I may be totally overlooking the big picture here, but what I'm trying to do, is conditionally include directives based on the object that I'm drawing my form with. Example:
$scope.formItems = [
{type : 'text', directive: 'google-country'},
{type : 'text', directive: 'google-city'},
]
This is a very very small breakdown of an object of about 40 fields, however I just wanted to be able to parse a string representation of the directive name to the value of directive in the object and have it output and run said directive on the form:
<div class="fields" ng-repeat="field in formItems">
<input type="{{field.type}}" {{field.directive}} />
</div>
Is this possible? or do I have to do something different?
I believe the problem is that the directive it self doesn't evaluate. this is how the above ng-repeat will eval:
<input type="text" {{field.directive}}>
EDIT:
I've now restricted the directive to a class, and simply included the field.directive tag inside the class and that should bind right? nup. It evaluated the right string, however the directive wasn't bound. I then did another test to make sure the directive was working by hard coding the name and that worked fine! So I'm thinking that the directives are bound before this scope is evaluated?
{{field.directive}} isn't interpolated to element attribute. It should be used either as attribute value or as text node.
app.directive('directive', function ($compile) {
return {
restrict: 'A',
priority: 10000,
link: function (scope, element, attrs) {
var oldDirective;
attrs.$observe('directive', function (directive) {
if (directive && element.attr(directive) === undefined) {
oldDirective && element.attr(oldDirective, undefined);
oldDirective = directive;
element.attr(directive, '');
$compile(element)(scope);
}
});
}
};
});
For example,
<div directive="ng-show">...</div>
It does the trick but looks like a hack, there may be more appropriate ways to design the form. 'google-country' and 'google-city' could be parameters for common directive rather than input directives.
So I'm thinking that the directives are bound before this scope is
evaluated?
That's right, the scope isn't yet ready when compile takes place. And you get interpolated attribute (including class) values only in link, so $compile should be run at this stage for the directives to take effect.
You need to create an attribute directive that as a parameter will receive the dynamic directive you want. In this directive you need to implement the compile function - this is where you will remove the current directive with the element parameter: element.removeAttr() method and add the dynamic directive to the element with element.attr(). The compile function can return the postlink function, which you should also implement in order to now recompile the element: $compile(element)(scope).
Related
I'm trying to programmatically toggle tooltips (like mentioned here: https://stackoverflow.com/a/23377441) and got it fully functional except for one issue. In order for it to work I must have tooltip-trigger and tooltip attributes hardcoded as follows:
<input type="text" tooltip-trigger="show" tooltip="" field1>
In my working directive, I'm able to change the tooltip attributes and trigger a tooltip, but if I try to leave those two attributes out and attempt to set them dynamically, ui-bootstrap doesn't pick them up and no tooltip gets displayed.
html
<input type="text" field2>
js
myApp.directive('field2', function($timeout) {
return {
scope: true,
restrict: 'A',
link: function(scope, element, attrs) {
scope.$watch('errors', function() {
var id = "field2";
if (scope.errors[id]) {
$timeout(function(){
// these attrs dont take effect...
attrs.$set('tooltip-trigger', 'show');
attrs.$set('tooltip-placement', 'top');
attrs.$set('tooltip', scope.errors[id]);
element.triggerHandler('show');
});
element.bind("click", function(e){
element.triggerHandler('hide');
});
}
});
},
};
});
I'd prefer not to hardcode these attributes in the html, so how do I go about setting these attributes dynamically and get ui-bootstrap to pick them up?
Here is a plunker that has a working (field1) and non working (field2) directive: http://plnkr.co/edit/mP0JD8KHt4ZR3n0vF46e
You can do this, but you have to change a couple of things in your approach.
Plunker Demo
Directive
app.directive("errorTooltip", function($compile, $interpolate, $timeout) {
return {
scope: true,
link: function($scope, $element, $attrs) {
var errorObj = $attrs.errorTooltip;
var inputName = $attrs.name;
var startSym = $interpolate.startSymbol();
var endSym = $interpolate.endSymbol();
var content = startSym+errorObj+'.'+inputName+endSym;
$element.attr('tooltip-trigger', 'show');
$element.attr('tooltip-placement', 'top');
$element.attr('tooltip', content);
$element.removeAttr('error-tooltip');
$compile($element)($scope);
$scope.$watch(errorObj, function() {
$timeout(function(){
$element.triggerHandler('show');
});
}, true);
$element.on('click', function(e){
$element.triggerHandler('hide');
});
}
};
});
The super long detailed explanation:
Okay, so from the top: #Travis is correct in that you can't just inject the attributes after the fact. The tooltip attributes that you place on the element are directives themselves, so the tooltip needs to be compiled when it's appended. That's not a problem, you can use the $compile service to do this, but you need to do it just once for the element.
Also, you need to bind the tooltip text (the value given to the tooltip attribute) to an expression. I do that by passing in a concatenated value of $interpolate.startSymbol() + the scope value that you want to display (in the demo it is the fieldx property of the errors object) + the $interpolate.endSymbol(). This basically evaluates to something like: {{error.field1}}. I use the $interpolate service start and end symbols because it just makes the directive more componentized, so you can use it on other projects where you might have multiple frameworks and be using something other than double curly-braces for your Angular expressions. It's not necessary though and you could instead do: '{{'+errorObj+'.'+inputName+'}}'. In this case, you don't have to add the $interpolate service as a dependency.
As you can see, to make the directive truly reuseable, rather than hard-coding the error field, I set the value given to the directive attribute to the name of the object that will be watched and use the input name value as the object property.
The chief thing you need to remember is that before you compile, you have to remove the error-tooltip attribute from the element because if you don't you'll wind up in an infinite loop and crash hard! Basically, the compile service is going to take the element that the directive is attached to and compile it with all of the attributes your directive added, if you leave the error-tooltip attribute, it's going to try and recompile that directive too.
Lastly, you can take advantage of the fact that the tooltip will not display if its text value is empty or undefined (see line 192). That means you only have to watch the errors object not the individual property on the error associated with the tooltip. Make sure that you set the equality operator on the $watch to true, so that it will trigger if any of the object's properties are changed:
$scope.$watch('errors', function() {
$timeout(function(){
$element.triggerHandler('show');
});
}, true); //<--equality operator
In the demo, you can see the effect of changing the errors object. If you click the Set Errors button the tooltip will display for both the first and second inputs. Click the Change Error Values and the tooltip displays for the first and third inputs.
TL;DR:
Add the directive to your markup by setting the value to be the name of the object that will contain all of the errors. Make sure to give the field a name attribute that corresponds to the property key name in the object that will contain the errors for that input, such as:
<input class="form-control" ng-model="demo.field1" name="field1" error-tooltip="errors" />
I have a directive which consists of a form text element and a continue button along with the associated controller etc. This directive is going to be used in about 5 different pages, but on each page it is used the continue button will do something different.
My question is where can/should I put the code for the continue button if it does different things for each page?
Since its a directive I cant simply pass a different function into ng-click depending on what page im on (ie, if i simply replicated the code on each page it is used I could simply change the function called on ng-click and have that function in each of the page controllers.
Hopefully Im not being too vague with my question and you can make sense of what im asking. If not just say so and ill try to explain in more detail.
I would really appreciate some guidance on this matter.
Thanks.
There are two ways that you can do it. If you are creating your directive as a true component you can use isolated scope with & binding that binds to an expression.
Assume your directive looks like
<div do-work on-click="save()"></div>
and the generated html
<div>
<input ...>
<button ng-click="doAction()"><button>
</div>
The directive scope will be defined
scope:{
onClick:'&'
}
In your directive controller or link function you need to implement the button doAction, which in turns evaluates the onClick action
scope.doAction=function() {
scope.onClick({//if params are required});
}
Now you have linked the parent through the direct onClick reference. One thing to remember here is that this creates a directive with isolated scope.
In case you do not want isolated scope created you need to use
scope.$eval(attr.onClick); // this evaluates the expression on the current scope.
Hope this helps.
Ideally you should not create directives which are not re-usable.
In your case, you may do it like following -
create an isolated scope in the directive
add a function to be called and pass the page/ page id as parameter
call functions in controller based on parameter
Directive
myApp.directive('someDirecive', function () {
return {
// restrict options are EACM. we want to use it like an attribute
restrict: 'A',
// template : <inline template string>
// templateUrl = path to directive template.
// templateUrl: '',
scope: {
onButtonClick : '&'
},
controller: function ($scope, $element, $attrs, $transclude) {
$scope.onButtonClick = function(pageId) {
if (pageId == 1) {
// do something
}
else if (pageId == 2) {
// do something
}
}
},
//link: function (scope, iElement, iAttrs) {
//}
};
});
HTML
<div some-directive on-button-click="DoSomething(1)" />
I created a custom directive with an isolated scope that binds to a function from the enclosing controller and with references to a templateUrl. Here's what my code looks like:
the html
<div ng-controller='MyCtrl as my'>
<custom-directive data='my.data' on-search="my.find(param1, param2)"></custom-directive>
</div>
the directive
app.directive('customDirective', function() {
return {
restrict : 'E',
scope : {
data : '=data'
search : '&onSearch',
},
templateUrl : 'customDirective.html'
};
});
the template
<div>
<input ng-model='data.id'>
<a ng-click='find(param1, param2)'></a>
</div>
The arguments received by function find is also stored in data. The controller data binds to the directive but not the function. My log inside the function won't even show.
It seems there are different ways to do it as I have seen in many examples (see below) but none seems to work in my case.
Example 1: pass a mapping of parameter and values in the template
<div>
<input ng-model='data.id'>
<a ng-click='find.({param1: data.value1, param2: data.value2})'></a>
</div>
Example 2: put a link in the directive
app.directive('customDirective', function() {
return {
restrict : 'E',
scope : {
data : '=data'
search : '&onSearch',
},
templateUrl : 'customDirective.html',
link : function(scope, elem, attr) {
scope.retrieve({param1: scope.data.value1,
param2: scope.data.value2});
}
};
});
Example 3 : use scope.$apply(), $parse in link but haven't tried this
Could someone show me how to do it and also explain to me the link part (I don't understand that part) and if you're feeling generous, show the working alternatives as shown by the examples. Thanks
You don't have to passe params for your function just the reference so in your html
<custom-directive data='my.data' on-search="my.find"></custom-directive>
and your template directive directly call
<div>
<input ng-model='data.id'>
<a ng-click='find(data.value1, data.value2)'></a>
</div>
I also suggest you to use $scope and not the controller. So in your controller define
$scope.data = {
id: 1,
value1: "value1",
value2: "value2"
}
$scope.find = function (param1, param2) {
//Your logic
}
And in your template put directly
<custom-directive data='data' on-search="find"></custom-directive>
I hope this answer to your question
About link this text from angular js doc is pretty clear I think
Directives that want to modify the DOM typically use the link option.
link takes a function with the following signature, function
link(scope, element, attrs) { ... } where:
scope is an Angular scope object. element is the jqLite-wrapped
element that this directive matches.
attrs is a hash object with key-value pairs of normalized attribute names and their
corresponding attribute values.
In our link function, we want to update the
displayed time once a second, or whenever a user changes the time
formatting string that our directive binds to. We will use the
$interval service to call a handler on a regular basis. This is easier
than using $timeout but also works better with end-to-end testing,
where we want to ensure that all $timeouts have completed before
completing the test. We also want to remove the $interval if the
directive is deleted so we don't introduce a memory leak.
I have a custom attribute directive (i.e., restrict: "A") and I want to pass two expressions (using {{...}}) into the directive as attributes. I want to pass these attributes into the directive's template, which I use to render two nested div tags -- the outer one containing ng-controller and the inner containing ng-include. The ng-controller will define the controller exclusively used for the template, and the ng-include will render the template's HTML.
An example showing the relevant snippets is below.
HTML:
<div ng-controller="appController">
<custom-directive ctrl="templateController" tmpl="template.html"></custom-directive>
</div>
JS:
function appController($scope) {
// Main application controller
}
function templateController($scope) {
// Controller (separate from main controller) for exclusive use with template
}
app.directive('customDirective', function() {
return {
restrict: 'A',
scope: {
ctrl: '#',
tmpl: '#'
},
// This will work, but not what I want
// Assigning controller explicitly
template: '<div ng-controller="templateController">\
<div ng-include="tmpl"></div>\
</div>'
// This is what I want, but won't work
// Assigning controller via isolate scope variable from attribute
/*template: '<div ng-controller="ctrl">\
<div ng-include="tmpl"></div>\
</div>'*/
};
});
It appears that explicitly assigning the controller works. However, I want to assign the controller via an isolate scope variable that I obtain from an attribute located inside my custom directive in the HTML.
I've fleshed out the above example a little more in the Plunker below, which names the relevant directive contentDisplay (instead of customDirective from above). Let me know in the comments if this example needs more commented clarification:
Plunker
Using an explicit controller assignment (uncommented template code), I achieve the desired functionality. However, when trying to assign the controller via an isolate scope variable (commented template code), it no longer works, throwing an error saying 'ctrl' is not a function, got string.
The reason why I want to vary the controller (instead of just throwing all the controllers into one "master controller" as I've done in the Plunker) is because I want to make my code more organized to maintain readability.
The following ideas may be relevant:
Placing the ng-controller tags inside the template instead of wrapping it around ng-include.
Using one-way binding ('&') to execute functions instead of text binding ('#').
Using a link function instead of / in addition to an isolate scope.
Using an element/class directive instead of attribute directive.
The priority level of ng-controller is lower than that of ng-include.
The order in which the directives are compiled / instantiated may not be correct.
While I'm looking for direct solutions to this issue, I'm also willing to accept workarounds that accomplish the same functionality and are relatively simple.
I don't think you can dynamically write a template key using scope, but you certainly do so within the link function. You can imitate that quite succinctly with a series of built-in Angular functions: $http, $controller, $compile, $templateCache.
Plunker
Relevant code:
link: function( scope, element, attrs )
{
$http.get( scope.tmpl, { cache: $templateCache } )
.then( function( response ) {
templateScope = scope.$new();
templateCtrl = $controller( scope.ctrl, { $scope: templateScope } );
element.html( response.data );
element.children().data('$ngControllerController', templateCtrl);
$compile( element.contents() )( templateScope );
});
}
Inspired strongly by this similar answer.
I had the idea to wrap inputs into custom directives to guarantee a consistent look and behavior through out my site. I also want to wrap bootstrap ui's datepicker and dropdown. Also, the directive should handle validation and display tooltips.
The HTML should look something like this:
<my-input required max-length='5' model='text' placeholder='text' name='text'/>
or
<my-datepicker required model='start' placeholder='start' name='start'/>
in the directives i want to create a dom structure like:
<div>
<div>..</div> //display validation in here
<div>..</div> //add button to toggle datepicker (or other stuff) in here
<div>..</div> //add input field in here
</div>
I tried various ways to achieve this but always came across some tradeoffs:
using transclude and replace to insert the input into the directives dom structure (in this case the directive would be restricted to 'A' not 'E' like in the example above). The problem here is, that there is no easy way to access the transcluded element as I want to add custom attributes in case of datepicker. I could use the transclude function and then recompile the template in the link function, but this seems a bit complex for this task. This also leads to problems with the transcluded scope and the toggle state for the datepicker (one is in the directives scope, the other in the transcluded scope).
using replace only. In this case, all attributes are applied to the outermost div (even if I generate the template dom structure in the compile function). If I use just the input as template, then the attributes are on the input, but I need to generate the template in the link function an then recompile it. As far as I understand the phase model of angular, I would like to avoid recompiling and changing the template dom in the link function (although I've seen many people doing this).
Currently I'm working with the second approach and generating the template in the link function, but I was wondering if someone had some better ideas!
Here's what I believe is the proper way to do this. Like the OP I wanted to be able to use an attribute directive to wrapper an input. But I also wanted it to work with ng-if and such without leaking any elements. As #jantimon pointed out, if you don't cleanup your wrapper elements they will linger after ng-if destroys the original element.
app.directive("checkboxWrapper", [function() {
return {
restrict: "A",
link: function(scope, element, attrs, ctrl, transclude) {
var wrapper = angular.element('<div class="wrapper">This input is wrappered</div>');
element.after(wrapper);
wrapper.prepend(element);
scope.$on("$destroy", function() {
wrapper.after(element);
wrapper.remove();
});
}
};
}
]);
And here's a plunker you can play with.
IMPORTANT: scope vs element $destroy. You must put your cleanup in scope.$on("$destroy") and not in element.on("$destroy") (which is what I was originally attempting). If you do it in the latter (element) then an "ngIf end" comment tag will get leaked. This is due to how Angular's ngIf goes about cleaning up its end comment tag when it does its falsey logic. By putting your directive's cleanup code in the scope $destroy you can put the DOM back like it was before you wrappered the input and so ng-if's cleanup code is happy. By the time element.on("$destroy") is called, it is too late in the ng-if falsey flow to unwrap the original element without causing a comment tag leak.
Why not doing a directive like that?
myApp.directive('wrapForm', function(){
return {
restrict: 'AC',
link: function(scope, inputElement, attributes){
var overallWrap = angular.element('<div />');
var validation = angular.element('<div />').appendTo(overallWrap);
var button = angular.element('<div />').appendTo(overallWrap);
var inputWrap = angular.element('<div />').appendTo(overallWrap);
overallWrap.insertBefore(inputElement);
inputElement.appendTo(inputWrap);
inputElement.on('keyup', function(){
if (inputElement.val()) {
validation.text('Just empty fields are valid!');
} else {
validation.text('');
}
});
}
}
});
Fiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/bZ6WL/
Basically you take the original input field (which is, by the way, also an angularjs directive) and build the wrappings seperately. In this example I simply build the DIVs manually. For more complex stuff, you could also use a template which get $compile(d) by angularjs.
The advantage using this class or html attribute "wrapForm": You may use the same directive for several form input types.
Why not wrap the input in the compile function?
The advantage is that you will not have to copy attributes and will not have to cleanup in the scope destroy function.
Notice that you have to remove the directive attribute though to prevent circular execution.
(http://jsfiddle.net/oscott9/8er3fu0r/)
angular.module('directives').directive('wrappedWithDiv', [
function() {
var definition = {
restrict: 'A',
compile: function(element, attrs) {
element.removeAttr("wrapped-with-div");
element.replaceWith("<div style='border:2px solid blue'>" +
element[0].outerHTML + "</div>")
}
}
return definition;
}
]);
Based on this: http://angular-tips.com/blog/2014/03/transclusion-and-scopes/
This directive does transclusion, but the transcluded stuff uses the parent scope, so all bindings work as if the transcluded content was in the original scope where the wrapper is used. This of course includes ng-model, also min/max and other validation directives/attributes. Should work for any content. I'm not using the ng-transclude directive because I'm manually cloning the elements and supplying the parent(controller's) scope to them. "my-transclude" is used instead of ng-transclude to specify where to insert the transcluded content.
Too bad ng-transclude does not have a setting to control the scoping. It would make all this clunkyness unnecessary.
And it looks like they won't fix it: https://github.com/angular/angular.js/issues/5489
controlsModule.directive('myWrapper', function () {
return {
restrict: 'E',
transclude: true,
scope: {
label: '#',
labelClass: '#',
hint: '#'
},
link: link,
template:
'<div class="form-group" title="{{hint}}"> \
<label class="{{labelClass}} control-label">{{label}}</label> \
<my-transclude></my-transclude> \
</div>'
};
function link(scope, iElement, iAttrs, ctrl, transclude) {
transclude(scope.$parent,
function (clone, scope) {
iElement.find("my-transclude").replaceWith(clone);
scope.$on("$destroy", function () {
clone.remove();
});
});
}
});