We Keep Coding

How to create a scalable Angular application structure?

I'm creating an Angular 6 application that will serve two types of users.
A buyer and a seller. I want each one of them to have their own GUI. How would you structure your application? taking into account that both theses GUIs have many components that they can share.
I was thinking something like creating 3 modules /buyer , /seller and /shared
I will also be using an auth guard so when authenticating the buyer can only access their GUI , etc ...
I'm new to Angular so any help will be appreciated!
thank you.

Yes, a buyer module containing all the components for the buyer,
a seller module containing all the components for the seller
and a shared module containing all components/services/models used in both buyer & seller module.
This is only the first layer, depending on how big your application is you will need more levels of modules.
The offcial Angular styleguide is a good point to start, you can find it here.
For more about application structure you can look here in the styleguide.

Create 3 separate module with main module and put common things in main module or create one shared module and import where you want to access.
also use SCSS for styling and create one separate folder for sass and write all the basic files and things in scss
You can also create separate folder in asstes for mock-data
Your project structure would be something like that:
app/
core/
shared/
assets/
mock-data/
sass/

How can I create a shared utility to use with two different AngularJS apps (on different html pages)?

I'm working on a multi-page site using AngularJS, and I want to write a utility that can be included in more than one page. I've looked at services and providers, and all the examples I find are single-page examples. I'm not sure how to generalize this to multiple apps used on different pages.
This is what I want to have for my two different pages/apps.
in app1.js:
var app1 = angular.module('app1',['myUtil'])
app1.controller('ctrl1',function ctrl1($scope,myUtil){...})
in app2.js:
var app2 = angular.module('app2',['myUtil'])
app2.controller('ctrl2',function ctrl2($scope,myUtil){...})
in myUtil.js:
??? Provider? Service? Module?
All the examples I have found for providers and services show them as being attached to a single app. Is this possible with AngularJS? If so, what am I missing?

The answer from zero298 is a nice answer as it's a great way of organising and reusing the utility module you create.
If you want a less broad and more "codey" answer, then one way of doing it would be to have some kind of utility module that houses whatever services you want to put in it, and then you can pass that in as a dependency for all apps that use it. This will all depend on your build process as to how you import/organise the files, but as a very basic example you could have a "utilsmodule" module with a "utils" service:
myUtils.js:
angular.module('utilsmodule', []);
// Service could be in another file
angular.module('utilsmodule').service('myutil', function() {
return {
myUtilFunction : function() {
return "This is from myutil";
}
};
});
Then in your app files you can pass in the module by name, which will give the app access to the 'myutil' service.
app1.js:
var app1 = angular.module('app1',['utilsmodule'])
app1.controller('ctrl1',function ctrl1($scope,myutil){...})
Then you would import the myUtils.js file before the app1.js file so that the "utilsmodule" module is registered with angular before your app is created. You do the same with app2 and the utility module should be available to both.
Example Plunker

This may be a bit too broad. However, what I would suggest you do is create a library module dedicated to the feature/utility that you want to make available to your projects.
I would suggest using npm to organize all of this. Give this feature module it's own package.json and add whatever code you need to make it run. In your consumer projects, add the library module as a dependency.
A good method to get this working locally (as well as quickly since you don't have to constantly push to the npm registry) is to use the npm link utility.
If your consumer projects are already npm oriented, the workflow would be as follows:
Create a new directory to contain your utility library module lets call it my-utility
cd to the new directory
npm init to create a package.json in this library
npm link to make the library available locally
cd to any of the consumer projects
npm link my-utility so that the consumer projects create a symlink to the local folder that contains your utility module
After that is setup, depending on how your consumer projects build or use dependencies, you can use your new utility library in your top level projects.

Register both non-angular and angular version of component

I have a javascript project consisting of two js-files
component.js
component.angular.js
component.js contains the actual logic exported to globals, amd or whatever. It can be used as-is if you are not using angular.
component.angular.js wraps the the logic in an angular directive, but requires the logic from component.js.
I would like to register/publish both a non-angular (only need component.js) and a angular (need both component.js and component.angular.js) version of this component in Bower.
Overall question: How to do that?
Questions that might help you figure out why I am confused:
Can you even state that two js-files needs to be used in a bower.json?
I guess registering the repository where the code lives in Bower, it will look for a bower.json file. But I guess I cannot state in a bower.json that you will need both files in case of angular and only one of them in case of non-angular.
Can I have two different bower.json files in the same repository? And register them under two different names in Bower - e.g. under "mycomponent" and "mycomponent-angular".
Do I need two repositories?

Well, I ended up having two repostories. One for sharing the raw component (on bower, npm and meteor) and one for sharing the angular wrapping depending on the raw component (also on bower, npm and meteor).
Raw component: https://github.com/TeletronicsDotAe/infinite-gallery
Angular wrapper: https://github.com/TeletronicsDotAe/infinite-gallery-angular
Do not know if that is the best way, but it works for me.

Webpack import angular in angular-webpack-workflow demo project

I'm inspecting this Webpack demo project https://github.com/Foxandxss/GermanWords-ng1-webpack. This project contains in several files this line (features/home/index, features/login/index):
import angular from 'angular';
I don't understand - if 'angular' library will be included several times in result js file because this library exists in several source files? I've looked at webpack config file, but can't understand. Please, can you clear this questions?

It's just to be sure that angular will be available for every module. Imagine you use a feature to be a new standalone site, you will have already the code ready. Always think like every feature is a standalone (handle routes, dependencies, controllers, views etc.).
Webpack will handle the dependencies and inject only once angular, dont worry. Like #thsorens says in comments : "All dependencies in your files needs to be imported where it is used."
Oh and for furthermore, i've found this yeoman generator base on Foxandxss work : https://github.com/Aleksion/generator-angular-webpack-babel
Have fun.

Require pattern Browserify / Angular

I'm working in a project with angular and browserify, this is the first time for me to use this two tools together, so I would like some advice on which is the way to require files with browserify.
We may import those files in different ways, Until now I experimented this way:
Angular App:
app
_follow
- followController.js
- followDirective.js
- followService.js
- require.js
- app.js
For each folder with in the files for a plugin I created an require.js file and in it I require all the files of that folder. Like so:
var mnm = require('angular').module('mnm');
mnm.factory('FollowService', ['Restangular',require('./followService')]);
mnm.controller('FollowController',['$scope','FollowService',require('./followController')])
mnm.directive('mnmFollowers', ['FollowService',require('./followDirective')]);
and then require all require.js files in a unique file called app.js that will generate the bundle.js
Question:
This way to require the files can be a good structure, or it will have some problem when I need to test? I would like to see your way to achieve good structure with angular and browserify

AngularJS and browserify aren't, sadly, a great match. Certainly not like React and browserify, but I digress.
What has worked for me is having each file as an AngularJS module (because each file is already a CommonJS module) and having the files export their AngularJS module name.
So your example would look like this:
app/
app.js
follow/
controllers.js
directives.js
services.js
index.js
The app.js would look something like this:
var angular = require('angular');
var app = angular.module('mnm', [
require('./follow')
]);
// more code here
angular.bootstrap(document.body, ['mnm']);
The follow/index.js would look something like this:
var angular = require('angular');
var app = angular.module('mnm.follow', [
require('./controllers'),
require('./directives'),
require('./services')
]);
module.exports = app.name;
The follow/controllers.js would look something like this:
var angular = require('angular');
var app = angular.module('mnm.follow.controllers', [
require('./services'), // internal dependency
'ui.router' // external dependency from earlier require or <script/>
// more dependencies ...
]);
app.controller('FollowController', ['$scope', 'FollowService', function ...]);
// more code here
module.exports = app.name;
And so on.
The advantage of this approach is that you keep your dependencies as explicit as possible (i.e. inside the CommonJS module that actually needs them) and the one-to-one mapping between CommonJS module paths and AngularJS module names prevents nasty surprises.
The most obvious problem with your approach is that you're keeping the actual dependencies that will be injected separate from the function that expects them, so if a function's dependencies change, you have to touch two files instead of one. This is a code smell (i.e. a bad thing).
For testability either approach should work as Angular's module system is essentially a giant blob and importing two modules that both define the same name will override each other.
EDIT (two years later): Some other people (both here and elsewhere) have suggested alternative approaches so I should probably address them and what the trade-offs are:
Have one global AngularJS module for your entire app and just do requires for side-effects (i.e. don't have the sub-modules export anything but manipulate the global angular object).
This seems to be the most common solution but kind of flies in the face of having modules at all. This seems to be the most pragmatic approach however and if you're using AngularJS you're already polluting globals so I guess having purely side-effect based modules is the least of your architectural problems.
Concatenate your AngularJS app code before passing it to Browserify.
This is the most literal solution to "let's combine AngularJS and Browserify". It's a valid approach if you're starting from the traditional "just blindly concatenate your app files" position of AngularJS and want to add Browserify for third-party libs, so I guess that makes it valid.
As far as your app structure goes this doesn't really improve anything by adding Browserify, though.
Like 1 but with each index.js defining its own AngularJS sub-module.
This is the boilerplate approach suggested by Brian Ogden. This suffers from all the drawbacks of 1 but creates some semblance of hierarchy within AngularJS in that at least you have more than one AngularJS module and the AngularJS module names actually correspond to your directory structure.
However the major drawback is that you now have two sets of namespaces to worry about (your actual modules and your AngularJS modules) but nothing enforcing consistency between them. Not only do you have to remember to import the right modules (which again purely rely on side-effects) but you also have to remember to add them to all the right lists and add the same boilerplate to every new file. This makes refactoring incredibly unwieldy and makes this the worst option in my opinion.
If I had to chose today, I would go with 2 because it gives up all pretense of AngularJS and Browserify being able to be unified and just leaves both to do their own thing. Plus if you already have an AngularJS build system it literally just means adding an extra step for Browserify.
If you're not inheriting an AngularJS code base and want to know which approach works best for starting a new project instead: don't start a new project in AngularJS. Either pick Angular2 which supports a real module system out of the box, or switch to React or Ember which don't suffer from this problem.

I was trying to use browserify with Angular but found it got a bit messy. I didn't like the pattern of creating a named service / controller then requiring it from another location, e.g.
angular.module('myApp').controller('charts', require('./charts'));
The controller name / definition is in one file, but the function itself is in another. Also having lots of index.js files makes it really confusing if you lots of files open in an IDE.
So I put together this gulp plugin, gulp-require-angular which allows you write Angular using standard Angular syntax, all js files which contain angular modules and dependencies of angular modules which appear in your main module dependency tree are require()'d into a generated entry file, which you then use as your browserify entry file.
You can still use require() within your code base to pull in external libraries (e.g lodash) into services / filters / directives as needed.
Here's the latest Angular seed forked and updated to use gulp-require-angular.

I've used a hybrid approach much like pluma. I created ng-modules like so:
var name = 'app.core'
angular.module(name, [])
.service('srvc', ['$rootScope', '$http', require( './path/to/srvc' ))
.service('srvc2', ['$rootScope', '$http', require( './path/to/srvc2' ))
.config...
.etc
module.exports = name
I think the difference is that I don't define individual ng-modules as dependencies to the main ng-module, in this case I wouldn't define a Service as an ng-module and then list it as a dep of the app.core ng-module. I try to keep it as flat as possible:
//srvc.js - see below
module.exports = function( $rootScope, $http )
{
var api = {};
api.getAppData = function(){ ... }
api.doSomething = function(){ ... }
return api;
}
Regarding the comment of code-smell, I disagree. While it's an extra step, it allows for some great configurability in terms of testing against mock-services. For instance I use this quite a bit for testing agains services that might not have an existing server-API ready:
angular.module(name, [])
// .service('srvc', ['$rootScope', '$http', require( './path/to/srvc' ))
.service('srvc', ['$rootScope', '$http', require( './path/to/mockSrvc' ))
So any controller or object dependent on srvc doesn't know which it is getting. I could see this getting a bit convoluted in terms of services being dependent on other services, but that to me is bad design. I prefer to use ng's event system to communicate betw. services so that you keep their coupling down.

Alan Plum's answer is just not a great answer or at least not a great demonstration of CommonJS modules and Browserify with Angular. The claim that Browserify does not mix well with Angular, compared to React is just not true.
Browserify and a CommonJS module pattern work great with Angular, allowing you to organize by features instead of types, keep vars out of global scope and share Angular Modules across apps easily. Not to mention you do not need to ever add a single <script> to your HTML ever again thanks to Browserify finding all your dependencies.
What is particular flawed in Alan Plum's answer is not letting requires in each index.js for each folder dictate dependencies for Angular modules, controllers, services, configurations, routes etc. There is no need for a single require in the Angular.module instantiation, nor a single module.exports as in the context that Alan Plum's answer suggests.
See here for a better module pattern for Angular using Browserify: https://github.com/Sweetog/yet-another-angular-boilerplate