Injecting module function into AngularJS service - angularjs

I have been reading these two links 1 and enter link description here. The idea is to have clean and module code.
The modular approach explained in the links above suggest to a file for the function, and another file for injecting the functions into angular's directive, controller, ... .
As an example:
/* app.js */
define([
'/path/to/controller',
'/path/to/service1'
], function(MyController, MyService1))
{
"use strict";
angular
.module('myApp', [])
.controller('MyController', MyController)
.factory('MyService1', MyService1);
});
/* controller */
define(function()
{
"use strict";
return ['$scope', 'MyService1', MyController];
function MyController($scope, MyService1)
{
/* Now do your coding here */
}
});
/* service */
// Identical to controller
Notice here how the function is implemented in one file, and then injected into the angular.
Now, I can see a potential problem is your service custom depends on another custom service. Say MyService2 also uses MyService1. My two services now look like:
/* MyService1 */
define(function() {
return MyService1;
function MyService1() {
/* Code Here */
}
});
/* MyService2 */
define(function() {
return ['MyService1', MyService2];
function MyService2(MyService1) {
/* This uses MyService1 here */
}
});
If your app uses both, then all is well, however, if it only uses one, then we have a problem:
/* This will work fine */
angular
.module('myApp')
.controller('MyController', MyController)
.factory('MyService1', MyService1)
.factory('MyService2', MyService2);
/* This will NOT */
angular
.module('myApp')
.controller('MyController', MyController)
.factory('MyService2', MyService2); <-- This guy internally requires MyServce1
I don't see how to solve this problem while still keeping this kind of approach. Can you help?

RequireJS and AngularJS have two non-overlapping dependency resolution mechanisms. If you're really going to use both, as suggested in the linked guide (I'm hard-pressed to imagine a scenario where this would be useful enough), you need to keep in mind, that the individual "service files" don't really contain services at all. They contain just their constructors/factories. To put it all together, your module definition needs to solve both of the separate concerns:
load all files with the constructors/factories needed for service/controller/... definitions, and
define all things that you don't want to leave as external dependencies.
In other words, if you define a module containing just service2, which has a service1 dependency, and don't define service1, then service1 becomes an external dependency of your module (it cannot be used in an environment where no service1 is defined).
In other words, the two DI frameworks do NOT complement each other so that you could load a file containing a service only when you need to inject it (in Angular) for the first time. You could find a way to use RequireJS to load something (most likely whole separate Angular applications) on demand. But you cannot load a service/controller/... on demand (at runtime), because such things can only be defined in the configuration phase of AngularJS application construction. Once the run phase starts, no more configuration (e.g. service definition) can be done.
If you just want to create a single application with modular code, I'd suggest that you leave RequireJS be for now and focus on simply creating modular code, as the style guide suggests.

i see you use requirejs there so you got 2 dependencies frameworks in parallel (angular and requirejs)
when you define a file that has a dependency on MyService2, than MyService2 needs to define a dependency to MyService1 (requirejs dependency) so both files are loaded and available.
that closes the issue for requirejs file loading.
now angular: in MyService1 you do
angular.factory('MyService1', function () {....});
than angular knows of that service and can inject it to anyone who needs it.
for MyService2 you do,
angular.factory('MyService2', ['MyService1', function(MyService1) {...}]).
and now angular injected MyService1 into MyService2 and you can use it in service 1.
than in some controller you need service 2 you just do
angular.controller('MyController', ['MyService2', function(MyService2){...}]);
and angular injects service 2 that has already service 1 injected into it.

Related

Angular: Optionally configure a service

I have a service that has an internal list of directive names (lets call it listService). In the spirit of loosely coupled applications I want other modules to be able to add their own directives to that list instead of statically defining it in the service module.
I understand that I can create a provider in order to configure a service like this:
app.provider("listService", ServiceProvider);
app.config(["listServiceProvider", function(listServiceProvider) {
listServiceProvider.add("myDirective");
}]);
At the same time, I don't want all the modules that define directives to depend on the service. So what I would like to do is "if this service is used in this project: configure it; else: ignore".
Unfortunately, the above code produces a module error if listServiceProvider is not available. I also tried to use a decorator with the same result.
So how can I optionally configure a service in order to have a loosely coupled application?
Like I mentioned in the comment, it is important to have a broader context for why you need to register directives (or their names).
In absence of a broader understanding, if, generally speaking, you need to conditionally check for existence of a service (or service provider, in config), you can use the $injector:
.config(function($injector){
var listServiceProvider;
if ($injector.has("listServiceProvider")) {
listServiceProvider = $injector.get("listServiceProvider");
}
if (listServiceProvider){
listServiceProvider.add("myDirective");
}
});
If I understand correctly; you want a service that tracks which of your directives have been added into the Angular app, and for the directives and the service to be decoupled from each other so they can be included on demand.
I don't think the module pattern will do this for you, since the services and directives are injected at load time. Optional dependency injection is not possible.
However, you could fire an event from your directive and pick it up in your service, removing the need for dependency injection altogether.
myDirective
.run(['$rootScope', 'LIST_SERVICE_EVENT',
function($rootScope, LIST_SERVICE_EVENT) {
$rootScope.$emit(LIST_SERVICE_EVENT, 'myDirective');
}]);
listService
.run(['listService', '$rootScope', 'LIST_SERVICE_EVENT',
function(listService, $rootScope, LIST_SERVICE_EVENT) {
$rootScope.$on(LIST_SERVICE_EVENT, function(ev, name) {
listService.add(name);
});
}]);
Fiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/bdpxhLg3/4/.

How do I correctly split angularjs module controllers/services/etc into their own files?

I've seen some projects keep all the "pieces" (controllers/services/directives) to a module in one file. angular-app does it like that.
example:
angular.module('myModule', ['depA', 'depB'])
.controller('MyController', function() {})
.service('myService', function() {});
However I've worked on teams in the past on large angular projects where individual controllers/services/directives were kept in their own files. I like the idea of keeping them in their own files to keep the files small among other reasons. The problem now is that I'm the one in charge of getting the beginning pieces and build process put together. All I had to do before was write application code and follow the standard on those projects.
In order to have separate files properly, I believe I would have to have one main module file.
example:
// file 1
angular.module('myModule', ['depA', 'depB']);
// file 2
angular.module('myModule')
.controller('MyController', function() {});
So my question is, what file loading order do I need to make sure happens? Do I only need to make sure that the main module file (file 1) is loaded before file 2?
That seems odd to me. If there was also a service file attached to the previously mentioned module and the controller file 2 was already loaded, but the service file wasn't yet, isn't it possible that angular could invoke that controller file and then eventually cause things to get out of whack?
Also, if you think I'm handling this the wrong way I would love to hear your suggestions.
Module Load Order
Just make sure that when you register a new module, by the time your application bootstraps, it's module dependencies should have already been loaded by the browser.
So anytime you do this:
angular.module('myApp', ['dep1', 'dep2', 'dep3']);
The files with dep1, dep2, and dep3 should have already been loaded by the time your application bootstraps.
If you are using <script> tags and automatic bootstrapping (the angular default) then the order of your <script> tags shouldn't matter. However, if using a library like requirejs make sure that all of your dependencies are loaded before manually bootstrapping.
Additional Considerations
As long as your modules are loaded in the correct order, then..
There is no need to worry about the order of controllers, directives, services, factories, providers, constants, or values
The order of run blocks may be important only as they relate to other run blocks since they are executed in the order in which they are registered (within a specific module).
The order of config blocks may be important only as they relate to other config blocks since they are executed in the order in which they are registered (within a specific module).
In regards to the prior 2 points, the order of dependencies (for example ['dep1', 'dep2', 'dep3'] vs ['dep2', 'dep3', 'dep1']) will also effect the order of execution of run blocks and config blocks. Angular will traverse the dependency tree twice and execute, in order, all config blocks followed by all run blocks.
Angular uses a post-order traversal to initialize modules and their associated config and run blocks. So if we represent our module dependencies as a tree:
The order of traversal is ACEDBHIGF
What I do on my projects, is keep everything separate in the developing environment, but then compile things down via gulp.js (grunt should work as well). That's a separate subject though, but here's an example of how to keep your angular code in different files.
The main file (must be loaded first) could be as follows. We will define our module, controllers, directives, repositories, or whatever else. Let's call it app.js:
// AngularJS Application File
var example = angular.module(
// ngApp name
'example',
// Default Dependencies
[
'exampleControllers',
'exampleRepositories',
'exampleDirectives'
]
);
var exampleControllers = angular.module('exampleControllers', []);
var exampleRepositories = angular.module('exampleRepositories', []);
var exampleDirectives = angular.module('exampleDirectives', []);
Now, we can access this exampleControllers, exampleRepositories, and exampleDirectives from within any javascript file that follows.
controllers.js file.
exampleControllers
// Main Controller
.controller('MainController',
[
'$scope',
'$log',
function ($scope, $log) {
$scope.hello = 'Hello World';
}
]
)
// Sub Page Controller
.controller('SubPageController',
[
'$scope',
'someService',
'$log',
function ($scope, sService, $log) {
$log.info($scope.hello);
}
]
);
anothercontroller.js file:
exampleControllers
// Another Controller
.controller('AnotherController',
[
'$scope',
'$log',
function ($scope, $log) {
$scope.helloagain = 'Hello World, from another controller';
}
]
)
And so forth.. Just make sure your app.js file gets loaded first so the example<whatever> variables are available.
I would definitely read up on gulp.js (http://gulpjs.com/). It's pretty awesome for automating work flows.

AngularJS best practices for module declaration?

I have a bunch of Angular modules declared in my app. I originally started declaring them using the "chained" syntax like this:
angular.module('mymodule', [])
.controller('myctrl', ['dep1', function(dep1){ ... }])
.service('myservice', ['dep2', function(dep2){ ... }])
... // more here
But I decided that wasn't very easy to read, so I started declaring them using a module variable like this:
var mod = angular.module('mymodule', []);
mod.controller('myctrl', ['dep1', function(dep1){ ... }]);
mod.service('myservice', ['dep2', function(dep2){ ... }]);
...
The second syntax seems a lot more readable to me, but my only complaint is that this syntax leaves the mod variable out in the global scope. If I ever have some other variable named mod, it would be overridden with this next one (and other issues associated with global variables).
So my question is, is this the best way? Or would it be better to do something like this?:
(function(){
var mod = angular.module('mymod', []);
mod.controller('myctrl', ['dep1', function(dep1){ ... }]);
mod.service('myservice', ['dep2', function(dep2){ ... }]);
...
})();
Or does it even matter enough to care? Just curious to know what the "best practices" are for module declaration.
'Best' way to declare a module
As angular is on the global scope itself and modules are saved to its variable you can access modules via angular.module('mymod'):
// one file
// NOTE: the immediately invoked function expression
// is used to exemplify different files and is not required
(function(){
// declaring the module in one file / anonymous function
// (only pass a second parameter THIS ONE TIME as a redecleration creates bugs
// which are very hard to dedect)
angular.module('mymod', []);
})();
// another file and/or another anonymous function
(function(){
// using the function form of use-strict...
"use strict";
// accessing the module in another.
// this can be done by calling angular.module without the []-brackets
angular.module('mymod')
.controller('myctrl', ['dep1', function(dep1){
//..
}])
// appending another service/controller/filter etc to the same module-call inside the same file
.service('myservice', ['dep2', function(dep2){
//...
}]);
// you can of course use angular.module('mymod') here as well
angular.module('mymod').controller('anothermyctrl', ['dep1', function(dep1){
//..
}])
})();
No other global variables are required.
Of course it depends all on preferences, but I think this is kind of the best practise, as
you don't have to pollute the global scope
you can access your modules everywhere and sort them and their functions into different files at will
you can use the function-form of "use strict";
the loading order of files does not matter as much
Options for sorting your modules and files
This way of declaring and accessing modules makes you very flexible. You can sort modules via function-type (like described in another answer) or via route, e.g.:
/******** sorting by route **********/
angular.module('home')...
angular.module('another-route')...
angular.module('shared')...
How you sort it in the end is a matter of personal taste and the scale and type of the project. I personally like to group all files of a module inside of the same folder (ordered into sub-folders of directives, controllers, services and filters), including all different test-files, as it makes your modules more reusable. Thus in middle-sized projects I end up with a base-module, which includes all basic routes and their controllers, services, directives and more or less complex sub-modules, when I think they could be useful for other projects as well,e.g.:
/******** modularizing feature-sets **********/
/controllers
/directives
/filters
/services
/my-map-sub-module
/my-map-sub-module/controllers
/my-map-sub-module/services
app.js
...
angular.module('app', [
'app.directives',
'app.filters',
'app.controllers',
'app.services',
'myMapSubModule'
]);
angular.module('myMapSubModule',[
'myMapSubModule.controllers',
'myMapSubModule.services',
// only if they are specific to the module
'myMapSubModule.directives',
'myMapSubModule.filters'
]);
For very big projects, I sometimes end up grouping modules by routes, as described above or by some selected main routes or a even a combination of routes and some selected components, but it really depends.
EDIT:
Just because it is related and I ran into that very recently again: Take good care that you create a module only once (by adding a second parameter to the angular.module-function). This will mess up your application and can be very hard to detect.
2015 EDIT on sorting modules:
One and a half year of angular-experience later, I can add that the benefits from using differently named modules within your app are somewhat limited as AMD still does not really work well with Angular and services, directives and filters are globally available inside the angular context anyway (as exemplified here). There is still a semantic and structural benefit though and it might be helpful being able to include/ exclude a module with a single line of code commented in or out.
It also almost never makes much sense to separate sub-modules by type (eg. 'myMapSubModule.controllers') as they usually depend on each other.
I love the angular-styleguide by Johnpapa, and here are some rules that related to this question:
Rule: Named vs Anonymous Functions
Avoid using anonymous functions:
// dashboard.js
angular
.module('app')
.controller('Dashboard', function() { })
Instead, use named functions:
// dashboard.js
angular
.module('app')
.controller('Dashboard', Dashboard);
function Dashboard() { }
As the author says: This produces more readable code, is much easier to debug, and reduces the amount of nested callback code.
Rule : Define 1 component per file.
Avoid multiple components in one file:
angular
.module('app', ['ngRoute'])
.controller('SomeController', SomeController)
.factory('someFactory', someFactory);
function SomeController() { }
function someFactory() { }
Intead, use one file to define the module:
// app.module.js
angular
.module('app', ['ngRoute']);
one file just uses the module to define a component
// someController.js
angular
.module('app')
.controller('SomeController', SomeController);
function SomeController() { }
and another file to define another component
// someFactory.js
angular
.module('app')
.factory('someFactory', someFactory);
function someFactory() { }
Of course, there are many other rules for modules, controllers and services that are quite useful and worth reading.
And thanks to comment of ya_dimon, the above code should be wrapped in IIFE, for example:
(function (window, angular) {
angular.module('app')
.controller('Dashboard', function () { });
})(window, window.angular);
I recently had this conundrum as well. I had started off just like you using the chained syntax, but in the long run it becomes unwieldy with large projects. Normally I'd create a controllers module, a services module and so on in separate files and inject them into my main application module found in another file. For Example:
// My Controllers File
angular.module('my-controllers',[])
.controller('oneCtrl',[...])
.controller('twoCtrl',[...]);
// My Services File
angular.module('my-services',[])
.factory('oneSrc',[...])
.facotry('twoSrc',[...]);
// My Directives File
angular.module('my-directives',[])
.directive('oneDrct',[...])
.directive('twoDrct',[...]);
// My Main Application File
angular.module('my-app',['my-controllers','my-services','my-directives',...]);
But each one of these files was getting way to large as the project grew. So I decided to break them up into separate files based on each controller or service. I found that using angular.module('mod-name'). without the injection array, is what you need for this to work. Declaring a global variable in one file and expecting that to be readily available in another just doesn't work or could have unexpected results.
So in short my application looked something like this:
// Main Controller File
angular.module('my-controllers',[]);
// Controller One File
angular.module('my-controllers').controller('oneCtrl',[...]);
//Controller Two File
angular.module('my-controllers').controller('twoCtrl',[...]);
I did this to the services file as well, no need to change the main application module file you'd still be injecting the same modules into that.
One other practice is to stuff controllers, directives, etc in their own modules and inject those modules into your "main" one:
angular.module('app.controllers', [])
.controller('controller1', ['$scope', function (scope) {
scope.name = "USER!";
}]);
angular.module('app.directives', [])
.directive('myDirective', [function () {
return {
restrict: 'A',
template: '<div>my directive!</div>'
}
}]);
angular.module('app', [
'app.controllers',
'app.directives'
]);
Nothing is left in the global scope.
http://plnkr.co/edit/EtzzPRyxWT1MkhK7KcLo?p=preview
I like to divide my files and my modules.
Something like this:
app.js
var myApp = angular.module('myApp', ['myApp.controllers', 'myApp.directives', 'myApp.services']);
myApp.config(['$routeProvider', function($routeProvider) {
/* routes configs */
$routeProvider.when(/*...*/);
}]);
directives.js
var myDirectives = angular.module('myApp.directives', []);
myDirectives.directive( /* ... */ );
service.js
var myServices = angular.module('myApp.services', []);
myServices.factory( /* ... */ );
Im not a big fan of the "chained style", so I prefer to write down my variable always.
I suggest to follow Angularjs Style Guide.
They handle all concept from naming convention, to modularize your app and so on.
For angular 2, you can check Angular 2 Style Guide
For me, chaining is the most compact way:
angular.module("mod1",["mod1.submod1"])
.value("myValues", {
...
})
.factory("myFactory", function(myValues){
...
})
.controller("MainCtrl", function($scope){
// when using "Ctrl as" syntax
var MC = this;
MC.data = ...;
})
;
That way I can easily move components between modules, never need to declare the same module twice, never need any global variables.
And if the file gets too long, solution is simple - split into two files, each declaring its own module at the top. For more transparency, I try to keep one unique module per file and name it resembling the full path of the file. This way also I never need to write a module without [], which is a common pain point.

What underlying concept(s) am I not understanding in regard to this AngularJS code snippet?

I've been reading through the tutorial, dev guide, and practicing on my own, but I'm having trouble piecing everything together in my mind with regard to dependency injection.
Question: Within the first code snippet in the linked page below, why is the name of the "service" located in front of $inject and why is the parameter of the service used here again? Or better yet what concepts am I lacking in understanding? I'd like to be able to piece it all together in my head step by step, but I'm still trying to understand how exactly even the globally defined "services/functions" can be written this way.
http://docs.angularjs.org/guide/dev_guide.services.understanding_services
So in that code snippet is injecting the $location service into MyController. So MyController depends on $location so it declares the dependency and its owns the dependency declaration.
Here is the code commented:
// declaring a Controller function
var MyController = function($location) { ... };
// $location service is required by MyController
MyController.$inject = ['$location'];
// Then register the Controller in the module.
// The module is the container that performs DI on the objects within it.
myModule.controller('MyController', MyController);
Typically though you'd do the following to declare the Controller and it's dependencies in one shot that's cleaner. The dependencies are strings at the front of the array before the final function which is the controller being registered. Here is the simpler definition:
myModule.controller('MyController', ['$scope', '$location', function($scope, $location) {
$scope.someFunction = function() {
// do something with $location service in here
};
}]);
Keep in mind this:
"...even the globally defined "services/functions"
The whole point of DI is to not define things globally because global definitions create coupling that make it hard to reuse major portions of your system (ie you can't break apart the system without instantiating the whole thing). Dependency Injection separates the dependency (ie MyController depends on/uses $location service) from where it finds that reference. Beginner developers, and some dense senior devs quite frankly, typically just define things globally and that's how everything gets a reference to their dependencies. DI allows code to simply declare its dependencies so its dependencies can be given to the code by an external entity instead of the code assuming where to get it from. Often this is called the Hollywood Principle - Don't call us we'll call you.
It looks like you're lacking a strong understanding of Dependency Injection in AngularJS.
Once you define a service, it then needs to be injected inside to the controller that is going to use it. The two code samples on that page show the two different methods of injecting the service into the controller.
I'd suggest you look at the docs: AngularJS: Dependency Injection

How do I write a custom module for AngularJS?

I need to write a custom module for AngularJS, but I can't find any good documentation on the subject. How do I write a custom module for AngularJS that I can share with others?
In these situations were you think that the docs can't help you any more, a very good way to learn is to look at other already-build modules and see how others did it, how they designed the architecture and how they integrated them in their app.
After looking at what others did, you should have at least a starting point.
For example, take a look at any angular ui module and you will see many custom modules.
Some define just a single directive, while others define more stuff.
Like #nXqd said, the basic way to create a module is:
// 1. define the module and the other module dependencies (if any)
angular.module('myModuleName', ['dependency1', 'dependency2'])
// 2. set a constant
.constant('MODULE_VERSION', '0.0.3')
// 3. maybe set some defaults
.value('defaults', {
foo: 'bar'
})
// 4. define a module component
.factory('factoryName', function() {/* stuff here */})
// 5. define another module component
.directive('directiveName', function() {/* stuff here */})
;// and so on
After defining your module, it's very easy to add components to it (without having to store your module in a variable) :
// add a new component to your module
angular.module('myModuleName').controller('controllerName', function() {
/* more stuff here */
});
And the integration part is fairly simple: just add it as a dependency on your app module (here's how angular ui does it).
angular.module('myApp', ['myModuleName']);
If you want to look for a good example, you should look into the current module written in angularJS. Learn to read their source code. Btw this is a structure that I use to write modules in angularJS:
var firstModule = angular.module('firstModule', [])
firstModule.directive();
firstModule.controller();
// in your app.js, include the module
This is the basic one.
var newMod = angular.module('newMod', []);
newMod.controller('newCon', ['$scope', function ($scope) {
alert("I am in newCon");
$scope.gr = "Hello";
}]);
Here newMod is a module which has no dependencies [] and has a controller which has an alert telling you are in the controller and a variable with value hello.

Resources