Skip to content


Subversion checkout URL

You can clone with
Download ZIP


Would be great if `instanceof` checks within collection were done against `collection.model` rather than `Backbone.Model` #3051

HenrikJoreteg opened this Issue · 20 comments

9 participants


This would allow people to use their own custom models (for example: with Backbone.Collections.

I can do a PR for this, just wanted to float the idea for approval first.


That's a really good idea.

@jashkenas jashkenas added the change label

Want me to do a PR for this?


@jashkenas this won't work with the simple factory functions you were referring to in #3042


Ah, there's the rub.


Just so everyone is on the same page...

var Collection = Backbone.Collection.extend({
  model: function (attrs) { return new Backbone.Model(attrs); }
var collection = new Collection({id: 1});
collection.first() instanceof collection.model; // false

What if it wasn't .model but instead some other property, for example .modelConstructor that defaulted to Backbone.Model


That's what model is supposed to be :wink: That would solve the problem, but maybe there's a way that prevents that duplication?


I agree. It's not immediately obvious to me what the benefit of supporting the factory function is.


Sounds like there's a need for an isInstance() method instead of using instanceof directly.

If you need a factory function as .model for polymorphism, you're likely to also need to set a custom method for isInstance().


I know that _.isPlainObject is not in underscore, but wouldn't it work here?


It could work with factory functions if the models they produced were inherited from the factory itself. Using the example from the docs...

var Document = Backbone.Model.extend({
  constructor: function(attrs, options) {
    if (attrs.isPublic) return new PublicDocument(attrs, options);
    return new PrivateDocument(attrs, options);
var PublicDocument = Document.extend({constructor: Backbone.Model});
var PrivateDocument = Document.extend({constructor: Backbone.Model});
var Library = Backbone.Collection.extend({model: Document});
var library = new Library([{isPublic: true}, {isPublic: false}]); instanceof library.model; // true instanceof PublicDocument; // true instanceof library.model; // true instanceof PrivateDocument; // true

But that might be a bit too fancy...


I like @legastero's idea of adding this as an overridable isInstanceOf method to Collection and using that instead of hard instanceof checks.

Something like...

Collection.prototype.isInstanceOf = function (model) {
   return model instanceOf Model;

I went ahead and just wrote it up for discussion. I'm suggesting isModel instead of isInstanceOfseemed cleaner/clearer.


here it is: #3052


Henrik's approach is one way to do it, at the cost of adding a new internal hook function that might never be used by anyone other than him ;)

But hard instanceof type checking is usually a bad thing. Would it be possible for us to replace the instanceof(s) with duck-type testing instead, for this case?


The folks at LinkedIn (including myself) would love this new internal hook. We are currently swiveling out _prepareModel for some of our applications.


+1000. This would be absolutely HUGE for the application that my team and I are building here at LinkedIn. See @asakusuma's comment for confirmation as well.


Flexibility is one of the major advantages of Backbone, so being able to decouple models from collections and allowing people to swap in their own models seems like a natural win for backbone.


+1 I have actually been bitten by (the lack of) this before and it took a while to debug. Native support for this would be awesome.


Fixed. Enjoy.

@jashkenas jashkenas added the fixed label
@jashkenas jashkenas closed this
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Something went wrong with that request. Please try again.