I'm making a dinamic list of dates. The user can adds all datepickers he wants, but I have to validate that there are not matching dates, all of them have to be different, that's the only requisite.
I've made a custom directive validation and it's triggered correctly, but when I try to use its isolate scope, I just get that error (Multiple directives). Other questions/solutions that I've seen here, propose to delete the isolate scope, but I need it to pass to the directive the array of dates and to be able to compare them with the current selected.
Here is a codepen that reproduces the problem. If you remove the noMatchingDates directive's scope, the error just disappears and you can see and add datepickers properly. I mean this scope:
scope: {
getAllDates: "&allDates"
}
I think that it has to do with this line in docs:
Multiple directives requesting isolated scope.
And it probably also has to do with the md-datepicker which would have more directives using the isolate scope. So, how can I solve this error (and still being able to send the dates list)?
If it can't be solved (keeping the scope) given the nature of the md-datepicker, how can I reach this dynamyc validation? I think it could be done using a controller and the ng-change, but I'm not sure if it would be a proper solution.
Indeed there is no reason for your directive to require an isolated scope. Use isolated scope when your directive is like a reusable "visual component". Your directive is about logic validation and shouldn't prevent another such component.
To fix your problem, you can remove the isolated scope and use your directive in the HTML this way:
<div ... no-matching-dates="overtimeList">
Then in your link function, you can retrieve the value of that attribute this way:
var dates = scope.$parse(attr.noMatchingDates);
This will give you the content of what is bound to no-matching-dates, so in this case it will return overtimeList.
I have never used the ctrl.$parsers.unshift syntax, but it seems that you can also use it to retrieve that value. Simply remove the scope.$parse line that I just gave you and write:
ctrl.$parsers.unshift(function(arrayOfDates) { ... })
This should work as well. Note that in the first approach you need to $watch for changes if you want to run the validation every time.
Related
I'm trying to chain two nested directives that both use isolated scopes.
<div ng-controller="myController">
<my-dir on-done="done()">
<my-dir2 on-done="done()">
</my-dir2>
</my-dir>
</div>
I would like the second directive (my-dir2) to call the done() function of the first directive (my-dir) which in turn would call the controller one.
Unfortunately I don't know how to make the second directive access the callback of the first directive (so far the second directive is looking inside the high level controller, bypassing the first directive).
I think one could possibly make use of "require" but I can't since the two directives are not related (I want to use my-dir2 inside other directives not only my-dir).
To make it clear : I don't want to use require because it means that there would be a dependency of myDir on myDir2. My point is : I want to be able to reuse myDir2 inside others directives. So I don't want myDir2 to be based on myDir but I do want to inform the upper directive (myDir) when something is done (like in a callback in js).
I have made a plunker : as you can see in the javascript console, my-dir2 is calling directly the done function from the high level controller.
Does anyone has a clean way to deal with that kind of situation ?
Thanks
Update:
to be able write directives that are independent of each other you need to use events:
use $emit('myEvent', 'myData') to fire an event that will be handled by scopes that are upward in the hierarchy.
use $broadcast('myEvent', 'myData') to fire an event that will be handled by scopes that are downward in the hierarchy.
to handle the event that was fired by $emit or $broadcast use $on('myEvent', function(event, data){\\your code})
P.S.: in your case the $emit won't work because both directives scopes are on the same level in the hierarchy so you will need to use $rootScope.$broadcast('myEvent' \*, myData*\); I've updated my plunker to reflect the needed changes http://plnkr.co/edit/eTkO6sk6hpuYPnCjlSKn?p=info
The following will make inner directive dependent on the outer directive:
basically to be able to call a function in the first directive you need to do some changes:
add require = '^myDir' to myDir2
remove the onDone from myDir2 and keep the isolated scope
scope:{}
add controller parameter to link function in myDir2 link:
function(scope,element,attrs,controller)
in myDir1 controller change the definition of the done function
from $scope.done to this.done
call controller.done() in myDir2
here is a plunker with the needed changes http://plnkr.co/edit/eTkO6sk6hpuYPnCjlSKn
I think you can do something like these:
angular.element('my-dir').controller('myDir').done();
give a try!
I 'm trying to write a collapsible, reusable calculator directive, that binds to an input field (in the parent scope). This input field itself has a ngModel binding.
When the user presses the equals-button of my directive this parent scope model should be updated. I need to isolate the scope so I can reuse it:
Here is the simplified code and how I would like to use it:
http://plnkr.co/edit/OSOcxydJWh8K520nstAU?p=preview
I tried passing in the values as an attribute. but that does not work because I don't know how to update this attribute inside of the controller(I tried the $attrs service).
So how can I update the model from the directive?
Maybe you're overthinking it, maybe I'm underthinking it. Either way, here's all I did to change yours to make it work:
if ($scope.operator ==='+') {
$scope.field = parseInt($scope.field) + $scope.operand;
}
I uncommented your scope and then I made sure that your controller made reference to the data you had exposed in your scope. That's it.
And here's a working version of your Plunker: http://plnkr.co/edit/btBi3E
You need to use ngModelController. Here's a link with docs, with a handy example:
NgModelController
I'd like to apply two attribute directives to an element - let's call them my-draggable and my-resizable - and I need to pass each one a callback for drag and resize completion actions. These directives are meant to be used independently if needed.
Now, for a single directive scneario I would do this
scope:{
callback: '&'
}
but if I do that for two, I know this way each directive will create its own isolated scope and that's a no-no, resulting in 'Error: $compile:multidir Multiple Directive Resource Contention'.
I'd very much appreciate some tips in handling this kind of situations.
Here's the fiddle showcasing my (non-functioning) scenario:
http://jsfiddle.net/crotundu/Ed9uP/2/
Thanks a lot!
I have updated your fiddle to call your callback functions in the link function you'll obviously want to change that.
Markup: (note the removal of the parenthesis on the callbacks)
<my-widget data-provider="data"
my-draggable drag-callback="dragDone"
my-resizable resize-callback="resizeDone"></my-widget>
Directives: (you will need to inject in $parse and remove the isolate scope)
$parse(scope[attrs.dragCallback])();
$parse(scope[attrs.resizeCallback])();
I have a simple case:
<div ng-controller="myController">
<tabset>
<tab>
<form name="myForm"></form>
</tab>
</tabset>
</div>
and now, in myController method, I would like to access myForm to call $setPristine:
$scope.myForm.$setPristine()
but I can not. tabset / tab creates isolated/inherited scope. It's just a sample, but I run into this problems when using angular js directives that create isolated scopes many times.
How can I get over this issue? In the past I did something like this (with ng-table that also creates new scope):
ng-init="$parent.saataaTable = this"
but it's far from perfect.
This was one of the most difficult concepts for me to get around and my solution is simple but kind of difficult to explain so bear with me.
Solution 1: Isolate Scopes
When you are only dealing with only isolate scopes (scope: {...}) or no scope (scope: false), you're in luck because the myForm will eventually be there. You just have to watch for it.
$scope.$watch('myForm', function(val) {
if (myForm) {
// now I can call $setPristine
}
});
Solution 2: Child Scopes
This is when you set scope: true or transclude: true. Unless you perform a custom/manual transclusion you will not get myForm on the controller's scope.
The trick is to access the form's controller directly from the form element. This can be done by the following:
// at the form element
element.data('$formController');
// or at the control (input, select, etc.)
element.inheritedData('$formController');
// where 'element' is a jqLite element (form or ng-form)
This sets you up for a new issue: how do we know when and how we can get that element and it's data.
A quick answer is that you need to set up a dummy $watch on your controller's scope to look for (in your case) myForm. When this watch is processed you will then be able to attempt to locate the form. This is necessary due to the fact that typically when your controller first executes the FormController won't yet be on the element's data object.
A quick and simple way to find the form is to simply get all of the forms. NOTE: if there are multiple forms within the element you'll have to add some logic to find the right one. In this case our form is a form element and it's the only one. So, locating it is fairly easy:
// assuming you have inject $element into your controller
$element.find('form').data('$formController');
// where $element is the root element the controller is attached to
// it is injected just like '$scope'
Once you have the controller you can access everything you would normally. It is also important to note that Solution 2 will always work once that FormController is on the element.
I have set up a Plunk to demonstrate the code here, but please note that is a demonstration so not all best practices were kept in mind.
EDIT
I found it important to note that if you don't want to worry about the scopes of the nested directives you can just watch the form name on the scope and handle things there.
$scope.$watch('myForm', function(val) {
if (angular.isDefined(val)) {
// now I have access
} else {
// see if i can `find` the form whose name is 'myForm'
// (this is easy if it is a form element and there's only one)
// then get the FormController for access
}
}
I could not make it work using the answer above, but I found a work-around.
In the form, I created a hidden input field with a ng-model and ng-init that set its value to the form. Then in my submit function in the controller I can access the formController via this ng-model
So, in the HTML, I create a hidden field inside the form:
<input id="test" ng-model="data.myForm" ng-init="data.myForm=myForm" hidden>
And in the Controller I can get hold of the formController via data.myForm
$scope.data.myForm.$setPristine();
It is probably not very good, so I will instead avoid to rely on the $pristine and $dirty properties of the formController and find another way to detect if the form has changed (using a master copy of the object, like they do in the sample in the documentation)
I have some issues regarding scope in nested directives. I have two directives: column and nested-menu. Their structure can be something like:
column
nested-menu
nested-menu
nested-menu
other content
nested-menu
other content
column
other content
The column has a variable to which all the nested-menu's should react. I have tried to make this work in several ways that I found Googling, such as broadcasting events from the column directive (for some reason, the nested-menu's only saw the event when I broadcasted it from $rootScope), setting a directive controller in column and storing the variable there (I can read it, but I can't $watch it).
It's important that both directives have an isolated scope, as they're supposed to be reusable in several areas, and sometimes even nested in themselves.
I have made a simplified Plnkr of a base structure, that's not working.
http://plnkr.co/edit/1GP7SKacO777og8PysNF
Thank you!
I am not sure how you want this to behave exactly. But here is a plunker that solves the two directives interacting with each other.
The nested-menu only expects column in its parent currently, But you could change it to expect another nested-menu in its parent if you wish.
Here is the working plunker. Hope this helps.
http://plnkr.co/edit/IAn9Ib8sSkQwKx6mpsm5?p=preview