as they should be, they check element length, it can be OK in many cases, but not 100%, imagine if number pass to the function instead, so I prototype a function which check all conditions and return the answer as it should be:
$.fn.exists = $.fn.exists || function() {
return !!(this.length && (this[0] instanceof HTMLDocument || this[0] instanceof HTMLElement));
}
This will check both length and type, Now you can check it this way:
$(1980).exists(); //return false
$([1,2,3]).exists(); //return false
$({name: 'stackoverflow', url: 'http://www.stackoverflow.com'}).exists(); //return false
$([{nodeName: 'foo'}]).exists() // returns false
$('div').exists(); //return true
$('.header').exists(); //return true
$(document).exists(); //return true
$('body').exists(); //return true
add a comment |
I see most of the answers here are not accurate as they should be, they check element length, it can be OK in many cases, but not 100%, imagine if number pass to the function instead, so I prototype a function which check all conditions and return the answer as it should be:
$.fn.exists = $.fn.exists || function() {
return !!(this.length && (this[0] instanceof HTMLDocument || this[0] instanceof HTMLElement));
}
This will check both length and type, Now you can check it this way:
$(1980).exists(); //return false
$([1,2,3]).exists(); //return false
$({name: 'stackoverflow', url: 'http://www.stackoverflow.com'}).exists(); //return false
$([{nodeName: 'foo'}]).exists() // returns false
$('div').exists(); //return true
$('.header').exists(); //return true
$(document).exists(); //return true
$('body').exists(); //return true
add a comment |
I see most of the answers here are not accurate as they should be, they check element length, it can be OK in many cases, but not 100%, imagine if number pass to the function instead, so I prototype a function which check all conditions and return the answer as it should be:
$.fn.exists = $.fn.exists || function() {
return !!(this.length && (this[0] instanceof HTMLDocument || this[0] instanceof HTMLElement));
}
This will check both length and type, Now you can check it this way:
$(1980).exists(); //return false
$([1,2,3]).exists(); //return false
$({name: 'stackoverflow', url: 'http://www.stackoverflow.com'}).exists(); //return false
$([{nodeName: 'foo'}]).exists() // returns false
$('div').exists(); //return true
$('.header').exists(); //return true
$(document).exists(); //return true
$('body').exists(); //return true
I see most of the answers here are not accurate as they should be, they check element length, it can be OK in many cases, but not 100%, imagine if number pass to the function instead, so I prototype a function which check all conditions and return the answer as it should be:
$.fn.exists = $.fn.exists || function() {
return !!(this.length && (this[0] instanceof HTMLDocument || this[0] instanceof HTMLElement));
}
This will check both length and type, Now you can check it this way:
$(1980).exists(); //return false
$([1,2,3]).exists(); //return false
$({name: 'stackoverflow', url: 'http://www.stackoverflow.com'}).exists(); //return false
$([{nodeName: 'foo'}]).exists() // returns false
$('div').exists(); //return true
$('.header').exists(); //return true
$(document).exists(); //return true
$('body').exists(); //return true
edited Jan 18 at 23:49
answered May 20 '17 at 9:21
AlirezaAlireza
51.5k13175124
51.5k13175124
add a comment |
add a comment |
There's no need for jQuery really. With plain JavaScript it's easier and semantically correct to check for:
if(document.getElementById("myElement")) {
//Do something...
}
If for any reason you don't want to put an id to the element, you can still use any other JavaScript method designed to access the DOM.
jQuery is really cool, but don't let pure JavaScript fall into oblivion...
5
I know: it doesn't answer directly the original question (which asks for a jquery function), but in that case the answer would be "No" or "not a semantically correct solution".
– amypellegrini
Nov 14 '11 at 14:24
add a comment |
There's no need for jQuery really. With plain JavaScript it's easier and semantically correct to check for:
if(document.getElementById("myElement")) {
//Do something...
}
If for any reason you don't want to put an id to the element, you can still use any other JavaScript method designed to access the DOM.
jQuery is really cool, but don't let pure JavaScript fall into oblivion...
5
I know: it doesn't answer directly the original question (which asks for a jquery function), but in that case the answer would be "No" or "not a semantically correct solution".
– amypellegrini
Nov 14 '11 at 14:24
add a comment |
There's no need for jQuery really. With plain JavaScript it's easier and semantically correct to check for:
if(document.getElementById("myElement")) {
//Do something...
}
If for any reason you don't want to put an id to the element, you can still use any other JavaScript method designed to access the DOM.
jQuery is really cool, but don't let pure JavaScript fall into oblivion...
There's no need for jQuery really. With plain JavaScript it's easier and semantically correct to check for:
if(document.getElementById("myElement")) {
//Do something...
}
If for any reason you don't want to put an id to the element, you can still use any other JavaScript method designed to access the DOM.
jQuery is really cool, but don't let pure JavaScript fall into oblivion...
edited May 10 '13 at 7:48
Peter Mortensen
13.8k1987113
13.8k1987113
answered Nov 14 '11 at 14:20
amypellegriniamypellegrini
929813
929813
5
I know: it doesn't answer directly the original question (which asks for a jquery function), but in that case the answer would be "No" or "not a semantically correct solution".
– amypellegrini
Nov 14 '11 at 14:24
add a comment |
5
I know: it doesn't answer directly the original question (which asks for a jquery function), but in that case the answer would be "No" or "not a semantically correct solution".
– amypellegrini
Nov 14 '11 at 14:24
5
5
I know: it doesn't answer directly the original question (which asks for a jquery function), but in that case the answer would be "No" or "not a semantically correct solution".
– amypellegrini
Nov 14 '11 at 14:24
I know: it doesn't answer directly the original question (which asks for a jquery function), but in that case the answer would be "No" or "not a semantically correct solution".
– amypellegrini
Nov 14 '11 at 14:24
add a comment |
You could use this:
jQuery.fn.extend({
exists: function() { return this.length }
});
if($(selector).exists()){/*do something*/}
add a comment |
You could use this:
jQuery.fn.extend({
exists: function() { return this.length }
});
if($(selector).exists()){/*do something*/}
add a comment |
You could use this:
jQuery.fn.extend({
exists: function() { return this.length }
});
if($(selector).exists()){/*do something*/}
You could use this:
jQuery.fn.extend({
exists: function() { return this.length }
});
if($(selector).exists()){/*do something*/}
edited Mar 15 '16 at 7:46
Bellash
3,99512659
3,99512659
answered Jun 1 '13 at 7:20
AmitābhaAmitābha
1,70542242
1,70542242
add a comment |
add a comment |
The reason all of the previous answers require the .length parameter is that they are mostly using jquery's $() selector which has querySelectorAll behind the curtains (or they are using it directly). This method is rather slow because it needs to parse the entire DOM tree looking for all matches to that selector and populating an array with them.
The ['length'] parameter is not needed or useful and the code will be a lot faster if you directly use document.querySelector(selector) instead, because it returns the first element it matches or null if not found.
function elementIfExists(selector){ //named this way on purpose, see below
return document.querySelector(selector);
}
/* usage: */
var myelement = elementIfExists("#myid") || myfallbackelement;
However this method leaves us with the actual object being returned; which is fine if it isn't going to be saved as variable and used repeatedly (thus keeping the reference around if we forget).
var myel=elementIfExists("#myid");
// now we are using a reference to the element which will linger after removal
myel.getParentNode.removeChild(myel);
console.log(elementIfExists("#myid")); /* null */
console.log(myel); /* giant table lingering around detached from document */
myel=null; /* now it can be garbage collected */
In some cases this may be desired. It can be used in a for loop like this:
/* locally scoped myel gets garbage collected even with the break; */
for (var myel; myel = elementIfExist(sel); myel.getParentNode.removeChild(myel))
if (myel == myblacklistedel) break;
If you don't actually need the element and want to get/store just a true/false, just double not it !! It works for shoes that come untied, so why knot here?
function elementExists(selector){
return !!document.querySelector(selector);
}
/* usage: */
var hastables = elementExists("table"); /* will be true or false */
if (hastables){
/* insert css style sheet for our pretty tables */
}
setTimeOut(function (){if (hastables && !elementExists("#mytablecss"))
alert("bad table layouts");},3000);
add a comment |
The reason all of the previous answers require the .length parameter is that they are mostly using jquery's $() selector which has querySelectorAll behind the curtains (or they are using it directly). This method is rather slow because it needs to parse the entire DOM tree looking for all matches to that selector and populating an array with them.
The ['length'] parameter is not needed or useful and the code will be a lot faster if you directly use document.querySelector(selector) instead, because it returns the first element it matches or null if not found.
function elementIfExists(selector){ //named this way on purpose, see below
return document.querySelector(selector);
}
/* usage: */
var myelement = elementIfExists("#myid") || myfallbackelement;
However this method leaves us with the actual object being returned; which is fine if it isn't going to be saved as variable and used repeatedly (thus keeping the reference around if we forget).
var myel=elementIfExists("#myid");
// now we are using a reference to the element which will linger after removal
myel.getParentNode.removeChild(myel);
console.log(elementIfExists("#myid")); /* null */
console.log(myel); /* giant table lingering around detached from document */
myel=null; /* now it can be garbage collected */
In some cases this may be desired. It can be used in a for loop like this:
/* locally scoped myel gets garbage collected even with the break; */
for (var myel; myel = elementIfExist(sel); myel.getParentNode.removeChild(myel))
if (myel == myblacklistedel) break;
If you don't actually need the element and want to get/store just a true/false, just double not it !! It works for shoes that come untied, so why knot here?
function elementExists(selector){
return !!document.querySelector(selector);
}
/* usage: */
var hastables = elementExists("table"); /* will be true or false */
if (hastables){
/* insert css style sheet for our pretty tables */
}
setTimeOut(function (){if (hastables && !elementExists("#mytablecss"))
alert("bad table layouts");},3000);
add a comment |
The reason all of the previous answers require the .length parameter is that they are mostly using jquery's $() selector which has querySelectorAll behind the curtains (or they are using it directly). This method is rather slow because it needs to parse the entire DOM tree looking for all matches to that selector and populating an array with them.
The ['length'] parameter is not needed or useful and the code will be a lot faster if you directly use document.querySelector(selector) instead, because it returns the first element it matches or null if not found.
function elementIfExists(selector){ //named this way on purpose, see below
return document.querySelector(selector);
}
/* usage: */
var myelement = elementIfExists("#myid") || myfallbackelement;
However this method leaves us with the actual object being returned; which is fine if it isn't going to be saved as variable and used repeatedly (thus keeping the reference around if we forget).
var myel=elementIfExists("#myid");
// now we are using a reference to the element which will linger after removal
myel.getParentNode.removeChild(myel);
console.log(elementIfExists("#myid")); /* null */
console.log(myel); /* giant table lingering around detached from document */
myel=null; /* now it can be garbage collected */
In some cases this may be desired. It can be used in a for loop like this:
/* locally scoped myel gets garbage collected even with the break; */
for (var myel; myel = elementIfExist(sel); myel.getParentNode.removeChild(myel))
if (myel == myblacklistedel) break;
If you don't actually need the element and want to get/store just a true/false, just double not it !! It works for shoes that come untied, so why knot here?
function elementExists(selector){
return !!document.querySelector(selector);
}
/* usage: */
var hastables = elementExists("table"); /* will be true or false */
if (hastables){
/* insert css style sheet for our pretty tables */
}
setTimeOut(function (){if (hastables && !elementExists("#mytablecss"))
alert("bad table layouts");},3000);
The reason all of the previous answers require the .length parameter is that they are mostly using jquery's $() selector which has querySelectorAll behind the curtains (or they are using it directly). This method is rather slow because it needs to parse the entire DOM tree looking for all matches to that selector and populating an array with them.
The ['length'] parameter is not needed or useful and the code will be a lot faster if you directly use document.querySelector(selector) instead, because it returns the first element it matches or null if not found.
function elementIfExists(selector){ //named this way on purpose, see below
return document.querySelector(selector);
}
/* usage: */
var myelement = elementIfExists("#myid") || myfallbackelement;
However this method leaves us with the actual object being returned; which is fine if it isn't going to be saved as variable and used repeatedly (thus keeping the reference around if we forget).
var myel=elementIfExists("#myid");
// now we are using a reference to the element which will linger after removal
myel.getParentNode.removeChild(myel);
console.log(elementIfExists("#myid")); /* null */
console.log(myel); /* giant table lingering around detached from document */
myel=null; /* now it can be garbage collected */
In some cases this may be desired. It can be used in a for loop like this:
/* locally scoped myel gets garbage collected even with the break; */
for (var myel; myel = elementIfExist(sel); myel.getParentNode.removeChild(myel))
if (myel == myblacklistedel) break;
If you don't actually need the element and want to get/store just a true/false, just double not it !! It works for shoes that come untied, so why knot here?
function elementExists(selector){
return !!document.querySelector(selector);
}
/* usage: */
var hastables = elementExists("table"); /* will be true or false */
if (hastables){
/* insert css style sheet for our pretty tables */
}
setTimeOut(function (){if (hastables && !elementExists("#mytablecss"))
alert("bad table layouts");},3000);
edited Aug 13 '14 at 5:24
answered Aug 11 '14 at 23:42
technosaurustechnosaurus
6,04012245
6,04012245
add a comment |
add a comment |
I have found if ($(selector).length) {} to be insufficient. It will silently break your app when selector is an empty object {}.
var $target = $({});
console.log($target, $target.length);
// Console output:
// -------------------------------------
// [▼ Object ] 1
// ► __proto__: Object
My only suggestion is to perform an additional check for {}.
if ($.isEmptyObject(selector) || !$(selector).length) {
throw new Error('Unable to work with the given selector.');
}
I'm still looking for a better solution though as this one is a bit heavy.
Edit: WARNING! This doesn't work in IE when selector is a string.
$.isEmptyObject('hello') // FALSE in Chrome and TRUE in IE
12
How often do you find yourself calling$()with an empty object as an argument?
– nnnnnn
Dec 22 '14 at 11:24
@nnnnnn Actually never (I don't use jQuery anymore). But I guess 3 years ago I had a case of exposing an API that would take a selector and return the number of elements for that selector. If another dev would pass in an empty object, it would incorrectly respond with 1.
– Oleg
Dec 22 '14 at 15:03
3
Why on earth would you pass an empty object{}to$()?
– cpburnz
Mar 26 '15 at 15:46
6
@cpburnz why do you ask me? I was just an API provider... People pass all kinds of stupid things to APIs.
– Oleg
Mar 26 '15 at 15:48
4
Just noticed, the jquery issue thread that @FagnerBrack referenced was updated shortly after his comment; it looks like it's not going away after all.
– Joseph Gabriel
Apr 18 '16 at 21:09
add a comment |
I have found if ($(selector).length) {} to be insufficient. It will silently break your app when selector is an empty object {}.
var $target = $({});
console.log($target, $target.length);
// Console output:
// -------------------------------------
// [▼ Object ] 1
// ► __proto__: Object
My only suggestion is to perform an additional check for {}.
if ($.isEmptyObject(selector) || !$(selector).length) {
throw new Error('Unable to work with the given selector.');
}
I'm still looking for a better solution though as this one is a bit heavy.
Edit: WARNING! This doesn't work in IE when selector is a string.
$.isEmptyObject('hello') // FALSE in Chrome and TRUE in IE
12
How often do you find yourself calling$()with an empty object as an argument?
– nnnnnn
Dec 22 '14 at 11:24
@nnnnnn Actually never (I don't use jQuery anymore). But I guess 3 years ago I had a case of exposing an API that would take a selector and return the number of elements for that selector. If another dev would pass in an empty object, it would incorrectly respond with 1.
– Oleg
Dec 22 '14 at 15:03
3
Why on earth would you pass an empty object{}to$()?
– cpburnz
Mar 26 '15 at 15:46
6
@cpburnz why do you ask me? I was just an API provider... People pass all kinds of stupid things to APIs.
– Oleg
Mar 26 '15 at 15:48
4
Just noticed, the jquery issue thread that @FagnerBrack referenced was updated shortly after his comment; it looks like it's not going away after all.
– Joseph Gabriel
Apr 18 '16 at 21:09
add a comment |
I have found if ($(selector).length) {} to be insufficient. It will silently break your app when selector is an empty object {}.
var $target = $({});
console.log($target, $target.length);
// Console output:
// -------------------------------------
// [▼ Object ] 1
// ► __proto__: Object
My only suggestion is to perform an additional check for {}.
if ($.isEmptyObject(selector) || !$(selector).length) {
throw new Error('Unable to work with the given selector.');
}
I'm still looking for a better solution though as this one is a bit heavy.
Edit: WARNING! This doesn't work in IE when selector is a string.
$.isEmptyObject('hello') // FALSE in Chrome and TRUE in IE
I have found if ($(selector).length) {} to be insufficient. It will silently break your app when selector is an empty object {}.
var $target = $({});
console.log($target, $target.length);
// Console output:
// -------------------------------------
// [▼ Object ] 1
// ► __proto__: Object
My only suggestion is to perform an additional check for {}.
if ($.isEmptyObject(selector) || !$(selector).length) {
throw new Error('Unable to work with the given selector.');
}
I'm still looking for a better solution though as this one is a bit heavy.
Edit: WARNING! This doesn't work in IE when selector is a string.
$.isEmptyObject('hello') // FALSE in Chrome and TRUE in IE
edited Feb 7 '12 at 17:43
answered Feb 6 '12 at 20:37
OlegOleg
7,55423455
7,55423455
12
How often do you find yourself calling$()with an empty object as an argument?
– nnnnnn
Dec 22 '14 at 11:24
@nnnnnn Actually never (I don't use jQuery anymore). But I guess 3 years ago I had a case of exposing an API that would take a selector and return the number of elements for that selector. If another dev would pass in an empty object, it would incorrectly respond with 1.
– Oleg
Dec 22 '14 at 15:03
3
Why on earth would you pass an empty object{}to$()?
– cpburnz
Mar 26 '15 at 15:46
6
@cpburnz why do you ask me? I was just an API provider... People pass all kinds of stupid things to APIs.
– Oleg
Mar 26 '15 at 15:48
4
Just noticed, the jquery issue thread that @FagnerBrack referenced was updated shortly after his comment; it looks like it's not going away after all.
– Joseph Gabriel
Apr 18 '16 at 21:09
add a comment |
12
How often do you find yourself calling$()with an empty object as an argument?
– nnnnnn
Dec 22 '14 at 11:24
@nnnnnn Actually never (I don't use jQuery anymore). But I guess 3 years ago I had a case of exposing an API that would take a selector and return the number of elements for that selector. If another dev would pass in an empty object, it would incorrectly respond with 1.
– Oleg
Dec 22 '14 at 15:03
3
Why on earth would you pass an empty object{}to$()?
– cpburnz
Mar 26 '15 at 15:46
6
@cpburnz why do you ask me? I was just an API provider... People pass all kinds of stupid things to APIs.
– Oleg
Mar 26 '15 at 15:48
4
Just noticed, the jquery issue thread that @FagnerBrack referenced was updated shortly after his comment; it looks like it's not going away after all.
– Joseph Gabriel
Apr 18 '16 at 21:09
12
12
How often do you find yourself calling
$() with an empty object as an argument?– nnnnnn
Dec 22 '14 at 11:24
How often do you find yourself calling
$() with an empty object as an argument?– nnnnnn
Dec 22 '14 at 11:24
@nnnnnn Actually never (I don't use jQuery anymore). But I guess 3 years ago I had a case of exposing an API that would take a selector and return the number of elements for that selector. If another dev would pass in an empty object, it would incorrectly respond with 1.
– Oleg
Dec 22 '14 at 15:03
@nnnnnn Actually never (I don't use jQuery anymore). But I guess 3 years ago I had a case of exposing an API that would take a selector and return the number of elements for that selector. If another dev would pass in an empty object, it would incorrectly respond with 1.
– Oleg
Dec 22 '14 at 15:03
3
3
Why on earth would you pass an empty object
{} to $()?– cpburnz
Mar 26 '15 at 15:46
Why on earth would you pass an empty object
{} to $()?– cpburnz
Mar 26 '15 at 15:46
6
6
@cpburnz why do you ask me? I was just an API provider... People pass all kinds of stupid things to APIs.
– Oleg
Mar 26 '15 at 15:48
@cpburnz why do you ask me? I was just an API provider... People pass all kinds of stupid things to APIs.
– Oleg
Mar 26 '15 at 15:48
4
4
Just noticed, the jquery issue thread that @FagnerBrack referenced was updated shortly after his comment; it looks like it's not going away after all.
– Joseph Gabriel
Apr 18 '16 at 21:09
Just noticed, the jquery issue thread that @FagnerBrack referenced was updated shortly after his comment; it looks like it's not going away after all.
– Joseph Gabriel
Apr 18 '16 at 21:09
add a comment |
Is $.contains() what you want?
jQuery.contains( container, contained )
The
$.contains()method returns true if the DOM element provided by the second argument is a descendant of the DOM element provided by the first argument, whether it is a direct child or nested more deeply. Otherwise, it returns false. Only element nodes are supported; if the second argument is a text or comment node,$.contains()will return false.
Note: The first argument must be a DOM element, not a jQuery object or plain JavaScript object.
3
This doesn't accept a selector, which means he would have to select it, which means he could just check the result of his selection.
– user1106925
Jun 4 '16 at 13:28
add a comment |
Is $.contains() what you want?
jQuery.contains( container, contained )
The
$.contains()method returns true if the DOM element provided by the second argument is a descendant of the DOM element provided by the first argument, whether it is a direct child or nested more deeply. Otherwise, it returns false. Only element nodes are supported; if the second argument is a text or comment node,$.contains()will return false.
Note: The first argument must be a DOM element, not a jQuery object or plain JavaScript object.
3
This doesn't accept a selector, which means he would have to select it, which means he could just check the result of his selection.
– user1106925
Jun 4 '16 at 13:28
add a comment |
Is $.contains() what you want?
jQuery.contains( container, contained )
The
$.contains()method returns true if the DOM element provided by the second argument is a descendant of the DOM element provided by the first argument, whether it is a direct child or nested more deeply. Otherwise, it returns false. Only element nodes are supported; if the second argument is a text or comment node,$.contains()will return false.
Note: The first argument must be a DOM element, not a jQuery object or plain JavaScript object.
Is $.contains() what you want?
jQuery.contains( container, contained )
The
$.contains()method returns true if the DOM element provided by the second argument is a descendant of the DOM element provided by the first argument, whether it is a direct child or nested more deeply. Otherwise, it returns false. Only element nodes are supported; if the second argument is a text or comment node,$.contains()will return false.
Note: The first argument must be a DOM element, not a jQuery object or plain JavaScript object.
edited Oct 28 '18 at 9:57
Mohammad
15.8k123765
15.8k123765
answered Oct 23 '13 at 5:46
hiwayhiway
2,03782548
2,03782548
3
This doesn't accept a selector, which means he would have to select it, which means he could just check the result of his selection.
– user1106925
Jun 4 '16 at 13:28
add a comment |
3
This doesn't accept a selector, which means he would have to select it, which means he could just check the result of his selection.
– user1106925
Jun 4 '16 at 13:28
3
3
This doesn't accept a selector, which means he would have to select it, which means he could just check the result of his selection.
– user1106925
Jun 4 '16 at 13:28
This doesn't accept a selector, which means he would have to select it, which means he could just check the result of his selection.
– user1106925
Jun 4 '16 at 13:28
add a comment |
You can check element is present or not using length in java script.
If length is greater than zero then element is present if length is zero then
element is not present
// These by Id
if( $('#elementid').length > 0){
// Element is Present
}else{
// Element is not Present
}
// These by Class
if( $('.elementClass').length > 0){
// Element is Present
}else{
// Element is not Present
}
4
You need not to check weather length is greater than 0, if( $('#elementid').length ) { } will be sufficient.
– Pranav Labhe
Aug 22 '15 at 11:22
13
Have you actually read the question? It's exactly the same method OP is using.
– A1rPun
Mar 16 '16 at 16:01
add a comment |
You can check element is present or not using length in java script.
If length is greater than zero then element is present if length is zero then
element is not present
// These by Id
if( $('#elementid').length > 0){
// Element is Present
}else{
// Element is not Present
}
// These by Class
if( $('.elementClass').length > 0){
// Element is Present
}else{
// Element is not Present
}
4
You need not to check weather length is greater than 0, if( $('#elementid').length ) { } will be sufficient.
– Pranav Labhe
Aug 22 '15 at 11:22
13
Have you actually read the question? It's exactly the same method OP is using.
– A1rPun
Mar 16 '16 at 16:01
add a comment |
You can check element is present or not using length in java script.
If length is greater than zero then element is present if length is zero then
element is not present
// These by Id
if( $('#elementid').length > 0){
// Element is Present
}else{
// Element is not Present
}
// These by Class
if( $('.elementClass').length > 0){
// Element is Present
}else{
// Element is not Present
}
You can check element is present or not using length in java script.
If length is greater than zero then element is present if length is zero then
element is not present
// These by Id
if( $('#elementid').length > 0){
// Element is Present
}else{
// Element is not Present
}
// These by Class
if( $('.elementClass').length > 0){
// Element is Present
}else{
// Element is not Present
}
edited Apr 11 '16 at 13:21
answered Jul 9 '15 at 12:39
Anurag DeokarAnurag Deokar
686612
686612
4
You need not to check weather length is greater than 0, if( $('#elementid').length ) { } will be sufficient.
– Pranav Labhe
Aug 22 '15 at 11:22
13
Have you actually read the question? It's exactly the same method OP is using.
– A1rPun
Mar 16 '16 at 16:01
add a comment |
4
You need not to check weather length is greater than 0, if( $('#elementid').length ) { } will be sufficient.
– Pranav Labhe
Aug 22 '15 at 11:22
13
Have you actually read the question? It's exactly the same method OP is using.
– A1rPun
Mar 16 '16 at 16:01
4
4
You need not to check weather length is greater than 0, if( $('#elementid').length ) { } will be sufficient.
– Pranav Labhe
Aug 22 '15 at 11:22
You need not to check weather length is greater than 0, if( $('#elementid').length ) { } will be sufficient.
– Pranav Labhe
Aug 22 '15 at 11:22
13
13
Have you actually read the question? It's exactly the same method OP is using.
– A1rPun
Mar 16 '16 at 16:01
Have you actually read the question? It's exactly the same method OP is using.
– A1rPun
Mar 16 '16 at 16:01
add a comment |
Checking for existence of an element is documented neatly in the official jQuery website itself!
Use the .length property of the jQuery collection returned by your
selector:
if ($("#myDiv").length) {
$("#myDiv").show();
}
Note that it isn't always necessary to test whether an element exists.
The following code will show the element if it exists, and do nothing
(with no errors) if it does not:
$("#myDiv").show();
add a comment |
Checking for existence of an element is documented neatly in the official jQuery website itself!
Use the .length property of the jQuery collection returned by your
selector:
if ($("#myDiv").length) {
$("#myDiv").show();
}
Note that it isn't always necessary to test whether an element exists.
The following code will show the element if it exists, and do nothing
(with no errors) if it does not:
$("#myDiv").show();
add a comment |
Checking for existence of an element is documented neatly in the official jQuery website itself!
Use the .length property of the jQuery collection returned by your
selector:
if ($("#myDiv").length) {
$("#myDiv").show();
}
Note that it isn't always necessary to test whether an element exists.
The following code will show the element if it exists, and do nothing
(with no errors) if it does not:
$("#myDiv").show();
Checking for existence of an element is documented neatly in the official jQuery website itself!
Use the .length property of the jQuery collection returned by your
selector:
if ($("#myDiv").length) {
$("#myDiv").show();
}
Note that it isn't always necessary to test whether an element exists.
The following code will show the element if it exists, and do nothing
(with no errors) if it does not:
$("#myDiv").show();
edited Sep 10 '17 at 10:31
Palec
7,61454290
7,61454290
answered Mar 22 '17 at 14:32
Tilak MaddyTilak Maddy
1,52311333
1,52311333
add a comment |
add a comment |
this is very similar to all of the answers, but why not use the ! operator twice so you can get a boolean:
jQuery.fn.exists = function(){return !!this.length};
if ($(selector).exists()) {
// the element exists, now what?...
}
2
BecauseBoolean(x)can sometimes be more efficient.
– user7892745
May 22 '17 at 21:47
add a comment |
this is very similar to all of the answers, but why not use the ! operator twice so you can get a boolean:
jQuery.fn.exists = function(){return !!this.length};
if ($(selector).exists()) {
// the element exists, now what?...
}
2
BecauseBoolean(x)can sometimes be more efficient.
– user7892745
May 22 '17 at 21:47
add a comment |
this is very similar to all of the answers, but why not use the ! operator twice so you can get a boolean:
jQuery.fn.exists = function(){return !!this.length};
if ($(selector).exists()) {
// the element exists, now what?...
}
this is very similar to all of the answers, but why not use the ! operator twice so you can get a boolean:
jQuery.fn.exists = function(){return !!this.length};
if ($(selector).exists()) {
// the element exists, now what?...
}
answered May 4 '15 at 3:31
Santiago HernándezSantiago Hernández
3,10611732
3,10611732
2
BecauseBoolean(x)can sometimes be more efficient.
– user7892745
May 22 '17 at 21:47
add a comment |
2
BecauseBoolean(x)can sometimes be more efficient.
– user7892745
May 22 '17 at 21:47
2
2
Because
Boolean(x) can sometimes be more efficient.– user7892745
May 22 '17 at 21:47
Because
Boolean(x) can sometimes be more efficient.– user7892745
May 22 '17 at 21:47
add a comment |
$(selector).length && //Do something
17
I hate these clever ways of avoiding to use anifwhere anifwould improve readability at the cost of 2 bytes.
– Emile Bergeron
Oct 8 '16 at 0:35
Plus, minifiers will do all these&&for you.
– user7892745
May 22 '17 at 21:46
add a comment |
$(selector).length && //Do something
17
I hate these clever ways of avoiding to use anifwhere anifwould improve readability at the cost of 2 bytes.
– Emile Bergeron
Oct 8 '16 at 0:35
Plus, minifiers will do all these&&for you.
– user7892745
May 22 '17 at 21:46
add a comment |
$(selector).length && //Do something
$(selector).length && //Do something
answered May 28 '12 at 12:58
SJGSJG
1,62311410
1,62311410
17
I hate these clever ways of avoiding to use anifwhere anifwould improve readability at the cost of 2 bytes.
– Emile Bergeron
Oct 8 '16 at 0:35
Plus, minifiers will do all these&&for you.
– user7892745
May 22 '17 at 21:46
add a comment |
17
I hate these clever ways of avoiding to use anifwhere anifwould improve readability at the cost of 2 bytes.
– Emile Bergeron
Oct 8 '16 at 0:35
Plus, minifiers will do all these&&for you.
– user7892745
May 22 '17 at 21:46
17
17
I hate these clever ways of avoiding to use an
if where an if would improve readability at the cost of 2 bytes.– Emile Bergeron
Oct 8 '16 at 0:35
I hate these clever ways of avoiding to use an
if where an if would improve readability at the cost of 2 bytes.– Emile Bergeron
Oct 8 '16 at 0:35
Plus, minifiers will do all these
&& for you.– user7892745
May 22 '17 at 21:46
Plus, minifiers will do all these
&& for you.– user7892745
May 22 '17 at 21:46
add a comment |
Try testing for DOM element
if (!!$(selector)[0]) // do stuff
add a comment |
Try testing for DOM element
if (!!$(selector)[0]) // do stuff
add a comment |
Try testing for DOM element
if (!!$(selector)[0]) // do stuff
Try testing for DOM element
if (!!$(selector)[0]) // do stuff
answered Aug 9 '15 at 2:55
guest271314guest271314
1
1
add a comment |
add a comment |
Inspired by hiway's answer I came up with the following:
$.fn.exists = function() {
return $.contains( document.documentElement, this[0] );
}
jQuery.contains takes two DOM elements and checks whether the first one contains the second one.
Using document.documentElement as the first argument fulfills the semantics of the exists method when we want to apply it solely to check the existence of an element in the current document.
Below, I've put together a snippet that compares jQuery.exists() against the $(sel)[0] and $(sel).length approaches which both return truthy values for $(4) while $(4).exists() returns false. In the context of checking for existence of an element in the DOM this seems to be the desired result.
$.fn.exists = function() {
return $.contains(document.documentElement, this[0]);
}
var testFuncs = [
function(jq) { return !!jq[0]; },
function(jq) { return !!jq.length; },
function(jq) { return jq.exists(); },
];
var inputs = [
["$()",$()],
["$(4)",$(4)],
["$('#idoexist')",$('#idoexist')],
["$('#idontexist')",$('#idontexist')]
];
for( var i = 0, l = inputs.length, tr, input; i < l; i++ ) {
input = inputs[i][1];
tr = "<tr><td>" + inputs[i][0] + "</td><td>"
+ testFuncs[0](input) + "</td><td>"
+ testFuncs[1](input) + "</td><td>"
+ testFuncs[2](input) + "</td></tr>";
$("table").append(tr);
}td { border: 1px solid black }<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.1.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
<div id="idoexist">#idoexist</div>
<table style>
<tr>
<td>Input</td><td>!!$(sel)[0]</td><td>!!$(sel).length</td><td>$(sel).exists()</td>
</tr>
</table>
<script>
$.fn.exists = function() {
return $.contains(document.documentElement, this[0]);
}
</script>add a comment |
Inspired by hiway's answer I came up with the following:
$.fn.exists = function() {
return $.contains( document.documentElement, this[0] );
}
jQuery.contains takes two DOM elements and checks whether the first one contains the second one.
Using document.documentElement as the first argument fulfills the semantics of the exists method when we want to apply it solely to check the existence of an element in the current document.
Below, I've put together a snippet that compares jQuery.exists() against the $(sel)[0] and $(sel).length approaches which both return truthy values for $(4) while $(4).exists() returns false. In the context of checking for existence of an element in the DOM this seems to be the desired result.
$.fn.exists = function() {
return $.contains(document.documentElement, this[0]);
}
var testFuncs = [
function(jq) { return !!jq[0]; },
function(jq) { return !!jq.length; },
function(jq) { return jq.exists(); },
];
var inputs = [
["$()",$()],
["$(4)",$(4)],
["$('#idoexist')",$('#idoexist')],
["$('#idontexist')",$('#idontexist')]
];
for( var i = 0, l = inputs.length, tr, input; i < l; i++ ) {
input = inputs[i][1];
tr = "<tr><td>" + inputs[i][0] + "</td><td>"
+ testFuncs[0](input) + "</td><td>"
+ testFuncs[1](input) + "</td><td>"
+ testFuncs[2](input) + "</td></tr>";
$("table").append(tr);
}td { border: 1px solid black }<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.1.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
<div id="idoexist">#idoexist</div>
<table style>
<tr>
<td>Input</td><td>!!$(sel)[0]</td><td>!!$(sel).length</td><td>$(sel).exists()</td>
</tr>
</table>
<script>
$.fn.exists = function() {
return $.contains(document.documentElement, this[0]);
}
</script>add a comment |
Inspired by hiway's answer I came up with the following:
$.fn.exists = function() {
return $.contains( document.documentElement, this[0] );
}
jQuery.contains takes two DOM elements and checks whether the first one contains the second one.
Using document.documentElement as the first argument fulfills the semantics of the exists method when we want to apply it solely to check the existence of an element in the current document.
Below, I've put together a snippet that compares jQuery.exists() against the $(sel)[0] and $(sel).length approaches which both return truthy values for $(4) while $(4).exists() returns false. In the context of checking for existence of an element in the DOM this seems to be the desired result.
$.fn.exists = function() {
return $.contains(document.documentElement, this[0]);
}
var testFuncs = [
function(jq) { return !!jq[0]; },
function(jq) { return !!jq.length; },
function(jq) { return jq.exists(); },
];
var inputs = [
["$()",$()],
["$(4)",$(4)],
["$('#idoexist')",$('#idoexist')],
["$('#idontexist')",$('#idontexist')]
];
for( var i = 0, l = inputs.length, tr, input; i < l; i++ ) {
input = inputs[i][1];
tr = "<tr><td>" + inputs[i][0] + "</td><td>"
+ testFuncs[0](input) + "</td><td>"
+ testFuncs[1](input) + "</td><td>"
+ testFuncs[2](input) + "</td></tr>";
$("table").append(tr);
}td { border: 1px solid black }<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.1.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
<div id="idoexist">#idoexist</div>
<table style>
<tr>
<td>Input</td><td>!!$(sel)[0]</td><td>!!$(sel).length</td><td>$(sel).exists()</td>
</tr>
</table>
<script>
$.fn.exists = function() {
return $.contains(document.documentElement, this[0]);
}
</script>Inspired by hiway's answer I came up with the following:
$.fn.exists = function() {
return $.contains( document.documentElement, this[0] );
}
jQuery.contains takes two DOM elements and checks whether the first one contains the second one.
Using document.documentElement as the first argument fulfills the semantics of the exists method when we want to apply it solely to check the existence of an element in the current document.
Below, I've put together a snippet that compares jQuery.exists() against the $(sel)[0] and $(sel).length approaches which both return truthy values for $(4) while $(4).exists() returns false. In the context of checking for existence of an element in the DOM this seems to be the desired result.
$.fn.exists = function() {
return $.contains(document.documentElement, this[0]);
}
var testFuncs = [
function(jq) { return !!jq[0]; },
function(jq) { return !!jq.length; },
function(jq) { return jq.exists(); },
];
var inputs = [
["$()",$()],
["$(4)",$(4)],
["$('#idoexist')",$('#idoexist')],
["$('#idontexist')",$('#idontexist')]
];
for( var i = 0, l = inputs.length, tr, input; i < l; i++ ) {
input = inputs[i][1];
tr = "<tr><td>" + inputs[i][0] + "</td><td>"
+ testFuncs[0](input) + "</td><td>"
+ testFuncs[1](input) + "</td><td>"
+ testFuncs[2](input) + "</td></tr>";
$("table").append(tr);
}td { border: 1px solid black }<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.1.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
<div id="idoexist">#idoexist</div>
<table style>
<tr>
<td>Input</td><td>!!$(sel)[0]</td><td>!!$(sel).length</td><td>$(sel).exists()</td>
</tr>
</table>
<script>
$.fn.exists = function() {
return $.contains(document.documentElement, this[0]);
}
</script>$.fn.exists = function() {
return $.contains(document.documentElement, this[0]);
}
var testFuncs = [
function(jq) { return !!jq[0]; },
function(jq) { return !!jq.length; },
function(jq) { return jq.exists(); },
];
var inputs = [
["$()",$()],
["$(4)",$(4)],
["$('#idoexist')",$('#idoexist')],
["$('#idontexist')",$('#idontexist')]
];
for( var i = 0, l = inputs.length, tr, input; i < l; i++ ) {
input = inputs[i][1];
tr = "<tr><td>" + inputs[i][0] + "</td><td>"
+ testFuncs[0](input) + "</td><td>"
+ testFuncs[1](input) + "</td><td>"
+ testFuncs[2](input) + "</td></tr>";
$("table").append(tr);
}td { border: 1px solid black }<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.1.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
<div id="idoexist">#idoexist</div>
<table style>
<tr>
<td>Input</td><td>!!$(sel)[0]</td><td>!!$(sel).length</td><td>$(sel).exists()</td>
</tr>
</table>
<script>
$.fn.exists = function() {
return $.contains(document.documentElement, this[0]);
}
</script>$.fn.exists = function() {
return $.contains(document.documentElement, this[0]);
}
var testFuncs = [
function(jq) { return !!jq[0]; },
function(jq) { return !!jq.length; },
function(jq) { return jq.exists(); },
];
var inputs = [
["$()",$()],
["$(4)",$(4)],
["$('#idoexist')",$('#idoexist')],
["$('#idontexist')",$('#idontexist')]
];
for( var i = 0, l = inputs.length, tr, input; i < l; i++ ) {
input = inputs[i][1];
tr = "<tr><td>" + inputs[i][0] + "</td><td>"
+ testFuncs[0](input) + "</td><td>"
+ testFuncs[1](input) + "</td><td>"
+ testFuncs[2](input) + "</td></tr>";
$("table").append(tr);
}td { border: 1px solid black }<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.1.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
<div id="idoexist">#idoexist</div>
<table style>
<tr>
<td>Input</td><td>!!$(sel)[0]</td><td>!!$(sel).length</td><td>$(sel).exists()</td>
</tr>
</table>
<script>
$.fn.exists = function() {
return $.contains(document.documentElement, this[0]);
}
</script>edited May 23 '17 at 11:47
Community♦
11
11
answered Oct 13 '15 at 20:01
OliverOliver
6,82845179
6,82845179
add a comment |
add a comment |
I just like to use plain vanilla javascript to do this.
function isExists(selector){
return document.querySelectorAll(selector).length>0;
}
add a comment |
I just like to use plain vanilla javascript to do this.
function isExists(selector){
return document.querySelectorAll(selector).length>0;
}
add a comment |
I just like to use plain vanilla javascript to do this.
function isExists(selector){
return document.querySelectorAll(selector).length>0;
}
I just like to use plain vanilla javascript to do this.
function isExists(selector){
return document.querySelectorAll(selector).length>0;
}
answered Jun 18 '16 at 22:37
Sanu Uthaiah BolleraSanu Uthaiah Bollera
686810
686810
add a comment |
add a comment |
No need for jQuery
if(document.querySelector('.a-class')) {
// do something
}
add a comment |
No need for jQuery
if(document.querySelector('.a-class')) {
// do something
}
add a comment |
No need for jQuery
if(document.querySelector('.a-class')) {
// do something
}
No need for jQuery
if(document.querySelector('.a-class')) {
// do something
}
answered Nov 28 '16 at 10:43
PawelPawel
5,95433846
5,95433846
add a comment |
add a comment |
I stumbled upon this question and i'd like to share a snippet of code i currently use:
$.fn.exists = function(callback) {
var self = this;
var wrapper = (function(){
function notExists () {}
notExists.prototype.otherwise = function(fallback){
if (!self.length) {
fallback.call();
}
};
return new notExists;
})();
if(self.length) {
callback.call();
}
return wrapper;
}
And now i can write code like this -
$("#elem").exists(function(){
alert ("it exists");
}).otherwise(function(){
alert ("it doesn't exist");
});
It might seem a lot of code, but when written in CoffeeScript it is quite small:
$.fn.exists = (callback) ->
exists = @length
callback.call() if exists
new class
otherwise: (fallback) ->
fallback.call() if not exists
8
I find OP's original approach not only to be much more minimal but more elegant than this. Seems like overkill to write this much code when OP's method is shorter, and doesn't involve callbacks.
– Lev
Aug 5 '14 at 7:31
For simple cases - you're right. But for more complex situations involving a lot of code on both cases i think my approach is better.
– Eternal1
Aug 5 '14 at 7:38
3
In what complex situation would this approach be better than a simple if/else statement?
– Jarvl
Jun 24 '16 at 18:55
add a comment |
I stumbled upon this question and i'd like to share a snippet of code i currently use:
$.fn.exists = function(callback) {
var self = this;
var wrapper = (function(){
function notExists () {}
notExists.prototype.otherwise = function(fallback){
if (!self.length) {
fallback.call();
}
};
return new notExists;
})();
if(self.length) {
callback.call();
}
return wrapper;
}
And now i can write code like this -
$("#elem").exists(function(){
alert ("it exists");
}).otherwise(function(){
alert ("it doesn't exist");
});
It might seem a lot of code, but when written in CoffeeScript it is quite small:
$.fn.exists = (callback) ->
exists = @length
callback.call() if exists
new class
otherwise: (fallback) ->
fallback.call() if not exists
8
I find OP's original approach not only to be much more minimal but more elegant than this. Seems like overkill to write this much code when OP's method is shorter, and doesn't involve callbacks.
– Lev
Aug 5 '14 at 7:31
For simple cases - you're right. But for more complex situations involving a lot of code on both cases i think my approach is better.
– Eternal1
Aug 5 '14 at 7:38
3
In what complex situation would this approach be better than a simple if/else statement?
– Jarvl
Jun 24 '16 at 18:55
add a comment |
I stumbled upon this question and i'd like to share a snippet of code i currently use:
$.fn.exists = function(callback) {
var self = this;
var wrapper = (function(){
function notExists () {}
notExists.prototype.otherwise = function(fallback){
if (!self.length) {
fallback.call();
}
};
return new notExists;
})();
if(self.length) {
callback.call();
}
return wrapper;
}
And now i can write code like this -
$("#elem").exists(function(){
alert ("it exists");
}).otherwise(function(){
alert ("it doesn't exist");
});
It might seem a lot of code, but when written in CoffeeScript it is quite small:
$.fn.exists = (callback) ->
exists = @length
callback.call() if exists
new class
otherwise: (fallback) ->
fallback.call() if not exists
I stumbled upon this question and i'd like to share a snippet of code i currently use:
$.fn.exists = function(callback) {
var self = this;
var wrapper = (function(){
function notExists () {}
notExists.prototype.otherwise = function(fallback){
if (!self.length) {
fallback.call();
}
};
return new notExists;
})();
if(self.length) {
callback.call();
}
return wrapper;
}
And now i can write code like this -
$("#elem").exists(function(){
alert ("it exists");
}).otherwise(function(){
alert ("it doesn't exist");
});
It might seem a lot of code, but when written in CoffeeScript it is quite small:
$.fn.exists = (callback) ->
exists = @length
callback.call() if exists
new class
otherwise: (fallback) ->
fallback.call() if not exists
edited Apr 16 '15 at 9:17
answered Jul 28 '14 at 10:50
Eternal1Eternal1
4,05612340
4,05612340
8
I find OP's original approach not only to be much more minimal but more elegant than this. Seems like overkill to write this much code when OP's method is shorter, and doesn't involve callbacks.
– Lev
Aug 5 '14 at 7:31
For simple cases - you're right. But for more complex situations involving a lot of code on both cases i think my approach is better.
– Eternal1
Aug 5 '14 at 7:38
3
In what complex situation would this approach be better than a simple if/else statement?
– Jarvl
Jun 24 '16 at 18:55
add a comment |
8
I find OP's original approach not only to be much more minimal but more elegant than this. Seems like overkill to write this much code when OP's method is shorter, and doesn't involve callbacks.
– Lev
Aug 5 '14 at 7:31
For simple cases - you're right. But for more complex situations involving a lot of code on both cases i think my approach is better.
– Eternal1
Aug 5 '14 at 7:38
3
In what complex situation would this approach be better than a simple if/else statement?
– Jarvl
Jun 24 '16 at 18:55
8
8
I find OP's original approach not only to be much more minimal but more elegant than this. Seems like overkill to write this much code when OP's method is shorter, and doesn't involve callbacks.
– Lev
Aug 5 '14 at 7:31
I find OP's original approach not only to be much more minimal but more elegant than this. Seems like overkill to write this much code when OP's method is shorter, and doesn't involve callbacks.
– Lev
Aug 5 '14 at 7:31
For simple cases - you're right. But for more complex situations involving a lot of code on both cases i think my approach is better.
– Eternal1
Aug 5 '14 at 7:38
For simple cases - you're right. But for more complex situations involving a lot of code on both cases i think my approach is better.
– Eternal1
Aug 5 '14 at 7:38
3
3
In what complex situation would this approach be better than a simple if/else statement?
– Jarvl
Jun 24 '16 at 18:55
In what complex situation would this approach be better than a simple if/else statement?
– Jarvl
Jun 24 '16 at 18:55
add a comment |
I had a case where I wanted to see if an object exists inside of another so I added something to the first answer to check for a selector inside the selector..
// Checks if an object exists.
// Usage:
//
// $(selector).exists()
//
// Or:
//
// $(selector).exists(anotherSelector);
jQuery.fn.exists = function(selector) {
return selector ? this.find(selector).length : this.length;
};
add a comment |
I had a case where I wanted to see if an object exists inside of another so I added something to the first answer to check for a selector inside the selector..
// Checks if an object exists.
// Usage:
//
// $(selector).exists()
//
// Or:
//
// $(selector).exists(anotherSelector);
jQuery.fn.exists = function(selector) {
return selector ? this.find(selector).length : this.length;
};
add a comment |
I had a case where I wanted to see if an object exists inside of another so I added something to the first answer to check for a selector inside the selector..
// Checks if an object exists.
// Usage:
//
// $(selector).exists()
//
// Or:
//
// $(selector).exists(anotherSelector);
jQuery.fn.exists = function(selector) {
return selector ? this.find(selector).length : this.length;
};
I had a case where I wanted to see if an object exists inside of another so I added something to the first answer to check for a selector inside the selector..
// Checks if an object exists.
// Usage:
//
// $(selector).exists()
//
// Or:
//
// $(selector).exists(anotherSelector);
jQuery.fn.exists = function(selector) {
return selector ? this.find(selector).length : this.length;
};
answered Apr 5 '12 at 21:02
jcreamer898jcreamer898
6,46843454
6,46843454
add a comment |
add a comment |
How about:
function exists(selector) {
return $(selector).length;
}
if (exists(selector)) {
// do something
}
It's very minimal and saves you having to enclose the selector with $() every time.
3
This reads as "if exists thing" instead of "if thing exists" whichif($("#thing").exists(){}reads as. Also, it's not the jQuery way.
– 1j01
Jun 21 '15 at 21:48
add a comment |
How about:
function exists(selector) {
return $(selector).length;
}
if (exists(selector)) {
// do something
}
It's very minimal and saves you having to enclose the selector with $() every time.
3
This reads as "if exists thing" instead of "if thing exists" whichif($("#thing").exists(){}reads as. Also, it's not the jQuery way.
– 1j01
Jun 21 '15 at 21:48
add a comment |
How about:
function exists(selector) {
return $(selector).length;
}
if (exists(selector)) {
// do something
}
It's very minimal and saves you having to enclose the selector with $() every time.
How about:
function exists(selector) {
return $(selector).length;
}
if (exists(selector)) {
// do something
}
It's very minimal and saves you having to enclose the selector with $() every time.
answered Mar 4 '14 at 21:15
GSTARGSTAR
1,6431154101
1,6431154101
3
This reads as "if exists thing" instead of "if thing exists" whichif($("#thing").exists(){}reads as. Also, it's not the jQuery way.
– 1j01
Jun 21 '15 at 21:48
add a comment |
3
This reads as "if exists thing" instead of "if thing exists" whichif($("#thing").exists(){}reads as. Also, it's not the jQuery way.
– 1j01
Jun 21 '15 at 21:48
3
3
This reads as "if exists thing" instead of "if thing exists" which
if($("#thing").exists(){} reads as. Also, it's not the jQuery way.– 1j01
Jun 21 '15 at 21:48
This reads as "if exists thing" instead of "if thing exists" which
if($("#thing").exists(){} reads as. Also, it's not the jQuery way.– 1j01
Jun 21 '15 at 21:48
add a comment |
I'm using this:
$.fn.ifExists = function(fn) {
if (this.length) {
$(fn(this));
}
};
$("#element").ifExists(
function($this){
$this.addClass('someClass').animate({marginTop:20},function(){alert('ok')});
}
);
Execute the chain only if a jQuery element exist - http://jsfiddle.net/andres_314/vbNM3/2/
add a comment |
I'm using this:
$.fn.ifExists = function(fn) {
if (this.length) {
$(fn(this));
}
};
$("#element").ifExists(
function($this){
$this.addClass('someClass').animate({marginTop:20},function(){alert('ok')});
}
);
Execute the chain only if a jQuery element exist - http://jsfiddle.net/andres_314/vbNM3/2/
add a comment |
I'm using this:
$.fn.ifExists = function(fn) {
if (this.length) {
$(fn(this));
}
};
$("#element").ifExists(
function($this){
$this.addClass('someClass').animate({marginTop:20},function(){alert('ok')});
}
);
Execute the chain only if a jQuery element exist - http://jsfiddle.net/andres_314/vbNM3/2/
I'm using this:
$.fn.ifExists = function(fn) {
if (this.length) {
$(fn(this));
}
};
$("#element").ifExists(
function($this){
$this.addClass('someClass').animate({marginTop:20},function(){alert('ok')});
}
);
Execute the chain only if a jQuery element exist - http://jsfiddle.net/andres_314/vbNM3/2/
answered Aug 1 '12 at 21:56
andy_314andy_314
329314
329314
add a comment |
add a comment |
$("selector") returns an object which has the length property. If the selector finds any elements, they will be included in the object. So if you check its length you can see if any elements exist. In JavaScript 0 == false, so if you don't get 0 your code will run.
if($("selector").length){
//code in the case
}
5
"give an array" — No, it doesn't. It gives you a jQuery object (which shares some properties with an array). Your answer is essentially the same as Tim Büthe's from 2009 too.
– Quentin
Apr 27 '16 at 12:33
add a comment |
$("selector") returns an object which has the length property. If the selector finds any elements, they will be included in the object. So if you check its length you can see if any elements exist. In JavaScript 0 == false, so if you don't get 0 your code will run.
if($("selector").length){
//code in the case
}
5
"give an array" — No, it doesn't. It gives you a jQuery object (which shares some properties with an array). Your answer is essentially the same as Tim Büthe's from 2009 too.
– Quentin
Apr 27 '16 at 12:33
add a comment |
$("selector") returns an object which has the length property. If the selector finds any elements, they will be included in the object. So if you check its length you can see if any elements exist. In JavaScript 0 == false, so if you don't get 0 your code will run.
if($("selector").length){
//code in the case
}
$("selector") returns an object which has the length property. If the selector finds any elements, they will be included in the object. So if you check its length you can see if any elements exist. In JavaScript 0 == false, so if you don't get 0 your code will run.
if($("selector").length){
//code in the case
}
edited Jan 3 at 10:00
Hydrothermal
2,25371737
2,25371737
answered Mar 25 '16 at 11:05
Kamuran SönecekKamuran Sönecek
1,93021643
1,93021643
5
"give an array" — No, it doesn't. It gives you a jQuery object (which shares some properties with an array). Your answer is essentially the same as Tim Büthe's from 2009 too.
– Quentin
Apr 27 '16 at 12:33
add a comment |
5
"give an array" — No, it doesn't. It gives you a jQuery object (which shares some properties with an array). Your answer is essentially the same as Tim Büthe's from 2009 too.
– Quentin
Apr 27 '16 at 12:33
5
5
"give an array" — No, it doesn't. It gives you a jQuery object (which shares some properties with an array). Your answer is essentially the same as Tim Büthe's from 2009 too.
– Quentin
Apr 27 '16 at 12:33
"give an array" — No, it doesn't. It gives you a jQuery object (which shares some properties with an array). Your answer is essentially the same as Tim Büthe's from 2009 too.
– Quentin
Apr 27 '16 at 12:33
add a comment |
Here is my favorite exist method in jQuery
$.fn.exist = function(callback) {
return $(this).each(function () {
var target = $(this);
if (this.length > 0 && typeof callback === 'function') {
callback.call(target);
}
});
};
and other version which supports callback when selector does not exist
$.fn.exist = function(onExist, onNotExist) {
return $(this).each(function() {
var target = $(this);
if (this.length > 0) {
if (typeof onExist === 'function') {
onExist.call(target);
}
} else {
if (typeof onNotExist === 'function') {
onNotExist.call(target);
}
}
});
};
Example:
$('#foo .bar').exist(
function () {
// Stuff when '#foo .bar' exists
},
function () {
// Stuff when '#foo .bar' does not exist
}
);
add a comment |
Here is my favorite exist method in jQuery
$.fn.exist = function(callback) {
return $(this).each(function () {
var target = $(this);
if (this.length > 0 && typeof callback === 'function') {
callback.call(target);
}
});
};
and other version which supports callback when selector does not exist
$.fn.exist = function(onExist, onNotExist) {
return $(this).each(function() {
var target = $(this);
if (this.length > 0) {
if (typeof onExist === 'function') {
onExist.call(target);
}
} else {
if (typeof onNotExist === 'function') {
onNotExist.call(target);
}
}
});
};
Example:
$('#foo .bar').exist(
function () {
// Stuff when '#foo .bar' exists
},
function () {
// Stuff when '#foo .bar' does not exist
}
);
add a comment |
Here is my favorite exist method in jQuery
$.fn.exist = function(callback) {
return $(this).each(function () {
var target = $(this);
if (this.length > 0 && typeof callback === 'function') {
callback.call(target);
}
});
};
and other version which supports callback when selector does not exist
$.fn.exist = function(onExist, onNotExist) {
return $(this).each(function() {
var target = $(this);
if (this.length > 0) {
if (typeof onExist === 'function') {
onExist.call(target);
}
} else {
if (typeof onNotExist === 'function') {
onNotExist.call(target);
}
}
});
};
Example:
$('#foo .bar').exist(
function () {
// Stuff when '#foo .bar' exists
},
function () {
// Stuff when '#foo .bar' does not exist
}
);
Here is my favorite exist method in jQuery
$.fn.exist = function(callback) {
return $(this).each(function () {
var target = $(this);
if (this.length > 0 && typeof callback === 'function') {
callback.call(target);
}
});
};
and other version which supports callback when selector does not exist
$.fn.exist = function(onExist, onNotExist) {
return $(this).each(function() {
var target = $(this);
if (this.length > 0) {
if (typeof onExist === 'function') {
onExist.call(target);
}
} else {
if (typeof onNotExist === 'function') {
onNotExist.call(target);
}
}
});
};
Example:
$('#foo .bar').exist(
function () {
// Stuff when '#foo .bar' exists
},
function () {
// Stuff when '#foo .bar' does not exist
}
);
answered Mar 8 '16 at 17:06
ducdhmducdhm
1,7061020
1,7061020
add a comment |
add a comment |
You don't have to check if it's greater than 0 like $(selector).length > 0, $(selector).length it's enough and a elegant way to check the existence of elements. I don't think that is worth to write a function only for this, if you want to do more extra things, yes.
if($(selector).length){
// true if length is not 0
} else {
// false if length is 0
}
add a comment |
You don't have to check if it's greater than 0 like $(selector).length > 0, $(selector).length it's enough and a elegant way to check the existence of elements. I don't think that is worth to write a function only for this, if you want to do more extra things, yes.
if($(selector).length){
// true if length is not 0
} else {
// false if length is 0
}
add a comment |
You don't have to check if it's greater than 0 like $(selector).length > 0, $(selector).length it's enough and a elegant way to check the existence of elements. I don't think that is worth to write a function only for this, if you want to do more extra things, yes.
if($(selector).length){
// true if length is not 0
} else {
// false if length is 0
}
You don't have to check if it's greater than 0 like $(selector).length > 0, $(selector).length it's enough and a elegant way to check the existence of elements. I don't think that is worth to write a function only for this, if you want to do more extra things, yes.
if($(selector).length){
// true if length is not 0
} else {
// false if length is 0
}
answered Jun 20 '17 at 9:43
Andrei TodorutAndrei Todorut
2,1791615
2,1791615
add a comment |
add a comment |
Here is the complete example of different situations and way to check if element exists using direct if on jQuery selector may or may not work because it returns array or elements.
var a = null;
var b =
var c = undefined ;
if(a) { console.log(" a exist")} else { console.log("a doesn't exit")}
// output: a doesn't exit
if(b) { console.log(" b exist")} else { console.log("b doesn't exit")}
// output: b exist
if(c) { console.log(" c exist")} else { console.log("c doesn't exit")}
// output: c doesn't exit
FINAL SOLUTION
if($("#xysyxxs").length){ console.log("xusyxxs exist")} else { console.log("xusyxxs doesnn't exist") }
//output : xusyxxs doesnn't exist
if($(".xysyxxs").length){ console.log("xusyxxs exist")} else { console.log("xusyxxs doesnn't exist") }
//output : xusyxxs doesnn't exist
You can try $("#xysyxxs") in your debugger, you'll see that jquery doesn't return null or undefined. So the final solution would not work
– Béranger
Sep 9 '16 at 12:27
add a comment |
Here is the complete example of different situations and way to check if element exists using direct if on jQuery selector may or may not work because it returns array or elements.
var a = null;
var b =
var c = undefined ;
if(a) { console.log(" a exist")} else { console.log("a doesn't exit")}
// output: a doesn't exit
if(b) { console.log(" b exist")} else { console.log("b doesn't exit")}
// output: b exist
if(c) { console.log(" c exist")} else { console.log("c doesn't exit")}
// output: c doesn't exit
FINAL SOLUTION
if($("#xysyxxs").length){ console.log("xusyxxs exist")} else { console.log("xusyxxs doesnn't exist") }
//output : xusyxxs doesnn't exist
if($(".xysyxxs").length){ console.log("xusyxxs exist")} else { console.log("xusyxxs doesnn't exist") }
//output : xusyxxs doesnn't exist
You can try $("#xysyxxs") in your debugger, you'll see that jquery doesn't return null or undefined. So the final solution would not work
– Béranger
Sep 9 '16 at 12:27
add a comment |
Here is the complete example of different situations and way to check if element exists using direct if on jQuery selector may or may not work because it returns array or elements.
var a = null;
var b =
var c = undefined ;
if(a) { console.log(" a exist")} else { console.log("a doesn't exit")}
// output: a doesn't exit
if(b) { console.log(" b exist")} else { console.log("b doesn't exit")}
// output: b exist
if(c) { console.log(" c exist")} else { console.log("c doesn't exit")}
// output: c doesn't exit
FINAL SOLUTION
if($("#xysyxxs").length){ console.log("xusyxxs exist")} else { console.log("xusyxxs doesnn't exist") }
//output : xusyxxs doesnn't exist
if($(".xysyxxs").length){ console.log("xusyxxs exist")} else { console.log("xusyxxs doesnn't exist") }
//output : xusyxxs doesnn't exist
Here is the complete example of different situations and way to check if element exists using direct if on jQuery selector may or may not work because it returns array or elements.
var a = null;
var b =
var c = undefined ;
if(a) { console.log(" a exist")} else { console.log("a doesn't exit")}
// output: a doesn't exit
if(b) { console.log(" b exist")} else { console.log("b doesn't exit")}
// output: b exist
if(c) { console.log(" c exist")} else { console.log("c doesn't exit")}
// output: c doesn't exit
FINAL SOLUTION
if($("#xysyxxs").length){ console.log("xusyxxs exist")} else { console.log("xusyxxs doesnn't exist") }
//output : xusyxxs doesnn't exist
if($(".xysyxxs").length){ console.log("xusyxxs exist")} else { console.log("xusyxxs doesnn't exist") }
//output : xusyxxs doesnn't exist
edited Oct 15 '16 at 7:10
answered Jul 31 '16 at 6:42
abhirathore2006abhirathore2006
2,2421626
2,2421626
You can try $("#xysyxxs") in your debugger, you'll see that jquery doesn't return null or undefined. So the final solution would not work
– Béranger
Sep 9 '16 at 12:27
add a comment |
You can try $("#xysyxxs") in your debugger, you'll see that jquery doesn't return null or undefined. So the final solution would not work
– Béranger
Sep 9 '16 at 12:27
You can try $("#xysyxxs") in your debugger, you'll see that jquery doesn't return null or undefined. So the final solution would not work
– Béranger
Sep 9 '16 at 12:27
You can try $("#xysyxxs") in your debugger, you'll see that jquery doesn't return null or undefined. So the final solution would not work
– Béranger
Sep 9 '16 at 12:27
add a comment |
1 2
next
protected by Andrew Barber Apr 8 '13 at 3:55
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
I don't know, what is 'in-elegant' in the first place.
– yunzen
Nov 20 '18 at 13:06