INTRODUCTION
angular.module('myApp.Services', []);
angular.module('myApp.Controllers', []);
angular.module('myApp', ['myApp.Controllers', 'myApp.Services'])
angular.module('myApp.Services').service('fooSrvc', function(){});
angular.module('myApp.Controllers')
.controller('FooCtrl', ['fooSrvc', function(fooSrvc){}]);
myApp module is the main module of the app and it is dependant on myApp.Services and myApp.Controllers modules.
myApp.Controllers has no direct dependency on myApp.Services module, yet fooSrvc from myApp.Services module is available for injection to FooCtrl from myApp.Controllers module.
Ok somehow this just works and i can accept it for granted although i wonder how.
But take this to the level of unit testing the FooCtrl. I need to mock fooSrvc. Ok i can just mock it:
beforeEach(function() {
module('myApp.Controllers');
module(function($provide) {
$provide.service('fooSrvc', function() {
// Mocking fooSrvc
});
});
});
QUESTION
Should i mock any module and is this module organization bad because of magic dependency between modules myApp.Controllers and myApp.Services?
When making use of a service in a controller test do you need to initialize the service in the same way you would the controller? By this I mean do you need to pass it its own dependencies?
For example I can initialize my controller like so:
// Instantiate the controller
searchController = $controller( 'VisibilitySearchController',{
$scope: scope,
dataService: dataService
});
}));
so do I need to initialize the service according to the components it needs like $http, $resource etc as well as make spyOn calls on its functions? Or is this/should this be sufficient? (Note - my tests fail when I do the following )
// Instantiate the dataService
dataService = $injector.get( 'dataService' );
it throws this error:
* Error: [$injector:unpr] Unknown provider: $resourceProvider <- $resource <- dataService
The relevant part of the service:
myAppServices.factory('dataService', ['$http', '$resource', 'authService', 'messageService', function ($http, $resource, authService, messageService) {
}
Side note
Note - we are using Maven as our build tool and only make use of Jasmine at this point - trying to bring Karma in as our test-runner as a Maven plugin.
You must provide all the dependencies but you can mock them. This can be done by jasmine like this for example:
var mockedDataService = jasmine.createSpyObj('dataService', ['getData', 'getOtherData']);
And then you inject this mocked service to $provider:
beforeEach(function () {
module(function ($provide) {
$provide.value('dataService', mockedDataService );
});
}
Instance of this mocked service can be retrieved like this then:
inject(function (dataService) {
var dataServiceInstance = dataService;
});
This will provider mocked dataService anytime it is needed. However if you need fully functional dataService you must instantiate it but always you can mock any of its dependecies.
While you can inject dependencies into the controller manually you don't need to do it as long as you have loaded the module the service belongs to.
In your case it looks like you have not loaded the ngResource module.
If you add beforeEach(module('ngResource')) to your test (and make sure the actual script file it lives in is included in Jasmine's fileset) you should not need to inject it manually.
Note that you do not need to load angular core services like $http, but since $resource is not part of core it needs to be loaded like this.
Injecting dependencies manually is mostly useful if you want to provide a mock implementation.
Assuming I have a service MyService that has a property "data" that contains contents retrieved from 2 or 3 $http requests and stores it into "data". This "data" needs to be accessible or passed to a directive to process, (like a modal).
The service "MyService" contains an attribute "data" necessary for myDirective to process on first load.
// var app = angular.module...
app.service('MyService',...)
I have a separate directive "myDirective":
var myDirective = angular.module('myDirective', []);
myDirective.directive('control', ['Params', function(Params) {...
I tried to inject "MyService" by doing the following:
var myDirective = angular.module('myDirective', ['MyService']);
myDirective.directive('control', ['Params', function(Params) {...
Though it fails to instantiate saying:
error: [$injector:nomod] Module 'MyService' is not available! You either misspelled the module name or forgot to load it.
If registering a module ensure that you specify the dependencies as the second argument.
How do I properly instantiate my myDirective from myService? Is this the right approach or should I be using some controller/factory/provider?
You are treating myService as a module which it is not, it is a component of a module. You only inject modules into other modules. Once all dependent modules are injected into main module, components of all modules are directly available to other components, regardless of which module they are initially registered to.
To inject into a directive you do it the same way you are injecting Params into directive. I suspect you are needlessly creating a new module just to create a directive.
Try this way:
app.service('MyService',...);
app.directive('control', ['Params','MySerrvice', function(Params,MyService) {...
Now within the directive you have access to objects in service using MyService.propertyName
What you are trying is adding MyService service as a module to your MyDirective module which won't work.
The easy way would be to just add the directive to your app module and inject your service:
app.directive('control', ['Params', 'MyService', function(Params, MyService) {
//...
}]);
If you create extra modules for your directives and and maybe also for your services you will have to add these modules to your app module like for example (usually in app.js):
var directivesModule = angular.module('app.directives', []);
var servicesModule = angular.module('app.services', []);
var app = angular.module('app', ['app.directives', 'app.services']);
And then add your services and directives to the respective modules:
servicesModule.service('MyService',...);
directivesModule.directive('control', ['Params','MyService', function(Params, MyService) {
//...
}]);
Create one file per service/directive or a file for all services and one for all directives. Depends on the size of your app.
I have been writing some Jasmine unit tests in Angular. In the first example I'm testing a controller.
myApp.controller('MyCtrl', function($scope, Config){
...
});
I have a configuration service (Config) that keeps configuration from the database and is injected into my controller. As this is a unit test, I want to mock out that configuration service altogether, rather than allowing execution to pass through it and using $httpBackend. Examples I found taught me about a $controller function I can use like this, in order to get an instance of my controller with my mocks injected in place of the usual collaborator:
beforeEach(inject(function($controller, $rootScope){
var scope = $rootScope.$new();
var configMock = {
theOnlyPropertyMyControllerNeeds: 'value'
};
ctrl = $controller('MyCtrl', {
$scope:scope,
Config: configMock
});
}));
But I also have other services that use the Config service. To help unit test them, I assumed there would be a similar $service function I could use to instantiate a service with whatever mocks I want to provide. There isn't. I tried $injector.get, but it doesn't seem to let me pass in my mocks. After searching for a while, the best I could come up with in order to instantiate a service in isolation (avoid instantiating its collaborators) is this:
beforeEach(function() {
mockConfig = {
thePropertyMyServiceUses: 'value'
};
module(function($provide) {
$provide.value('Config', mockConfig);
});
inject(function($injector) {
myService = $injector.get('MyService');
});
});
Is this the right way? It seems to be overriding the entire application's definition of the Config service, which seems maybe like overkill.
Is it the only way? Why is there no $service helper method?
For unit testing, it is common that you override a service for the sake of testing. However, you can use $provide to override an existing service instead of using inject, as long as you load the application before hand.
Assuming that you created Config using something like:
angular.moduel('...', [...]).factory('Config', function (...) {...});
If so, try this:
...
beforeEach(module("<Name of you App>"));
beforeEach(
module(function ($provide) {
$provide.factory('Config', function (...) {...});
});
);
...
After that, when you initialise your controller, it will get the mocked Config.
EDIT: I have managed to get my unit tests running - I moved the code containing the services to a different file and a different module, made this new module a requirement for fooBar module, and then before each "it" block is called, introduced the code beforeEach(module(<new_service_module_name)). However, my application still won't run. No errors in console either. This is the only issue that remains - that when I use global scope for controllers definition, the application works, but when I use angular.module.controller - it does not.
I have a file app.js that contains the following:
'use strict';
var app = angular.module('fooBar', []);
app.config(['$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.