The API Reference Scope page says:
A scope can inherit from a parent scope.
The Developer Guide Scope page says:
A scope (prototypically) inherits properties from its parent scope.
So, does a child scope always prototypically inherit from its parent scope?
Are there exceptions?
When it does inherit, is it always normal JavaScript prototypal inheritance?
Quick answer:
A child scope normally prototypically inherits from its parent scope, but not always. One exception to this rule is a directive with scope: { ... } -- this creates an "isolate" scope that does not prototypically inherit. This construct is often used when creating a "reusable component" directive.
As for the nuances, scope inheritance is normally straightfoward... until you need 2-way data binding (i.e., form elements, ng-model) in the child scope. Ng-repeat, ng-switch, and ng-include can trip you up if you try to bind to a primitive (e.g., number, string, boolean) in the parent scope from inside the child scope. It doesn't work the way most people expect it should work. The child scope gets its own property that hides/shadows the parent property of the same name. Your workarounds are
define objects in the parent for your model, then reference a property of that object in the child: parentObj.someProp
use $parent.parentScopeProperty (not always possible, but easier than 1. where possible)
define a function on the parent scope, and call it from the child (not always possible)
New AngularJS developers often do not realize that ng-repeat, ng-switch, ng-view, ng-include and ng-if all create new child scopes, so the problem often shows up when these directives are involved. (See this example for a quick illustration of the problem.)
This issue with primitives can be easily avoided by following the "best practice" of always have a '.' in your ng-models – watch 3 minutes worth. Misko demonstrates the primitive binding issue with ng-switch.
Having a '.' in your models will ensure that prototypal inheritance is in play. So, use
<input type="text" ng-model="someObj.prop1">
<!--rather than
<input type="text" ng-model="prop1">`
-->
L-o-n-g answer:
JavaScript Prototypal Inheritance
Also placed on the AngularJS wiki: https://github.com/angular/angular.js/wiki/Understanding-Scopes
It is important to first have a solid understanding of prototypal inheritance, especially if you are coming from a server-side background and you are more familiar with class-ical inheritance. So let's review that first.
Suppose parentScope has properties aString, aNumber, anArray, anObject, and aFunction. If childScope prototypically inherits from parentScope, we have:
(Note that to save space, I show the anArray object as a single blue object with its three values, rather than an single blue object with three separate gray literals.)
If we try to access a property defined on the parentScope from the child scope, JavaScript will first look in the child scope, not find the property, then look in the inherited scope, and find the property. (If it didn't find the property in the parentScope, it would continue up the prototype chain... all the way up to the root scope). So, these are all true:
childScope.aString === 'parent string'
childScope.anArray[1] === 20
childScope.anObject.property1 === 'parent prop1'
childScope.aFunction() === 'parent output'
Suppose we then do this:
childScope.aString = 'child string'
The prototype chain is not consulted, and a new aString property is added to the childScope. This new property hides/shadows the parentScope property with the same name. This will become very important when we discuss ng-repeat and ng-include below.
Suppose we then do this:
childScope.anArray[1] = '22'
childScope.anObject.property1 = 'child prop1'
The prototype chain is consulted because the objects (anArray and anObject) are not found in the childScope. The objects are found in the parentScope, and the property values are updated on the original objects. No new properties are added to the childScope; no new objects are created. (Note that in JavaScript arrays and functions are also objects.)
Suppose we then do this:
childScope.anArray = [100, 555]
childScope.anObject = { name: 'Mark', country: 'USA' }
The prototype chain is not consulted, and child scope gets two new object properties that hide/shadow the parentScope object properties with the same names.
Takeaways:
If we read childScope.propertyX, and childScope has propertyX, then the prototype chain is not consulted.
If we set childScope.propertyX, the prototype chain is not consulted.
One last scenario:
delete childScope.anArray
childScope.anArray[1] === 22 // true
We deleted the childScope property first, then when we try to access the property again, the prototype chain is consulted.
Angular Scope Inheritance
The contenders:
The following create new scopes, and inherit prototypically: ng-repeat, ng-include, ng-switch, ng-controller, directive with scope: true, directive with transclude: true.
The following creates a new scope which does not inherit prototypically: directive with scope: { ... }. This creates an "isolate" scope instead.
Note, by default, directives do not create new scope -- i.e., the default is scope: false.
ng-include
Suppose we have in our controller:
$scope.myPrimitive = 50;
$scope.myObject = {aNumber: 11};
And in our HTML:
<script type="text/ng-template" id="/tpl1.html">
<input ng-model="myPrimitive">
</script>
<div ng-include src="'/tpl1.html'"></div>
<script type="text/ng-template" id="/tpl2.html">
<input ng-model="myObject.aNumber">
</script>
<div ng-include src="'/tpl2.html'"></div>
Each ng-include generates a new child scope, which prototypically inherits from the parent scope.
Typing (say, "77") into the first input textbox causes the child scope to get a new myPrimitive scope property that hides/shadows the parent scope property of the same name. This is probably not what you want/expect.
Typing (say, "99") into the second input textbox does not result in a new child property. Because tpl2.html binds the model to an object property, prototypal inheritance kicks in when the ngModel looks for object myObject -- it finds it in the parent scope.
We can rewrite the first template to use $parent, if we don't want to change our model from a primitive to an object:
<input ng-model="$parent.myPrimitive">
Typing (say, "22") into this input textbox does not result in a new child property. The model is now bound to a property of the parent scope (because $parent is a child scope property that references the parent scope).
For all scopes (prototypal or not), Angular always tracks a parent-child relationship (i.e., a hierarchy), via scope properties $parent, $$childHead and $$childTail. I normally don't show these scope properties in the diagrams.
For scenarios where form elements are not involved, another solution is to define a function on the parent scope to modify the primitive. Then ensure the child always calls this function, which will be available to the child scope due to prototypal inheritance. E.g.,
// in the parent scope
$scope.setMyPrimitive = function(value) {
$scope.myPrimitive = value;
}
Here is a sample fiddle that uses this "parent function" approach. (The fiddle was written as part of this answer: https://stackoverflow.com/a/14104318/215945.)
See also https://stackoverflow.com/a/13782671/215945 and https://github.com/angular/angular.js/issues/1267.
ng-switch
ng-switch scope inheritance works just like ng-include. So if you need 2-way data binding to a primitive in the parent scope, use $parent, or change the model to be an object and then bind to a property of that object. This will avoid child scope hiding/shadowing of parent scope properties.
See also AngularJS, bind scope of a switch-case?
ng-repeat
Ng-repeat works a little differently. Suppose we have in our controller:
$scope.myArrayOfPrimitives = [ 11, 22 ];
$scope.myArrayOfObjects = [{num: 101}, {num: 202}]
And in our HTML:
<ul><li ng-repeat="num in myArrayOfPrimitives">
<input ng-model="num">
</li>
<ul>
<ul><li ng-repeat="obj in myArrayOfObjects">
<input ng-model="obj.num">
</li>
<ul>
For each item/iteration, ng-repeat creates a new scope, which prototypically inherits from the parent scope, but it also assigns the item's value to a new property on the new child scope. (The name of the new property is the loop variable's name.) Here's what the Angular source code for ng-repeat actually is:
childScope = scope.$new(); // child scope prototypically inherits from parent scope
...
childScope[valueIdent] = value; // creates a new childScope property
If item is a primitive (as in myArrayOfPrimitives), essentially a copy of the value is assigned to the new child scope property. Changing the child scope property's value (i.e., using ng-model, hence child scope num) does not change the array the parent scope references. So in the first ng-repeat above, each child scope gets a num property that is independent of the myArrayOfPrimitives array:
This ng-repeat will not work (like you want/expect it to). Typing into the textboxes changes the values in the gray boxes, which are only visible in the child scopes. What we want is for the inputs to affect the myArrayOfPrimitives array, not a child scope primitive property. To accomplish this, we need to change the model to be an array of objects.
So, if item is an object, a reference to the original object (not a copy) is assigned to the new child scope property. Changing the child scope property's value (i.e., using ng-model, hence obj.num) does change the object the parent scope references. So in the second ng-repeat above, we have:
(I colored one line gray just so that it is clear where it is going.)
This works as expected. Typing into the textboxes changes the values in the gray boxes, which are visible to both the child and parent scopes.
See also Difficulty with ng-model, ng-repeat, and inputs and
https://stackoverflow.com/a/13782671/215945
ng-controller
Nesting controllers using ng-controller results in normal prototypal inheritance, just like ng-include and ng-switch, so the same techniques apply.
However, "it is considered bad form for two controllers to share information via $scope inheritance" -- http://onehungrymind.com/angularjs-sticky-notes-pt-1-architecture/
A service should be used to share data between controllers instead.
(If you really want to share data via controllers scope inheritance, there is nothing you need to do. The child scope will have access to all of the parent scope properties.
See also Controller load order differs when loading or navigating)
directives
default (scope: false) - the directive does not create a new scope, so there is no inheritance here. This is easy, but also dangerous because, e.g., a directive might think it is creating a new property on the scope, when in fact it is clobbering an existing property. This is not a good choice for writing directives that are intended as reusable components.
scope: true - the directive creates a new child scope that prototypically inherits from the parent scope. If more than one directive (on the same DOM element) requests a new scope, only one new child scope is created. Since we have "normal" prototypal inheritance, this is like ng-include and ng-switch, so be wary of 2-way data binding to parent scope primitives, and child scope hiding/shadowing of parent scope properties.
scope: { ... } - the directive creates a new isolate/isolated scope. It does not prototypically inherit. This is usually your best choice when creating reusable components, since the directive cannot accidentally read or modify the parent scope. However, such directives often need access to a few parent scope properties. The object hash is used to set up two-way binding (using '=') or one-way binding (using '#') between the parent scope and the isolate scope. There is also '&' to bind to parent scope expressions. So, these all create local scope properties that are derived from the parent scope.
Note that attributes are used to help set up the binding -- you can't just reference parent scope property names in the object hash, you have to use an attribute. E.g., this won't work if you want to bind to parent property parentProp in the isolated scope: <div my-directive> and scope: { localProp: '#parentProp' }. An attribute must be used to specify each parent property that the directive wants to bind to: <div my-directive the-Parent-Prop=parentProp> and scope: { localProp: '#theParentProp' }.
Isolate scope's __proto__ references Object.
Isolate scope's $parent references the parent scope, so although it is isolated and doesn't inherit prototypically from the parent scope, it is still a child scope.
For the picture below we have
<my-directive interpolated="{{parentProp1}}" twowayBinding="parentProp2"> and
scope: { interpolatedProp: '#interpolated', twowayBindingProp: '=twowayBinding' }
Also, assume the directive does this in its linking function: scope.someIsolateProp = "I'm isolated"
For more information on isolate scopes see http://onehungrymind.com/angularjs-sticky-notes-pt-2-isolated-scope/
transclude: true - the directive creates a new "transcluded" child scope, which prototypically inherits from the parent scope. The transcluded and the isolated scope (if any) are siblings -- the $parent property of each scope references the same parent scope. When a transcluded and an isolate scope both exist, isolate scope property $$nextSibling will reference the transcluded scope. I'm not aware of any nuances with the transcluded scope.
For the picture below, assume the same directive as above with this addition: transclude: true
This fiddle has a showScope() function that can be used to examine an isolate and transcluded scope. See the instructions in the comments in the fiddle.
Summary
There are four types of scopes:
normal prototypal scope inheritance -- ng-include, ng-switch, ng-controller, directive with scope: true
normal prototypal scope inheritance with a copy/assignment -- ng-repeat. Each iteration of ng-repeat creates a new child scope, and that new child scope always gets a new property.
isolate scope -- directive with scope: {...}. This one is not prototypal, but '=', '#', and '&' provide a mechanism to access parent scope properties, via attributes.
transcluded scope -- directive with transclude: true. This one is also normal prototypal scope inheritance, but it is also a sibling of any isolate scope.
For all scopes (prototypal or not), Angular always tracks a parent-child relationship (i.e., a hierarchy), via properties $parent and $$childHead and $$childTail.
Diagrams were generated with graphviz "*.dot" files, which are on github. Tim Caswell's "Learning JavaScript with Object Graphs" was the inspiration for using GraphViz for the diagrams.
I in no way want to compete with Mark's answer, but just wanted to highlight the piece that finally made everything click as someone new to Javascript inheritance and its prototype chain.
Only property reads search the prototype chain, not writes. So when you set
myObject.prop = '123';
It doesn't look up the chain, but when you set
myObject.myThing.prop = '123';
there's a subtle read going on within that write operation that tries to look up myThing before writing to its prop. So that's why writing to object.properties from the child gets at the parent's objects.
I would like to add an example of prototypical inheritance with javascript to #Scott Driscoll answer. We'll be using classical inheritance pattern with Object.create() which is a part of EcmaScript 5 specification.
First we create "Parent" object function
function Parent(){
}
Then add a prototype to "Parent" object function
Parent.prototype = {
primitive : 1,
object : {
one : 1
}
}
Create "Child" object function
function Child(){
}
Assign child prototype (Make child prototype inherit from parent prototype)
Child.prototype = Object.create(Parent.prototype);
Assign proper "Child" prototype constructor
Child.prototype.constructor = Child;
Add method "changeProps" to a child prototype, which will rewrite "primitive" property value in Child object and change "object.one" value both in Child and Parent objects
Child.prototype.changeProps = function(){
this.primitive = 2;
this.object.one = 2;
};
Initiate Parent (dad) and Child (son) objects.
var dad = new Parent();
var son = new Child();
Call Child (son) changeProps method
son.changeProps();
Check the results.
Parent primitive property did not change
console.log(dad.primitive); /* 1 */
Child primitive property changed (rewritten)
console.log(son.primitive); /* 2 */
Parent and Child object.one properties changed
console.log(dad.object.one); /* 2 */
console.log(son.object.one); /* 2 */
Working example here http://jsbin.com/xexurukiso/1/edit/
More info on Object.create here https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Object/create
I know you may have seen this question before, but is there really an answer for it? I started to doubt it.
Simply, I am using controlleras syntax as recommended, I have no problem accessing parent controller members form within the view, but I cannot do it from the constructor function of my child scope. And here is some code from what I am having right now:
myapp.controller("ParentController", function() {
this.selectedItem = {
Id: 1,
name: 'item1'
};
this.setSelectedItem = function(item) {
this.selectedItem = item;
//do other stuff
}
});
myapp.controller("ChildController", function() {
this.onItemChanged = function(newItem) {
//How can I call the parent controller instance from here
}
});
Also please notice that I want to call the 'updateSelectedItem' function from my child controller in away that the 'this' keyword will refer to the parent controller instance not the child, because I want to change the parent controller instance, so how should I do this?
To answer your question as clearly as possible, you first must have a bit of background on how the Controller-As syntax actually works.
Using Controller-As does not mean that you are not using $scope. In reality, $scope still exists. Controller-As is shorthand which creates an object on $scope and attaches the properties assigned via this to that object. On the view side, this object is explicitly bound to all the controls. you could still reference $scope.vm.property. However, since $scope is implicit in this scenario, it is not necessary to create a dependency to it.
Accessing the properties of the vm object of the parent controller in a nested scenario is still possible, but only if each controller is referenced by a different name. If your objects are outerScope and innerScope, then inside the HTML template of innerScope, you can still refer to outerScope.someProperty.
If, however, all controllers are named the same (i.e. vm), then the only way to access the parent controller would be through a property of the child scope which is aliased to a $scope property, introducing the $scope dependency.
In practice, whenever you have a controller within another controller, it's much cleaner for the innermost item to be a directive which wraps its own content, and explicitly defines which variables it needs through an Isolate Scope. However, whenever this is not necessary, the fallback should be for inner controllers to be named uniquely from outer controllers.
Preface
When I declare a directive under a controller, e.g.
<div ng-controller="MyController">
<my-directive></my-directive>
</div>
the directive inherits that controller's scope by default. This means if the controller defines
$scope.Heaven = "Free Beer"
then I have access to that within the directive's template via
{{ Heaven }}
Question
When declaring a directive within another directive, why doesn't the child inherit scope like it would if placed in a controller?
<my-parent-directive>
<my-child-directive>
</my-child-directive>
</my-parent-directive>
In short, if I declare a controller function for my-parent-directive and in it write:
$scope.Heaven = "Free Beer"
My child directive doesn't have access to this by default. Why is that?
(This assumes "scope: true" within the parent, no scope declaration in the child, and the child requiring the parent via "require: 'my-parent-directive')
Example codepens:
Directive wrapped in controller
Directive wrapped in directive
Question was modified after answer was given - the below is to preserve the reference
Directive wrapped in directive old
I am looking at the "Directive wrapped in directive old" on codepen. I think it is this you want to fix, but I'm not certain since your codepen is different to the example in your question (that's not a criticism, just clarification in case I am heading down the wrong route for you!)
However, if I am correct (and I am referring to the "Directive wrapped in directive old" on codepen for the rest of this answer):
You have declared the scope in myWrapper to be inherited ("scope: true"), therefore any properties that you add to the scope within myWrapper (such as "$scope.passdown = $attrs.passdown;") will only be visible to myWrapper.
You can remove the "scope: true" from myWrapper to share the scope between everything (not a great structure to use, but it will work) and you will solve your immediate problem, if I have understood you correctly. Or you can move the "passdown" property to a mutable object on the "parent" controller "$scope.abc = {passdown: ''};" for example. Then modify the value in myWrapper: "$scope.abc.passdown = $attrs.passdown;" and access it as "abc.passdown" in your interpolated expressions.
a bit of background:
changes to immutable types in "child" controllers/directive will make a copy of the property and those changes will never be seen on any other scope.
No scope declaration means shared scope - all components that share this scope too can see any properties / changes (to mutables) made on the scope. Tends to end up with closely coupled components that become very difficult to maintain.
"scope: true" means inherited scope and any additions made to the scope will only be visible to the inherting scope (ie the "child"). Changes to mutable properties in the parent will be visible to all other components that share this scope.
"scope: {...}" creates an isolated scope and provides a safe way to expose properties to parents and let the children modify those properties. This implementation is more work but you will end up with code that is easier to understand, maintain and share.
I hope this answer isn't too rambling and it helps you solve your problem.
I'm wondering if its possible to prevent a child div within a nested div inheriting its parent controller.
<div id="parentDiv" ng-controller="parentCtrl">
<div id="childDiv" ng-controller="childCtrl">
</div>
</div>
Imagine I have a scope variable called name, how could I ensure that name is not accessible in side childDiv.
See plunk.
It's not problematic to have a child div accessing the variables of its parent controller but it just doesnt feel right. What about naming collisions on so on?
I do not believe there is a way to hide variables of a child scope from the parent scope with respect to angular controllers. The scope of the parent is always available to the scope of the children. I do have two points that may help.
1) Naming collision may not be a problem as you would expect. If you set $scope.name in the childCtrl to "testChild", the name variable's value parentCtrl is still "testParent". The child $scope has access to the parent but does not overwrite/share variables, only objects.
2) If you are worried about naming collision or confusion, I would recommend placing an object on scope and adding properties to that object. Example: $scope.parentData = { name = "testParent"} and $scope.childData = { name = "testChild"}
Hi I need a AngularJS Wiz to point me in the right direction been trying to get my head around AngularJS Scope and Inheritance.
I have a child Scope which I add to a Parent Scope then I want to add a new object to the Parent scope via array.push(); but I'm not sure why the Child scope then inherits this new value. See the fiddle here http://jsfiddle.net/sjmcpherso/EFxuZ/ The first example using ng-repeat and objects causes the child to update:
$scope.childArr = [{'name':'peter'},{'name':'paul'},{'name':'perry'}];
$scope.parentArr = $scope.childArr;
$scope.parentArr.push({'name':'Why am I in now in the Child Array?'})
Whereas the second example using just a variable does not:
$scope.childVar = "Confused Muchly";
$scope.test.parentVar = $scope.childVar;
$scope.test.parentVar = "This wont change the child variable";
Ideally I would like to make changes to the child scope which would update the parent scope but not the other way around.
I have read of https://github.com/angular/angular.js/wiki/Understanding-Scopes while not fully understanding everything this issue seems a mystery to me.
Firstly, both of your models $scope.childArr and $scope.test.parentArr are in $scope of the controller. None of them is in parent scope.
If you want to have parentArr in the parent scope, then you should have a parent-child controller design or move your model inside the rootScope:
$rootScope.test = {};
$rootScope.test.parentArr = [ /* some items here */ ];
Secondly, $scope.childArr and $scope.test.parentArr both point to the same array. Changing either of them would mean changing both of them.
It is almost same as doing:
$scope.test = {};
$scope.childArr = $scope.test.parentArr = [
{'name':'peter'},
{'name':'paul'},
{'name':'perry'}
];
If you want to create separate copies so that changing one of them would not affect the other, then you can use angular.copy():
$scope.test.parentArr = angular.copy($scope.childArr);