Updated isolated scope on multiple directives - angularjs

I've got a ng-repeat creating multiple directives, each with an isolated scope. I want to be able to call a single function that calls a function on each directive, so it resets a variable on each isolated scope. I can't work out anyway to do this? I realise this might not be best practice, but I just need a solution at the moment.

Another option that i use in a similar vein is angulars event system.
I'm creating a dashboard of widgets. My widget is a directive contained within a ng-repeat.
I emit events in my controller $scope.$broadcast then listen in my directive with $scope.$on. I use the $index of the ng-repeat to be able to target specific widgets.
quick example fiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/adyjm9g4/
EDIT: Forgot to mention you can also pass data: http://jsfiddle.net/adyjm9g4/1/

A way to do it is to provide a callback to the directive (i.e. scope: { xxx: '&' }) that will execute some functionality. Could be:
<the-directive callback="ctrl.command(action, argument)" />
And the directive looks like:
app.directive('theDirective', function() {
return {
...
scope: {
callback: '&',
...
},
controller: ['$scope', function($scope) {
this.resetTheVariable = function() {
// DO WHAT YOU WANT HERE
};
$scope.callback({ action: 'register', argument: this });
$scope.$on('$destroy', function() {
scope.callback({ action: 'deregister', argument: this });
});
}]
};
})
Now the controller invoking this directive would look like:
function TheController() {
var registeredDirectives = [];
this.command = function(action, argument) {
switch(action) {
case 'register':
registeredDirectives.push(argument);
break;
case 'deregister':
var index = registeredDirectives.indexOf(argument);
if( index >= 0 ) {
registeredDirectives.splice(index, 1);
}
break;
}
};
this.resetAll = function() {
registeredDirectives.forEach(function(registeredDirectiveController) {
registeredDirectiveController.resetTheVariable();
});
};
}

Related

Trying to $Watch a Variable from Isolated Scope

New to creating custom directives. It renders fine on the initial render. However, I am trying to $watch for changes to the original data, and then, trigger an update.
As a quick test, I created a button and used jQuery to update the costPerDay.costs array (by hand)...but the $watch still doesn't fire & my breakpoint wasn't reached.
Thanks for the help...
MY CONTROLLER LOOKS LIKE:
The GET is mocked to return an object, not a promise, so ignore that particular line. Once I get the $watch working, I will update this part of the code accordingly.
// CONTROLLER
application.controller('HomeIndexController', function ($scope, costPerDayDataService) {
var vm = this;
// Internal
vm.on = {
databind: {
costPerDay: function () {
// The GET is mocked to return an object, not a promise, so ignore this line
var costPerDay = costPerDayDataService.get();
$scope.data.costPerDay = costPerDay;
}
}
};
vm.databind = function () {
vm.on.databind.costPerDay();
};
// Scope
$scope.data = {
costPerDay: {}
};
$scope.on = {
alterCosts: function (e) {
var costs = [100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000, 1100, 1200, 1300];
$scope.data.costPerDay.costs = costs;
}
}
// Databind
vm.databind();
});
MY ELEMENT LOOKS LIKE:
This renders fine initially. I need to automate updates.
<ul id="sparks" class="pull-down pull-left">
<li cost-per-day-sparkline costperday="data.costPerDay">
</li>
</ul>
MY DIRECTIVE LOOKS LIKE:
I am just trying to get ONE of them to work...I will obviously remove the others when I get a working example. And yes, I am aware you should NOT update the $parent directly. I'm just trying to find a combination that works before I get fancy.
define([], function () {
'use strict';
function CostPerDaySparklineDirective() {
return {
replace: true,
restrict: "AE",
scope: {
costperday: "=costperday"
},
templateUrl: '/modules/templates/sparklines/costperdaysparklinetemplate.html',
link: function (scope, elem, attrs) {
// This fails
scope.$watch('costperday', function (newval) {
// ... code to update will go here
}, true);
// This fails
scope.$watch('costperday', function (newval) {
// ... code to update will go here
});
// This fails
scope.$parent.$watch('data.costPerDay.costs', function (newval) {
// ... code to update will go here
});
// This renders initially, but fails to fire again
scope.$watch('scope.$parent.data.costPerDay.costs', function (newval) {
var eleSparkline = $('.sparkline', elem);
eleSparkline.sparkline(scope.costperday.costs, { type: "bar" });
});
}
};
}
return CostPerDaySparklineDirective;
});
UPDATE:
Even using ng-click to test the $watch fails to hit the breakpoint...
<a ng-click="on.alterCosts()">Change Costs</a>
In this case I'd run $scope.$apply(); in your alterCosts method to trigger a template digest. This will update the value in the DOM, which your directive catches, and subsequently triggers the $watch.
For more information on $apply(), https://docs.angularjs.org/api/ng/type/$rootScope.Scope#$apply
"$apply() is used to execute an expression in angular from outside of the angular framework. (For example from browser DOM events.."
In this particular scenario you're changing the value from a DOM event.
in this situation I would watch the actual get of the costPerDayDataService vs listening to the controllers scope variable. so in your controller you would 'set' the variable in costPerDayDataService and in your directive you would just inject your service and watch the get function. OR if you are using 1.3.x > you can use bindToController which I believe eliminates the whole need for watches.
bindToController: {
costperday: '='
}

Inter-Controller communication, the angular way

I'm trying to figure out the "preferred" or "angular-way" of sharing properties or state between controllers/directives. There are several methods to implement this, but I want to keep with best-practice. Below are some banal examples of how this can be implemented:
1. Using $scope.$watch
// The parent controller/scope
angular.module('myModule').controller('parentController', ['$scope', function($scope) {
$scope.state = {
myProperty: 'someState'; // Default value to be changed by some DOM element
};
}]);
// The child controller/scope.
angular.module('myModule').controller('childController', ['$scope', function($scope) {
$scope.$watch('state.myProperty', function (newVal) {
// Do some action here on state change
});
}]);
Edit: Based on answers below, this is bad practice and should be avoided. It is untestable and places an unwanted DOM dependancy.
2. Using $broadcast
// The parent controller
angular.module('myModule').controller('parentController', ['$scope', function($scope) {
var myProperty = 'someState';
$scope.setState = function (state) {
myProperty = state; // Set by some other controller action or DOM interaction.
$scope.$broadcast('stateChanged', state); // Communicate changes to child controller
}
}]);
// The child controller.
angular.module('myModule').controller('childController', ['$scope', function($scope) {
$scope.$on('stateChanged', function (evt, state) {
// Do some action here
}
}]);
Edit: Equally bad practice as you need to know the placement of the controllers in the DOM in order to determine weather to use $broadcast (down the DOM) or $emit (up the DOM).
3. Using service
angular.module('myModule').factory('stateContainer', [function () {
var state = {
myProperty: 'defaultState'
},
listeners = [];
return {
setState: function (newState) {
state.myProperty = newState;
angular.forEach(listeners, function (listener) {
listener(newState);
});
},
addListener: function (listener) {
listeners.push(listener);
}
}
}]);
// The parent controller
angular.module('myModule').controller('parentController', ['$scope', 'stateContainer', function($scope, stateContainer) {
$scope.setState = function (state) {
stateContainer.setState(state);
};
}]);
// The child controller.
angular.module('myModule').controller('childController', ['$scope', 'stateContainer', function($scope, stateContainer) {
stateContainer.addListener(function (newState) {
// Do some action here
});
}]);
There are probably some approaches I've missed here, but you get the idea. I'm trying to find the best approach. Although verbose, I personally lean towards #3 in the list here. But I come from a Java and jQuery background where listeners are widely used.
Edit: Answers below are insightful. One talks of sharing state between parent/child directives using the require directive configuration. The other talks of sharing service or service properties directly to the scope. I believe that depending on the need, they are both right in what is or is not best practice in Angular.
Any of these will work if done correctly, but a variant on service is the preferred way AFAIK.
The question is, do you even need a listener in the service case? Angular itself will update any views (which is the purpose of the controller), so why do you need a listener or watch? It is sufficient to change the value itself for the view to be changed.
app.factory('stateService',function() {
return {
myState: "foo"
}
})
.controller('one',function($scope,stateService) {
$scope.changeState = function() {
stateService.myState = $scope.state;
};
})
.controller('two',function($scope,stateService) {
$scope.svc = stateService;
})
You can then do the following in your view (incomplete):
<div ng-controller="one">
<input name="state" ng-model="state"></input>
<button type="submit" ng-click="changeState()">Submit</button>
</div>
<div ng-controller="two">{{svc.myState}}</div>
Truth is, you don't even need to go that far with having a button and a function. If you just tie the ng-model together it will work:
<div ng-controller="one">
<input name="state" ng-model="svc.myState"></input>
</div>
<div ng-controller="two">{{svc.myState}}</div>
Try the following jsfiddle http://jsfiddle.net/cwt9L6vn/1/
There is no such thing as parent and child controllers in AngularJS. There are only parent and child directives, but not controllers. A directive can have a controller that it exposes as an API to other directives.
Controllers are not related to the DOM hierarchy so they can't have children. They also don't create their own scope. So you never know if you have to $broadcast or $emit to talk to other controllers.
If you start using $broadcast from a controller, then you're going to get stuck not knowing if the other controller is up or down. That's when people start doing stuff like $rootScope.$broadcast(..) which is a very bad practice.
What you are looking for are directives that require other directives.
var app = angular.modeul('myApp',[]);
// use a directive to define a parent controller
app.directive('parentDir',function() {
return {
controller: function($scope) {
this.myFoo = function() {
alert("Hello World");
}
}
});
// use a directive to enforce parent-child relationship
app.directive('childDir',function() {
return {
require: '^parentDir',
link: function($scope, $el, $attr, parentCtrl) {
// call the parent controller
parentCtrl.myFoo();
}
});
Using the require feature of a directive does two important things.
Angular will enforce the relationship if it's not optional.
The parent controller is injected into the child link function.
There is no need to $broadcast or $emit.
Another option that is also effective is to use directives to expose an API.
// this directive uses an API
app.directive('myDir',function() {
return {
scope: {
'foo': '&'
},
link: function($scope, $el, $attr) {
// when needed, call the API
$scope.foo();
}
});
// in the template
<div ng-controller="parentController">
<div my-dir foo="parentController.callMyMethod();"></div>
</div>

updating data between controller, service and directive

I've written a pretty simple test app as follows:
angular.module('tddApp', [])
.controller('MainCtrl', function ($scope, $rootScope, BetslipService) {
$scope.displayEvents = [
{
id: 1,
name: 'Belarus v Ukraine',
homeTeam: 'Belarus',
awayTeam: 'Ukraine',
markets: {home: '2/1', draw: '3/2', away: '5/3'},
display: true
}
];
$scope.betslipArray = BetslipService.betslipArray;
$scope.oddsBtnCallback = BetslipService.addToBetslip;
$scope.clearBetslip = BetslipService.clearBetslip;
})
.directive('oddsButton', function () {
return {
template: '<div class="odds-btn">{{market}}</div>',
replace: true,
scope: {
market: '#',
marketName: '#',
eventName: '#',
callback: '&'
},
link: function (scope, element) {
element.on('click', function() {
scope.callback({
name: scope.eventName,
marketName: scope.marketName,
odds:scope.market
});
});
}
};
})
.factory ('BetslipService', function ($rootScope) {
var rtnObject = {};
rtnObject.betslipArray = [];
rtnObject.addToBetslip = function (name, marketName, odds) {
rtnObject.betslipArray.push({
eventName: name,
marketName: marketName,
odds: odds
});
};
rtnObject.clearBetslip = function () {
rtnObject.betslipArray = [];
};
return rtnObject;
});
I've assigned an array to a controller variable. I've also assigned functions to modify the array. To add an object to the array the callback is called by a directive with isolate scope. There's some strange behaviour happening that I don't quite understand:
=> clicking the directive runs the callback in the service. I've done some debugging and it seems that the controller variable is updated but it doesn't show in the html.
=> clicking the button to clear the array isn't working as expected. The first time it's causing an element to display, after which it has no effect.
I think that this may have to do with the nested ng-repeats creating their own scopes
NB
I fixed the array not clearing by changing the function in the service to:
while (rtnObject.betslipArray.length > 0) {
rtnObject.betslipArray.pop();
}
// instead of
rtnObject.betslipArray = [];
This makes sense as the service variable was being pointed at a new object while the old reference would persist in the controller.
I got the html to update by wrapping the callback call in the directive in a scope.$apply().
This part I dont really understand. How can scope.$apply() called in the directive have an effect on the controller scope when the directive has an isolate scope? updated fiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/b6ww0rx8/7/
Any thought's greatly appreciated
jsfiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/b6ww0rx8/5/
C
I got it working here: http://jsfiddle.net/b6ww0rx8/8/
Added $q, $scope.$emit and $timeout clauses to help with communications between your directive / service and controller.
I would like to also say that I wouldn't assign service functions to a controller $scope, You should define functions in the controller that call service functions.
Instead of this:
$scope.clearBetslip = BetslipService.clearBetslip;
Do this:
$scope.clearBetslip = function(){
BetslipService.clearBetslip().then(function(){
$scope.betslipArray = BetslipService.getBetslipArray();
});
};

scope.$digest() not updating local scope

In an angular app running on 1.3.0-beta.15, I have a directive that looks like this:
.directive('digester', function() {
return {
scope: {
object: '=',
digestTrigger: '='
},
templateUrl: 'some-template.html,
link: function(scope) {
scope.digestTrigger = function() {
scope.$digest();
}
}
};
});
a template that looks like this:
<div>{{object.title}}</div>
a service somewhere that looks like this:
.service('serviceToCallDigest', function() {
return {
object: {
title: 'someTitle'
},
digestTrigger: function() {},
someFunction: function() {
this.object.title = 'newTitle';
this.digestTrigger();
}
};
});
and a controller that gets the service injected like this:
.controller('someCtrl', function($scope, serviceToCallDigest) {
$scope.serviceToCallDigest = serviceToCallDigest;
}
and wires up the directive like this:
<digester
digest-trigger="serviceToCallDigest.digestTrigger"
object="serviceToCallDigest.object">
</digester>
Whats happening here is, as the directive gets the digestTrigger injected (as an empty function) it sets the function to fire the directives local $digest() function, and by that enabeling code from outside the directive to trigger the local digest whenever appropriate.
I know that $apply() is adviced to use, which fires $digest() at the $rootscope level, but I'm in a perfomance critical situation, where I need to update directives locally.
This setup has worked fine until upgrading to 1.3.0-beta.16 or newer versions. Now the new object.title is not passed to the directive and updated in the view, when someFunction is called.
Does anyone know why this is the case and what to do to work around it?

AngularJS controller constructor and instantiation with arguments

Is it possible to instantiate a controller in AngularJS and pass arguments to its constructor like in OOP ? I can't figure out how to refactor 3 identical controller with just variables name and content which change...
Thanx.
If you have 3 separate sections on the page that have very similar controller code, it sounds like you should consider using a directive. Even if you don't need to control the DOM directly (which is the classic reason to use directive), and only need the standard Angular data-bindings, then this is a nice way to reuse controllers in different contexts by the attributes set on the directive.
You can see a working plunkr at
http://plnkr.co/edit/qclp6MOxGWP7Ughod4T8?p=preview
But the key point is directives can bind-to variables in their parent scope's controller. Say, in the parent scope you have 3 variables, so:
$scope.myVariable1 = 'Value 1';
$scope.myVariable2 = 'Value 2';
$scope.myVariable3 = 'Value 3';
Then you can setup 3 instances of the directive in the template:
<my-directive my-param="myVariable1"></my-directive>
<my-directive my-param="myVariable2"></my-directive>
<my-directive my-param="myVariable3"></my-directive>
Then each directive can use the variable in the 'my-param' attribute
scope: {
'myParam':'='
}
The '=' means that in the scope of the directive you have a variable, called 'myParam', that is equal (+ bound to) the variable specified by the 'my-param' attribute on the directive. So on the template of the directive, you can use:
<div>Value of parameter: {{myParam}}</div>
And in the controller of the directive, you have access to is as:
$scope.myParam
And should then be able to customise its behaviour based on that instance's myParam.
You can create services with a common interface and then pass the corresponding services to each controller through dependency injection. In my code this is the case of table controllers where the only thing that changes is the data source:
Imagine you have some code that looks like this
angular.module('myapp').controller('TableACtrl', ['$scope', function($scope) {
$scope.data = // get the data from some source
$scope.someFunction = function () { ... };
$scope.someOtherFunction = function () { ... };
}]);
angular.module('myapp').controller('TableBCtrl', ['$scope', function($scope) {
$scope.data = // get the data from some other source
$scope.someFunction = function () { ... };
$scope.someOtherFunction = function () { ... };
}]);
It looks something like:
var tableCtrl = function($scope, dataSource) {
$scope.data = dataSource.getData();
$scope.someFunction = function () { ... };
$scope.someOtherFunction = function () { ... };
};
angular.module('myapp')
.controller('TableACtrl', ['$scope', 'dataSourceA', tableCtrl])
.controller('TableBCtrl', ['$scope', 'dataSourceB', tableCtrl])
angular.module('myapp')
.service('dataSourceA', function() {
return {
getData: function() { ... }
};
});
angular.module('myapp')
.service('dataSourceB', function() {
return {
getData: function() { ... }
};
});
I would still put things within a module, so you don't pollute the global window. But that's a different issue.

Resources