I'm trying to compose some unit tests in Karma/Jasmine for a particular module in my project, destination-filters.
Module Decleration:
angular.module('destination-filter', ['ngSanitize']);
My tests fail unless I remove ngSanitize as a dependency. To my understanding that is because when the module is instantiated it will try and pull in that dependency but because in my spec.js file I haven't declared that module it is failing.
Spec File:
describe('Destination Filter Controller', function () {
// Set the variables
var $controller;
var mockNgSanitize;
beforeEach(module('destination-filter'));
beforeEach(function() {
module(function($provide) {
$provide.value('ngSanitize', mockNgSanitize);
});
});
beforeEach(inject(function (_$controller_) {
$controller = _$controller_('DestinationFilterController');
}));
it('should expect the controller to not be null', function() {
// Check the controller is set
expect($controller).not.toBeNull();
});
});
Previously, when mocking out services or functions, the $provide method has proven very useful but I'm not sure my use of it is correct here. I'm assuming $provide used in this way can't mock entire modules but rather services?
To clarify, if I remove the ...['ngSantize'])... from my module deceleration the tests instantiate correctly. The error I am receiving with it left in is Error: [$injector:modulerr] destination-filter
There are three options you could take for using ngSanitize in your tests:
inject the service into your test
stub a method call on ngSanitize
mock the entire ngSanitize service
The option you choose is really dependent on the use of ngSanitize in your working code (not your test code).
Whichever one you go for you need to make the service available in your test, there is no need for $provider (this covers option 1 and there is no need to do any more than this if you just want to make this available to your filter):
beforeEach(module('ngSanitize'));
beforeEach(inject(function(_ngSanitize_) { // the underscores are needed
mockNgSanitize = _ngSanitize_;
}));
Also, make sure that all js files are picked up and loaded by karma. You can define this in karma.conf.js by adding them to the files: property.
2. Stub a method on the service
I like stubs and find them very useful when writing tests. Your tests should only test one thing, in your case a filter. Stubs give you more control over your tests and allow you to isolate the thing under test.
Typically filters, controllers, anything call on lots of other things (services or factories like $http or ngSanitize).
Assuming that your filter is using ngSanitize's $sanitize to sanitize some html you could stub out that method to return sanitized html you have defined to test against your expectations:
// in a beforeEach
spyOn(mockNgSanitize, "$sanitize").and.returnValue('<some>sanitized<html>');
mockNgSanitized.$sanitize(yourDirtyHtml);
See the jasmine docs for more info.
You might have to play around with spying on the right service but this should work ok.
3. Mock the entire service
I don't think you want to go with this option because it will drive you insane figuring out what needs mocking plus mocks can create unrealistic expectations and also, not particularly useful for your use case. If you really want to have a go then something like the below is heading in the right direction (again see the jasmine docs)
beforeEach(function() {
mockNgSanitize = ('ngSanitize', ['linky', '$sanitize', '$sanitizeProvider'];
});
it('mocks the ngSanitize service', function() {
expect(mockNgSanitize.linky).toBeDefined();
});
NB: in all the code above make sure you continue to declare any variables up at the top of your describe block.
Tearing my hair out on this one.
I have the following module/controller I wish to test
angular
.module('monitor.tableLord.controller', ['monitor.wunderTable'])
.controller('TableLordController', TableLordController);
TableLordController.$inject = ['$scope', 'historyState'];
function TableLordController($scope, historyState) {
....some code....
}
The module monitor.wunderTable contains a directive that should be loaded before the controller, but the controller I want to test does not actually depend on monitor.wunderTable. monitor.wunderTable does however have a LOT of other dependencies....
My testfile:
describe('TableLordController', function() {
var $scope, historyState;
beforeEach(function() {
angular.module('monitor.wunderTable', []);
module('monitor.tableLord.controller');
});
beforeEach(angular.mock.inject(function($rootScope, $controller) {
$scope = $rootScope.$new();
$controller('TableLordController', {$scope: $scope, historyState: {}});
}));
it('loads', function() {
$scope.$digest();
});
});
For some reason (I didn't think this should be possible), my mock version of monitor.wunderTable is interfering with the tests i have for this module. Every test of the controller defined in this module now fails with: "Argument 'WunderTableController' is not a function, got undefined".
I case it is relevant, here is my the definition of monitor.wunderTable:
angular
.module('monitor.wunderTable', [
'ui.grid',
'ui.grid.infiniteScroll',
'ui.grid.autoResize',
'monitor.wunderTable.service'
])
.controller('WunderTableController', WunderTableController)
.directive('wunderTable', wunderTable);
function wunderTable(){...}
WunderTableController.$inject = [];
function WunderTableController(...){...}
Edit: Posts suggesting that I remove the module dependency (as it is not strictly needed) will not be accepted as correct answer (and possibly downwoted).
Your confusion comes from misunderstanding how modules work in Angular. Modules are stored inside angular. Once they are overriden, they are overriden for the current test run, not for the current spec. Module mocking isn't supported by ngMock (it would require some substantial changes in Angular core) and beforeEach won't help anything.
Unless you want to run test suites in separate runs, the solution is to backup the module before mocking it. In some cases angular.extend and angular.copy are unable to handle complex objects properly. Object.assign, jQuery.extend or node-extend may be better candidates. In the case of extends deep copy can also used if necessary.
So in one test suite it is
var moduleBackup = angular.module('monitor.wunderTable');
angular.module('monitor.wunderTable', []);
describe('TableLordController', function() {
...
And in another
Object.assign(angular.module('monitor.wunderTable'), moduleBackup);
describe('WunderTableController', function() {
...
The good thing about TDD is that it clearly indicates the flaws in app design and teaches the developer to write test-friendly code in immediate and ruthless manner. Module dependency implies that the components inside the module depend on the components from another one. If they doesn't or they are coupled too tightly, this can be considered a potential flaw and the subject for refactoring.
The fact that the solution is hack-ish and tends to break makes it unfit for testing.
TL;DR: Yes, you have to remove the module dependency.
I'm trying to "customize" the mongolab example to fit my own REST API. Now I'm running into this error and I am not sure what I am doing wrong:
Error: Unknown provider: ProductProvider <- Product
at Error (unknown source)
at http://localhost:3000/js/vendor/angular.min.js:28:395
at Object.c [as get] (http://localhost:3000/js/vendor/angular.min.js:26:180)
at http://localhost:3000/js/vendor/angular.min.js:28:476
at c (http://localhost:3000/js/vendor/angular.min.js:26:180)
at d (http://localhost:3000/js/vendor/angular.min.js:26:314)
This is my controller:
function ProductListCtrl($scope, Product) {
$scope.products = Product.query();
}
and this is the module:
angular.module('productServices', ['ngResource']).
factory('Product', ['$resource', function($resource){
var Product = $resource('/api/products/:id', { }, {
update: { method: 'PUT' }
});
return Product;
}]);
Your code looks good, in fact it works (apart from the calls themselves) when copied & pasted into a sample jsFiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/VGaWD/
Hard to say what is going on without seeing a more complete example but I hope that the above jsFiddle will be helpful. What I'm suspecting is that you are not initializing your app with the 'productServices' module. It would give the same error, we can see this in another jsFiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/a69nX/1/
If you are planning to work with AngularJS and MongoLab I would suggest using an existing adapter for the $resource and MongoLab: https://github.com/pkozlowski-opensource/angularjs-mongolab
It eases much of the pain working with MongoLab, you can see it in action here: http://jsfiddle.net/pkozlowski_opensource/DP4Rh/
Disclaimer! I'm maintaining this adapter (written based on AngularJS examples) so I'm obviously biased here.
I got that error because I was passing an incorrect parameter to the factory definition. I had:
myModule.factory('myService', function($scope, $http)...
It worked when I removed the $scope and changed the factory definition to:
myModule.factory('myService', function( $http)...
In case you need to inject $scope, use:
myModule.factory('myService', function($rootScope, $http)...
I just had a similar problem.
The error said the same the in the question, tried to solve it with the answer of pkozlowski.opensource and Ben G, which both are correct and good answers.
My problem was indeed different with the same error:
in my HTML-Code I had the initialisation like this...
<html ng-app>
A bit further down I tried to do something like this:
<div id="cartView" ng-app="myApp" ng-controller="CartCtrl">
I got rid of the first one... then it worked... obviously you can't initialise ng-app twice or more times. fair enough.
I totaly forgot about the first "ng-app" and got totaly frustrated. Maybe this is gonna help someone oneday...
Make sure your main app.js includes the services on which it depends. For example:
/* App Module */
angular.module('myApp', ['productServices']).
.....
pkozlowski's answer is correct, but just in case this happens to someone else, I had the same error after creating the same module twice by mistake; the second definition was overriding the provider of the first:
I created the module by doing
angular.module('MyService'...
).factory(...);
then a bit further down in the same file:
angular.module('MyService'...
).value('version','0.1');
The correct way of doing this is:
angular.module('MyService'...
).factory(...).value('version','0.1');
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 to inject it with Provider string appended --> xyz becomes xyzProvider.
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.
At the end of the JS file to close the factory function I had
});
instead of
}());
This took me way too long to track down. Make sure you minisafe your controller within your directive.
.directive('my_directive', ['injected_item', function (injected_item){
return {
controller: ['DO_IT_HERE_TOO', function(DO_IT_HERE_TOO){
}]
}
}
Hope that helps
To add my own experience in here, I was trying to inject a service into one of my module config functions. This paragraph from the docs which I eventually found explains why that doesn't work:
During application bootstrap, before Angular goes off creating all services, it configures and instantiates all providers. We call this the configuration phase of the application life-cycle. During this phase, services aren't accessible because they haven't been created yet.
Meaning you can inject providers into module.config(...) functions, but you can't inject services, for that you need to wait until module.run(...), or expose a provider you can inject to module.config
For me, this error was caused by running the minified version of my angular app. Angular docs suggest a way to work around this. Here is the relevant quote describing the issue, and you can find the suggested solution in the docs themselves here:
A Note on Minification
Since Angular infers the controller's dependencies from the names of arguments to the controller's constructor function, if you were to minify the JavaScript code for PhoneListCtrl controller, all of its function arguments would be minified as well, and the dependency injector would not be able to identify services correctly.
Since this is the top result for "angularjs unknown provider" on Google right now, here's another gotcha. When doing unit testing with Jasmine, make sure you have this statement in your beforeEach() function:
module('moduleName');
Otherwise you'll get this same error in your tests.
Yet another case where this error will occur, if you're service is defined in a separate javascript file, make sure you reference it! Yes, I know, rookie mistake.
I was forgetting to inject the file that held my services altogether. Remember to do this when initializing your app module:
angular.module('myApp', ['myApp.services', ... ]);
In my case, I used an anonymous function as a wrapper for the angular module, like this:
(function () {
var app = angular.module('myModule', []);
...
})();
After closing the parenthesis, I forgot to call the anonymous function by opening and closing the parentheses again as above.
For me the problem was lazy loading; I loaded my controller and service late, so they were not available at page load (and Angular initialization). I did this with an ui-if tag, but that's irrelevant.
The solution was to load the service with the page load already.
Here's another possible scenario where you can see this error:
If you use Sublime Text 2 and the angular plugin, it will generate stubs like this
angular.module('utils', [])
.factory('utilFactory', [''
function() {
return {
}
}
]);
notice the empty ' ' as the first element of the array after the 'utilFactory' string. If you don't have any dependencies, remove that so it's like this:
angular.module('utils', [])
.factory('utilFactory', [
function() {
return {
}
}
]);
Since this question is top google result, I will add another possible thing to the list.
If the module that you're using has a failure on the dependency injection wrapper, it will provide this same result. For example copy & paste modules from the internet may rely on underscore.js and attempt to inject with '_' in the di wrapper. If underscore doesn't exist in your project dependency providers, when your controller attempts to reference your module's factory, it will get 'unknown provider' for your factory in the browser's console log.
The problem for me was that there were some new javascript files I created that referenced the service yet Chrome saw only the older version. A CTRL + F5 fixed it for me.
I got an "unknown provider" error related to angular-mocks (ngMockE2E) when compiling my project with Grunt. The problem was that angular-mocks cannot be minified so I had to remove it from the list of minified files.
After handling with this error too, I can support this list of answers with my own case.
It's at the same time simple and dumb (maybe not dumb for beginners like me, but yes for experts), the script reference to angular.min.js must be the first one in your list of scripts in the html page.
This works:
<script src="Scripts/angular.min.js"></script>
<script src="MyScripts/MyCartController.js"></script>
<script src="MyScripts/MyShoppingModule.js"></script>
This not:
<script src="MyScripts/MyCartController.js"></script>
<script src="MyScripts/MyShoppingModule.js"></script>
<script src="Scripts/angular.min.js"></script>
Notice about the angular.min.js.
Hope it helps anyone !! :)
My problem was with Yeoman, using (capitalized):
yo angular:factory Test
Made files (uncapitalized):
app/scripts/services/test.js
but the index.html file included (capitalized):
<script src="scripts/services/Test.js"></script>
Hope this helps someone.
Yet another possibility.
I had unknown Provider <- <- nameOfMyService. The error was caused by the following syntax:
module.factory(['', function() { ... }]);
Angular was looking for the '' dependency.
My scenario may be a little obscure but it can cause the same error and someone may experience it, so:
When using the $controller service to instantiate a new controller (which was expecting '$scope' as it's first injected argument) I was passing the new controller's local scope into the $controller() function's second parameter. This lead to Angular trying to invoke a $scope service which doesn't exist (though, for a while, I actually thought that I'd some how deleted the '$scope' service from Angular's cache). The solution is to wrap the local scope in a locals object:
// Bad:
$controller('myController', newScope);
// Good:
$controller('myController, {$scope: newScope});
None of the answers above worked for me, maybe I was doing completely wrong, but as a beginner that's what we do.
I was initializing the controller in a div in order to have a list:
<div ng-controller="CategoryController" ng-init="initialize()">
And then using $routeProvider to map a URL to the same controller. As soon as I removed the ng-init the controller worked with the route.
I had same problem. I fixed that using $('body').attr("ng-app", 'MyApp') instead of <body ng-app="MyApp"> to boostrap.
Because I did
angular.element(document).ready(function () {
angular.bootstrap(document, [App.Config.Settings.AppName]);
})
for architecture requirements.
In my Ruby on Rails app, I had done the following:
rake assets:precompile
This was done in the 'development' environment, which had minified Angular.js and included it in the /public/assets/application.js file.
Removing the /public/assets/* files solved the problem for me.
I faced similar issue today and issues was really very small
app.directive('removeFriend', function($scope) {
return {
restrict: 'E',
templateUrl: 'removeFriend.html',
controller: function($scope) {
$scope.removing = false;
$scope.startRemove = function() {
$scope.removing = true;
}
$scope.cancelRemove = function() {
$scope.removing = false;
}
$scope.removeFriend = function(friend) {
var idx = $scope.user.friends.indexOf(friend)
if (idx > -1) {
$scope.user.friends.splice(idx, 1);
}
}
}
}
});
If you observe the above block, in the first line you will observe I injected $scope by mistake which is incorrect. I removed that unwanted dependency to solve the issue.
app.directive('removeFriend', function() {
return {
restrict: 'E',
templateUrl: 'removeFriend.html',
controller: function($scope) {
$scope.removing = false;
$scope.startRemove = function() {
$scope.removing = true;
}
$scope.cancelRemove = function() {
$scope.removing = false;
}
$scope.removeFriend = function(friend) {
var idx = $scope.user.friends.indexOf(friend)
if (idx > -1) {
$scope.user.friends.splice(idx, 1);
}
}
}
}
});
I had this error after I created a new factory and used it within a component but I did not check the specs of that components
so if the failure in your (specs) test files
you need to add beforeEach(module('YouNewServiceModule'));
Another 'gotcha': I was getting this error injecting $timeout, and it took a few minutes to realize I had whitespace in the array values. This will not work:
angular.module('myapp',[].
controller('myCtrl', ['$scope', '$timeout ',
function ($scope, $timeout){
//controller logic
}
]);
Posting just in case some else has a silly error like this.
My case was dodgy typing
myApp.factory('Notify',funtion(){
function has a 'c' !