Today I found, that $injector injected to config or provider is different from $injector injected to service, factory or controller.
And get() function from this $injectors works differently.
$injector from config or provider, can't get() any service! $injector.get('myService') throws Error: [$injector:unpr] Unknown provider: myService, but $injector.has('myService') return true. That's very very strange.
$injector from service or controller works normally.
Here is a code sample for better understanding:
angular.module('app', [])
.provider('myProvider', function ($injector) {
this.$get = ['$injector', function (serviceInjector) {
return {
providerInjector: $injector,
serviceInjector: serviceInjector
};
}];
})
.service('myService', function () {})
.controller('myCtrl', function ($scope, myProvider) {
var providerInjector = myProvider.providerInjector;
var serviceInjector = myProvider.serviceInjector;
console.log(providerInjector === serviceInjector); // -> false
console.log(serviceInjector.has('myService')); // `serviceInjector` has `myService`
console.log(getMyService(serviceInjector)); // `serviceInjector` can get `myService`
console.log(providerInjector.has('myService')); // `providerInjector` has `myService` too!
console.log(getMyService(providerInjector)); // but `providerInjector` can't get `myService`! =(
function getMyService(injector) {
try {
injector.get('myService');
return "OK";
} catch (e) {
return e.toString();
}
}
});
Here is a plunker to play
Can anybody explain why there is two different injectors?
And how can I use $injector from provider/config to inject service(after service was initialized, of course)?
P.S. I use angular 1.3.13
I found this issue on github: https://github.com/angular/angular.js/issues/5559
In the config function, $injector is the provider injector, where in the run function, $injector is the instance injector.
One's the $injector at the config stage (only providers and constants accessible), and one's the $injector at the run stage. The confusion may be that you're thinking the $injector modifies itself to include the new stuff as it crosses the line from config to run, but that's not true. They're two separate (although related) objects, with their own caches of instances.
A more in-depth reason for this dichotomy will probably come from a deep learning of the $injector internals, but it seems like it's been DRY-ed pretty hardcore, and the two types of injectors share almost all the same behavior, except in how they deal with "cache misses" in their instance caches.
We are going to overhaul the injector in v2, so this will get fixed there (getting rid of the config phase is one of the objectives of the injector v2).
Seems like there is really two different injectors, and angular developers will not fix that behavior(in versions <2.0). And nobody added a note about that aspect to $injector docs for some reason.
I was unable to find a way how to really get instance injector inside a configuration block without hacky tricks. So, I write a cute provider to solve that kind of problems.
.provider('instanceInjector', function () {
var instanceInjector;
function get() {
return instanceInjector;
}
function exists() {
return !!instanceInjector;
}
angular.extend(this, {
get: get,
exists: exists
});
this.$get = function ($injector) {
instanceInjector = $injector;
return {
get: get,
exists: exists
};
}
})
// We need to inject service somewhere.
// Otherwise $get function will be never executed
.run(['instanceInjector', function(instanceInjector){}])
Ok. After reading your comments, here is my answer.
I edited code in plunk to make it work, when invoking the providerInjector.get() the code should be as follows:
$scope.getMyServiceFromProviderInjector = function () {
try {
myProvider.providerInjector.get('myServiceProvider');//here is change in provider name
return "OK";
} catch (e) {
return e.toString();
}
};
According to angular docs the following is quoted for config and run blocks:
Configuration blocks - get executed during the provider registrations and configuration phase. Only providers and constants
can be injected into configuration blocks. This is to prevent
accidental instantiation of services before they have been fully
configured.
Run blocks - get executed after the injector is created and are used to kickstart the application. Only instances and constants can be
injected into run blocks. This is to prevent further system
configuration during application run time.
This simply means, you cannot get instances of services inside config blocks.
I wrote this a while back, which explains the lifecycle of both injectors of AngularJS, i.e providerInjector and instanceInjector.
http://agiliq.com/blog/2017/04/angularjs-injectors-internals/
Related
I have an extremely edge case scenario where I have a callback method I have to define during config. Which means no scope, no factories, etc... My work around is to use the root injector ($injector) and get my other modules at runtime.
However, when I call $injector.get('myServiceName') in my call back (after the application is running) I get "unknown provider". The same service has no problem (and actually is) being injected into a before my line of code is running. If I call $injector.get("myServiceNameProvider") then I can get the provider back in my callback.. But another service that only has a factory I can't get at all.
So in this extremely bad practice, how can I snag the service I configured. Heck I can't even seem to get $rootScope..
Angular inits providers first, then factories/services - services are not available in app.config.
You can deo like this:
app.config(...
window.on('scroll', function() {
// this is executed later
$injector.get()...
})
Or use app.run where services are available.
I think I had similar problem few months ago... I need to construct breadcrumbs, but they had to be created in config phase (ui-router). I have done it like this (breadcrumbs-generation-service.provider.js):
var somethingYouHaveToHaveLater = undefined;
function BreadcrumbsGenerationService () {
this.createStateData = createStateData;
function createStateData (arg) {
somethingYouHaveToHaveLater = arg;
};
}
function BreadcrumbsGenerationServiceProvider () {
this.$get = function BreadcrumbsGenerationServiceFactory () {
return new BreadcrumbsGenerationService();
}
}
angular
.module('ncAdminApp')
.provider('BreadcrumbsGenerationService', BreadcrumbsGenerationServiceProvider);
Because service is used inside Angular configs, needs to be injected as provider to be available in config phase: Similar SO Question. Despite the fact is registered as BreadcrumbsGenerationService needs to be injected as BreadcrumbsGenerationServiceProvider to config phase and used with $get():
BreadcrumbsGenerationServiceProvider.$get().createStateData(someParams);
But in controller, inject it without Provider suffix (BreadcrumbsGenerationServic) and it behaves as normal service.
My use case is: we have several helper classes, A and B, that are services, A depends on B, and I wanted to make them providers so that they can be used in .config phase.
I followed this SO answer to load a provider inside a provider.
As you can see here, it works:
http://plnkr.co/edit/SIvujHt7bprFumhxwJqD?p=preview
var coreModule = angular.module('CoreModule', []);
coreModule.provider('Car', function() {
//CarProvider.engine
this.engine = 'big engine';
//Car
this.$get = function() {
return {
color: 'red'
};
};
});
coreModule.provider('ParameterService', ['$injector', function($injector) {
try {
var CarProvider = $injector.get('CarProvider');
this.deepEngine = CarProvider.engine;
console.log('deepEngine = ' + this.deepEngine);
} catch (e) {
console.log("nope!")
}
// ParameterService
this.$get = function() {
return {};
};
}]);
coreModule.config(function(CarProvider) {
console.log('configEngine = ' + CarProvider.engine); // big engine
});
This works if I have Car and ParameterService in one file in this order.
However when I split Car and ParameterService into multiple files on disk, or I define ParameterService before Car in the same file, $injector.get('CarProvider') inside ParameterService fails.
How do I fix the issue?
I want to have one provider/service per file and I don't understand what is missing.
The order in which the services are defined doesn't matter during run phase, where service instances are injected. But it does matter during configuration phase, where service providers are injected, i.e. in provider constructors and config blocks.
Providers and config blocks are executed in the order in which they are defined. If Car provider is defined after ParameterService provider or config block, CarProvider doesn't exist at the moment when those two are executed.
To avoid potential race conditions, one module per file pattern should be followed. This allows to keep the app highly modular (also beneficial for testing) and never care about the order in which the files are loaded. E.g.:
angular.module('app', ['app.carService', 'app.parameterService']).config(...);
angular.module('app.carService', []).provider('Car', ...);
angular.module('app.parameterService', []).provider('ParameterService', ...);
Module parts are executed in the order in which the modules are defined in angular.module array hierarchy, from children to parents.
The decision if config block needs its own module depends on what it does (mostly for testing reasons).
It is possible to have providers in different files. You just need to attach them to the first module that you created.
If your markup looks like this:
<script src="coreModule.js"></script>
<script src="parameterService.js"></script>
Then, in coreModule.js, define your module:
angular.module('CoreModule', [])
.provider('Car', function() {
...
}
Remember, the second parameter ([]) tells angular to create a new module.
Then, declare your other provider in a different file, and attach it to your existing 'CoreModule' module:
angular.module('CoreModule')
.provider('ParameterService', ['$injector', function($injector) {
...
}
Notice that we are only passing one parameter to .module(). This tells angular to add your provider to an existing module.
Plunkr Demo
In my Angular app, I have some resource modules, each containing some cache factories.
For example,
projectRsrc.factory('getProjectCache', ['$cacheFactory', function($cacheFactory){
return $cacheFactory('getProjectCache');
}]);
I have a few of these to cache values received from the servers.
The problem is that at times I'd like to clear all the caches. So I want to put all the cacheFactories into one CacheCentralApp module and delete all the caches with a single call.
The trouble is, I don't know of any way to access other factories inside my module. So for instance, if I create a module CacheCentralApp, and in it, declare factories that provide cacheFactorys, how can I create a function in there that calls removeAll() on every cacheFactory?
I don't think it is possible to target all the factories of a certain module. I think however that another solution to your problem is to send a event that all factories has to be cleared. This will prevent that you will have to loop through all your factories and call a .clear() function on everyone.
You could send a event request with the following code:
$scope.$broadcast('clearAllCaches');
And listen to this event in every factory with:
$scope.$on('clearAllCaches', function() {
clearCache();
}
In a separate module you might create a factory for that:
var cacheModule = angular.module('CacheCentralApp', []);
cacheModule.factory('MyCacheFactory', ['$cacheFactory', function($cacheFactory) {
var cacheKeys = [];
return {
clearAll: function() {
angular.forEach(cacheKeys, function(key) {
$cacheFactory.get(key).removeAll();
});
},
get: function(key) {
if(cacheKeys.indexOf(key) == -1) {
cacheKeys.push(key);
return $cacheFactory(key);
} else {
return $cacheFactory.get(key);
}
}
}
}]);
To create new or get existing Cache you simply call MyCacheFactory.get(cacheName). To clear all the caches ever created in the factory you call MyCacheFactory.clearAll().
Note: I am not quite sure that Array.indexOf is available in every browser, you might want to use Lo-Dash or another library to make sure your code works.
I am fairly new to AngularJS and am trying to learn some best practices. I have things working, but would like to start adding some unit tests to my modules and controllers. The first one I am looking to tackle is my AuthModule.
I have an AuthModule. This Module registers a Factory called "AuthModule" and exposes things like "setAuthenticatedUser" and also fields like "isLoggedIn" and "currentUser". I think this is a fairly common pattern in an AngularJS application, with some variations on the specific implementation details.
authModule.factory(
'AuthModule',
function(APIService, $rootScope) {
var _currentUser = null;
var _isLoggedIn = false;
return {
'setAuthenticatedUser' : function(currentUser) {
_currentUser = currentUser;
_isLoggedIn = currentUser == null ? false : true;
$rootScope.$broadcast('event:authenticatedUserChanged',
_currentUser);
if (_isLoggedIn == false) {
$rootScope.$broadcast('event:loginRequired')
}
$rootScope.authenticatedUser = _currentUser;
$rootScope.isLoggedIn = _isLoggedIn;
},
'isLoggedIn' : _isLoggedIn,
'currentUser' : _currentUser
}
});
The module does some other things like register a handler for the event "loginRequired" to send the person back to the home screen. These events are raised by the AuthModule factory.
authModule.run(function($rootScope, $log, $location) {
$rootScope.$on("event:loginRequired", function(event, data) {
$log.info("sending him home. Login is required");
$location.path("/");
});
});
Finally, the module has a run block which will use an API service I have to determine the current logged in user form the backend.
authModule.run(
function(APIService, $log, AuthModule) {
APIService.keepAlive().then(function(currentUser) {
AuthModule.setAuthenticatedUser(currentUser.user);
}, function(response) {
AuthModule.setAuthenticatedUser(null);
});
});
Here are some of my questions:
My question is how would you setup tests for this? I would think that I would need to Mock out the APIService? I'm having a hard time because I keep getting unexpected POST request to my /keepalive function (called within APIService.keepAlive())?
Is there any way to use $httpBackend in order to return the right response to the actual KeepAlive call? This would prevent me from having to mock-out the API service?
Should I pull the .run() block out which obtains the current logged in user out of the AuthModule and put it into the main application? It seems no matter where I put the run() block, I can't seem to initialize the $httpbackend before I load the module?
Should the AuthModule even be its own module at all? or should I just use the main application module and register the factory there?
Run blocks are the closest thing in Angular to the main method. A run block is the code which needs to run to kickstart the application. It is executed after all of the service have been configured and the injector has been created. Run blocks typically contain code which is hard to unit-test, and for this reason should be declared in isolated modules, so that they can be ignored in the unit-tests.angularjs docs
I suggest you take a look at this authentication service, using a service is the way to go.
Hopefully this would help ... Good luck
This is something that I could not figure out from digging into the AngularJS code, maybe you can help solve the mystery.
To show it, I added a service to AngularJS seed project:
function MyServiceProvider() {
console.log('its my service');
this.providerMethod = providerMethod;
function providerMethod() {
console.log('its my service.providerMethod');
}
this.$get = $get;
function $get() {
var innerInjectable = {
name: 'stam'
};
return innerInjectable;
}
}
var serviceModule = angular.module('myApp.services', []).
value('version', '0.1').
provider('myservice',MyServiceProvider);
You can see that this provider exposes $get and a certain 'providerMethod'.
Now, for the injection usage:
If we call config, we can inject the whole class and get access to the 'outer' provider method:
serviceModule.config(function(myserviceProvider) {
console.log('myServiceProvider:',myserviceProvider);
myserviceProvider.providerMethod();
});
But when we inject this to a controller (note the Provider-less name), only the $get return value is exposed:
function MyCtrl1(myservice) {
console.log('MyCtrl1.myservice =',myservice,myservice.name);
}
MyCtrl1.$inject = ['myservice'];
Console output follows as it should:
its my service
myServiceProvider:
Constructor {providerMethod: function, $get: function}
its my service.providerMethod
MyCtrl1.myservice = Object {name: "stam"} stam
Can any one explain the difference? The reason?
many thanks for any thought
Lior
PS: I've seen this technique in angular-ui new ui-router (excellent project!). I need access to the outer provider class to do injection in jasmine and other places - to no avail
A provider is responsible for creating instances. In your example, you created a provider explicitly, but the truth is that every service has a provider, even if it's created automatically for it. [module].service() and [module].factory() are just shortcuts for [module].provider().
[module].config() is run during provider registrations and configurations so you get a change to access providers and do stuff with them. It's a place for configuration of things, hence the name.
From the documentation (http://docs.angularjs.org/guide/module):
Configuration blocks - get executed during the provider registrations
and configuration phase. Only providers and constants can be injected
into configuration blocks. This is to prevent accidental instantiation
of services before they have been fully configured.
Controllers, in the other hand, are instantiated AFTER services have been configured, so you're not supposed to mess with providers anymore. Everything has already been configured. You're ready to get their products now. In this phase, the injector just can't inject providers anymore, just instances (services) created by them.
If you register a service myService...
myModule.service('myService', function() {
// this is your service constructor
});
then you can access its provider, myServiceProvider, in a config function...
myModule.config(function(myServiceProvider) {
// to stuff with your provider here
});
but by the time controllers are being instantiated, you're supposed to ask for services, not their providers, so this will not work...
myModule.controller(function(myServiceProvider) {
...
});
whereas this will be fine...
myModule.controller(function(myService) {
...
});
If you're finding yourself needing to do configuration in a controller, you should stop and rethink the place of responsibilities.
From the Angular mailing list I got an amazing thread that explains service vs factory vs provider and their injection usage. I decided to put it in its own question here
the specific answer is: it is so by design, to allow configuration of the provider at config time.