Your achievements

Level 1

0% to

Level 2

Tip /
Sign in

Sign in to Community

to gain points, level up, and earn exciting badges like the new
BedrockMission!

Learn More

View all

Sign in to view all badges

Build error in Data Element Custom Code

Avatar

Avatar
Validate 1
Level 1
ai_thanhh816013
Level 1

Likes

0 likes

Total Posts

1 post

Correct Reply

0 solutions
Top badges earned
Validate 1
View profile

Avatar
Validate 1
Level 1
ai_thanhh816013
Level 1

Likes

0 likes

Total Posts

1 post

Correct Reply

0 solutions
Top badges earned
Validate 1
View profile
ai_thanhh816013
Level 1

23-03-2018

I got this error while trying to build an Data Element (custom code)

Could not find Extension for ...

In the Data Element, I put a very simple code to test:

var person = new Object();

And it seems that I got an error for that line of code:

1449463_pastedImage_0.png

So is it possible to initialize a JS Object in Launch? Or is this an error?

Thanks,

Accepted Solutions (1)

Accepted Solutions (1)

Avatar

Avatar
Coach
Employee
Gigazelle
Employee

Likes

473 likes

Total Posts

1,947 posts

Correct Reply

740 solutions
Top badges earned
Coach
Contributor 2
Validate 1
Ignite 80
Ignite 70
View profile

Avatar
Coach
Employee
Gigazelle
Employee

Likes

473 likes

Total Posts

1,947 posts

Correct Reply

740 solutions
Top badges earned
Coach
Contributor 2
Validate 1
Ignite 80
Ignite 70
View profile
Gigazelle
Employee

05-12-2018

That's Launch's version of linting. It will still compile just fine, and if you hover over the caution symbol, it should give more info on why it's flagged.

Answers (1)

Answers (1)

Avatar

Avatar
Validate 1
Level 2
FOX007
Level 2

Likes

8 likes

Total Posts

16 posts

Correct Reply

1 solution
Top badges earned
Validate 1
Boost 5
Boost 3
Boost 1
Applaud 5
View profile

Avatar
Validate 1
Level 2
FOX007
Level 2

Likes

8 likes

Total Posts

16 posts

Correct Reply

1 solution
Top badges earned
Validate 1
Boost 5
Boost 3
Boost 1
Applaud 5
View profile
FOX007
Level 2

25-03-2018

I get the same result, but out of curiosity why not use object literal notation?  var test = {};