Pure Controller objects - angularjs

In AngularJS, a Controller itself is an object defined by a Javascript constructor function and this constructor function is a callback to .controller method.
var myapp=angular.module('scopeExample', []);
myapp.controller('MyController',function MyController($scope){
$scope.name="john";
this.num=700;
});
In the above example, MyController is the constructor function which creates the Controller object with one property (num). I have three queries upon that:
Actually, what is the use of the Controller object in that case?
Does it have some more properties not visible and is it accessible from outside Angular?
How it is interconnected to its scope which in turn is another object?
I came upon the following queries because of the controller as syntax which creates a controller object that is a property of controller's scope and therefore easily accessible, e.g.
<div ng-app="scopeExample" ng-controller="MyController as ctrl">
<input id="box" ng-model="ctrl.num"> equals {{ ctrl.num }}
</div>
<script>
angular.module('scopeExample', [])
.controller('MyController', [function () {
this.num=12;
}]);
</script>
var x=angular.element('#box').scope().ctrl; //x is the controller object itself

1.a. What is the use of the Controller object in that case?
There is nothing special about this example, angular is an MVC framework(or any other buzz word you wish to use that describes almost the same thing), the controller's responsibility is to response to view events, update the model accordingly and execute business logic tasks (you can choose where to actually implement the logic, wheres in the controller itself or use services).
Of course that in this example the controller is pretty useless, because you have no logic, and only 2 proprieties.
1.b. Specking of ctrl-as syntax, in your example you injected 'scope' into the controller and added property ($scope.name), when you're using controller as it is recommended for you to avoid using scope unless you are obligated to do so. (e.g. $watch, parent...)
2.a. Does it have some more properties not visible?
No it doesn't have any invisible properties, you can check it easily by your self with the following code:
.controller('MyController', function () {
window.DoesThisControllerHaveInvisibleProps = this;
});
2.b. is it accessible from outside Angular?
I'm not sure that I fully understood what you've meant with "outside Angular", if so here is an example that the controller obj can be accessible from "outside":
class MyController {
static foo() {
console.log('hello!');
}
}
myapp.controller('MyController', MyController);
// maybe somewhere else in that module
MyController.foo();
3.How it is interconnected to its scope which in turn is another object?
As you said, when using controller as syntax angular is initializing the controller and put it on the $scope so it will be accessible in the template.
$scope is just an unnecessary glow and you should avoid using it. my way of seeing it is like it was angular implantation details, when migrating to ng-2 you will see that there is no more scope.
If you're interested in more detailed info about how exactly $scope and controllers in angular are working I suggest you have a look at

Related

Access controller constructor by controller name in angular

I have a controller name as string and I want to get constructor of it.
My current method is using $controller as below:
$scope.myControllerConstructor= $controller( "myControllerName" , {$scope: $scope.$new()}).constructor;
Later on, I use this constructor in the html like this:
<div ng-controller="myControllerConstructor">
The issue is my controller runs two time, one time when I get the constructor (which is wrong) and one time when my html gets compiled (which is correct)
The question is how to get the controller constructor without running it?
Update about use-case: In our application we have many pages with 60% similarities and 40% different activities. I created a directive for those pages and other developers in the team are using my directive to create their page.
The directive accepts a template and a controller (I get them as string) and later on I include the provided template and controller as below:
<div ng-include="myTemplate" ng-controller="myControllerConstructor"></div>
Please take a look at this jsfiddle for a simple example of issue.
The structure of your code looks ok but the issue is $controller( "myControllerName" , {$scope: $scope.$new()}) already instantiate the controller with the given scope for you.
It is true that you can access the controller constructor with .constructor but it is too late as you already created an instance of the controller.
ng-controller does the exact same thing as $controller( "myControllerName" , {$scope: $scope.$new()})
When a Controller is attached to the DOM via the ng-controller
directive, AngularJS will instantiate a new Controller object, using
the specified Controller's constructor function. A new child scope
will be created and made available as an injectable parameter to the
Controller's constructor function as $scope.
To solve this issue you should pass the controller constructor function to pageDirectiveTemplate instead of the controller name.
The working fiddle
There is a different way we can achieve this. In directive, while using isolated scope (like you are doing here in fiddle), you could have a property controller that has value "#" and have another name property having the value of "myController" or whatever your controller name you are passing as.
So, your directive could look something like this:
app.directive('pageDirective', function() {
return {
restrict: "A",
templateUrl: "pageDirectiveTemplate",
scope: {
myTemplate: "#"
},
controller: "#",
name: "myController"
}
});
Notice that, only change in HTML would be to have the directive as an attribute instead of an element. So,
<div page-directive my-template="templateA" my-controller="controllerA">
</div>
<div page-directive my-template="templateA" my-controller="controllerB">
</div>
This would give you exactly what you are looking for. Now you can have same template pointing different controllers and vice-versa.
working fiddle | Note that it works for two different controllers having same template. Also, check the console to see how it logs only once from each controller.

Controller $scope vs. this [duplicate]

In the "Create Components" section of AngularJS's homepage, there is this example:
controller: function($scope, $element) {
var panes = $scope.panes = [];
$scope.select = function(pane) {
angular.forEach(panes, function(pane) {
pane.selected = false;
});
pane.selected = true;
}
this.addPane = function(pane) {
if (panes.length == 0) $scope.select(pane);
panes.push(pane);
}
}
Notice how the select method is added to $scope, but the addPane method is added to this. If I change it to $scope.addPane, the code breaks.
The documentation says that there in fact is a difference, but it doesn't mention what the difference is:
Previous versions of Angular (pre 1.0 RC) allowed you to use this interchangeably with the $scope method, but this is no longer the case. Inside of methods defined on the scope this and $scope are interchangeable (angular sets this to $scope), but not otherwise inside your controller constructor.
How does this and $scope work in AngularJS controllers?
"How does this and $scope work in AngularJS controllers?"
Short answer:
this
When the controller constructor function is called, this is the controller.
When a function defined on a $scope object is called, this is the "scope in effect when the function was called". This may (or may not!) be the $scope that the function is defined on. So, inside the function, this and $scope may not be the same.
$scope
Every controller has an associated $scope object.
A controller (constructor) function is responsible for setting model properties and functions/behaviour on its associated $scope.
Only methods defined on this $scope object (and parent scope objects, if prototypical inheritance is in play) are accessible from the HTML/view. E.g., from ng-click, filters, etc.
Long answer:
A controller function is a JavaScript constructor function. When the constructor function executes (e.g., when a view loads), this (i.e., the "function context") is set to the controller object. So in the "tabs" controller constructor function, when the addPane function is created
this.addPane = function(pane) { ... }
it is created on the controller object, not on $scope. Views cannot see the addPane function -- they only have access to functions defined on $scope. In other words, in the HTML, this won't work:
<a ng-click="addPane(newPane)">won't work</a>
After the "tabs" controller constructor function executes, we have the following:
The dashed black line indicates prototypal inheritance -- an isolate scope prototypically inherits from Scope. (It does not prototypically inherit from the scope in effect where the directive was encountered in the HTML.)
Now, the pane directive's link function wants to communicate with the tabs directive (which really means it needs to affect the tabs isolate $scope in some way). Events could be used, but another mechanism is to have the pane directive require the tabs controller. (There appears to be no mechanism for the pane directive to require the tabs $scope.)
So, this begs the question: if we only have access to the tabs controller, how do we get access to the tabs isolate $scope (which is what we really want)?
Well, the red dotted line is the answer. The addPane() function's "scope" (I'm referring to JavaScript's function scope/closures here) gives the function access to the tabs isolate $scope. I.e., addPane() has access to the "tabs IsolateScope" in the diagram above because of a closure that was created when addPane() was defined. (If we instead defined addPane() on the tabs $scope object, the pane directive would not have access to this function, and hence it would have no way to communicate with the tabs $scope.)
To answer the other part of your question: how does $scope work in controllers?:
Within functions defined on $scope, this is set to "the $scope in effect where/when the function was called". Suppose we have the following HTML:
<div ng-controller="ParentCtrl">
<a ng-click="logThisAndScope()">log "this" and $scope</a> - parent scope
<div ng-controller="ChildCtrl">
<a ng-click="logThisAndScope()">log "this" and $scope</a> - child scope
</div>
</div>
And the ParentCtrl (Solely) has
$scope.logThisAndScope = function() {
console.log(this, $scope)
}
Clicking the first link will show that this and $scope are the same, since "the scope in effect when the function was called" is the scope associated with the ParentCtrl.
Clicking the second link will reveal this and $scope are not the same, since "the scope in effect when the function was called" is the scope associated with the ChildCtrl. So here, this is set to ChildCtrl's $scope. Inside the method, $scope is still the ParentCtrl's $scope.
Fiddle
I try to not use this inside of a function defined on $scope, as it becomes confusing which $scope is being affected, especially considering that ng-repeat, ng-include, ng-switch, and directives can all create their own child scopes.
The reason 'addPane' is assigned to this is because of the <pane> directive.
The pane directive does require: '^tabs', which puts the tabs controller object from a parent directive, into the link function.
addPane is assigned to this so that the pane link function can see it. Then in the pane link function, addPane is just a property of the tabs controller, and it's just tabsControllerObject.addPane. So the pane directive's linking function can access the tabs controller object and therefore access the addPane method.
I hope my explanation is clear enough.. it's kind of hard to explain.
I just read a pretty interesting explanation on the difference between the two, and a growing preference to attach models to the controller and alias the controller to bind models to the view. http://toddmotto.com/digging-into-angulars-controller-as-syntax/ is the article.
NOTE: The original link still exists, but changes in formatting have made it hard to read. It's easier to view in the original.
He doesn't mention it but when defining directives, if you need to share something between multiple directives and don't want a service (there are legitimate cases where services are a hassle) then attach the data to the parent directive's controller.
The $scope service provides plenty of useful things, $watch being the most obvious, but if all you need to bind data to the view, using the plain controller and 'controller as' in the template is fine and arguably preferable.
I recommend you to read the following post:
AngularJS: "Controller as" or "$scope"?
It describes very well the advantages of using "Controller as" to expose variables over "$scope".
I know you asked specifically about methods and not variables, but I think that it's better to stick to one technique and be consistent with it.
So for my opinion, because of the variables issue discussed in the post, it's better to just use the "Controller as" technique and also apply it to the methods.
In this course(https://www.codeschool.com/courses/shaping-up-with-angular-js) they explain how to use "this" and many other stuff.
If you add method to the controller through "this" method, you have to call it in the view with controller's name "dot" your property or method.
For example using your controller in the view you may have code like this:
<div data-ng-controller="YourController as aliasOfYourController">
Your first pane is {{aliasOfYourController.panes[0]}}
</div>
Previous versions of Angular (pre 1.0 RC) allowed you to use this
interchangeably with the $scope method, but this is no longer the
case. Inside of methods defined on the scope this and $scope are
interchangeable (angular sets this to $scope), but not otherwise
inside your controller constructor.
To bring back this behaviour (does anyone know why was it changed?) you can add:
return angular.extend($scope, this);
at the end of your controller function (provided that $scope was injected to this controller function).
This has a nice effect of having access to parent scope via controller object that you can get in child with require: '^myParentDirective'
$scope has a different 'this' then the controller 'this'.Thus if you put a console.log(this) inside controller it gives you a object(controller) and this.addPane() adds addPane Method to the controller Object. But the $scope has different scope and all method in its scope need to be accesed by $scope.methodName().
this.methodName() inside controller means to add methos inside controller object.$scope.functionName() is in HTML and inside
$scope.functionName(){
this.name="Name";
//or
$scope.myname="myname"//are same}
Paste this code in your editor and open console to see...
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta charset="UTF-8">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="ie=edge">
<title>this $sope vs controller</title>
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/angularjs/1.6.7/angular.min.js"></script>
<script>
var app=angular.module("myApp",[]);
app.controller("ctrlExample",function($scope){
console.log("ctrl 'this'",this);
//this(object) of controller different then $scope
$scope.firstName="Andy";
$scope.lastName="Bot";
this.nickName="ABot";
this.controllerMethod=function(){
console.log("controllerMethod ",this);
}
$scope.show=function(){
console.log("$scope 'this",this);
//this of $scope
$scope.message="Welcome User";
}
});
</script>
</head>
<body ng-app="myApp" >
<div ng-controller="ctrlExample">
Comming From $SCOPE :{{firstName}}
<br><br>
Comming from $SCOPE:{{lastName}}
<br><br>
Should Come From Controller:{{nickName}}
<p>
Blank nickName is because nickName is attached to
'this' of controller.
</p>
<br><br>
<button ng-click="controllerMethod()">Controller Method</button>
<br><br>
<button ng-click="show()">Show</button>
<p>{{message}}</p>
</div>
</body>
</html>

Using only this in controller get $emit in Angular

Can we use only this in controllers, without $scope?
In some cases of course yes, i know... But...
If we need $emit, $broadcast and some other angular features, which we can find only in scope? Can we get it in this may be, or some other ways to get it?
As far as I'm aware there are some special cases like $emit etc which you have to use $scope and can't use this.
When you create a controller in this format :
angular.module('myModule').controller('myController',['$scope',function($scope){
//controller code here
}]);
the function that you are passing is basically a constructor for the controller object
so when you write a code like this :
angular.module('myModule').controller('myController',['$scope',function($scope){
this.myObject = { key : value};
}]);
you are basically making myObject a property of the myController object
Controllers are basically used in angular.js to fascillitate communication between your view( which are handled by directives ) and services( which take care of the buisness logic )
To enable that you can use the dependency injection angular provides and insert the $scope object into your controller as shown above
when you instantiate a controller using ng-controller="myController" a new scope object is created to be used with your controller object. the $scope object that you have passed as an argument to the constructor function of the controller has the newly created scope.
Here is an excerpt from angular documentation :
The properties contain the view model (the model that will be presented by the view). All the $scope properties will be available to the template at the point in the DOM where the Controller is registered.
so basically whatever properties you attach to the $scope object only will be avalaible to be manipulated in DOM
any property you attach to this wont be available in the DOM. for example :
this is you angular configuration :
angular.module('myModule').controller('myController',['$scope',function($scope){
$scope.name = 'kiran'
this.message = 'hello world';
}]);
This is your html :
<p>{{name}}</p>
Output will be : kiran.
if you had tried : <p>{{message}}</p> instead it will throw an error.
only the scope object contains properties like $$watchers which is a list of all the variables that are watched on the current scope, $watch API,$on API for event handling and so on.
so you cannot use this to leverage those properties.Hope this clears stuff up.

Angular JS - What is '$scope' and how does it compare to using the 'this' keyword?

I am new to Angular JS and have been taught it the 'this' way:
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/angularjs/1.2.23/angular.min.js"></script>
<script>
var app = angular.module('Comment',[]);
app.controller('CommentCtrl',function(){
this.welcome = 'Hello!';
});
</script>
<p ng-app='Comment' ng-controller='CommentCtrl as ctrl'>
Angular says: {{ ctrl.welcome }}
</p>
Which shows 'Angular says: Hello!' inside the paragraph.
However, every angular application I have ever seen has used '$scope' instead of 'this', like I was taught.
Could someone please explain a few of the pros and cons of each, and what exactly $scope is in terms that I can understand?
Thanks.
Some Good Points:
this
When the controller constructor function is called, this is the controller.
When a function defined on a $scope object is called, this is the "scope in effect when the function was called". This may (or may not!) be the $scope that the function is defined on. So, inside the function, this and $scope may not be the same.
$scope
Every controller has an associated $scope object.
A controller (constructor) function is responsible for setting model properties and functions/behavior on its associated $scope.
Only methods defined on this $scope object (and parent scope objects, if prototypical inheritance is in play) are accessible from the HTML/view. E.g., from ng-click, filters, etc.
Here is cool article by Todd Motto
Happy Helping!

Use ngModel with plain ngController instead of directive?

In my application I would like to preserve the option of using plain controllers for certain sections of code - as opposed to creating directives for one-off things that will never be re-used.
In these cases I often want to publish some data from the controller to be used in the contained section. Now, I am aware that I could simply bind items in the controller's scope, however I'd like to specify the "model" location explicitly just to make the code more maintainable and easier to read. What I'd like to use is ng-model as it would be used on a custom directive, but just along side my plain controller:
<div ng-controller="AppController" ng-model='fooModel'>
{{fooModel}}
</div>
However I can see no way to get a reference to the generated ngModelController without using a directive and the 'require' injection.
I am aware that I could make my own attribute fairly easily by injecting the $attr into my controller and do something like:
<div ng-controller="AppController" my-model='fooModel'>
{{fooModel}}
</div>
In which case I just manually take or parse the myModel value and stick my model into the $scope under that name. However that feels wrong in this case - I really only need one "model" for a controller and I'd prefer not to have to add this boilerplate to every controller when ngModel exists. (It's the principle of the thing!)
My questions are:
1) Is there some way to use ngModel along with a plain controller to get the effect above?
2) I have been trying to figure out where ngModelControllers are stored so that I could look at the situation in the debugger but have not been able to find them. When using an ngModel directive should I see these in the scope or parent scope? (Where do they live?!?)
UPDATE: As suggested in answers below $element.controller() can be used to fetch the controller. This works (http://plnkr.co/edit/bZzdLpacmAyKy239tNAO?p=preview) However it's a bit unsatisfying as it requires using $evalAsync.
2) I have been trying to figure out where ngModelControllers are stored so that I could look at the situation in the debugger but have not been able to find them. When using an ngModel directive should I see these in the scope or parent scope? (Where do they live?!?)
The answer depends slightly on where you want to access the controller from.
From outside the element with ng-model
It requires "name" attributes on both the element with the ng-model attribute, and a parent form (or ngForm). So say you have the form with name myForm and the element with ng-model attribute with name myInput, then you can access the ngModelController for myFoo from the parent scope as myForm.myInput. For example, for debugging purposes:
<p>myFoo: {{myForm.myInput.$modelValue}}<p>
<form name="myForm">
<div ng-controller="InnerController" name="myInput" ng-model="model.foo"></div>
</form>
as can be seen at http://plnkr.co/edit/IVTtvIXlBWXGytOEHYbn?p=preview
From inside the element with ng-model
Similar to the answer from #pixelbits, using $evalAsync is needed due to the order of controller creation, but you can alternatively use angular.element.controller function to retrieve it:
app.controller('InnerController', function($scope, $element) {
$scope.$evalAsync(function() {
$scope.myModelController = $element.controller('ngModel');
});
});
Used, inside the controller to view it, for debugging purposes, as:
<div ng-controller="InnerController" ng-model="model.foo">
<p>myFoo: {{myModelController.$modelValue}}<p>
</div>
As can be seen at http://plnkr.co/edit/C7ykMHmd8Be1N1Gl1Auc?p=preview .
1) Is there some way to use ngModel along with a plain controller to get the effect above?
Once you have the ngModelController inside the directive, you can change its value just as you would were you using a custom directive accessing the ngModelController, using the $setViewValue function:
myModelController.$setViewValue('my-new-model-value');
You can do this, for example, in response to a user action that triggers an ngChange handler.
app.controller('InnerController', function($scope, $element) {
$scope.$evalAsync(function() {
$scope.myModelController = $element.controller('ngModel');
});
$scope.$watch('myModelController.$modelValue', function(externalModel) {
$scope.localModel = externalModel;
});
$scope.changed = function() {
$scope.myModelController.$setViewValue($scope.localModel);
};
});
Note the extra watcher on $modelValue to get the initial value of the model, as well as to react to any later changes.
It can be used with a template like:
{{model.foo}}
<div ng-controller="InnerController" ng-model="model.foo">
<p><input type="text" ng-model="localModel" ng-change="changed()"></p>
</div>
Note that this uses ngChange rather than a watcher on localModel. This is deliberate so that $setViewValue is only called when the user has interacted with the element, and not in response to changes to the model from the parent scope.
This can be seen at http://plnkr.co/edit/uknixs6RhXtrqK4ZWLuC?p=preview
Edit: If you would like to avoid $evalAsync, you can use a watcher instead.
$scope.$watch(function() {
return $element.controller('ngModel');
}, function(ngModelController) {
$scope.myModelController = ngModelController;
});
as seen at http://plnkr.co/edit/gJonpzLoVsgc8zB6tsZ1?p=preview
As a side-note, so far I seem to have avoided nesting plain controllers like this. I think if a certain part of the template's role is to control a variable by ngModel, it is a prime candidate for writing a small directive, often with an isolated scope to ensure there are no unexpected effects due to scope inheritance, that has a clear API, and uses require to access the ngModelController. Yes, it might not be reused, but it does help enforce a separation of responsibilities between parts of the code.
When you declare directives on an element:
<div ng-controller="AppController" ng-model='fooModel'>
{{fooModel}}
</div>
You can retrieve the controller instance for any directive by calling jQlite/jQuery $element.data(nameOfController), where nameOfController is the normalized name of the directive with a $ prefix, and a Controller suffix.
For example, to retrieve the controller instance for the ngModel directive you can do:
var ngModelController = $element.data('$ngModelController');
This works as long as the ngModel directive has already been registered.
Unfortunately, ngController executes with the same priority as ngModel, and for reasons that are implementation specific, ngModel is not registered by the time that the ngController function executes. For this reason, the following does not work:
app.controller('ctrl', function ($scope, $element) {
var ngModelController = $element.data('$ngModelController');
// this alerts undefined because ngModel has not been registered yet
alert(ngModelController);
});
To fix this, you can wrap the code within $scope.$evalAsync, which guarantees that the directives have been registered before the callback function is executed:
app.controller('ctrl', function ($scope, $element) {
$scope.$evalAsync(function() {
var ngModelController = $element.data('$ngModelController');
alert(ngModelController);
});
});
Demo JSFiddle

Resources