I am trying to build a very simply demo to get AngularJS working with RequireJS.
Up to this point I have been closely following this tutorial.
I have defined a main.js file, which requires both app.js and hello.js, which are both called in turn.
app.js defines a new Angular module and returns it. hello.js then adds a controller named 'Hello' to the module.
In the page itself, the div should output 'Hello', which is returned by the sayHello method in the Hello controller. However, all my browser shows is {{sayHello}}.
I think your setup breaks the Angular bootstrap system. So you have to add the manual boostrap procedure in your hello.js file.
require(["app"], function(app) {
app.controller("Hello", ['$scope', function($scope) {
console.log('function entered');
$scope.sayHello = function() {
console.log('Hello');
return "Hello";
}
angular.element(document).ready(function() {
angular.bootstrap(document, ['app']);
});
}]
);
});
Well, it seems like Shay Friedman's solution worked.
I had seen Angularjs + RequireJs + Express Seed mentioned before, but I was sure there was a way to do the same thing by itself without too much effort. However, it seems like using this project is probably the easiest solution.
Related
Suppose that I have an SPA written via AngularJS 1.x.
It has a single app module defined like this:
var app = angular.module('app', ['ngAlertify', 'ngRoute', 'ui.bootstrap'])
I also have several controllers which are defined in separate *Ctrl.js-files. What is the appropriate way to define them?
I see two options here. The first one is
app.controller('LoginCtrl', function($scope) { /* ... */ });
and the second one is
angular.module('app').controller('LoginCtrl', function($scope) { /* ... */ });
Which one is better and most common-used practice? Is there any downsides of using either of them?
If I understand your question correctly then you wan to know different between
app.controller('LoginCtrl', function($scope) { /* ... */ });
vs
angular.module('app').controller('LoginCtrl', function($scope) { /* ... */ });
In above two in first method app is a global object which you declared somewhere i.e. in app.js like
var app = angular.module('app',[]);
In this case app is a global variable which will be accessible throughout your entire application. which I believe is not a good thing to use global variable
in our application.
In second method we are using global angular object to create a controller so that in this we will not be using global variable. In this case app.js will look like
(function(){
'use strict';
var app = angular.module('app', []);
....
....
....
....
})
In this case app variable will not be available anywhere apart from this file.
So I belive second method is better than first one.
My personal preference is to use app.controller('LoginCtrl', function($scope) { /* ... */ }); as this makes it easier to reuse the controller in another project with little to no changes, without those annoying module not found errors because you forgot to rename the module when reusing the file
I think that depends a bit on the personal style of writing. One thing is that while working with AngularJS 1.x.x you can have different styles of writing code, method stacking etc.
Personally, I prefer app.controller('LoginCtrl', function($scope) { /* ... */ }); mainly because you can easily preview your controller and distinguish it from thge module. Another bonus I see of having a clearly defined separate module is that you can easily check what includes you have ('ngAlertify', 'ngRoute', 'ui.bootstrap').
Most commonly used as far I have seen, even here on SO, is the method that I previously mentioned. Yet again this is something that is more reflective of personal style rather than strong pre-requirements of writing code. I hope that helps to some extend.
None of the above. The purpose of modules is to keep the application modular and not pollute global scope.
You can have var app = ... but this should be done inside IIFE once per file.
Another issue with modules is the precedence. If the application uses angular.module('app') module getter, the files should be loaded in specific order, in order for the module to be defined when it is retrieved in other files. This creates problems if they aren't, for example when they are concatenated in alphabetic order.
The solution is to use one module per file. This makes the application truly modular, independent of file loading order, also benefits testability. See also this answer for how this pattern supposed to work.
You can use module setter and getter methods for implementation of controllers in different file.
Suppose myApp.module.js
angular.module('myApp', []); //Setter method, registring module
In myApp.homeCtrl.js
var myApp = angular.module('myApp'); // getter method, getting the module already registered.
myApp.controller('homeCtrl', [function()]{ })
For more info check this https://toddmotto.com/angular-modules-setters-getters/
The second approach your are taking about is better because it uses the already created module and doesn't create the new module but with the first approach you are using global variable that is not recommended
I am creating small application called puzometr. It is for educational needs only. I want to create this application using AngularJS. Also, I want to use RequireJS as module system.
I have strange problem. I created my test controller and I got problem: controller initialization fires two times.
Firstly, full code available here on GitHub (wait, don't click me, I will explain everything below).
So, problem is in myCtrl.js file. Here is code of this file:
define(['angular'], function (angular) {
var module = angular.module('main.myModule', []);
module.controller('main.myCtrl', function ($scope) {
console.log($scope.$id);
$scope.bob = function () {
}
})
});
It is included in main/controllers/controllers.js by this:
define(['app', 'main/controllers/myCtrl'], function (app) {
var module = angular.module('main.controllers', ['main.myModule']);
});
This file included in main.js by this code:
angular.module('main', ['ngRoute', 'main.services', 'main.controllers', 'main.directives']);
And main.js is included into app.js:
var app = angular.module('myApp', ['ngRoute', 'main', 'common']);
So, I incidentally noticed, that function definition in myCtrl controller fired two times. I put console.log there and saw this:
Can you please explain me why is this happens? Why controller is being initialised two times?
Also, I have this in ng-inspector:
So one scope is created as child for another scope. Notice, that scope with id 3 has correct controller name.
If you use ng-route to register controllers and bind them with views, then don't add them again using attributes in your html files.
I am currently building a base for AngularJS in combination with RequireJS and so far I got everything working. there's just a little thing that I do not understand at this point. I have a file which creates the angular module, when this module is created it requires a controller and assigns it to the module. The strange thing though, the controller needs the module as dependency while in the module's file the module has not been returned yet because the require statement is executed before the return statement. This somehow seems to work but it has a bad smell to it.
Module file:
// Home is defined here and can later be used in controllers (and Services)
define('home', ['require', 'angular'], function(require, angular) {
var homeModule = angular.module('AngularBase.home', ['AngularBase.core']);
homeModule.config(['$controllerProvider', '$provide', '$compileProvider', function($controllerProvider, $provide, $compileProvider) {
// We need this in order to support lazy loading
homeModule.controller = $controllerProvider.register;
homeModule.factory = $provide.factory;
// And more, not relevant at this moment
}]);
// It loads the controller that depends on this module here
require(['modules/home/controllers/homeController'], function() {
// Dependencies loaded
});
// Yet in my mind controllers that need this module can only use it when the following return statement is called.
return homeModule;
});
Controller File:
// As you can see this controller depends on home while home hasn't returned its module yet
// Yet it seems to work just fine
define(['home'], function(home) {
home.controller('homeController', ['$scope', 'homeService', function($scope, homeService) {
$scope.title = 'Home controller';
}]);
});
I assume that it is not a good approach to do it like this and therefore I need some suggestions on how to make this happen in a clean way. I thought about grabbing the AngularBase.home module via angular.module('AngularBase.home') in the controller file and defining my controller on this. This however no longer allows me to insert a mockModule for testing in this controller via RequireJS's map function.
map: {
'*' : {
'home' : 'mock-module'
}
}
Any suggestions on how to refactor this into a more clean solution?
I have found the solution to my problem. In the end it seems to be just fine to do it the way I am currently doing it. When a file is called and has a define statement in it it will wait until all dependencies are available until the function is executed. This means that the controller will actually wait for the module to finish initializing before calling its function to register itself.
The way I am doing it above is just fine.
Source: http://www.slideshare.net/iivanoo/handlebars-and-requirejs (slides 11 till 24)
I'm trying to overwrite a controller during run-time in Angular 1.4.
I'm working with Angular and Webpack and my ultimate goal is to be able to reload a controller with HMR (hot module replacement). However, my roadblock right now is figuring out how to have the controller update properly.
So in the end if you'd had
angular.module('app').controller('HomeController', function() {
this.message = 'Hello World!';
});
Then you modified your controller while the webpack-dev-server is running to:
angular.module('app').controller('HomeController', function() {
this.message = 'Goodbye World!';
});
The controller within the current state should update appropriately. I do have logic already in place to reload the state ($state.transitionTo)
I am using UI router and Babel, although Babel should be fairly irrelevant since I'm not using half of the benefits (i.e. classes).
Anyone have any ideas?
I'm not sure how the rest of your project is setup, but presumably your webpack config has a single entry point. Therefore it makes sense to import your controllers / services etc into that entry point sort of like an index.
Controller:
// Main.js
export default function HomeController () {
this.message = 'Hello World!'
}
Index:
// entry.js
import angular from 'angular'
import HomeController from './controllers/HomeController.js'
angular
.module('app', [])
.controller('HomeController', HomeController)
My controller changes seem to be updating correctly in this starter project I made https://github.com/alex-wilmer/app-starter/tree/angular, though it's not HMR, just live reloading.
I figured out the solution for y'all that are interested. To make HMR work with controllers in angular, effectively rewriting the body of the controller function, i bound an init function to a long-lasting JavaScript object that is outside the module (aka file).
var mod = angular.module('app').controller('HomeController', function($interval) {
mod.initHomeController(this, $interval);
});
mod.initHomeController = function(vm, $interval) {
vm.message = 'Hello World!';
};
I am having a problem with Angular JS receiving an error : Uncaught Error: [$injector:modulerr].
My JS-file looks
angular.module('MyApp', ['ngRoute']);
angular.module('MyApp',['ngResource']);
function TwitterCtrl($scope,$resource){
}
I also included angular-route-js
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/angularjs/1.2.7/angular.min.js">
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/angularjs/1.2.7/angular-route.min.js">
Angular documentation says the problem is http://docs.angularjs.org/api/ngRoute
In development environments I recommend you to use not minified distributives. And all errors become more informative! Instead of angular.min.js, use angular.js.
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/angularjs/1.2.7/angular.js">
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/angularjs/1.2.7/angular-route.js">
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/angularjs/1.2.7/angular-resource.js">
Try adding this:
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/angularjs/1.2.7/angular-resource.min.js"></script>
Try adding:
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/angularjs/1.2.7/angular-resource.min.js">
and:
angular.module('MyApp', ['ngRoute','ngResource']);
function TwitterCtrl($scope,$resource){
}
You should call angular.module only once with all dependencies because with your current code, you're creating a new MyApp module overwriting the previous one.
From angular documentation:
Beware that using angular.module('myModule', []) will create the
module myModule and overwrite any existing module named myModule. Use
angular.module('myModule') to retrieve an existing module.
Make sure you're function is wrapped in a closure, complete with the extra () at the end:
(function(){
var app = angular.module('myApp', []);
})();
I previously had the same issue, but I realized that I didn't include the "app.js" (the main application) inside my main page (index.html).
So even when you include all the dependencies required by AngularJS, you might end up with that error in the console. So always make sure to include the necessary files inside your main page and you shouldn't have that issue.
Hope this helps.
The problem was caused by missing inclusion of ngRoute module. Since version 1.1.6 it's a separate part:
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/angularjs/1.2.0rc1/angular-route.min.js"></script>
var app = angular.module('myapp', ['ngRoute']);
This is getting reference from: AngularJS 1.2 $injector:modulerr David answer
I had the same problem. You should type your Angular js code outside of any function like this:
$( document ).ready(function() {});
I got this error because I had a dependency on another module that was not loaded.
angular.module("app", ["kendo.directives"]).controller("MyCtrl", function(){}...
so even though I had all the Angular modules, I didn't have the kendo one.
ok if you are getting a Uncaught Error: [$injector:modulerr] and the angular module is in the error that is telling you, you have an duplicate ng-app module.
Make sure that the variable that holds your angular.module is structured correctly.
This will fail with "Uncaught Error: [$injector:modulerr]":
var angApp = angular.module("angApp");
This works:
var angApp = angular.module("angApp", []);
It's a sneaky one since the error message doesn't point to one thing in particular (Thus the wide variety of answers). Additionally, most js linters won't catch the particulars. Keep at it!
I had exactly the same problem and what resolved it was to remove the closure:
$(function(){
var app = angular.module("myApp", []);
app.controller('myController', function(){
...
});
});
becomes:
var app = angular.module("myApp", []);
app.controller('myController', function(){
...
});
The error means that the dependency injector was unable to locate the dependency 'ngResource'. The script tag in the accepted answer provides this dependency.
You will also get the same error if you add any custom modules in the dependencies but did not add the script tag for including the '.js' file containing the dependency.
Just throwing this in in case it helps, I had this issue and the reason for me was because when I bundled my Angular stuff I referenced the main app file as "AngularWebApp" instead of "AngularWebApp.js", hope this helps.
I had also same issue, I have just removed following line of code from BundleConfig.cs file and my code is working fine.
BundleTable.EnableOptimizations = true;
Do not load the javascript inside the cdn link script tag.Use a separate script tag for loading the AngularJs scripts.
I had the same issue but I created a separate <script>
Then the error gone.