myApp.directive('myView', ['myService',function($scope) {
return {
restrict : 'C',
template : '',
templateUrl : 'myView.html',
controller : function($scope,myService){
$scope.items = myService.$data;
$scope.$watch('myService.$data' , function(newVal, oldVal, scope) {
console.log("Watching items ...");
});
},
};
}]);
I am using the above code, where I want to watch myService.$data which is defined in its service. $watch gets called first time when controller is loaded, Elsewhere in the code I update the service variable $data. This gets reflected in UI as I am using ng-repeat directive and binding with $data.
According to my understating before UI gets updated, this particular watch has to be called again, but it is not. So I assume I am not using watch properly.
Just do:
$scope.$watch(
function() { return myService.$data; },
function(...) { /*same*/ }
);
BUT:
If $data is an object you may want to add ,true to the watch, so that you get notified even if an inner property changes:
$scope.$watch(
function() { return myService.$data; },
function(...) { /*same*/ },
true
);
The declarations in your code are wrong. It should be (only changes shown):
myApp.directive('myView', ['myService',function(myService) { // NOT $scope
...
controller: ["$scope", function($scope) { // YOU GET myService FROM THE DIRECTIVE
Related
New to creating custom directives. It renders fine on the initial render. However, I am trying to $watch for changes to the original data, and then, trigger an update.
As a quick test, I created a button and used jQuery to update the costPerDay.costs array (by hand)...but the $watch still doesn't fire & my breakpoint wasn't reached.
Thanks for the help...
MY CONTROLLER LOOKS LIKE:
The GET is mocked to return an object, not a promise, so ignore that particular line. Once I get the $watch working, I will update this part of the code accordingly.
// CONTROLLER
application.controller('HomeIndexController', function ($scope, costPerDayDataService) {
var vm = this;
// Internal
vm.on = {
databind: {
costPerDay: function () {
// The GET is mocked to return an object, not a promise, so ignore this line
var costPerDay = costPerDayDataService.get();
$scope.data.costPerDay = costPerDay;
}
}
};
vm.databind = function () {
vm.on.databind.costPerDay();
};
// Scope
$scope.data = {
costPerDay: {}
};
$scope.on = {
alterCosts: function (e) {
var costs = [100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000, 1100, 1200, 1300];
$scope.data.costPerDay.costs = costs;
}
}
// Databind
vm.databind();
});
MY ELEMENT LOOKS LIKE:
This renders fine initially. I need to automate updates.
<ul id="sparks" class="pull-down pull-left">
<li cost-per-day-sparkline costperday="data.costPerDay">
</li>
</ul>
MY DIRECTIVE LOOKS LIKE:
I am just trying to get ONE of them to work...I will obviously remove the others when I get a working example. And yes, I am aware you should NOT update the $parent directly. I'm just trying to find a combination that works before I get fancy.
define([], function () {
'use strict';
function CostPerDaySparklineDirective() {
return {
replace: true,
restrict: "AE",
scope: {
costperday: "=costperday"
},
templateUrl: '/modules/templates/sparklines/costperdaysparklinetemplate.html',
link: function (scope, elem, attrs) {
// This fails
scope.$watch('costperday', function (newval) {
// ... code to update will go here
}, true);
// This fails
scope.$watch('costperday', function (newval) {
// ... code to update will go here
});
// This fails
scope.$parent.$watch('data.costPerDay.costs', function (newval) {
// ... code to update will go here
});
// This renders initially, but fails to fire again
scope.$watch('scope.$parent.data.costPerDay.costs', function (newval) {
var eleSparkline = $('.sparkline', elem);
eleSparkline.sparkline(scope.costperday.costs, { type: "bar" });
});
}
};
}
return CostPerDaySparklineDirective;
});
UPDATE:
Even using ng-click to test the $watch fails to hit the breakpoint...
<a ng-click="on.alterCosts()">Change Costs</a>
In this case I'd run $scope.$apply(); in your alterCosts method to trigger a template digest. This will update the value in the DOM, which your directive catches, and subsequently triggers the $watch.
For more information on $apply(), https://docs.angularjs.org/api/ng/type/$rootScope.Scope#$apply
"$apply() is used to execute an expression in angular from outside of the angular framework. (For example from browser DOM events.."
In this particular scenario you're changing the value from a DOM event.
in this situation I would watch the actual get of the costPerDayDataService vs listening to the controllers scope variable. so in your controller you would 'set' the variable in costPerDayDataService and in your directive you would just inject your service and watch the get function. OR if you are using 1.3.x > you can use bindToController which I believe eliminates the whole need for watches.
bindToController: {
costperday: '='
}
I've written a pretty simple test app as follows:
angular.module('tddApp', [])
.controller('MainCtrl', function ($scope, $rootScope, BetslipService) {
$scope.displayEvents = [
{
id: 1,
name: 'Belarus v Ukraine',
homeTeam: 'Belarus',
awayTeam: 'Ukraine',
markets: {home: '2/1', draw: '3/2', away: '5/3'},
display: true
}
];
$scope.betslipArray = BetslipService.betslipArray;
$scope.oddsBtnCallback = BetslipService.addToBetslip;
$scope.clearBetslip = BetslipService.clearBetslip;
})
.directive('oddsButton', function () {
return {
template: '<div class="odds-btn">{{market}}</div>',
replace: true,
scope: {
market: '#',
marketName: '#',
eventName: '#',
callback: '&'
},
link: function (scope, element) {
element.on('click', function() {
scope.callback({
name: scope.eventName,
marketName: scope.marketName,
odds:scope.market
});
});
}
};
})
.factory ('BetslipService', function ($rootScope) {
var rtnObject = {};
rtnObject.betslipArray = [];
rtnObject.addToBetslip = function (name, marketName, odds) {
rtnObject.betslipArray.push({
eventName: name,
marketName: marketName,
odds: odds
});
};
rtnObject.clearBetslip = function () {
rtnObject.betslipArray = [];
};
return rtnObject;
});
I've assigned an array to a controller variable. I've also assigned functions to modify the array. To add an object to the array the callback is called by a directive with isolate scope. There's some strange behaviour happening that I don't quite understand:
=> clicking the directive runs the callback in the service. I've done some debugging and it seems that the controller variable is updated but it doesn't show in the html.
=> clicking the button to clear the array isn't working as expected. The first time it's causing an element to display, after which it has no effect.
I think that this may have to do with the nested ng-repeats creating their own scopes
NB
I fixed the array not clearing by changing the function in the service to:
while (rtnObject.betslipArray.length > 0) {
rtnObject.betslipArray.pop();
}
// instead of
rtnObject.betslipArray = [];
This makes sense as the service variable was being pointed at a new object while the old reference would persist in the controller.
I got the html to update by wrapping the callback call in the directive in a scope.$apply().
This part I dont really understand. How can scope.$apply() called in the directive have an effect on the controller scope when the directive has an isolate scope? updated fiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/b6ww0rx8/7/
Any thought's greatly appreciated
jsfiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/b6ww0rx8/5/
C
I got it working here: http://jsfiddle.net/b6ww0rx8/8/
Added $q, $scope.$emit and $timeout clauses to help with communications between your directive / service and controller.
I would like to also say that I wouldn't assign service functions to a controller $scope, You should define functions in the controller that call service functions.
Instead of this:
$scope.clearBetslip = BetslipService.clearBetslip;
Do this:
$scope.clearBetslip = function(){
BetslipService.clearBetslip().then(function(){
$scope.betslipArray = BetslipService.getBetslipArray();
});
};
In an angular app running on 1.3.0-beta.15, I have a directive that looks like this:
.directive('digester', function() {
return {
scope: {
object: '=',
digestTrigger: '='
},
templateUrl: 'some-template.html,
link: function(scope) {
scope.digestTrigger = function() {
scope.$digest();
}
}
};
});
a template that looks like this:
<div>{{object.title}}</div>
a service somewhere that looks like this:
.service('serviceToCallDigest', function() {
return {
object: {
title: 'someTitle'
},
digestTrigger: function() {},
someFunction: function() {
this.object.title = 'newTitle';
this.digestTrigger();
}
};
});
and a controller that gets the service injected like this:
.controller('someCtrl', function($scope, serviceToCallDigest) {
$scope.serviceToCallDigest = serviceToCallDigest;
}
and wires up the directive like this:
<digester
digest-trigger="serviceToCallDigest.digestTrigger"
object="serviceToCallDigest.object">
</digester>
Whats happening here is, as the directive gets the digestTrigger injected (as an empty function) it sets the function to fire the directives local $digest() function, and by that enabeling code from outside the directive to trigger the local digest whenever appropriate.
I know that $apply() is adviced to use, which fires $digest() at the $rootscope level, but I'm in a perfomance critical situation, where I need to update directives locally.
This setup has worked fine until upgrading to 1.3.0-beta.16 or newer versions. Now the new object.title is not passed to the directive and updated in the view, when someFunction is called.
Does anyone know why this is the case and what to do to work around it?
Is it possible to instantiate a controller in AngularJS and pass arguments to its constructor like in OOP ? I can't figure out how to refactor 3 identical controller with just variables name and content which change...
Thanx.
If you have 3 separate sections on the page that have very similar controller code, it sounds like you should consider using a directive. Even if you don't need to control the DOM directly (which is the classic reason to use directive), and only need the standard Angular data-bindings, then this is a nice way to reuse controllers in different contexts by the attributes set on the directive.
You can see a working plunkr at
http://plnkr.co/edit/qclp6MOxGWP7Ughod4T8?p=preview
But the key point is directives can bind-to variables in their parent scope's controller. Say, in the parent scope you have 3 variables, so:
$scope.myVariable1 = 'Value 1';
$scope.myVariable2 = 'Value 2';
$scope.myVariable3 = 'Value 3';
Then you can setup 3 instances of the directive in the template:
<my-directive my-param="myVariable1"></my-directive>
<my-directive my-param="myVariable2"></my-directive>
<my-directive my-param="myVariable3"></my-directive>
Then each directive can use the variable in the 'my-param' attribute
scope: {
'myParam':'='
}
The '=' means that in the scope of the directive you have a variable, called 'myParam', that is equal (+ bound to) the variable specified by the 'my-param' attribute on the directive. So on the template of the directive, you can use:
<div>Value of parameter: {{myParam}}</div>
And in the controller of the directive, you have access to is as:
$scope.myParam
And should then be able to customise its behaviour based on that instance's myParam.
You can create services with a common interface and then pass the corresponding services to each controller through dependency injection. In my code this is the case of table controllers where the only thing that changes is the data source:
Imagine you have some code that looks like this
angular.module('myapp').controller('TableACtrl', ['$scope', function($scope) {
$scope.data = // get the data from some source
$scope.someFunction = function () { ... };
$scope.someOtherFunction = function () { ... };
}]);
angular.module('myapp').controller('TableBCtrl', ['$scope', function($scope) {
$scope.data = // get the data from some other source
$scope.someFunction = function () { ... };
$scope.someOtherFunction = function () { ... };
}]);
It looks something like:
var tableCtrl = function($scope, dataSource) {
$scope.data = dataSource.getData();
$scope.someFunction = function () { ... };
$scope.someOtherFunction = function () { ... };
};
angular.module('myapp')
.controller('TableACtrl', ['$scope', 'dataSourceA', tableCtrl])
.controller('TableBCtrl', ['$scope', 'dataSourceB', tableCtrl])
angular.module('myapp')
.service('dataSourceA', function() {
return {
getData: function() { ... }
};
});
angular.module('myapp')
.service('dataSourceB', function() {
return {
getData: function() { ... }
};
});
I would still put things within a module, so you don't pollute the global window. But that's a different issue.
I'm trying to get changes to an AngularJS scope to trigger actions in a model. To do this I use $scope.$watch() in my item controller, and plug those controllers into directives. The problem I'm having is that when an item appears more than once on a page I'm getting multiple watchers for the same piece of data.
For example:
angular.module("MyApp", [])
.factory('ItemsModel', function() {
var item1 = { triggers: 0, catches: 0 };
var item2 = { triggers: 0, catches: 0 };
return {
getItems: function() {
return [item1, item2, item1];
}
};
})
.controller('AppCtrl', function($scope, ItemsModel) {
$scope.items = ItemsModel.getItems();
})
.controller('ItemCtrl', function($scope) {
$scope.trigger = function() {
$scope.item.triggers++;
};
$scope.$watch('item.triggers', function(newValue, oldValue) {
if(newValue != oldValue)
$scope.item.catches++;
});
})
.directive('item', function() {
return {
scope: {
item: "="
},
controller: 'ItemCtrl'
};
});
Here item1 appears twice in the items array, so I end up with two controllers watching the same piece of data. If triggers were changes to a property, and catches were saves back to a server, then I'd be saving each change to item1 twice. If an item appeared three times, it would save three times.
I feel like the change listener should go in the model, but models don't have any access to the scope. Iterating over each item and adding behavior in the AppCtrl doesn't make a lot of sense to me. So where to the watchers go?
I've also put this in a fiddle here: http://jsfiddle.net/nicholasstephan/p56MT/3/
Thanks
I haven't used the controller specified in the directive like you have here, but an alternative way is to just setup a watch in the directive on item. This way the watch will only get tripped once for the change on item in the directive.