how to write modular angular controllers - angularjs

Please feel free to rephrase the title as necessary.
I do know how to write controllers the modular way.
var controllers = {};
controllers.ToDoController = function($scope){
//...
};
But you can do the same as follows:
var app = angular.module('myApp', []);
app.controller('ToDoController', '$scope', '$location', function($scope, $location){
//...
});
Above you are defining the arguments for the controller method. How do we do this in the first approach?

This is achieved using dependency injection:
var controllers = {};
controllers.ToDoController = function($scope, $location) {
//...
};
controllers.ToDoController.$inject = ['$scope', '$location'];
You can also check the official docs and examples here

Related

How to protect angularJS controller from minify

So I know that I need to use [] to secure my code before minification. For example:
app.controller('mainController', ['$scope', function($scope) {
$scope.message = 'HOORAY!';
}]);
But how to do that when I am not using app as global variable, I've got
(function () {
'use strict';
angular
.module('app')
.controller('loginCtrl', Controller);
function Controller($scope, authService) {
var vm = $scope;
vm.login = function(login_field, password_field) {
var loginData = {
login: login_field,
password: password_field
};
authService.login(loginData);
};
}
})();
How to prevent it from problems during minification?
The same way:
.controller('loginCtrl', ['$scope', 'authService', Controller]);
I strongly advise you to use ng-annotate, which allows using the simple syntax, and transforms it into minifiable code for you. That will make your code simpler, easier to read, and avoid a whole lot of bugs.
When a controller or a service is a named function like in code above, it looks best when it's annotated with $inject (see John Papa style guide).
angular
.module('app')
.controller('loginCtrl', Controller);
Controller.$inject = ['$scope', 'authService'];
function Controller($scope, authService) {...}
Hoisting allows to place the annotation right above injectable function.
I believe it should be the same way:
(function () {
'use strict';
angular
.module('app')
.controller('loginCtrl', ['$scope', 'authService', function($scope, authService) {
$scope.login = function(login_field, password_field) {
var loginData = {
login: login_field,
password: password_field
};
authService.login(loginData);
};
}]);
})();
One way you may try grunt-ngmin before the minification that will searches and replace the minification with minify-friendly code. Go to this link you will see example https://github.com/btford/grunt-ngmin#example

Which one is correct way for initializing module,controller in angularJS?

Which one is correct way for initializing module,controller in angularJS
var myapp=angular.module('myApp', []);
myapp.controller('Ctrl1', Ctrl1);
myapp.controller('Ctrl2', Ctrl2);
Ctrl1.$inject = ['$scope', '$http'];
Ctrl2.$inject = ['$scope', '$http'];
function Ctrl1($scope, $http) {
}
function Ctrl2($scope, $http) {
}
or this way
var myapp=angular.module('myApp', []);
myapp.controller('Ctrl1', Ctrl1);
Ctrl1.$inject = ['$scope', '$http'];
function Ctrl1($scope, $http) {
}
myapp.controller('Ctrl2', Ctrl2);
Ctrl2.$inject = ['$scope', '$http'];
function Ctrl2($scope, $http) {
}
or doing this way
var myapp=angular.module('myApp', []);
myapp.controller('Ctrl1', ['$scope', '$http', function ($scope, $http) {} ]);
myapp.controller('Ctrl2', ['$scope', '$http', function ($scope, $http) {} ]);
I am confusing which way is correct and can you give give me the cirrect project structure of AngularJS frmawork
Any sample project for that in github always welcome
Some peoples says John Papa style which one correct way i mean most efficient way
The simpliest way is to write:
myapp.controller('Ctrl1', function($scope, $http) {
});
And you should use ngmin to parse your code before minification. It will automatically wrap the controller callback in ['$scope', '$http', function($scope, $http) {}] to avoid minification problem.
If you use gulp, use gulp-ngmin.
The second way should be the ideal way as because
It is easy to read.
Easy to maintain
Protected from minification by the injector.
Anyways all of them are correct.
But second way should be the best.
Also make sure that you wrap the code in the way to protect from variable name clashes:
(function(){
'use strict'; //another best practice
//then your code
})()
Angular's $inject method, we can explicitly declare our dependencies. This one may give problem for every controller injection. Other than you can use.
https://docs.angularjs.org/api/auto/service/$injector

Setting AngularJS global values for accessing and setting across controllers

I have been experimenting with AngularJS values, and wish to store a global value for accessing and setting in different controllers.
So I have been trying out with the value approach like so:
var app = angular.module('myApp', []);
app.value('globalValue', 0);
app.controller('myCtrl', ['$scope', '$rootScope', 'globalValue', function($scope, $rootScope, globalValue) {
$scope.updateValue = function() {
globalValue++;
};
}]);
app.controller('myCtrlB', ['$scope', '$rootScope', 'globalValue', function($scope, $rootScope, globalValue) {
$scope.someValueB=globalValue;
}]);
Here's a fiddle
This is not working as I thought it might, so in my fiddle, when clicking the button to increment my 'global', the scope property in myCtrlB does not change.
I have clearly gone about this the wrong way, have I totally misunderstood how to use value()'s here?
Thanks
This code should work basically you need an object so both controllers are pointing at the same object and some property of that object is changed. Otherwise you are assigning the initial value of globalValue to some local variable but it's not a reference.
var app = angular.module('myApp', []);
app.value('globalValue', {counter:0});
app.controller('myCtrl', ['$scope', '$rootScope', 'globalValue', function($scope, $rootScope, globalValue) {
$scope.updateValue = function() {
globalValue.counter++;
};
}]);
app.controller('myCtrlB', ['$scope', '$rootScope', 'globalValue', function($scope, $rootScope, globalValue) {
$scope.someValueB=globalValue;
}]);
Updated fiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/kfxy5hs1/3/

A better way to use filters/objects in Angular controllers?

I'm setting a rootScope variable to maintain the state of the program. This works, but I don't think it's quite 'right'. Is there a better way to select an object from an array?
Here's my current code.
angular.module('myApp.controllers', [])
.controller('packingCtrl', ['$scope', '$http', '$filter', '$rootScope', function($scope, $http, $filter, $rootScope) {
$http.get('data/trayData.json').success(function(data) {
$scope.trays = data;
});
var currentOrder = $rootScope.currentlyPacking;;
$http.get('data/orderData.json').success(function(data) {
$scope.orders = data;
$scope.current = $filter('filter')($scope.orders, {orderId: currentOrder});
});
}])
Thanks in advance for any insight / best practices.
You can create a service to hold your state. Each service instance is a singleton, so when the service is injected into various controllers, all will see the same state.
var currentlyPackingSvc = function($http) {
var currentlyPacking = {
}
return {
currentlyPacking: currentlyPacking,
getTrays: function() { /* make $http call and update currentlyPacking */ },
getOrders: function() { /* make $http call and update currentlyPacking */ }
}
}
angular.service('currentlyPackingSvc', ['$http', currentlyPackingSvc]);
angular.controller('packingCtrl', ['$scope', '$http', '$filter', '$rootScope', 'currentlyPackingSvc'
function($scope, $http, $filter, $rootScope, currentlyPackingSvc) {
...
var currentOrder = currentlyPackingSvc.currentlyPacking;
...
}]);
Assuming you leave your 'currentlyPacking' property as an object, the changes should automatically be pushed to your scope.
This way, you have all your state isolated to one service that can be utilized anywhere.

AngularJS $injector.invoke - ParentController is not defined

I have 2 controllers defined:
var myApp = angular.module('nestedControllersModule',[]);
myApp.controller('ParentController', ['$scope', function($scope) {
}]);
myApp.controller('ChildController', ['$scope', '$injector', function($scope, $injector) {
$injector.invoke(ParentController, this, {$scope: $scope});
}]);
This gives: ReferenceError: ParentController is not defined.
This code works only if ParentController is defined as:
function ParentController($scope) {}
I am trying to inject the parent in the child as then I can inherit the common functions defined in the parent.
var myApp = angular.module('nestedControllersModule',[]);
myApp.controller('ParentController', ['$scope', function($scope) {
$scope.name = 'ParentName';
$scope.Type = 'ParentType';
$scope.clickme = function() {
alert('This is parent controller "ParentController" calling');
}
}]);
myApp.controller('ChildController', ['$scope', '$injector', '$ParentController', function($scope, $injector, $ParentController) {
$injector.invoke(ParentController, this, {$scope: $scope});
$scope.name = 'Child';
}]);
myApp.controller('ParentController', ['$scope', function($scope) {
}]);
myApp.controller('ChildController', ['$scope', 'ParentController', function($scope, ParentController) {
// ok now you have ParentController
}]);
But I think you need to use Services to share data/functions between Controllers or using PubSub model:
What's the correct way to communicate between controllers in AngularJS?
This reduces coupling between parts of your app.
This is a basic workaround to achieve what you're after:
var myApp = angular.module('nestedControllersModule',[]);
myApp.factory('ParentControllerFactory', function () {
function ParentControllerFactory($scope) {
$scope.name = 'ParentName';
$scope.Type = 'ParentType';
$scope.clickme = function() {
alert('This is parent controller "ParentController" calling');
}
}
return (ParentControllerFactory);
})
.controller('ParentController', ['$scope', '$injector', 'ParentControllerFactory', function ($scope, $injector, ParentControllerFactory) {
$injector.invoke(ParentControllerFactory, this, {
$scope: $scope
});
}])
.controller('ChildController', ['$scope', '$injector', 'ParentControllerFactory', function ($scope, $injector, ParentControllerFactory) {
$injector.invoke(ParentControllerFactory, this, {
$scope: $scope
});
}]);
I say workaround because it's probably worthwhile looking into properly implementing a service to manage any commonality as previously mentioned (or better yet, splitting commonality into directives, clickme for example is a good candidate)
...also note that $injector.invoke(ParentControllerFactory as it is above will most likely chuck a hissy fit if/when you minify your scripts later on, so be careful where and how it used.
Consider using the Mixin pattern possible by using the $controller service.
In your example, you would replace the $injector service with the $controller service:
var myApp = angular.module('nestedControllersModule',[]);
myApp.controller('ParentController', ['$scope', function($scope) {
$scope.name = 'ParentName';
$scope.Type = 'ParentType';
$scope.clickme = function() {
alert('This is parent controller "ParentController" calling');
}
}]);
myApp.controller('ChildController', ['$scope', '$controller', '$ParentController', function($scope, $controller, $ParentController) {
$controller('ParentController',{$scope: $scope})
$scope.name = 'Child';
}]);
This is a good overview of using the $controller service:
http://vadimpopa.com/split-large-angularjs-controllers-using-the-mixin-pattern/

Resources