I have a set of tabs which all have a directive in them:
<div class="col-md-9 maincols" id="formEditor">
<tabset>
<tab heading="New subscriber" select="isSelected('newSub')">
<new-subscriber></new-subscriber>
</tab>
<tab heading="Existing subscriber" select="isSelected('existingSub')">
<existing-subscriber></existing-subscriber>
</tab>
<tab heading="Landing page" select="isSelected('landing')">
<landing-page></landing-page>
</tab>
</tabset>
</div>
All these 3 directives have been defined similarly like this:
angular.module('myApp')
.directive('newSubscriber', function () {
return {
restrict: 'E',
scope: {},
replace: true,
templateUrl: 'scripts/newsubscriber/newsubscriber.html',
controller: 'newsubscriberCtrl'
};
}); //... and so on
I am (probably wrongly) under the impression that because I have set scope: {} for all the directives, they should now have completely isolated scopes and leave each other alone.
But that is not the case and bindings from the first directive's controller manage to stop values in the second or third controller from being binded
for example in newsubscriberCtrl I have:
app.controller('newsubscriberCtrl', ["$scope", "$routeParams", "UserMessages", "FormProvider", function ($scope, $routeParams, UserMessages, FormProvider) {
$scope.formId = $routeParams.formId;
var newSubscriberForm = new FormProvider.Form($scope);
angular.extend($scope, newSubscriberForm);
$scope.title = UserMessages.exampleText.genericPageTitle;
$scope.description = UserMessages.exampleText.genericPageDescription;
$scope.validationMessages = {
contactNotSaved: UserMessages.validationMessages.contactNotSaved,
contactCreatedOk: UserMessages.validationMessages.contactCreatedOk,
contactNotCreated: UserMessages.validationMessages.contactNotCreated,
requiredField: UserMessages.validationMessages.requiredField,
passwordMismatch: UserMessages.validationMessages.passwordMismatch,
isOpen: false
}
}]);
which is overriding the similar object in existingSubscriber controller:
app.controller('existingsubscriberCtrl', ["$scope", "$routeParams", "UserMessages", "FormProvider", function ($scope, $routeParams, UserMessages, FormProvider) {
$scope.formId = $routeParams.formId;
var existingSubscriberForm = new FormProvider.Form($scope);
angular.extend($scope, existingSubscriberForm);
$scope.title = UserMessages.exampleText.genericPageTitle;
$scope.description = UserMessages.exampleText.genericPageDescription;
$scope.validationMessages = {
contactNotSaved: UserMessages.validationMessages.contactNotSaved,
contactSavedOk: UserMessages.validationMessages.contactSavedOk,
requiredField: UserMessages.validationMessages.requiredField,
passwordMismatch: UserMessages.validationMessages.passwordMismatch,
isOpen: false
}
}]);
So in the view of both directives <pre>{{validationMessages | json }}</pre> the validationMessages object has the props of the first controller.
Why is this happening? Am I missing to understand a concept here? How Can I isolate these controllers from each other and comfortably have similar props in the controllers without them affecting each other?
Side note: I strongly want to avoid having to prefix everything on all scopes with their controller name, e.g $scope.newSubscriber.validationMessages and so on... as that would defeat the whole point pretty much as I will effectively one big controller for the whole tab section and directives would also be pointless.
Angular is on v.1.3.0-beta.11
angular-ui-bootstrap is on v.0.10.0
You have reuse the same controller newsubscriberCtrl in /app/scripts/formbanner/formbanner.js:
.directive('formBanner', function () {
return {
restrict: 'E',
replace: 'true',
templateUrl: 'scripts/formbanner/formbanner.html',
controller: 'newsubscriberCtrl'
};
});
The existingSubscriber directive have the formBanner as a child directive, plus the formBanner directive doesn't have an isolated scope.
Therefore, the $scope that get injected into the newsubscriberCtrl of formBanner is the same as the scope of the existingSubscriber!!
I've tried removing the controller property in the formBanner directive and I saw it works as expected.
Have you tried this?
angular.module('myApp')
.directive('newSubscriber', function () {
return {
restrict: 'E',
scope: { someValue = "&validationMessages" },
replace: true,
templateUrl: 'scripts/newsubscriber/newsubscriber.html',
controller: 'newsubscriberCtrl',
link: function (scope, iElm, iAttrs) {
var x = scope.someValue();
// x = your messages
}
};
});
In your controller
$scope.someValue
EDIT Disclaimer: this is sort of from memory. When I was facing something similar I felt this to be rather enlightning:
http://umur.io/angularjs-directives-using-isolated-scope-with-attributes/
Related
I am trying to identify why the scope is being shared from the same directive. I have this:
<locator-service
component="redirect"
url="/api/getAllLas1"
redirect="true"></locator-service>
<locator-service
component="signup"
url="/api/getAllLas2"
redirect="false"></locator-service>
Which is basically a directive to handle locations (it works perfectly)
here is the directive for this class
var app = angular.module("frog").directive('locatorService', LocatorService);
function LocatorService() {
return {
restrict: 'E',
templateUrl: '/scripts/frog/location-service.html',
controller: 'locatorController',
controllerAs: 'locatorController',
bindToController: true,
scope: {
component: "#",
url: "#",
redirect: "#"
}
}
}
I have the "scope" declared, I read on a few threads that this would create an isolated scope.
here is the controller class (minimised)
angular.module("frog").controller('locatorController', LocatorController);
function LocatorController($scope, $rootScope, $http, $interval, $document) {
var self = this;
$scope.$watch('url', function () {
if (self.url === undefined) return;
console.log(self.url);
})
}
I attached the debugger to 'console.log(self.url);' and it printed out the following:
/api/getAllLas2
/api/getAllLas2
Could someone help me identify why this is happening?
I have an example on my Github that works perfectly fine for directives not sharing the same scope, but it uses $scope (which I have tried to implement but never even worked slightly)
https://github.com/zackdavidson/tappers-web/tree/master/public/scripts/tappers/app/components/transaction
I have two directives: directiveA and directiveB, hanging from the same module in my AngularJS application.
They are called at the same level in the same HTML template, so we could say they are brothers.
<directive-a>
<directive-b>
Both of them have an own method hanging from its scope, like this:
$scope.clickOkey = function () {
... whatever
};
They both have a 'clickOkey' method, but their behaviours are different.
My problem comes out when I try to call the 'clickOkey' of directiveA from directiveA's template. It executes the 'clickOkey' from directiveB.
Inside directiveA's own template:
<label ng-click="clickOkey()">Okey</label>
They are placed at same level so there it shouldn't be way for them to share their $scope or misunderstanding methods.
Also, is important to say that if I change the method's name to 'clickOkeyA', for example, it takes the right method, so the template can access to its scope without problems.
What am I missing?
Thanks for your help!
Edit:
Both directives are isolated and have a controller, and inside each one of them is defined a 'clickOkey' method. There are two methods with the same name.
Both directives are like this:
angular.module('myModule').directive('directiveA', function () {
return {
restrict: 'AE',
templateUrl: '/whatever.html',
controller: function ($scope, $http, $rootScope) {
$scope.clickOkey = function () {
... whatever
};
}
}
});
You should add an isolated scope to your directives :
https://docs.angularjs.org/guide/directive
For your directive it would be :
angular.module('myModule').directive('directiveA', function () {
return {
restrict: 'AE',
templateUrl: '/whatever.html',
scope : {},
controller: function ($scope, $http, $rootScope) {
$scope.clickOkey = function () {
... whatever
};
}
}
});
I have the following directive:
angular.module('test').directive('childDirective', [function() {
return {
restrict: 'E',
require: '^parentDirective',
controller: function() {
// How do I get parentDirective's controller?
},
link: function($scope, $element, $attrs, $controller) {
var data = $controller.parentDirectiveData;
....
....
}
};
}]);
In the link function I get $controller dependency that holds a reference to parentDirective's controller. How do I get that reference in childDirective's controller?
You have a couple of options, you can either put it on the scope, or store it in a variable that the controller can access also:
angular.module('test').directive('childDirective', [function() {
var parentCtrl;
return {
restrict: 'E',
require: '^parentDirective',
controller: function() {
// parentCtrl will be defined after the link function runs.
},
link: function($scope, $element, $attrs, $controller) {
var data = $controller.parentDirectiveData;
parentCtrl = $controller
}
};
}]);
Importantly please note that the controller function will run before the link function, so you can only really use this in async callbacks.
There is no way to inject the instance of the parent's controller into the child controller before this, because it relies on the directives being bound to the scope in order for that hierarchy to be defined.
Not sure if I am misunderstanding how directives are created here. Say for example I have a controller such as:
angular.module('myApp.controllers').controller('MyController', ['$scope', 'MyService', function($scope, MyService) {
$scope.restangularService = MyService;
}
I then have a directive such as:
angular.module('myApp.directives').directive('myGrid', function() {
return {
restrict: 'A',
templateUrl: 'some/path/here.html',
scope: {
restangularService: '&'
},
controller: ['$scope', function($scope) {
//access $scope.restangularService to run some queries
}
};
});
I then use my directive as such:
<div data-my-grid data-restangular-service='restangularService'></div>
I would expect that in my directive I could access $scope.restangularService and make calls however it's not being populated correctly. Am I doing this totally wrong? Any input? I have a feeling I need to be using the ngModel directive somehow.
The "&" prefix of an isolate scope value in a directive provides "one-way binding" which makes available a getter function in the directive's scope.
Any changes you make to the object will not make their way back up to the parent controller of the directive (it is "read-only"). So you can't access your 'restangularService' variable as you would in the controller's scope, without calling the getter function:
angular.module('myApp.directives', []).directive('myGrid', function() {
return {
restrict: 'A',
templateUrl: 'some/path/here.html',
scope: {
restangularService: '&'
},
controller: ['$scope', function($scope) {
console.log($scope.restangularService()); // outputs service value
}]
};
})
Alternatively, you could use "=", which would allow you directly access the scope object you pass in:
angular.module('myApp.directives', []).directive('myGrid', function() {
return {
restrict: 'A',
templateUrl: 'some/path/here.html',
scope: {
restangularService: '='
},
controller: ['$scope', function($scope) {
console.log($scope.restangularService); //outputs service value
}]
};
})
Plunk demonstrating both types
Can anyone tell me how to include a controller from one directive in another angularJS directive.
for example I have the following code
var app = angular.module('shop', []).
config(['$routeProvider', function ($routeProvider) {
$routeProvider.when('/', {
templateUrl: '/js/partials/home.html'
})
.when('/products', {
controller: 'ProductsController',
templateUrl: '/js/partials/products.html'
})
.when('/products/:productId', {
controller: 'ProductController',
templateUrl: '/js/partials/product.html'
});
}]);
app.directive('mainCtrl', function () {
return {
controller: function ($scope) {}
};
});
app.directive('addProduct', function () {
return {
restrict: 'C',
require: '^mainCtrl',
link: function (scope, lElement, attrs, mainCtrl) {
//console.log(cartController);
}
};
});
By all account I should be able to access the controller in the addProduct directive but I am not. Is there a better way of doing this?
I got lucky and answered this in a comment to the question, but I'm posting a full answer for the sake of completeness and so we can mark this question as "Answered".
It depends on what you want to accomplish by sharing a controller; you can either share the same controller (though have different instances), or you can share the same controller instance.
Share a Controller
Two directives can use the same controller by passing the same method to two directives, like so:
app.controller( 'MyCtrl', function ( $scope ) {
// do stuff...
});
app.directive( 'directiveOne', function () {
return {
controller: 'MyCtrl'
};
});
app.directive( 'directiveTwo', function () {
return {
controller: 'MyCtrl'
};
});
Each directive will get its own instance of the controller, but this allows you to share the logic between as many components as you want.
Require a Controller
If you want to share the same instance of a controller, then you use require.
require ensures the presence of another directive and then includes its controller as a parameter to the link function. So if you have two directives on one element, your directive can require the presence of the other directive and gain access to its controller methods. A common use case for this is to require ngModel.
^require, with the addition of the caret, checks elements above directive in addition to the current element to try to find the other directive. This allows you to create complex components where "sub-components" can communicate with the parent component through its controller to great effect. Examples could include tabs, where each pane can communicate with the overall tabs to handle switching; an accordion set could ensure only one is open at a time; etc.
In either event, you have to use the two directives together for this to work. require is a way of communicating between components.
Check out the Guide page of directives for more info: http://docs.angularjs.org/guide/directive
There is a good stackoverflow answer here by Mark Rajcok:
AngularJS directive controllers requiring parent directive controllers?
with a link to this very clear jsFiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/mrajcok/StXFK/
<div ng-controller="MyCtrl">
<div screen>
<div component>
<div widget>
<button ng-click="widgetIt()">Woo Hoo</button>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
JavaScript
var myApp = angular.module('myApp',[])
.directive('screen', function() {
return {
scope: true,
controller: function() {
this.doSomethingScreeny = function() {
alert("screeny!");
}
}
}
})
.directive('component', function() {
return {
scope: true,
require: '^screen',
controller: function($scope) {
this.componentFunction = function() {
$scope.screenCtrl.doSomethingScreeny();
}
},
link: function(scope, element, attrs, screenCtrl) {
scope.screenCtrl = screenCtrl
}
}
})
.directive('widget', function() {
return {
scope: true,
require: "^component",
link: function(scope, element, attrs, componentCtrl) {
scope.widgetIt = function() {
componentCtrl.componentFunction();
};
}
}
})
//myApp.directive('myDirective', function() {});
//myApp.factory('myService', function() {});
function MyCtrl($scope) {
$scope.name = 'Superhero';
}