I have a page containing multiple containers. Each container will have its own controller but point to one factory, which handles all the logic interacting with a web service API. I would like to have a separate file for each controller BUT I want all of this inside of one module. for the life of me I cannot find how to include controllers from different files into one modules.
//file 1
MyController ....
//file 2
MyOtherController
//file 3
MyFactory
//file 4
The Module
The module would be composed of MyController, MyOtherController and MyFactory defined in three separate files. Can someone help with this or point me to a good resource? Thanks!
You can think of a module as a container for the different parts of your app – controllers, services, filters, directives, etc. To access a container just call its module name for example
//file.4
angular.module("theModule",[]);
now that you have declared main module within angular now you can access mainModule from anywhere using angular
//file 1
angular.module("theModule").controller("MyController",[function(){...}]);
//file 2
angular.module("theModule").controller("MyOtherController",[function(){...}]);
//file 3
angular.module("mainModule").factory("MyFactory",[function(){...}]);
Check out the documentation for more information.
I also suggest reading Google's style guide and conventions manual
Also read about setting up app structure for maintainability
Here is a example of an Angular module setup I am using in an app that allows a separate external file for each module type. Note that the app must load before the external files. Tested on Angular 1.4.9.
Index.html
<script src="bower_components/angular/angular.min.js"></script>
<script src="js/ng-app.js"></script>
<script src="js/ng-factories.js"></script>
<script src="js/ng-directives.js"></script>
<script src="js/ng-controllers.js"></script>
ng-app.js
var app = angular.module('myApp', [
'factories',
'directives',
'controllers'
]);
ng-controllers.js
//note: I am injecting the helloFac factory as an example
var ctrl = angular.module('controllers', []);
ctrl.controller('MyCtrl', ['$scope', 'helloFac', function($scope, helloFac) {
console.log(helloFac.sayHello('Angular developer'));
}]);
ng-directives.js
angular.module('directives',[])
.directive('test', function () {
return {
//implementation
}
})
.directive('test2', function () {
return {
//implementation
}
});
ng-factories.js
var factories = angular.module("factories", []);
factories.factory('helloFac', function() {
return {
sayHello: function(text){
return 'Hello ' + text;
}
}
});
Related
So when you define a controller in angular, you do so this way.
angular.module('AppName').controller('ControllerName', function ($scope, $location, dataService, commonMethods) {
});
How would you take this and make the same controller be used in two different apps?
angular.module('AppName1').controller('ControllerName', function ($scope, $location, dataService, commonMethods) {
});
angular.module('AppName2').controller('ControllerName', function ($scope, $location, dataService, commonMethods) {
});
Make a separate module with all of the items you share between various apps (controllers, services, etc.) and then just inject that module into any apps that require those items.
So in something like shared.js you have:
angular.module("shared")
.controller(...)
.service(...)
.constant(...)
Then make sure you load the shared.js file before your app's module file and then inject it with:
angular.module("app","shared")
This is exactly what modules are for, to make the application modular.
angular.module('some', []).controller('SomeController', ...);
...
angular.module('app1', ['some']);
...
angular.module('app2', ['some']);
If you put your services, factories, directives, etc. into SEPARATE js files, and each begin with . Then just include the .js file.
// Constants.js
.constant('Constants', {
Initialize_IntervalMilliseconds: {
defltTimeout: 50,
longTimeout: 250
}
});
// factoryGlobal.js
myTable.factory('factGlobal', function () {
return {
BaseURL: "http://localhost:6/api/",
etc = ""
};
});
You can use them for multiple modules. Quite nice
'use strict';
var trkiApp = angular.module('trkiApp', [
'trkiApp.tStatus',
'trkiApp.feed'
]);
var tStatus = angular.module('trkiApp.tStatus', [])
.factory('Status', ['$q']);
var feed = angular.module('trkiApp.feed', []);
And now i dont understand how is possible that i can access the service Status which is defined on another module?
'use strict';
feed
.controller('FeedController', ['$scope','$http','Status']);
I should not right? But somehow i am...or is that a correct behaviour?
A Module is a collection of configuration and run blocks which get applied to the application during the bootstrap process. Modules can list other modules as their dependencies. Depending on a module implies that required module needs to be loaded before the requiring module is loaded.
var myModule = angular.module('myModule', ['module1','module2']);
When you injected your module, the services got registered during the configuration phase and you could access them, so to make a long story short, it's the correct behavior and the core fundamentals of dependency injection in Angular.
For example
angular.module('module1').service('appservice', function(appservice) {
var serviceCall = $http.post('api/getUser()',"Role");
});
So how it can be accessed using angular.module('myModule');
angular.module('myModule').controller('appservice', function(appservice)
{
var Servicedata= appservice.ServiceCall('role');
}
This how it can be accessed. If anyone has another suggestion please say so.
after made some changes
html should look like:
<body ng-app="myModule" ng-controller="appservices"></body>
Above section of code used to bootstrap your angular module
angular should look like:
var myModule = angular.module('myModule', ['module1','module2']);
myModule.controller("appservices",["$scope","mod1factory","mod2factory",function($scope,mod1factory,mod2factory){
console.log(mod1factory.getData()) ;
console.log(mod2factory.getData()) ;
}]);
var mod1 = angular.module('module1',[]);
mod1.factory("mod1factory",function(){
var mod1result = {};
mod1result = {
getData: function(){
return "calling module 1 result";
}
}
return mod1result;
});
var mod2 = angular.module('module2',[]);
mod2.factory("mod2factory",function(){
var mod2result = {};
mod2result = {
getData: function(){
return "calling module 2 result";
}
}
return mod2result;
});
Explanation: created a main module myModule and inject other modules(in my case module1 and module2) as dependency so by this you can access both the module inside the main module and share the data between them
console.log(mod1factory.getData()) ;
console.log(mod2factory.getData()) ;
created two factory and inject it in my controller mod1factory and mod12factory in my case .
so mod1 & mod2 are both differnt modules but can share info. inside main controller myModule
I had a similar issue when trying to inject dependencies from another module. Alex's answer didn't work for me. I was getting a circular dependencies error.
To fix it, make sure you are including all the module-specific JavaScript before. For example moduleA was defined in another JS file.
var app = angular.module('plunker', ['moduleA']);
app.controller('MainCtrl', function($scope, MainService) {
$scope.name = 'World';
$scope.hello = MainService.hello();
});
Working example Plunker
I'm learning AngularJS following an organization inspired by ng-boilerplate. I create different Angular modules for the different parts of my site.
However, I want to create all common elements (services and directives) under the main module, while having them all be in separate source files.
This code works, but is the module in sessionService.js referencing the same module than app.js, or is it creating a new one with the same name?
app.js
var app = angular.module('myApp', [...])
.config(...)
.controller(...);
sessionService.js
angular.module('myApp', [])
.service('SessionService', function() { ... });
If you call angular.module('myApp', []) multiple times on the same page, you will likely run into errors or conflicts. I never tried that.
However, if you already run angular.module('myApp', []) once. Then you can run angular.module('myApp') (note: without []) to retrieve (refer to) the myApp module you defined earlier.
in controller.js file :
var app = angular.module('myApp',['newService']);
in service.js :
angular.module('newService',[])
.service('someService',function(){
return {
// return something
return null
}
}
});
Do not forget to include both the js files in your HTML:
<script src="controllers/controller.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="services/service.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
Naming & namespacing is important in any project. Try:
app.js:
var app = angular.module('myApp', ['sessionService', ...])...;
sessionService.js:
angular.module('sessionService', [])
.service('SessionService', ...);
Notice that the module name is in lower camel case while the service object itself is upper camel case. This will help you avoid namespace clashing. Hope that helps.
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.
In some AngularJS tutorials, angular app is defined as:
myApp = angular.module("myApp",[]);
But we can also do without it. The only difference I can see is when we define controller, we can't use idiom:
myApp.controller("myCtrl",function(){ })
but has to use
function myCtrl (){}
Is there any other benefits of defining myApp explicitly, given that I will only create a single app for my site? If I don't define myApp, then where my modules are attached to?
If there is, how I can recreate myApp in testing with Jasmin?
You can define controllers in (at least) 3 ways:
Define the controller as a global var (stored on the window object)
function Ctrl() {}
which is the same as doing:
window.Ctrl = function () {}
Create a module and use the returned instance to create new controllers:
var app = angular.module('app', []);
app.controller('Ctrl', function() {});
Create the controllers directly on the module without storing any references (the same as 2 but without using vars):
angular.module('app', []);
angular.module('app').controller('Ctrl', function() {});
From Angular's point of view, they all do the same, you can even mix them together and they will work. The only difference is that option 1 uses global vars while in options 2 and 3 the controllers are stored inside an Angular's private object.
I understand where you're coming from since the explanation for bootstrapping your Angular is all over the place. Having been playing with Angular only for a month (I'll share what I know anyways), I've seen how you have it defined above. I was also in the same scenario where I only have to define myApp once and not have multiple ones.
As an alternative, you can do something like this below. You'll notice that the Angular app and the controller doesn't have to live by the same namespace. I think that is more for readability and organization than anything.
JS:
window.app = {};
/** Bootstrap on document load and define the document along with
optional modules as I have below.
*/
angular.element(document).ready(function () {
app.ang = angular.bootstrap(document, ['ngResource', 'ngSanitize']);
// OR simply, works similarly.
// angular.bootstrap(document, []);
});
/** Define Angular Controller */
app.myController= function ($scope, $resource, $timeout) {
};
HTML:
<div role="main" ng-controller="app.myController"></div>
you have to define the app with angular.module anyway. myApp.controller and function myCtrl are the same..