I have a main controller in which i want to emit/ broadcast an event
main controller
.controller('gameCtrl', function(){
function moveToTileBy(moves)
{
var numberOfTiles = ctlr.board.tiles.length,
player = getCurrentPlayer(),
currentTileNumber = player.currentPositionTileNumber;
if((moves + currentTileNumber) > numberOfTiles)
{
// alert player not enough moves
return nextTurn();
}
// create a drag and drop
$scope.$emit('movePlayer', currentTileNumber);
$scope.$emit('activateTile', moves + currentTileNumber);
}
})
I also have a directive on an ng-repeatitems, each item has an isolated scope whose only connection to the main controller is the scope's model
directive
.directive('phTile', ['$rootScope', 'Drake', function ($rootScope, Drake) {
return {
restrict: 'A',
scope: {
tile: '#ngModel'
},
link: function (scope, element, attr) {
var elem = element[0];
console.log(scope.tile);
$rootScope.$on('movePlayer', function(){
console.log('root link move player ', arguments);
});
scope.$on('movePlayer', function(){ console.log('link scope move player', arguments);})
}
};
html
<div ng-controller="gameCtrl as ctlr">
<div ng-repeat="(i, tile) in ctlr.board.tiles" class="w3-col tile tile-{{tile.number}}" ng-repeat-end-watch="ctlr.resize()" ng-model="tile" ph-tile><span>{{tile.number}}</span></div>
</div>
I want the above event in the controller to trigger a series of dom manipulations to 1 or more item DOM elements
The dilemma i am facing is that I am not sure how/ where to build the logic to listen to the said event and proceed with the logic for dom manipulation....
Should it be
1) In a directive controller
return {
restrict: 'A',
scope: {
tile: '=ngModel'
}, controller: function($scope){ $scope.$on('move', function(){ /* manipulate dom element */}); }
2) Or in the link
return {
restrict: 'A',
scope: {
tile: '=ngModel'
}, link: function(scope, element, attr){ scope.$on('move', function(){ /* manipulate dom element */}); }
In addition I need to access the isolated scope's "tile" object and the directive's "element" in order to proceed with the dom manipulation.
It looks like you missed finishing submitting your question, but, in a nutshell, the manipulation of DOM elements should be in link.
Based on what you are starting to write at the bottom ('In addition I need to access the scope's "tile" object and "element" in order to proceed with the'), having the full directive and html, preferably in a demo, would help myself or somebody troubleshoot. I will update this if more information is provided.
Mark Rajcok has done an excellent job explaining the differences between links and controllers here: Difference between the 'controller', 'link' and 'compile' functions when defining a directive
Related
In my controller :
myApp.controller('homeCtrl', function($scope, $rootScope, $state, 'red';
$rootScope.$on('new_story', function(event, data) {
$scope.cardObj = {key:'value'};
});
});
In my HTML :
<div clickmeee ></div>
<div id="feedContainer" card='{{cardObj}}'> </div>
In my directive :
myApp.directive('clickmeee', function($compile, $rootScope) {
return {
restrict: 'A',
scope: {
card: '#'
},
link: function(scope, element, attrs) {
element.bind('click', function() {
scope.$watch('card', function(newVal, oldVal) {
alert(scope.card);
});
});
}
};
});
How do I pass data from controller to this directive. I compile some html and prepend it to the div. All of that is sorted out but I need some data from object I am trying to pass.
Any help??
There are several problems in your code:
you define a scope attribute named 'card', but you use cardObj instead
you use a watch that is completely unnecessary. And worse: you create a new watch every time the element is clicked
you don't define any card attribute on your clickmeee element. Instead, you're placing it on another element, on which the directive is not applied
you're passing the attribute with '#'. That works, but the directive will receive a string, containing the JSONified object, rather than the object itself
you're not showming us where you emit an event that will initialize cardObj in the controller scope
Here is a plunkr showing a working version of your code.
Also, note that using bind('click') is a bad idea. You'd better have a template in your directive and use ng-click in the template, or simply not use a directive at all and just use ng-click directly on the div element.
Bad news. You are doing it wrong all the ways.
Firstly
card='{{cardObj}}' >
this one should be put in the
<div clickmeee ></div>
So you can take it as binded scope variable in your directive registration
Secondly
If you managed to use '#' syntax
card: '#'
it will turn your input to string, not a binded scope. Use '=' instead.
In the end
You dont need to use watch here:
scope.$watch('card', function(newVal, oldVal) {
alert(newVal);
});
since scope.card is binded via '=' connector. Just simple use alert(scope.card). (Need to warn you that alert an object is not a good idea)
I have tried your code here: plunker. Changed a litte bit by using cardObj as string for easier presentation. Does it match your work?
You should watch the card object:
myApp.directive('clickmeee', function() {
return {
restrict: 'A',
scope: {
card: '#'
},
link: function(scope, element, attrs) {
scope.$watch('card', function(value) {
console.log(value);
});
}
};
});
And:
<div clickmeee id="feedContainer" card='{{cardObj}}'> </div>
Whenever the controller changes the cardObj, the directive's watch on card is triggered:
$scope.$apply(function() {
$scope.cardObj = "test";
}
I have a directive that I'd like another directive to be able to call in to. I have been trying to use directive controllers to try to achieve this.
Directive one would be sitting on the same page as directive two, and directive one would call methods exposed by directive two's controller:
Directive 1:
'use strict';
angular.module('angularTestApp')
.directive('fileLibrary', function () {
return {
templateUrl: 'views/manage/file_library/file-library.html',
require: 'videoClipDetails',
restrict: 'AE',
link: function postLink(scope, element, attrs, videClipDetailsCtrl) {
scope.doSomethingInVideoClipDirective = function() {
videClipDetailsCtrl.doSomething();
}
}
};
});
Directive Two:
'use strict';
angular.module('angularTestApp')
.directive('videoClipDetails', function () {
return {
templateUrl: 'views/video_clip/video-clip-details.html',
restrict: 'AE',
controller: function($scope, $element) {
this.doSomething = function() {
console.log('I did something');
}
},
link: function postLink(scope, element, attrs) {
console.log('videoClipDetails directive');
//start the element out as hidden
}
};
});
File where the two are used and set up as siblings:
<div>
<div video-clip-details></div>
<!-- main component for the file library -->
<div file-library></div>
</div>
I know reading documentation I picked up that the controllers can be shared when the directives are on the same element, which makes me think I might be looking at this problem the wrong way. Can anyone put me on the right track?
From the angular.js documentation on directives
When a directive uses require, $compile will throw an error unless the specified controller is found. The ^ prefix means that this directive searches for the controller on its parents (without the ^ prefix, the directive would look for the controller on just its own element).
So basically what you are trying to do with having siblings directly communicate is not possible. I had run into this same issue but I did not want to use a service for communication. What I came up with was a method of using a parent directive to manage communication between its children, which are siblings. I posted the example on github.
What happens is that both children require the parent (require: '^parentDirective') and their own controller, both of which are passed into the link function. From there each child can get a reference to the parent controller and all of its public methods, as an API of sorts.
Below is one of the children itemEditor
function itemEditor() {
var directive = {
link: link,
scope: {},
controller: controller,
controllerAs: 'vm',
require: ['^itemManager', 'itemEditor'],
templateUrl: 'app/scripts/itemManager/itemManager.directives.itemEditor.html',
restrict: 'A'
};
return directive;
function link(scope, element, attrs, controllers) {
var itemManagerController = controllers[0];
var itemEditorController = controllers[1];
itemEditorController.itemManager = itemManagerController;
itemEditorController.initialize();
}
function controller() {
var vm = this;
// Properties
vm.itemManager = {};
vm.item = { id: -1, name: "", size: "" };
// Methods
vm.initialize = initialize;
vm.updateItem = updateItem;
vm.editItem = editItem;
// Functions
function initialize() {
vm.itemManager.respondToEditsWith(vm.editItem);
}
function updateItem() {
vm.itemManager.updateItem(vm.item);
vm.item = {};
}
function editItem(item) {
vm.item.id = item.id;
vm.item.name = item.name;
vm.item.size = item.size;
}
}
}
Note how the values passed into the require array are the parent directive's name and the current directive's name. These are then both accessible in the link function via the controllers parameter. Assign the parent directive's controller as a property of the current child's and then it can be accessed within the child's controller functions via that property.
Also notice how in the child directive's link function I call an initialize function from the child's controller. This is where part of the communication lines are established.
I'm basically saying, anytime you (parent directive) receive a request to edit an item, use this method of mine named editItem which takes an item as a parameter.
Here is the parent directive
function itemManager() {
var directive = {
link: link,
controller: controller,
controllerAs: 'vm',
templateUrl: 'app/scripts/itemManager/itemManager.directives.itemManager.html',
restrict: 'A'
};
return directive;
function link(scope, element, attrs, controller) {
}
function controller() {
var vm = this;
vm.updateMethod = null;
vm.editMethod = null;
vm.updateItem = updateItem;
vm.editItem = editItem;
vm.respondToUpdatesWith = respondToUpdatesWith;
vm.respondToEditsWith = respondToEditsWith;
function updateItem(item) {
vm.updateMethod(item);
}
function editItem(item) {
vm.editMethod(item);
}
function respondToUpdatesWith(method) {
vm.updateMethod = method;
}
function respondToEditsWith(method) {
vm.editMethod = method;
}
}
}
Here in the parent you can see that the respondToEditsWith takes a method as a parameter and assigns that value to its editMethod property. This property is called whenever the controller's editItem method is called and the item object is passed on to it, thus calling the child directive's editItem method. Likewise, saving data works the same way in reverse.
Update: By the way, here is a blog post on coderwall.com where I got the original idea with good examples of require and controller options in directives. That said, his recommended syntax for the last example in that post did not work for me, which is why I created the example I reference above.
There is no real way with require to communicate between sibling elements in the way you are trying to do here. The require works the way you have set up if the two directives are on the same element.
You can't do this however because both of your directives have an associated templateUrl that you want to use, and you can only have one per element.
You could structure your html slightly differently to allow this to work though. You basically need to put one directive inside the other (transcluded) and use require: '^videoClipDetails'. Meaning that it will look to the parent to find it.
I've set up a fiddle to demonstrate this: http://jsfiddle.net/WwCvQ/1/
This is the code that makes the parent thing work:
// In videoClipDetails
template: '<div>clip details<div ng-transclude></div></div>',
transclude: 'true',
...
// in markup
<div video-clip-details>
<div file-library></div>
</div>
// in fileLibrary
require: '^videoClipDetails',
let me know if you have any questions!
Goal: Create behaviors using directives with communication between 2 sibling elements (each their own directive).
A behavior to use in example: The article content is hidden by default. When the title is clicked, I want the related article content to display.
The catch: The related article elements need to associate to each other without being nested in a single parent element or directive.
<div article="article1">this is my header</div>
<div id="article1" article-content>this is content for the header above</div>
<div article="article2">this is my header</div>
<div id="article2" article-content>this is content for the header above</div>
I know it would be easier to place the content inside the article directive, however this question is to find out how to solve a situation like this.
Can the content directive pass itself to the related article directive somehow?
This code isn't very useful as it is now, but it's a starting point. How would I accomplish this?
.directive('article', function(){
return {
restrict: "A",
controller: function($scope) {
$scope.contentElement = null;
this.setContentElement = function(element) {
$scope.contentElement = element;
}
},
link: function(scope, element) {
element.bind('click', function(){
// Show article-content directives that belong
// to this instance (article1) of the directive
}
}
}
}
.directive('articleContent', function(){
return {
require: "article",
link: function(scope, element, attrs, articleCtrl) {
// Maybe reference the article i belong to and assign element to it?
// I can't though because these are siblings.
}
}
}
None of the directive require options will allow you to require sibling directives (as far as I know). You can only:
require on the element, using require: "directiveName"
tell angular to search up the DOM tree using require: "^directiveName"
or require: "^?directiveName" if you don't necessarily need the parent controller
or require: "^\?directiveName" if you don't necessarily need the parent DOM wrapper
If you want sibling to sibling communication, you'll have to house them in some parent DOM element with a directive controller acting as an API for their communication. How this is implemented is largely dependent on the context at hand.
Here is a good example from Angular JS (O Reilly)
app.directive('accordion', function() {
return {
restrict: 'EA',
replace: true,
transclude: true,
template: '<div class="accordion" ng-transclude></div>',
controller: function() {
var expanders = [];
this.gotOpened = function(selectedExpander) {
angular.forEach(expanders, function(expander) {
if(selectedExpander != expander) {
expander.showMe = false;
}
});
};
this.addExpander = function(expander) {
expanders.push(expander);
}
}
}
});
app.directive('expander', function() {
return {
restrict: 'EA',
replace: true,
transclude: true,
require: '^?accordion',
scope: { title:'#' },
template: '<div class="expander">\n <div class="title" ng-click="toggle()">{{ title }}</div>\n <div class="body" ng-show="showMe" \n ng-animate="{ show: \'animated flipInX\' }"\n ng-transclude></div>\n</div>',
link: function(scope, element, attrs, accordionController) {
scope.showMe = false;
accordionController.addExpander(scope);
scope.toggle = function toggle() {
scope.showMe = !scope.showMe;
accordionController.gotOpened(scope);
}
}
}
})
Usage (jade templating):
accordion
expander(title="An expander") Woohoo! You can see mme
expander(title="Hidden") I was hidden!
expander(title="Stop Work") Seriously, I am going to stop working now.
Or you can create a service just for directive communication, one advantage of special service vs require is that your directives won't depend on their location in html structure.
The above solutions are great, and you should definitely consider using a parent scope to allow communication between your directives. However, if your implementation is fairly simple there's an easy method built into Angular that can communicate between two sibling scopes without using any parent: $emit, $broadcast, and $on.
Say for example you have a pretty simple app hierarchy with a navbar search box that taps into a complex service, and you need that service to broadcast the results out to various other directives on the page. One way to do that would be like this:
in the search service
$rootScope.$emit('mySearchResultsDone', {
someData: 'myData'
});
in some other directives/controllers
$rootScope.$on('mySearchResultsDone', function(event, data) {
vm.results = data;
});
There's a certain beauty to how simple that code is. However, it's important to keep in mind that emit/on/broadcast logic can get nasty very quickly if you have have a bunch of different places broadcasting and listening. A quick google search can turn up a lot of opinions about when it is and isn't an anti-pattern.
Some good insight on emit/broadcast/on in these posts:
http://toddmotto.com/all-about-angulars-emit-broadcast-on-publish-subscribing/
http://nathanleclaire.com/blog/2014/04/19/5-angularjs-antipatterns-and-pitfalls/
If there is a list of articles and its content we can do it without any directive, using ng-repeat
<div ng-repeat="article in articles">
<div article="article1" ng-click='showContent=true'>{{article.header}}</div>
<div id="article1" article-content ng-show='showContent'>{{article.content}}</div>
</div>
So you need to define the article model in controller. We are making use of local scope created by ng-repeat.
Update: Based on your feedback, you need to link them together.You can try
<div article="article1" content='article1'>this is my header</div>
<div id="article1" article-content>this is content for the header above</div>
and in your directive
use
link: function(scope, element,attrs) {
element.bind('click', function(){
$('#'+attrs.content).show();
}
}
And the final method could be to use $rootScope.$broadcast and scope.$on methods to communicate between to controllers. But in this approach you need to track from where the message came and who is the intended recipient who needs to process it.
I had the exact same problem and I was able to solve it.
In order to get one directive to hide other sibling directives, I used a parent directive to act as the API. One child directive tells the parent it wasn't to be shown/hidden by passing a reference to its element, and the other child calls the parent toggle function.
http://plnkr.co/edit/ZCNEoh
app.directive("parentapi", function() {
return {
restrict: "E",
scope: {},
controller: function($scope) {
$scope.elements = [];
var on = true;
this.toggleElements = function() {
if(on) {
on = false;
_.each($scope.elements, function(el) {
$(el).hide();
});
} else {
on = true;
_.each($scope.elements, function(el) {
$(el).show();
});
}
}
this.addElement = function(el) {
$scope.elements.push(el);
}
}
}
});
app.directive("kidtoggle", function() {
return {
restrict: "A",
require: "^parentapi",
link: function(scope, element, attrs, ctrl) {
element.bind('click', function() {
ctrl.toggleElements();
});
}
}
});
app.directive("kidhide", function() {
return {
restrict: "A",
require: "^parentapi",
link: function(scope, element, attrs, ctrl) {
ctrl.addElement(element);
}
}
});
I had the same issue with a select all/ select item directive I was writing. My issue was the select all check box was in a table header row and the select item was in the table body. I got around it by implementing a pub/sub notification service so the directives could talk to each other. This way my directive did not care about how my htlm was structured. I really wanted to use the require property, but using a service worked just as well.
Consider the following directive: (Live Demo)
app.directive('spinner', function() {
return {
restrict: 'A',
scope: {
spinner: '=',
doIt: "&doIt"
},
link: function(scope, element, attrs) {
var spinnerButton = angular.element("<button class='btn disabled'><i class='icon-refresh icon-spin'></i> Doing...</button>");
element.after(spinnerButton);
scope.$watch('spinner', function(showSpinner) {
spinnerButton.toggle(showSpinner);
element.toggle(!showSpinner);
});
}
};
});
which is used like this:
<button ng-click="doIt()" spinner="spinIt">Spin It</button>
When spinner's value (i.e. the value of $scope.spinIt in this example) is true, the element should be hidden and spinnerButton should appear instead. When spinner's value is false, the element should be visible and spinnerButton should be hidden.
The problem here is that doIt() is not in the isolated scope, thus not called on click.
What would be the "Angular way" to implement this directive?
My suggestion is to look at what's going on with these spinners. Be a little more API focused.
Relevant part follows. We use a regular callback to indicate when we're done, so the spinner knows to reset the state of the button.
function SpinDemoCtrl($scope, $timeout, $q) {
$scope.spinIt = false;
$scope.longCycle = function(complete) {
$timeout(function() {
complete();
}, 3000);
};
$scope.shortCycle = function(complete) {
$timeout(function() {
complete();
}, 1000);
};
}
app.directive('spinnerClick', function() {
return {
restrict: 'A',
scope: {
spinnerClick: "=",
},
link: function(scope, element, attrs) {
var spinnerButton = angular.element("<button class='btn disabled'><i class='icon-refresh icon-spin'></i> Doing...</button>").hide();
element.after(spinnerButton);
element.click(function() {
spinnerButton.show();
element.hide();
scope.spinnerClick(function() {
spinnerButton.hide();
element.show();
});
});
}
};
});
Here's one that expects use of $q. It'll work better with Angular-style asynchronous operations, and eliminates the callback functions by instead having the spinner reset on fulfilment of the promise.
Here is the polished version of the directive I ended up with (based on Yuki's suggestion), in case it helps someone: (CoffeeScript)
app.directive 'spinnerClick', ->
restrict: 'A'
link: (scope, element, attrs) ->
originalHTML = element.html()
spinnerHTML = "<i class='icon-refresh icon-spin'></i> #{attrs.spinnerText}"
element.click ->
return if element.is('.disabled')
element.html(spinnerHTML).addClass('disabled')
scope.$apply(attrs.spinnerClick).then ->
element.html(originalHTML).removeClass('disabled')
Use it like so:
<button class="btn btn-primary" spinner-click="createNewTask()"
spinner-text="Creating...">
Create
</button>
Controller's code:
TasksNewCtrl = ($scope, $location, $q, Task) ->
$scope.createNewTask = ->
deferred = $q.defer()
Task.save $scope.task, ->
$location.path "/tasks"
, (error) ->
// Handle errors here and then:
deferred.resolve()
deferred.promise
Yes, it will call doIt in your isolated scope.
You can use $parent.doIt in that case
<button ng-click="$parent.doIt()" spinner="spinIt">Spin It</button>
From the AngularJS Documentation (http://docs.angularjs.org/guide/directive):
& or &attr - provides a way to execute an expression in the context of the parent scope. If no attr name is specified then the attribute name is assumed to be the same as the local name. Given and widget definition of scope: { localFn:'&myAttr' }, then isolate scope property localFn will point to a function wrapper for the count = count + value expression. Often it's desirable to pass data from the isolated scope via an expression and to the parent scope, this can be done by passing a map of local variable names and values into the expression wrapper fn. For example, if the expression is increment(amount) then we can specify the amount value by calling the localFn as localFn({amount: 22}).
so inlclude doIt: "&doIt" in your scope declaration, then you can use doIt as a function in your isolated scope.
I'm confused as to why you are not packaging up everything in the directive as if it's a self-contained module. That's at least what I would do. In other words, you have the click-handler in the HTML, some behavior in the directive and some behavior in the external controller. This makes your code much less portable and more decentralized.
Anyway, you may have reasons for this that are not shared, but my suggestion would be to put all the "Spin It" related stuff in the spinner directive. This means the click-handler, the doIt() function and template stuff all within the link function.
That way there's no need to worry about sharing scope and code entanglement. Or, am I just missing something?
I don't know about the 'angular' way of doing things, but i suggest not using an isolated scope but instead just creating a child scope. You then do attrs.$observe to get any properties you need for your directive.
I.E. :
app.directive('spinner', function() {
return {
restrict: 'A',
scope: true, //Create child scope not isolated scope
link: function(scope, element, attrs) {
var spinnerButton = angular.element("<button class='btn disabled'><i class='icon-refresh icon-spin'></i> Doing...</button>");
element.after(spinnerButton);
//Using attrs.$observe
attrs.$observe('spinner', function(showSpinner) {
spinnerButton.toggle(showSpinner);
element.toggle(!showSpinner);
});
}
};
});
I find this way is better than using '$parent' to escape the isolated scope in other directives (eg ngClick or ngModel) as the end user of your directive does not need to know whether or not using your directive requires them to use '$parent' or not on core angularjs directives.
Using CoffeeScript and a FontAwesome icon.
No need to manually specify the spinner-text
It will just add the spinner content left of the text while loading
We must use finally instead of then for the promise otherwise the spinner will stay there on failure?
I must use $compile because the contents of the button is dynamically compiled as I am using https://github.com/angular-translate/angular-translate
app.directive 'spinnerClick', ["$compile", ($compile) ->
restrict: 'A'
link: (scope, element, attrs) ->
originalHTML = element.html()
spinnerHTML = "<i class='fa fa-refresh fa-spin'></i> "
element.click ->
return if element.is('.disabled')
element.html(spinnerHTML + originalHTML).addClass('disabled')
$compile(element.contents())(scope)
scope.$apply(attrs.spinnerClick).finally ->
element.html(originalHTML).removeClass('disabled')
$compile(element.contents())(scope)
]
Angular newbie here. I am trying to figure out what's going wrong while passing objects to directives.
here's my directive:
app.directive('walkmap', function() {
return {
restrict: 'A',
transclude: true,
scope: { walks: '=walkmap' },
template: '<div id="map_canvas"></div>',
link: function(scope, element, attrs)
{
console.log(scope);
console.log(scope.walks);
}
};
});
and this is the template where I call the directive:
<div walkmap="store.walks"></div>
store.walks is an array of objects.
When I run this, scope.walks logs as undefined while scope logs fine as an Scope and even has a walks child with all the data that I am looking for.
I am not sure what I am doing wrong here because this exact method has worked previously for me.
EDIT:
I've created a plunker with all the required code: http://plnkr.co/edit/uJCxrG
As you can see the {{walks}} is available in the scope but I need to access it in the link function where it is still logging as undefined.
Since you are using $resource to obtain your data, the directive's link function is running before the data is available (because the results from $resource are asynchronous), so the first time in the link function scope.walks will be empty/undefined. Since your directive template contains {{}}s, Angular sets up a $watch on walks, so when the $resource populates the data, the $watch triggers and the display updates. This also explains why you see the walks data in the console -- by the time you click the link to expand the scope, the data is populated.
To solve your issue, in your link function $watch to know when the data is available:
scope.$watch('walks', function(walks) {
console.log(scope.walks, walks);
})
In your production code, just guard against it being undefined:
scope.$watch('walks', function(walks) {
if(walks) { ... }
})
Update: If you are using a version of Angular where $resource supports promises, see also #sawe's answer.
you may also use
scope.walks.$promise.then(function(walks) {
if(walks) {
console.log(walks);
}
});
Another solution would be to add ControllerAs to the directive by which you can access the directive's variables.
app.directive('walkmap', function() {
return {
restrict: 'A',
transclude: true,
controllerAs: 'dir',
scope: { walks: '=walkmap' },
template: '<div id="map_canvas"></div>',
link: function(scope, element, attrs)
{
console.log(scope);
console.log(scope.walks);
}
};
});
And then, in your view, pass the variable using the controllerAs variable.
<div walkmap="store.walks" ng-init="dir.store.walks"></div>
Try:
<div walk-map="{{store.walks}}"></div>
angular.module('app').directive('walkMap', function($parse) {
return {
link: function(scope, el, attrs) {
console.log($parse(attrs.walkMap)(scope));
}
}
});
your declared $scope.store is not visible from the controller..you declare it inside a function..so it's only visible in the scope of that function, you need declare this outside:
app.controller('MainCtrl', function($scope, $resource, ClientData) {
$scope.store=[]; // <- declared in the "javascript" controller scope
ClientData.get({}, function(clientData) {
self.original = clientData;
$scope.clientData = new ClientData(self.original);
var storeToGet = "150-001 KT";
angular.forEach(clientData.stores, function(store){
if(store.name == storeToGet ) {
$scope.store = store; //declared here it's only visible inside the forEach
}
});
});
});