RMMV If an array object does not exist in an if statement, don't report error, just continue

[bishiba]

Is there anyway without using "try" to perform the below line, where it doesn't fail if filter doesn't return a weapon?

for (var i = 1; i < 8; i++) if ($gameActors.actor(i).weapons().filter(weapon => weapon.name == $dataWeapons[21].name)[0].name) {true} else {false}

The error is as follows, I naturally know what it means, but I'll include it anyways.

Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read property 'name' of undefined
    at <anonymous>:1:93

I am looking for something along the lines of if (€Array.name), where "€" would essentially imply if does not exist, just continue. I know € does not exist, it's an example.

Edit:
I thought the following might work, but yeah, as I feared, even though the try statement is within the loop, it does break the loop.

for (var i = 1; i < 8; i++) try {if ($gameActors.actor(i).weapons().filter(weapon => weapon.name == $dataWeapons[21].name)[0].name) {true} else {false} } catch(e) {console.error(e)}

Best regards,
Bishiba

 

[KurayamiBlackheart]

When it fails, it's because the actor doesn't have an equipment right ? So it can't read the variables of a weapon null. You should just check if the actor(i) have an equipment before trying to filter it if it's the case. Thus preventing you from getting that error.

EDIT : What about this ?

for (var i = 1; i < 8; i++) {
    var wcheck = $gameActors.actor(i).weapons().filter(weapon => weapon.name == $dataWeapons[21].name);
    if (wcheck[0] && wcheck[0].name) {
        true;
    } else {
        false;
    }
}

or if you want everything on one line :

for (var i = 1; i < 8; i++) if ($gameActors.actor(i).weapons().filter(weapon => weapon.name == $dataWeapons[21].name)[0] && $gameActors.actor(i).weapons().filter(weapon => weapon.name == $dataWeapons[21].name)[0].name) {true} else {false}

 

[Trihan]

Use the hasWeapon function instead.

for (const actor of $gameActors) { if (actor.hasWeapon($dataWeapons[21]) { true } else { false } }

But if you absolutely must use that construction, upgrading to a version of nwjs that supports ES6 will allow you to use null-chaining operators:

for (var i = 1; i < 8; i++) if ($gameActors.actor(i).weapons()?.filter(weapon => weapon === $dataWeapons[21])[0]) {true} else {false}

Failing that, as Shaden said you'll need to check there's a value there first before filtering it.

for (var i = 1; i < 8; i++) {
  var weapons = $gameActors.actor(i).weapons().filter(weapon -> weapon === $dataWeapons[21]);
  if (weapons.length > 0) { true } else { false }
}

 

[KurayamiBlackheart]

Use the hasWeapon function instead.

for (const actor of $gameActors) { if (actor.hasWeapon($dataWeapons[21]) { true } else { false } }

But if you absolutely must use that construction, upgrading to a version of nwjs that supports ES6 will allow you to use null-chaining operators:

for (var i = 1; i < 8; i++) if ($gameActors.actor(i).weapons()?.filter(weapon => weapon === $dataWeapons[21])[0]) {true} else {false}

Failing that, as Shaden said you'll need to check there's a value there first before filtering it.

for (var i = 1; i < 8; i++) {
  var weapons - $gameActors.actor(i).weapons();
  if (weapons) {
    if (weapons.filter(weapon -> weapon === $dataWeapons[21])[0]) { true } else { false }
  }
}

Little typo,
var weapons = ...
not var weapons - ...

EDIT : Also I'm pretty sure OP wants to do something with the name of the weapon or something. Tho it might be helpful to know what you're really trying to do with the code to begin with @bishiba.

 

[Trihan]

It may well be that they're trying to do something with the name, but all the condition is currently checking is whether the weapon *has* a matching one, which I presume is just checking whether they have a given weapon equipped. But you're right, need more information on what they're trying to do.

 

[bishiba]

Use the hasWeapon function instead.

for (const actor of $gameActors) { if (actor.hasWeapon($dataWeapons[21]) { true } else { false } }

But if you absolutely must use that construction, upgrading to a version of nwjs that supports ES6 will allow you to use null-chaining operators:

for (var i = 1; i < 8; i++) if ($gameActors.actor(i).weapons()?.filter(weapon => weapon === $dataWeapons[21])[0]) {true} else {false}

Failing that, as Shaden said you'll need to check there's a value there first before filtering it.

for (var i = 1; i < 8; i++) {
  var weapons = $gameActors.actor(i).weapons().filter(weapon -> weapon === $dataWeapons[21]);
  if (weapons.length > 0) { true } else { false }
}

I have independent items, it won't be item 21. That's why I do it this way. I'm comparing it to the base item.

The way I normally do something like this would be like below:

for (var i = 1; i < 8; i++) try {
    if ($gameActors.actor(i).weapons().filter(weapon => weapon.name == $dataWeapons[21].name)[0]) {
        if ($gameActors.actor(i).weapons().filter(weapon => weapon.name == $dataWeapons[21].name)[0].name) {
            console.log(true)
        } else {
            console.log(false)
        }
    }
} catch(e) {console.error(e)}

But yeah, thanks! I remembered seeing something about the "?" thing from Web dev simplified on youtube some time ago. I figured it might be pertinent to my issue. I'm running nwjs 49.2 so it does work with the below:

for (var i = 1; i < 8; i++) if ($gameActors.actor(i).weapons()?.filter(weapon => weapon.name == $dataWeapons[21].name)[0]) {console.log(true)} else {console.log(false)}

When it fails, it's because the actor doesn't have an equipment right ? So it can't read the variables of a weapon null. You should just check if the actor(i) have an equipment before trying to filter it if it's the case. Thus preventing you from getting that error.

EDIT : What about this ?

for (var i = 1; i < 8; i++) {
    var wcheck = $gameActors.actor(i).weapons().filter(weapon => weapon.name == $dataWeapons[21].name);
    if (wcheck[0] && wcheck[0].name) {
        true;
    } else {
        false;
    }
}

or if you want everything on one line :

for (var i = 1; i < 8; i++) if ($gameActors.actor(i).weapons().filter(weapon => weapon.name == $dataWeapons[21].name)[0] && $gameActors.actor(i).weapons().filter(weapon => weapon.name == $dataWeapons[21].name)[0].name) {true} else {false}

Indeed that's how I would normally do it, but it requires, as you know, an extra check. Luckily I had upgraded to 49.2 so I could use the null-chaining. And nah, it was just one line as it was just one statement, you can see above how I normally perform the pre-check.

Also, it doesn't fail because the actor doesn't have equipment, it fails because the filter doesn't return an equipment with the required name. It has to be the name "Wraithbane", if not it returns an empty array, which is why [0] doesn't have a name property

Thanks a lot to both of you!

 

[KurayamiBlackheart]

No problem, glad you could solve your issue !

 

[Trihan]

I have independent items, it won't be item 21. That's why I do it this way. I'm comparing it to the base item.

The way I normally do something like this would be like below:

for (var i = 1; i < 8; i++) try {
    if ($gameActors.actor(i).weapons().filter(weapon => weapon.name == $dataWeapons[21].name)[0]) {
        if ($gameActors.actor(i).weapons().filter(weapon => weapon.name == $dataWeapons[21].name)[0].name) {
            console.log(true)
        } else {
            console.log(false)
        }
    }
} catch(e) {console.error(e)}

But yeah, thanks! I remembered seeing something about the "?" thing from Web dev simplified on youtube some time ago. I figured it might be pertinent to my issue. I'm running nwjs 49.2 so it does work with the below:

for (var i = 1; i < 8; i++) if ($gameActors.actor(i).weapons()?.filter(weapon => weapon.name == $dataWeapons[21].name)[0]) {console.log(true)} else {console.log(false)}

Indeed that's how I would normally do it, but it requires, as you know, an extra check. Luckily I had upgraded to 49.2 so I could use the null-chaining. And nah, it was just one line as it was just one statement, you can see above how I normally perform the pre-check.

Also, it doesn't fail because the actor doesn't have equipment, it fails because the filter doesn't return an equipment with the required name. It has to be the name "Wraithbane", if not it returns an empty array, which is why [0] doesn't have a name property

Thanks a lot to both of you!

Why not use baseItemId instead of name?

 

[bishiba]

No problem, glad you could solve your issue !

Yeah, this feature will be useful for so many things

Why not use baseItemId instead of name?

Well, I knew there is a property for that, as the conditional branch game interpreter returns true if checked. But I just wrote this quickly as I knew the property name.

Now this is how you screw over a boss which is looking for a weapon that you have And as per the recommendation I'm using baseItemId, I suppose it does save a few characters of code

for (var i = 1; i < 8; i++) if ($gameActors.actor(i).weapons()?.filter(weapon => weapon.baseItemId == 21)[0]) {
    $gameMessage._faceName = $gameActors.actor(i)._faceName;
    $gameMessage._faceIndex = $gameActors.actor(i)._faceIndex;
    $gameMessage._texts[0] = "Would this be the blade you're longing after?"
}

 

[Trihan]

Yeah, this feature will be useful for so many things



Well, I knew there is a property for that, as the conditional branch game interpreter returns true if checked. But I just wrote this quickly as I knew the property name.

Now this is how you screw over a boss which is looking for a weapon that you have And as per the recommendation I'm using baseItemId, I suppose it does save a few characters of code

for (var i = 1; i < 8; i++) if ($gameActors.actor(i).weapons()?.filter(weapon => weapon.baseItemId == 21)[0]) {
    $gameMessage._faceName = $gameActors.actor(i)._faceName;
    $gameMessage._faceIndex = $gameActors.actor(i)._faceIndex;
    $gameMessage._texts[0] = "Would this be the blade you're longing after?"
}

If you want to streamline it even more, you could do

if (Array.from({length: 8}, (_, i) => i + 1).some(id => $gameActors.actor(id).weapons().filter(weapon => weapon.baseItemId === 21)).length > 0)

 

[KurayamiBlackheart]

If you want to streamline it even more, you could do

if (Array.from({length: 8}, (_, i) => i + 1).some(id => $gameActors.actor(id).weapons().filter(weapon => weapon.baseItemId === 21)).length > 0)

You're going full hardcore like if it's an essay I didn't even know the function Array.some() from JavaScript, we learn some everyday.

 

[Trihan]

You're going full hardcore like if it's an essay I didn't even know the function Array.some() from JavaScript, we learn some everyday.

You have no idea how obsessive I get with refactoring code snippets.

 

[KurayamiBlackheart]

You have no idea how obsessive I get with refactoring code snippets.

If you do few more steps further I swear the code will look like it's obfuscated xD

 

[bishiba]

If you want to streamline it even more, you could do

if (Array.from({length: 8}, (_, i) => i + 1).some(id => $gameActors.actor(id).weapons().filter(weapon => weapon.baseItemId === 21)).length > 0)

Hm... Is it more efficint in terms of processing power? Because it's actually longer than the thing I'm using :/

Haha, yeah, refactoring code is really fun, but it can get you stuck on something that you could do really easily xD Like I didn't need to do what I did just now, but it just gives me so much pleasure learning these new things

 

[Trihan]

Hm... Is it more efficint in terms of processing power? Because it's actually longer than the thing I'm using :/

I think .some is faster than a for loop, yes.

 

[KurayamiBlackheart]

Hm... Is it more efficint in terms of processing power? Because it's actually longer than the thing I'm using :/

the length of a code doesn't determine its speed. also yes in theory it should be faster, but at this point it's insignificant because the code barely did take alot of processing power to begin with !

 

[bishiba]

I think .some is faster than a for loop, yes.

I should've tried with hasWeapon... I guess Yanfly changed the hasWeapon code to confer with baseItemId, don't know why I didn't verify that lol >.<

Yanfly.Item.Game_Actor_hasWeapon = Game_Actor.prototype.hasWeapon;
Game_Actor.prototype.hasWeapon = function(weapon) {
    if (this.hasBaseItem(weapon)) return true;
    return Yanfly.Item.Game_Actor_hasWeapon.call(this, weapon);
};

the length of a code doesn't determine its speed. also yes in theory it should be faster, but at this point it's insignificant because the code barely did take alot of processing power to begin with !

I'm aware that the length of code doesn't determine speed, is why I asked if it was faster And yes, this code runs in such a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of time, but still good to know that some() would be quicker than a loop. I expected as such, but again, good to confirm

Truth is however, that I should delve into using some at any rate, I used it once to allow anyone using my plugins to automatically check if an update exists. And it was hell to learn, but very neat when it was done.

        var ClientPlugins = BISH.Plugins;
        var ServerPlugins = pluginScript(iframe.contentDocument);
        var MismatchedVersions = ServerPlugins.filter(serverPlugins  =>
            BISH.Plugins.some(
                activePlugins  =>
                serverPlugins.name === activePlugins.name &&
                serverPlugins.version !== activePlugins.version
            )
        );

 

[KurayamiBlackheart]

I should've tried with hasWeapon... I guess Yanfly changed the hasWeapon code to confer with baseItemId, don't know why I didn't verify that lol >.<

Yanfly.Item.Game_Actor_hasWeapon = Game_Actor.prototype.hasWeapon;
Game_Actor.prototype.hasWeapon = function(weapon) {
    if (this.hasBaseItem(weapon)) return true;
    return Yanfly.Item.Game_Actor_hasWeapon.call(this, weapon);
};

I'm aware that the length of code doesn't determine speed, is why I asked if it was faster And yes, this code runs in such a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of time, but still good to know that some() would be quicker than a loop. I expected as such, but again, good to confirm

oh yeah Yanfly thinks about alot of things, very professionnal in his code. I had to fix alot of plugins (incompatibilities or just bugs like memory leaks and not functionning plugins) and if I recall I'm pretty sure I never had to fix a plugin from Yanfly.

 

[bishiba]

oh yeah Yanfly thinks about alot of things, very professionnal in his code. I had to fix alot of plugins (incompatibilities or just bugs like memory leaks and not functionning plugins) and if I recall I'm pretty sure I never had to fix a plugin from Yanfly.

Well, I've encountered some issues, I even made one of the issues I had into an actual plugin.

Bishiba's YEP_EventChasePlayer and Qmovement Compatibility Fix by Bishiba

Compatibility fix for Event_Chase and Qmovement

bishiba.itch.io

Then again I have some 80 plugins active xD With a big portion of that being my own plugins


But yes, Yanfly is very adept. Yet everyone does make mistakes, especially in programming, and when you consider Yanfly's immense scope of plugins it's very obvious there will be some problems every once in a while

 

[bishiba]

If you want to streamline it even more, you could do

if (Array.from({length: 8}, (_, i) => i + 1).some(id => $gameActors.actor(id).weapons().filter(weapon => weapon.baseItemId === 21)).length > 0)

What about this then?

$gameParty.members().some(member => member.hasWeapon($dataWeapons[21]))

Edit:
Oops, apologies for double posting