Does anyone have a recommended approach for creating sequence diagrams that include Angular scopes (or, though I don't need it in my own use case, both Angular scopes and directives)?
It may sound like an odd question, but I'm wondering if it is appropriate to use an approach like this:
User -> View -> $scope -> Controller -> Service
Since the $scope's operations were placed onto it by the controller, it leads to some redundant entries since almost everything that's called on the scope will be delegated through to the controller. I'd be tempted to leave the $scope out of the diagram altogether, but I want to show how certain state that the $scope is managing is being updated.
I hope this makes sense; just looking for patterns and practices that would help visualize control flow better in Angular-centric applications.
The scope is just the "glue" between the view and the controller, the medium between the two of them. So, in my opinion, it shouldn't be represented in a diagram. I think you should describe how the view communicates with the controller in terms of the controller methods as if there wasn't nothing between them.
Related
Let's say there is a "conversation" directive, made of "message" directives.
The message directive has a button to delete it.
The conversation controller has a method to remove a message from its list.
In Angular documentation, they say we can use "require" to access a parent controller from a directive controller.
And here, the answer suggests to use require too, and to create a service only if you can't use require because the 2 directives are not related.
Isn't it a bad practice to call a controller from another controller ?
I thought service was typically used to share information between controllers.
Don't you think it would be better to create a service with the deleteMessage method, and inject this service in the message controller ?
I'm personally not a fan of calling a function on the parent or root or stuff like that, as its coupled in a kind of implicit way. I prefer to use a service as you mentioned or injecting the concrete function(s) into your directive.
Below are some pros and cons for both approaches. Please note they are based on my personal experience (and I'm not an expert).
Services
Services are singletons, meaning there is only one instance in your whole application. This can have several advantages, if you need them:
it's always there (you don't need to create it explicitly)
it can cache data which can be usefull, e.g. to maintain the state of a view/page
it can be used to exchange data between different components
it can easily be injected where ever you need it
This can also lead to some disadvantages though:
if different components share the same service, they might mess up each others data
components (i.e. directives) will depend on that service, leaving the user of the directive no flexibility in how he wants to use that directive (e.g. what should happen when a user clicks a button). Meaning that basically the concrete functionality is "hard-coded" in to the directive.
I personally like to use services, if they have a direct link to the directive (and to nothing else) or do not store any state, for example if they only contain simple helper functions.
If in your application you have one conversation list, then I would consider implementing that in a service that exposes functions like addMessage, deleteMessage, sortBy, etc.. Then it can be injected in to any component which needs access to that (central) list.
Passing functions as arguments
On the other hand, if you have a message-directive, you might want to use it for other kind of messages as well..? That is messages which are not from the conversation but maybe from a mailbox (just a stupid example ;)). Then I wouldn't couple the service and the directive. You could inject the deleteMessage-function, which in one case would remove it from the conversation and in the other case remove it from the mailbox.
I think both approaches are valid, but always depend on the scenario and how the components are shared/reused over your application.
The second approach might be nicer from a "coupling"-perspective, but might get complicated in case of lots of parameters and when passing parameters over several levels of components (e.g. to child-child-child directives).
The first approach is easy to implment and can have several advantages, but results in the component being directly coupled to that service, lowering its reusability.
Do you really need to put the delete button in the message directive ?
Since the delete button is to suppress the message from the conversation controller list, I'd rather put the button in the conversation view.
That being said, if you really want to have the delete button on the messagedirective, I would simply pass the delete method as an argument in your directive. When doing this you don't have to worry about which controller defined the function, you simply call it from your child directive (and if you want the parent controller to execute it, simply pass a binded function to your directive).
We are using Angularjs and ui-router. We generally have a layout of each page that utilizes views. We have a filter view, sort view, and pagination view; as well as display views that can be swapped in and out.
Logically when changes are made we need to any of theses controllers we need to update the displayData as appropriate. Changes to filter should run the filterMethod, but also need to run sort and then pagination logic afterwards, while changes to sort should run just pagination after, making a clear order of operations for when each controller needs to it's update.
My problem comes when I consider that in some cases we may not want to utilize all 3 controllers. We may want filtering, but not pagination for example.
We are having trouble finding a clean way to make these controllers 'just work', so that we can plug in whichever control we want in uirouter and have them function. The problem is mostly one of scoping. If I do the obvious thing, and have each controller define their own updateData method when changes are made to it, I run into scoping problems if I want them call the next controller's update afterwords. The filter controller can't call sort because the two controllers don't share a scope. I can use broadcasts, but what if I want a filter and a pagination controller, but not a sort? How do I ensure that sort runs before pagination if both are present, but if sort controller doesn't exist pagination knows to run after filter?
I could instead move everything up to my top level controller, and then things just work. However then I end up with a controller that feels like it's doing way to much, It's cleaner to have one controller for each type of control if possible.
We have other approaches we could use, but they feel like their making pretty strong presumptions about our controller scheme. If I later added some fourth controller I would have to modify everything because each controller is really hard coded very explicitly with presumptions about how the other's run.
This seems like a common issue. Is there a a best practice or convenient technology for handling splitting of functionality across controllers?
Hoist the data, not the display logic. There are only two ways to share data between controllers cleanly: a service, and a parent controller.
If what you were sharing was data (eg: displayData), I might suggest a service object, but sounds more like application state (eg: orderBy), so I think these "settings" should live on a parent controller.
My application has a multi-tab order wizard. It has one Controller called OrderController. I decided I wanted to have one controller per tab, and for OrderController to manage all the tabs and navigation.
OrderController contained a static array of tab information (title, partial, etc). I decided that each tab should supply its own information to OrderController instead.
I made a 'tab 1' controller and a function that would return the tab information to OrderController. I injected 'tab 1' into OrderController but this failed with a 'no provider' error. I did some googling and found various ways a controller could talk to a controller. None involved a direct injection like I was attempting.
I tried a tab-specific Factory instead. (Maybe not a bad idea anyway since the information being provided is static.) This worked fine.
Sorry for the long-winded post.
But why can't I inject one controller into another, technically? Angularjs was having no part of it. Why is this a bad idea, logically?
Because Controllers don't really exist that way. They're the OO equivalent of a "template" for a set of behaviors and variables. They aren't created until they're actually used somewhere. The injector can only give you things that exist globally, and controllers aren't global.
A Factory (or if you don't need special creation behavior, a Service is the same thing but a little shorter to write) is exactly this pattern. It is a global singleton object (exactly one instance exists at all times) so the injector can find it and give it to you.
It's really just because there's no pattern for Angular to inject "Controller 4". Controllers can have 0..N instances at any time. How would it know which one you want? Just because you aren't planning to have more than one of this component doesn't mean you couldn't or others wouldn't. It's just not the injector's job.
I'd like to know if using
angular.extend($scope,MyService);
Does it break oop encapsulation principle ?
Does it smell like MyService.call($scope) ?
Could you face variable and function conflicts ?
Is this a bad/good practice?
Typically from my experience services are injected into the controller and then will be called from that scope. I wouldn't say that using extend to copy over functions and properties is necessarily bad, but it might mitigate some of the purposes of IoC (inversion of control), which is what injection in angular is based on.
Does it break oop...?
My understanding is that what you would get from this call is additional functions and service calls directly on your scope. This doesn't break OOP in the sense that scope is an object and would have functions applied. Provided those functions + properties make sense on the scope it seems like a fine thing to do from that perspective.
Does it smell like MyService.call($scope)?
As I said in the first paragraph - I don't see why you wouldn't just call the service and either share data or pass in references to objects to the service. Another pattern that is common in angular is to use a promise to process returned data in your scope. That looks like:
MyService.callFunction(parameters).then(function (data) {
// process data here. Since this runs in $scope you can also use $scope normally.
// $scope.$apply() is in progress and will complete when the function returns
});
All the service does is provide the data to the scope then. Point is that I think there are better patterns than "extend".
Can you face conflicts?
In the call angular.extend(a, b); data, properties and functions are copied from b to a. If something already exists on a it will be overwritten with the data from b. So technically the short answer is "yes", you can face conflicts.
The bottom line
So at the end of the day this isn't a bad pattern but there are probably more common patterns I would try to use first.
In my never ending quest to do things the "proper" angular way, I have been reading a lot about how to have controllers observe the changes in models held in angular services.
Some sites say using a $watch on a controller is categorically wrong:
DON'T use $watch in a controller. It's hard to test and completely unnecessary in almost every case. Use a method on the scope to update the value(s) the watch was changing instead.
Others seem fine with it as long as you clean up after yourself:
The $watch function itself returns a function which will unbind the $watch when called. So, when the $watch is no longer needed, we simply call the function returned by $watch.
There are SO questions and other reputable sites that seem to say right out that using a $watch in a controller is a great way to notice changes in an angular-service-maintained model.
The https://github.com/angular/angular.js/wiki/Best-Practices site, which I think we can give a bit more weight to, says outright that $scope.$watch should replace the need for events. However, for complex SPA's that are handling upwards of 100 models and REST endpoints, choosing to use $watch to avoid events with $broadcast/$emit could end up with lots of watches. On the other hand, if we don't use $watch, for non-trivial apps we end up tons of event spaghetti.
Is this a lose/lose situation? Is it a false choice between events and watches? I know you can use the 2-way binding for many situations, but sometimes you just need a way to listen for changes.
EDIT
Ilan Frumer's comment made me rethink what I'm asking, so perhaps instead of just asking whether it is subjectively good/bad to use a $watch in a controller, let me put the questions this way:
Which implementation is likely to create a performance bottleneck first? Having controllers listen for events (which had to have been broadcast/emitted), or setting up $watch-es in controllers. Remember, large-scale app.
Which implementation creates a maintenance headache first: $watch-es or events? Arguably there is a coupling (tight/loose) either way... event watchers need to know what to listen for, and $watch-es on external values (like MyDataService.getAccountNumber()) both need to know about things happening outside their $scope.
** EDIT over a year later **
Angular has changed / improved a lot since I asked this question, but I still get +1's on it, so I thought I would mention that in looking at the angular team's code, I see a pattern when it comes to watchers in controllers (or directives where there is a scope that gets destroyed):
$scope.$on('$destroy', $scope.$watch('scopeVariable', functionIWantToCall));
What this does it take what the $watch function returns - a function that can be called to deregister the watcher - and give that to the event handler for when the controller is destroyed. This automatically cleans up the watcher.
Whether watches in controllers are code smell or not, if you use them, I believe the angular team's use of this pattern should serve as a strong recommendation for how to use them.
Thanks!
I use both, because honestly, I view them as different tools for different problems.
I'll give an example from an application that I built. I had a complex WebSocket Service that received dynamic data models from a web-socket server. The service itself doesn't care what the model looks like, but, of course, the controller sure does.
When the controller is initiated, it set up a $watch on the service data object so that it knew when it's particular data object had arrived (like waiting for Service.data.foo to exist. As soon as that model came into existence, it was able to bind to it and crate a two-way data-bind to it, the watch became obsolete, and it was destroyed.
On the other side, the service was responsible for broadcasting certain events as well, because sometimes the client would receive literal commands from the server. For instance, the Server might request that the client send some metadata that was stored in the '$rootScope' throughout the application. an .on() was set up in the $rootScope during module.run() step to listen for those commands from the server, gather needed information from other services, and call the WebSocket service back to send the data as requested. Alternatively, if I had done this using a $watch(), I would have needed to set up some sort of arbitrary variable for it to watch, like metadataRequests which I would need to increment every time I receive a request. A broadcast achieves the same thing without having to live in permanent memory, like our variable would.
Essentially, I use a $watch() when there is a specific value that I want to see change (especially if I need to know the before-and-after values), and I use events if there are more high-level conditions that have been met that the controllers need to know about.
With regards to performance, I couldn't tell you which one is going to bottleneck first, but I feel like thinking of it this way will let you use the strengths of each feature where they are strongest. For instance, if you use $on() instead of $watch() to look for changes in data, you will not have access to the values before and after the change, which could limit what you are trying to do.
All that two-way data-binding is, is a $watch on whatever scope property you give to ng-model, which has a controller that allows other directives like input, and form to sync the ng-model value to render the view on a change. Which is detected by their registration of events in the DOM.
In essence,ng-model's $watch compares the value in the model, to the value it has internally. The value it has internally is set by supporting directives (input,form etc).
IMHO The only "events" you should react to in an angular application are user created (ie DOM events). These are solved with directives on the DOM and ng-model linking to the ..model
Also naturally there is async, for which angular provides $q for which the callbacks invoke a $digest.
As for performance, it says it really well in the angular docs. Its run on every $digest. So make it fast. Whats every $digest? Angular traverses all of your active scopes. Each scope has watches. which it executes. and performs comparisons in those. If there are diffs, it will run again. (the next loop around) Its not that simple because its optimized but all of your "angular code" executes in this $digest loop. A lot of directives might invoke a digest with scope.$apply(...) That will cause watches of whatever value they changed to notice and do their thing.
So your original question. Is it an anti-pattern? Absolutely not if you know how to use it. Though I'd just use ng-model. Just because it has had 1.2.10+ iterations of pretty smart people working on it... All of the other 'reactive-ness' of your app can be handled by $q, $timeout and the like.
I think they all have their proper place and, for me, it would be difficult to say stop using one for the others.
Data binding should always be used to keep your data model in sync with changes from the view. I think we can all agree on that.
I think using a watch on a controller to trigger some action based on a data change is useful. Like watching a complex data model to calculate a running total for an invoice. Or watching a model to trigger it as dirty.
I have used broadcast/emit/on when sending a message or an indication of some change from one scope to another that may be several layers away. I have created a custom directive where a broadcast event has been used as a hook to take some action in a controller.