I'm trying to modularize my first angular project. Need to make my module views relative to this module. In example below i have sample main module, that require controllers module. I can inject VIEWS_PATH to controller, but no to config(). As i know constant can be injected into config(). What is wrong with that ?
mainModule.js
angular.module('mainModule', ['app.main.controllers'])
.constant('VIEWS_PATH', 'js/modules/main/views');
controllersMain.js
angular.module('app.main.controllers', [])
.config(function($routeProvider, VIEWS_PATH) { // error
$routeProvider.when('/hello', {
templateUrl: VIEWS_PATH+'/hello.html',
controller: 'HelloController'
})
})
.controller('HelloController', function($scope, VIEWS_PATH) {
$scope.hello = 'Hello World!';
console.log('VIEWS_PATH: '+VIEWS_PATH); // ok
});
It's because you defined your VIEWS_PATH constant in one module -mainModule and you're trying to use it in a different module - app.main.controllers.
You can define that constant in app.main.controllers module if you wish to use it in the configuration of that module.
angular.module('app.main.controllers', [])
.constant('VIEWS_PATH', 'js/modules/main/views')
.config(function($routeProvider, VIEWS_PATH) {
$routeProvider.when('/hello', {
templateUrl: VIEWS_PATH+'/hello.html',
controller: 'HelloController'
});
});
But Constants from app.main.controllers module will work in mainModule as it listed as dependency in mainModule like below.
angular.module('mainModule', ['app.main.controllers']);
For example, let's say we defined two modules - MyApp & SomeModule
var someModule = angular.module('SomeModule',['someOtherModule']);
someModule.constant('SOME_CONSTANT','SomeValue');
var myApp = angular.module('MyApp',['SomeModule']);
myApp.constant('TEST_CONSTANT','Test');
myApp.config(function(SOME_CONSTANT){
console.log("from dependent module "+SOME_CONSTANT);
});
With the above setup, SOME_CONSTANT from SomeModule can be used in MyApp but TEST_CONSTANT from MyApp cannot be used in SomeModule.
Here's a sample Pen in action.
Related
I currently have 3 angularjs modules, each of which are (roughly) like so:
(function () {
var generalApp = angular.module('general-app', []);
generalApp.controller("NewsletterSignup.Controller", ["$scope", "$http", NewsletterSignupControllerFunction]);
}());
where NewsletterSignupControllerFunction is a global variable that is a reference to a function, eg:
var NewsletterSignupControllerFunction = function ($scope, $http) { ... };
Rather than use a global variable to share logic between the three modules, what is the simplest way to inject NewsletterSignupControllerFunction into each of the modules so I can use it to create the controllers? I have tried various approaches, none of which I can get to work.
One approach is to define a common module with the controller:
common.js
(function () {
angular.module('common', [])
.controller("NewsletterSignup.Controller",
["$scope", "$http", NewsletterSignupControllerFunction]
)
function NewsletterSignupControllerFunction ($scope,$http) {
//code ...
}
}());
Use that common module as a dependency:
angular.module("myApp",['common'])
For more information, see
AngularJS angular.module API Reference
I'm making this very preliminary attempt of using node/npm/browserify to build my angular app. The ./app/controllers, ./app/directives, ./app/services basically have index.js files which in turn require() the js files! Below is the root js file i.e. public/index.js.
require('./app/controllers/');
require('./app/directives/');
require('./app/services/');
var app = angular.module('myApp', ['ngRoute'])
app.config(function($routeProvider) {
$routeProvider
.when("/movie/:movieId", {
template: require('./views/movie.html'),
controller: 'MovieCtrl as movie'
})
.when("/movie/:movieId/scene/:sceneId", {
template: require('./views/scene.html'),
controller: 'SceneCtrl as scene'
});
});
module.exports = app;
Now after running below command i do get a bundle.js however,
browserify public/index.js -o release/bundle.js
However, the below line in bundle.js throws the error "Uncaught ReferenceError: app is not defined"
app.controller('MainCtrl', function ($route, $routeParams, $location, MyFactory) {
Now, i was assuming because var app is specified in index.js it should be accessible in MainCtrl.js. Could someone suggest how i could make this work?
----- Adding some more info ------
app/controllers/index.js contains below code:-
require('./MainCtrl.js')
require('./MovieCtrl.js')
require('./SceneCtrl.js')
And MainCtrl.js contains below code:-
app.controller('MainCtrl', function ($route, $routeParams, $location, MyFactory) {
//...
})
I don't know where the line in your code is... it isn't clear from the question, but anyway:
Now, i was assuming because var app is specified in index.js it should be accessible in MainCtrl.js.
That assumption is false. You will need to pass in a reference to whatever you need when you instantiate whatever you included.
For example..
var mainCtrl = new MainCtrl(app);
Ok, so i kind of understood what was going on. var app is local and cannot be accessible anywhere else. Once i set app to the global scope (which is obviously a horrible thing!) and required files after declaring app, it worked. This is mostly not the correct way of doing it, but as i mentioned this was a very preliminary attempt.
app = angular.module('myApp', ['ngRoute'])
app.config(function($routeProvider) {
$routeProvider
.when("/movie/:movieId", {
template: require('./views/movie.html'),
controller: 'MovieCtrl as movie'
})
.when("/movie/:movieId/scene/:sceneId", {
template: require('./views/scene.html'),
controller: 'SceneCtrl as scene'
});
});
require('./app/controllers/');
require('./app/directives/');
require('./app/services/');
I'm building an application using Angular-UI-Router. I have a top-level Angular module that depends on sub-modules and those sub-modules have controller with the same name as follows:
var moduleA = angular.module('moduleA', []);
moduleA.controller('SameNameCtrl', function () {
// ModuleA SameNameCtrl implementation
});
var moduleB = angular.module('moduleB', []);
moduleB.controller('SameNameCtrl', function () {
// ModuleB SameNameCtrl implementation
});
var app = angular.module('app', ['ui.route', 'moduleA', 'moduleB']);
How do I specify controller in different modules when constructing state with Angular-UI-Router?
$stateProvider
.state('app.stateA', {
url: '/stateA',
templateUrl: 'template-A.html',
controller: ???? // how to specify moduleA SameNameCtrl
})
.state('app.stateB', {
url: '/stateB',
templateUrl: 'template-B.html',
controller: ???? // how to specify moduleB SameNameCtrl
})
Sure, I can assign different controller name for controllers in different module, but I'd like to know if it's possible with controllers having the same name.
Thanks!
Unfortunatelly modules are not namespace mechanism in angularjs. You should come up / follow a naming convention to differentiate the controllers
I'm using meteor + angular. My intention is to add more dependencies after the app bootstrap (This is because the package is the one handling the bootstrapping at the start and I don't have much control of it). Now while doing that, I would also want to enforce a basic code structure wherein for example, I would compile all controllers in one module.
Here's the basic idea:
'use strict';
angular.module('app.controllers', [])
.controller('MainCtrl', function() {
// ...
})
.controller('SubCtrl', function() {
// ...
})
.controller('AnotherCtrl', function() {
// ...
});
Then include that to the main module as dependency:
angular.module('app', [
'app.filters',
'app.services',
'app.directives',
'app.controllers' // Here
]);
After some research, I've discovered that what I'm trying to do (Adding dependencies after bootstrap) is actually a part of a feature request to the angular team. So my option is using, for example, $controllerProvider and register() function:
Meteor.config(function($controllerProvider) {
$controllerProvider.register('MainCtrl', function($scope) {
// ...
});
});
Meteor.config(function($controllerProvider) {
$controllerProvider.register('SubCtrl', function($scope) {
// ...
});
});
Meteor.config(function($controllerProvider) {
$controllerProvider.register('AnotherCtrl', function($scope) {
// ...
});
});
It's works though not that elegant. The questions are:
What's a more elegant way of doing the config and register part?
Is there a way to register a module instead?
Create your module:
angular.module('app.controllers', []);
Add it as a dependency:
angular.module('app').requires.push('app.controllers');
according to this presentation (slide 12) you can assign controllerProvider to app.
Example of replacing module's controller method: http://jsfiddle.net/arzo/HB7LU/6659/
var myApp = angular.module('myApp', []);
//note overriding controller method might be a little controversial :D
myApp.config(function allowRegisteringControllersInRuntime($controllerProvider) {
var backup = myApp.controller;
myApp.controller = $controllerProvider.register;
myApp.controller.legacy = backup;
})
myApp.run(function ($rootScope, $compile) {
myApp.controller('MyCtrl', function($scope) {
$scope.name = 'Superhero';
})
var elem;
var scope=$rootScope;
elem = $compile('<p ng-controller="MyCtrl">{{name}}</br><input ng-model="name" /></p>')($rootScope, function (clonedElement, scope) {
console.log('newly created element', clonedElement[0])
document.body.appendChild(clonedElement[0]);
});
console.log('You can access original register via', myApp.controller.legacy);
})
The only method that I've seen that works is replacing the angular.module function with your own function returning the module you used to bootstrap your app.
var myApp = angular.module('myApp', []);
angular.module = function() {
return myApp;
}
So that all modules that are registered afterwards are actually being registered in your myApp module.
This method combined with the one you describe in the question (using providers like $controllerProvider) will allow you to add "modules" after angular.bootstrap.
Demo
See this jsfiddle for a demo: https://jsfiddle.net/josketres/aw3L38r4/
Drawbacks
The config blocks of the modules that are added after angular.bootstrap will not be called. Maybe there's a way to fix this, but I haven't found it.
Overriding angular.module feels like a "dirty hack".
EDIT: I have managed to get my unit tests running - I moved the code containing the services to a different file and a different module, made this new module a requirement for fooBar module, and then before each "it" block is called, introduced the code beforeEach(module(<new_service_module_name)). However, my application still won't run. No errors in console either. This is the only issue that remains - that when I use global scope for controllers definition, the application works, but when I use angular.module.controller - it does not.
I have a file app.js that contains the following:
'use strict';
var app = angular.module('fooBar', []);
app.config(['$routeProvider', function($routeProvider) {
$routeProvider.
when('/', {
templateUrl: 'partials/form-view.html',
controller: FormViewCtrl
}).
when('/resultDisplay', {
templateUrl: 'partials/table-view.html',
controller: TableViewCtrl
}).
otherwise({redirectTo: '/'});
}]);
app.service('searchResults', function() {
var results = {};
return {
getResults: function() {
return results;
},
setResults: function(resultData) {
results = resultData;
}
};
});
I have another file controllers.js that contains the following:
'use strict';
var app = angular.module('fooBar', []);
app.controller('FormViewCtrl', ['$scope', '$location', '$http', 'searchResults',
function ($scope, $location, $http, searchResults) {
//Controller code
}]);
searchResults is a service that I created that simply has getter and setter methods. The controller above uses the setter method, hence the service is injected into it.
As a result, my application just does not run! If I change the controller code to be global like this:
function ($scope, $location, $http, searchResults) {
//Controller code
}
then the application works!
Also, if I use the global scope, then the following unit test case works:
'use strict';
/*jasmine specs for controllers go here*/
describe('Foo Bar', function() {
describe('FormViewCtrl', function() {
var scope, ctrl;
beforeEach(module('fooBar'));
beforeEach(inject(function($rootScope, $controller) {
scope = $rootScope.$new();
ctrl = $controller('FormViewCtrl', {$scope: scope});
}));
}
//"it" blocks
}
If I revert to the module scope, I get the error -
Error: Unknown provider: searchResultsProvider <- searchResults
Thus, by using global scope my application and unit tests run but by using app.controller, they seem to break.
Another point that I have noted is that if I include the controller code in app.js instead of controllers.js, then the application and unit tests start working again. But I cannot include them in the same file - how do I get this to run in the angular scope without breaking the application and unit tests?
You don't need to go that route. You can use the modular approach, but the issue is with your second parameter.
In your app.js you have this:
var app = angular.module('fooBar', []);
Then in your controller, you have this:
var app = angular.module('fooBar', []);
What you're doing there is defining the module twice. If you're simply trying to attach to the app module, you cannot pass in the second parameter (the empty array: []), as this creates a brand new module, overwriting the first.
Here is how I do it (based on this article for architecting large AngularJS apps.
app.js:
angular.module('fooBar',['fooBar.controllers', 'fooBar.services']);
angular.module('fooBar.controllers',[]);
angular.module('fooBar.services', []);
...etc
controllers.js
angular.module('foobar.controllers') // notice the lack of second parameter
.controller('FormViewCtrl', function($scope) {
//controller stuffs
});
Or, for very large projects, the recommendation is NOT to group your top-level modules by type (directives, filters, services, controllers), but instead by features (including all of your partials... the reason for this is total modularity - you can create a new module, with the same name, new partials & code, drop it in to your project as a replacement, and it will simiply work), e.g.
app.js
angular.module('fooBar',['fooBar.formView', 'fooBar.otherView']);
angular.module('fooBar.formView',[]);
angular.module('fooBar.otherView', []);
...etc
and then in a formView folder hanging off web root, you THEN separate out your files based on type, such as:
formView.directives
formView.controllers
formView.services
formView.filters
And then, in each of those files, you open with:
angular.module('formView')
.controller('formViewCtrl', function($scope) {
angular.module('formView')
.factory('Service', function() {
etc etc
HTH
Ok - I finally figured it out. Basically, if you wish to use the module scope and not the global scope, then we need to do the following (if you have a setup like app.js and controllers.js):
In app.js, define the module scope:
var myApp = angular.module(<module_name>, [<dependencies>]);
In controllers.js, do not define myApp again - instead, use it directly like:
myApp.controller(..);
That did the trick - my application and unit tests are now working correctly!
It is best practice to have only one global variable, your app and attach all the needed module functionality to that so your app is initiated with
var app = angular.module('app',[ /* Dependencies */ ]);
in your controller.js you have initiated it again into a new variable, losing all the services and config you had attached to it before, only initiate your app variable once, doing it again is making you lose the service you attached to it
and then to add a service (Factory version)
app.factory('NewLogic',[ /* Dependencies */ , function( /* Dependencies */ ) {
return {
function1: function(){
/* function1 code */
}
}
}]);
for a controller
app.controller('NewController',[ '$scope' /* Dependencies */ , function( $scope /* Dependencies */ ) {
$scope.function1 = function(){
/* function1 code */
};
}
}]);
and for directives and config is similar too where you create your one app module and attach all the needed controllers, directives and services to it but all contained within the parent app module variable.
I have read time and time again that for javascript it is best practice to only ever have one global variable so angularjs architecture really fills that requirement nicely,
Oh and the array wrapper for dependencies is not actually needed but will create a mess of global variables and break app completely if you want to minify your JS so good idea to always stick to the best practice and not do work arounds to get thing to work
In my case, I've defined a new provider, say, xyz
angular.module('test')
.provider('xyz', function () {
....
});
When you were to config the above provider, you've inject it with 'Provider' string appended.
Ex:
angular.module('App', ['test'])
.config(function (xyzProvider) {
// do something with xyzProvider....
});
If you inject the above provider without the 'Provider' string, you'll get the similar error in OP.