JavaScript-Developer-I Dumps with Practice Exam Questions Answers

In a reduce callback, you must return the new accumulator value.

Currently:

(result, current) = > {

result += current;

// no return

}

This returns undefined each time, so the accumulator becomes undefined on the next iteration, leading to incorrect results.

Fix by returning result:

const sumFunction = arr = > {

return arr.reduce((result, current) = > {

result += current;

return result; // line 05

}, 10);

};

Option D correctly adds the return.

Options A/B/C do not fix the missing return in the reducer and therefore do not resolve the core issue.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

The loop removes every 4:

Start: [1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4]

i=0 → 1 (no change)

i=1 → 2 (no change)

i=2 → 3 (no change)

i=3 → 4 → splice removes index 3 → [1,2,3,4,5,4,4], then i-- → 2

Next loop, i=3 → 4 again → splice → [1,2,3,5,4,4], i-- → 2

i=3 → 5 (no change)

i=4 → 4 → splice → [1,2,3,5,4] , i-- → 3

i=4 → 4 → splice → [1,2,3,5], i-- → 3

Next i=4, array.length is 4 → loop ends.

All 4s removed, final array: [1, 2, 3, 5].

The correct answer is D .

Semantic versioning usually follows this format:

MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH

For the version:

1.1.3

The parts are:

1 = MAJOR

1 = MINOR

3 = PATCH

A package version should be updated based on the type of change:

MAJOR version changes when there are breaking changes.

MINOR version changes when new features are added in a backward-compatible way.

PATCH version changes when backward-compatible bug fixes are added.

The question says the developer added new features that do not break backward compatibility . That means the minor version should increase.

Starting version:

1.1.3

Increase the minor version from 1 to 2, and reset the patch version to 0:

1.2.0

Why the other options are incorrect:

A. 1.2.3 is incorrect because when the minor version increases, the patch version should reset to 0.

B. 1.1.4 is incorrect because that would represent a patch update, usually for bug fixes, not new features.

C. 2.0.0 is incorrect because that would represent a major version update, usually for breaking changes.

D. 1.2.0 is correct because it represents a backward-compatible feature release.

Therefore, the verified answer is D .

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

Assuming SaleItem inherits from Item via prototype (e.g. SaleItem.prototype = Object.create(Item.prototype)):

Lines 01–02: create regItem and saleItem.

Line 03: define Item.prototype.description.

Now both regItem and saleItem (via inheritance) have a description method from Item.prototype.

Line 04: regItem.description() → ' This is a Scarf ' .

Line 05: saleItem.description() → ' This is a Shirt ' (same method, but this.name is ' Shirt ' ).

Line 07: SaleItem.prototype.description = ... overrides description only for SaleItem instances going forward.

If we imagine calling regItem.description() and saleItem.description() again after line 07:

regItem.description() still uses Item.prototype.description → ' This is a Scarf ' .

saleItem.description() now uses SaleItem.prototype.description → ' This is a discounted Shirt ' .

Those four lines correspond to option B.

The correct answer is B .

This question is about the event-driven programming model commonly used in Node.js. Many Node.js libraries expose an .on() method to register callback functions for specific events.

The correct pattern is:

ws.on( ' eventName ' , callbackFunction);

In this case, the developer needs to listen for two events:

' connect '

and:

' error '

The correct implementation is:

ws.on( ' connect ' , () = > {

console.log( ' Connected to client ' );

});

ws.on( ' error ' , (error) = > {

console.log( ' ERROR ' , error);

});

This registers one listener for successful connection and another listener for connection errors.

Why this works professionally:

ws.on( ' connect ' , callback) tells the library:

“When the connection event happens, execute this callback.”

ws.on( ' error ' , callback) tells the library:

“When an error event happens, execute this callback and pass the error object into it.”

Option A is incorrect because .catch() is used with Promises. The question specifically says the client library is built using events and callbacks , not Promise chaining.

Option D is incorrect because try...catch only catches synchronous errors during the immediate execution of ws.connect(). It will not reliably catch asynchronous connection errors emitted later by the web socket client.

Option C is identical to option B in the provided question. Since the expected answer normally requires selecting one option, B is selected as the verified answer.

Therefore, the verified answer is B .