I am writing custom element directives which are used to encapsulate HTML GUI or UI components. I am adding custom methods (that handles ng-click events, etc) in my link function such as:
app.directive('addresseseditor', function () {
return {
restrict: "E",
scope: {
addresses: "="
}, // isolated scope
templateUrl: "addresseseditor.html",
link: function(scope, element, attrs) {
scope.addAddress= function() {
scope.addresses.push({ "postCode": "1999" });
}
scope.removeAddress = function (index) {
scope.addresses.splice(index, 1);
}
}
}
});
Is the link function correct place to define the methods or is it better to create a separate controller object, use ng-controller and define methods there?
You can also define a controller per directive if you want. The main difference is that directives can share controllers (at the same level), controllers execute prior to compile, and controllers are injected (hence using the $). I think this is an accepted practice.
app.directive('addresseseditor', function () {
return {
restrict: "E",
scope: {
addresses: "="
}, // isolated scope
templateUrl: "addresseseditor.html",
controller: function($scope, $element, $attrs) {
$scope.addAddress= function() {
$scope.addresses.push({ "postCode": "1999" });
}
$scope.removeAddress = function (index) {
$scope.addresses.splice(index, 1);
}
}
}
});
You can have both link and controller... but you want to do any DOM stuff in the link because you know you're compiled.
This method also remains de-coupled since it's still part of your directive.
If you are permanently coupling this with a controller & view, then I would say it doesn't really matter where you put it.
However, if you one day want to decouple the directive so you can reuse it, think of what functionality needs to be included.
The Angular guide on directives reads:
The link function is responsible for registering DOM listeners as well
as updating the DOM. (...) This is where most of the directive logic
will be put.
I would follow the last part of that statement only if I had to write a directive that heavily manipulates the DOM. When all my directive does is render a template with some functionality, I use the link function to perform whatever basic DOM manipulation I need and the controller function to encapsulate the directive's logic. That way I keep things clearly separate (DOM manipulation from scope manipulation) and it seems consistent with the idea of "view-controller".
FWIW, I've implemented my first open source directive with those things in mind and the source code can be found here. Hopefully it might help you somehow.
If you want your elements functionality 'instance' specific place it in the link function, if you want to create an API across directives on an element create a controller function for it like master Rowny suggests.
Related
I have a form with a ton of duplicate functionality in 2 different Controllers, there are slight differences and some major ones in both.
The form sits at the top of a products view controller, but also inside of the products modal controller.
Test plunker: http://plnkr.co/edit/EIW6xoBzQpD26Wwqwwap?p=preview
^ how would you change the string in the console.log and the color of the button based on parent scope?
At first I was going to create a new Controller just for the form, but also the HTML was being duplicated, so decided to put that into a Directive, and just add the Controller code there.
My question now is this: How would I determine which parent scope the form-directive is currently being viewed in? Because depending on the parent scope the functions/methods behave differently.
So far I've come up with this:
.directive('productForm', function() {
return {
templateUrl: "views/products/productForm.html",
restrict: "E",
controller: function($scope) {
console.log('controller for productForm');
console.log($scope);
console.log($scope.$parent);
/*
If parent scope is the page, then this...
If parent scope is the modal then this instead...
*/
}
}
});
However it's giving me back $parent id's that look like 002 or 00p. Not very easy to put in if / else statements based on that information.
Have you guys run into this issue before?
You can define 'saveThis' in your controller and pass it to directive using '&'
scope: {
user: '=',
saveThis : '&'
},
please see demo here http://plnkr.co/edit/sOY8XZtEXLORLmelWssS?p=preview
That gives you more flexibility, in future if you want to use saveThis in another controller you can define it inside controller instead adding additional if statement to directive.
You could add two way binding variables in the directive scope, this allows you to specify which Ctrl variable gets bound to which directive variable
<my-directive shared="scopeVariable">
this way you achieve two way binding of the scopeVariable with the shared directive variable
you can learn more here
I advice against this practice and suggest you to isolate common logics and behaviours in services or factories rather than in directives
This is an example of a directive that has isolated scope and shares the 'title' variable with the outer scope.
You could declare this directive this way:
now inside the directive you can discriminate the location where the directive is defined; just replace the title variable with a location variable and chose better names.
.directive('myPane', function() {
return {
restrict: 'E',
scope: {
title: '#'
},
link: function(scope, element, attrs, tabsCtrl) {
},
templateUrl: 'my-pane.html'
};
});
I've created a small app that has 2 directives: One that adds a google map div and initialize it, and the second, which shows layers that contain markers. The directives are independent, but I want them to communicate: The layers directive is independent, yet it needs to use the google maps directive to add markers to the map. I used $broadcast through $rootScope to communicate between the directives.
The directives are defined as follows:
angular.module('googleMapModule', [])
.directive('myGoogleMap', function(){
template: '<div id="map" />',
controller: function($scope){
// some initializations
// Listen for event fired when markers are added
$scope.$on('addMarkersEvent', function(e, data){
// do something
}
}
}
angular.module('layersDirective', [])
.directive('myLayers', function() {
templateUrl: 'someLayersHtml.html',
controller: function($http, $scope, $rootScope){
// Get layers of markers, etc.
// On specific layer click, get markers and:
$rootScope.broadcast('addMarkersEvent', {
data: myMarkers
});
}
});
After this long prologue here are my questions:
How should the connection between the two directives be implemented? Is it correct to use $rootScope and $broadcast or should there be a dependency between the myLayers directive and the myGoogleMap directive?
Furthermore, I've read about when to use controller, link and compile, yet I don't know the right way to use them here. My guess is that myGoogleMap should define its API in a controller and that myLayers should be dependent on myGoogleMap.
The example I wrote here works fine in my application. I'm looking for guidance on how to do it right and to understand what I did wrong here.
Thanks, Rotem
There are some ways for directives to cooperate/communicate
If one is a sibling or child of the other, you can use require. E.g. for this template:
<dir1>
<dir2></dir2>
</dir1>
Use this code:
app.directive('dir1', function() {
return {
...
controller: function() {
// define api here
}
};
});
app.directive('dir2', function() {
return {
...
require: '^dir1',
link: function(scope, elem, attrs, dir1Controller) {
// use dir1 api here
}
};
});
A service, used by both directives to communicate. This is easy and works well if the directives can only be instantiated once per view.
Using $broadcast/$emit on the $rootScope (there is a slight difference: $broadcast will "flood" the scope hierarchy, possibly affecting performance; $emit will only call listeners on the $rootScope, but this means you have to do $rootScope.$on() and then remember to deregister the listener when the current scope is destroyed - which means more code). This approach is good for decoupling components. It may become tricky in debugging, i.e. to find where that event came from (as with all event-based systems).
Other
controller, link and compile
Very short:
Use the controller to define the API of a directive, and preferably to define most its logic. Remember the element, the attributes and any transclude function are available to the controller as $element, $attrs and $transclude respectively. So the controller can, in most cases, replace the link function. Also remember that, unlike the link function, the controller is elligible for dependency injection. (However you can still do dependency injection at the directive level, so, after all, the link function can also access dependencies.)
Use the link function to access required controllers (see case 1 above). Or, if you are feeling lazy, to define the directive's logic. I think the controller is cleaner though.
Use the compile function... rarely :) When you need very special transformations to the template (repetition is the first thing that comes to mind - see ng-repeat) or other mystical stuff. I use directives all the time, about 1% of them needs a compile function.
My guess is that myGoogleMap should define its API in the controller and that myLayers should be dependent on myGoogleMap
The question is how will you communicate this API using events? You probably need only to create an API in a custom event object. The listeners of your event will be using that custom event. If so, the controller does not really need to define an API.
As a bottom line, I am perfectly OK with using events in your case.
Generally communication between directives should be handled via controllers and using the require property on the directive definition object.
If we re-work your first directive we can simply add that method to the controller:
directive('myGoogleMap', function () {
return {
template: '<div id="map" />',
controller: function ($scope) {
var _this = this;
//Part of this directives API
_this.addMarkers = function(arg){
//Do stuff
}
}
};
});
Now we can require this controller in another directive, but one little known features is that you can actually require an array of directives. One of those directives can even be yourself.
All of them will be passed, in order, as an array to your link function:
directive('myLayers', function () {
return {
templateUrl: 'someLayersHtml.html',
controller: function ($http, $scope, $rootScore) {
// Some get layers of markers functionality
},
// Require ourselves
// The '?' makes it optional
require: ['myLayers', '?myGoogleMap'],
link: function(scope, elem, attrs, ctrls){
var myLayersCtrl = ctrls[0];
var myGoogleMapCtrl = ctrls[1];
//something happens
if(myGoogleMapCtrl) {
myGoogleMapCtrl.addMarkers(markers);
}
}
};
});
Now you can communicate explicitly opt-in by using the ? which makes the controller optional.
In order for that to work, you have to define both directives in the same module, i.e.:
var module = angular.module('myModule');
module.directive('myGoogleMap', function(){
template: '<div id="map" />',
controller: function($scope){
// some initializations
// Listen to event for adding markers
$scope.$on('addMarkersEvent', function(e, data){
// do something
}
}
}
module.directive('myLayers', function() {
templateUrl: 'someLayersHtml.html',
controller: function($http, $scope, $rootScore){
// Some get layers of markers functionality
// On specific layer click, get markers and:
$rootScope.broadcast('addMarkersEvent', {
data: myMarkers
});
}
});
Read more here.
EDIT:
Sorry i didn't understand your question, but according to your comment, quoting from the AngularJs Best Practices:
Only use .$broadcast(), .$emit() and .$on() for atomic events
that are relevant globally across the entire app (such as a user
authenticating or the app closing). If you want events specific to
modules, services or widgets you should consider Services, Directive
Controllers, or 3rd Party Libs
$scope.$watch() should replace the need for events
Injecting services and calling methods directly is also
useful for direct communication
Directives are able to directly communicate with each other through directive-controllers
You have already highlight one may for the directives to communicate using rootscope.
Another way directive can communicate if they are defined on the same html hierarchy is by use directive controller function. You have highlighted that too in your question. The way it would be done is (assuming myGoogleMap is defined on parent html), the two directive definitions become:
angular.module('googleMapModule', [])
.directive('myGoogleMap', function () {
template: '<div id="map" />',
controller: function ($scope) {
this.addMarkersEvent = function (data) {}
// some initializations
}
angular.module('layersDirective', [])
.directive('myLayers', function ($http, $rootScope) {
templateUrl: 'someLayersHtml.html',
require: '^myGoogleMap',
link: function (scope, element, attrs, myGoogleMapController) {
$scope.doWork = function () {
myGoogleMapController.addMarkersEvent(data);
}
}
});
Here you use the require property on the child directive. Also instead of using child controller all the functionality in the child directive is now added to link function. This is because the child link function has access to parent directive controller.
Just a side note, add both directives to a single module (Update: Actually you can have the directives in different modules, as long as there are being referenced in the main app module.)
I am new to angular. And I have been experimenting with "directives". When using directives i found the following 2 ways to use controller with a directive.
Approach 1
angular.module('folderSettingApp')
.directive('templateRenderer', function () {
return {
// other options
, controller: 'GridController'
};
});
Approach 2
angular.module('folderSettingApp')
.directive('templateRenderer', function () {
return {
// other options
, controller: function ($scope, $attrs) {
// add some functions here
}
};
});
I am not sure what approach to use when, any suggestion would be appreciated.
It's not so general to use which one, it's based on your use,
For example, if you want to use a directive multiple time in your app, it's better you don't define any controller in your directive, like this:
.directive('exampleDirective', function (){
return {
restrict: "A", // OR E OR AE OR C
template: "<div>YOUR TEMPLATE HERE</div>",
link: function (scope, element, attributes) {
// what ever function you want whould be here:
}
}
});
But generally, for the sake of angular's modularity, it's not a good idea to define a controller in directives.
Because the aim of directive is to use it in multiple controller and multiple views.
So defining a controller in a directive, just makes that directive less modular with restricted use.
One argument for the separate controller is for ease of testing. It's not hard at all to write tests which instantiate and allow you to test individual code on a separate controller.
I've created a simple directive that displays sort column headers for a <table> I'm creating.
ngGrid.directive("sortColumn", function() {
return {
restrict: "E",
replace: true,
transclude: true,
scope: {
sortby: "#",
onsort: "="
},
template: "<span><a href='#' ng-click='sort()' ng-transclude></a></span>",
link: function(scope, element, attrs) {
scope.sort = function () {
// I want to call CONTROLLER.onSort here, but how do I access the controller scope?...
scope.controllerOnSort(scope.sortby);
};
}
};
});
Here's an example of some table headers being created:
<table id="mainGrid" ng-controller="GridCtrl>
<thead>
<tr>
<th><sort-column sortby="Name">Name</sort-column></th>
<th><sort-column sortby="DateCreated">Date Created</sort-column></th>
<th>Hi</th>
</tr>
</thead>
So when the sort column is clicked I want to fire the onControllerSort function on my grid controller.. but I'm stuck! So far the only way I've been able to do this is for each <sort-column>, add attributes for the "onSort" and reference those in the directive:
<sort-column onSort="controllerOnSort" sortby="Name">Name</sort-column>
But that's not very nice since I ALWAYS want to call controllerOnSort, so plumbing it in for every directive is a bit ugly. How can I do this within the directive without requiring unnecesary markup in my HTML? Both the directive and controller are defined within the same module if that helps.
Create a second directive as a wrapper:
ngGrid.directive("columnwrapper", function() {
return {
restrict: "E",
scope: {
onsort: '='
}
};
});
Then you can just reference the function to call once in the outer directive:
<columnwrapper onsort="controllerOnSort">
<sort-column sortby="Name">Name</sort-column>
<sort-column sortby="DateCreated">Date Created</sort-column>
</columnwrapper>
In the "sortColumn" directive you can then call that referenced function by calling
scope.$parent.onsort();
See this fiddle for a working example: http://jsfiddle.net/wZrjQ/1/
Of course if you don't care about having hardcoded dependencies, you could also stay with one directive and just call the function on the parent scope (that would then be the controller in question) through
scope.$parent.controllerOnSort():
I have another fiddle showing this: http://jsfiddle.net/wZrjQ/2
This solution would have the same effect (with the same criticism in regard to hard-coupling) as the solution in the other answer (https://stackoverflow.com/a/19385937/2572897) but is at least somewhat easier than that solution. If you couple hard anyway, i don't think there is a point in referencing the controller as it would most likely be available at $scope.$parent all the time (but beware of other elements setting up a scope).
I would go for the first solution, though. It adds some little markup but solves the problem and maintains a clean separation. Also you could be sure that $scope.$parent matches the outer directive if you use the second directive as a direct wrapper.
The & local scope property allows the consumer of a directive to pass in a function that the directive can invoke.
See details here.
Here is a answer to a similar question, which shows how to pass argument in the callback function from the directive code.
In your directive require the ngController and modify the link function as:
ngGrid.directive("sortColumn", function() {
return {
...
require: "ngController",
...
link: function(scope, element, attrs, ngCtrl) {
...
}
};
});
What you get as ngCtrl is your controller, GridCtrl. You dont get its scope though; you would have to do something in the lines of:
xxxx.controller("GridCtrl", function($scope, ...) {
// add stuff to scope as usual
$scope.xxxx = yyyy;
// Define controller public API
// NOTE: USING this NOT $scope
this.controllerOnSort = function(...) { ... };
});
Call it from the link function simply as:
ngCtrl.controllerOnSort(...);
Do note that this require will get the first parent ngController. If there is another controller specified between GridCtrl and the directive, you will get that one.
A fiddle that demonstrates the principle (a directive accessing a parent ng-controller with methods): http://jsfiddle.net/NAfm5/1/
People fear that this solution may introduce unwanted tight coupling. If this is indeed a concern, it can be addressed as:
Create a directive that will be side-by-side with the controller, lets call it master:
<table id="mainGrid" ng-controller="GridCtrl" master="controllerOnSort()">
This directive references the desired method of the controller (thus: decoupling).
The child directive (sort-column in your case) requires the master directive:
require: "^master"
Using the $parse service the specified method can be called from a member method of the master controller. See updated fiddle implementing this principle: http://jsfiddle.net/NAfm5/3/
There is another way to do this, although given my relative lack of experience I can't speak for the fitness of such a solution. I will pass it along anyhow just for informational purposes.
In your column, you create a scope variable attribute:
<sort-column data-sortby="sortby">Date Created</sort-column>
Then in your controller you define the scope variable:
$scope.sortby = 'DateCreated' // just a default sort here
Then add your sort function in controller:
$scope.onSort = function(val) {
$scope.sortby = val;
}
Then in your markup wire up ng-click:
<sort-column data-sortby="sortby" ng-click="onSort('DateCreated')">Date Created</sort-column>
Then in your directive you add the sortby attribute to directive scope:
scope: {
sortby: '=' // not sure if you need
}
And in your "link:" function add a $watch:
scope.$watch('sortby', function () {
... your sort logic here ...
}
The beauty of this approach IMO is that your directive is decoupled completely, you don't need to call back to onSort from the directive because you don't really leave onSort in the controller during that part of the execution path.
If you needed to tell your controller to wait for the sort to finish you could define an event in the controller:
$scope.$on("_sortFinished", function(event, message){
..do something...
});
Then in your directive simply emit the event then the process is done:
$scope.$emit('_sortFinished');
There's other ways to do that, and this kind of adds some tight-ish coupling because your controller has to listen for. and your directive has to emit a specific even... but that may not be an issue for you since they are closely related anyhow.
Call me crazy, but it seems easier to just get the controller from the element via the inbuilt method for that, rather than fiddling with require:
var mod = angular.module('something', []).directive('myDir',
function () {
return {
link: function (scope, element) {
console.log(element.controller('myDir'));
},
controller: function () {
this.works = function () {};
},
scope: {}
}
}
);
http://plnkr.co/edit/gY4rP0?p=preview
When you create a directive, you can put code into the compiler, the link function or the controller.
In the docs, they explain that:
compile and link function are used in different phases of the angular
cycle
controllers are shared between directives
However, for me it is not clear, which kind of code should go where.
E.g.: Can I create functions in compile and have them attached to the scope in link or only attach functions to the scope in the controller?
How are controllers shared between directives, if each directive can have its own controller? Are the controllers really shared or is it just the scope properties?
Compile :
This is the phase where Angular actually compiles your directive. This compile function is called just once for each references to the given directive. For example, say you are using the ng-repeat directive. ng-repeat will have to look up the element it is attached to, extract the html fragment that it is attached to and create a template function.
If you have used HandleBars, underscore templates or equivalent, its like compiling their templates to extract out a template function. To this template function you pass data and the return value of that function is the html with the data in the right places.
The compilation phase is that step in Angular which returns the template function. This template function in angular is called the linking function.
Linking phase :
The linking phase is where you attach the data ( $scope ) to the linking function and it should return you the linked html. Since the directive also specifies where this html goes or what it changes, it is already good to go. This is the function where you want to make changes to the linked html, i.e the html that already has the data attached to it. In angular if you write code in the linking function its generally the post-link function (by default). It is kind of a callback that gets called after the linking function has linked the data with the template.
Controller :
The controller is a place where you put in some directive specific logic. This logic can go into the linking function as well, but then you would have to put that logic on the scope to make it "shareable". The problem with that is that you would then be corrupting the scope with your directives stuff which is not really something that is expected.
So what is the alternative if two Directives want to talk to each other / co-operate with each other? Ofcourse you could put all that logic into a service and then make both these directives depend on that service but that just brings in one more dependency. The alternative is to provide a Controller for this scope ( usually isolate scope ? ) and then this controller is injected into another directive when that directive "requires" the other one. See tabs and panes on the first page of angularjs.org for an example.
I wanted to add also what the O'Reily AngularJS book by the Google Team has to say:
Controller - Create a controller which publishes an API for communicating across directives. A good example is Directive to Directive Communication
Link - Programmatically modify resulting DOM element instances, add event listeners, and set up data binding.
Compile - Programmatically modify the DOM template for features across copies of a directive, as when used in ng-repeat. Your compile function can also return link functions to modify the resulting element instances.
A directive allows you to extend the HTML vocabulary in a declarative fashion for building web components. The ng-app attribute is a directive, so is ng-controller and all of the ng- prefixed attributes. Directives can be attributes, tags or even class names, comments.
How directives are born (compilation and instantiation)
Compile: We’ll use the compile function to both manipulate the DOM before it’s rendered and return a link function (that will handle the linking for us). This also is the place to put any methods that need to be shared around with all of the instances of this directive.
link: We’ll use the link function to register all listeners on a specific DOM element (that’s cloned from the template) and set up our bindings to the page.
If set in the compile() function they would only have been set once (which is often what you want). If set in the link() function they would be set every time the HTML element is bound to data in the
object.
<div ng-repeat="i in [0,1,2]">
<simple>
<div>Inner content</div>
</simple>
</div>
app.directive("simple", function(){
return {
restrict: "EA",
transclude:true,
template:"<div>{{label}}<div ng-transclude></div></div>",
compile: function(element, attributes){
return {
pre: function(scope, element, attributes, controller, transcludeFn){
},
post: function(scope, element, attributes, controller, transcludeFn){
}
}
},
controller: function($scope){
}
};
});
Compile function returns the pre and post link function. In the pre link function we have the instance template and also the scope from the controller, but yet the template is not bound to scope and still don't have transcluded content.
Post link function is where post link is the last function to execute. Now the transclusion is complete, the template is linked to a scope, and the view will update with data bound values after the next digest cycle. The link option is just a shortcut to setting up a post-link function.
controller: The directive controller can be passed to another directive linking/compiling phase. It can be injected into other directices as a mean to use in inter-directive communication.
You have to specify the name of the directive to be required – It should be bound to same element or its parent. The name can be prefixed with:
? – Will not raise any error if a mentioned directive does not exist.
^ – Will look for the directive on parent elements, if not available on the same element.
Use square bracket [‘directive1′, ‘directive2′, ‘directive3′] to require multiple directives controller.
var app = angular.module('app', []);
app.controller('MainCtrl', function($scope, $element) {
});
app.directive('parentDirective', function() {
return {
restrict: 'E',
template: '<child-directive></child-directive>',
controller: function($scope, $element){
this.variable = "Hi Vinothbabu"
}
}
});
app.directive('childDirective', function() {
return {
restrict: 'E',
template: '<h1>I am child</h1>',
replace: true,
require: '^parentDirective',
link: function($scope, $element, attr, parentDirectCtrl){
//you now have access to parentDirectCtrl.variable
}
}
});
Also, a good reason to use a controller vs. link function (since they both have access to the scope, element, and attrs) is because you can pass in any available service or dependency into a controller (and in any order), whereas you cannot do that with the link function. Notice the different signatures:
controller: function($scope, $exceptionHandler, $attr, $element, $parse, $myOtherService, someCrazyDependency) {...
vs.
link: function(scope, element, attrs) {... //no services allowed
this is a good sample for understand directive phases
http://codepen.io/anon/pen/oXMdBQ?editors=101
var app = angular.module('myapp', [])
app.directive('slngStylePrelink', function() {
return {
scope: {
drctvName: '#'
},
controller: function($scope) {
console.log('controller for ', $scope.drctvName);
},
compile: function(element, attr) {
console.log("compile for ", attr.name)
return {
post: function($scope, element, attr) {
console.log('post link for ', attr.name)
},
pre: function($scope, element, attr) {
$scope.element = element;
console.log('pre link for ', attr.name)
// from angular.js 1.4.1
function ngStyleWatchAction(newStyles, oldStyles) {
if (oldStyles && (newStyles !== oldStyles)) {
forEach(oldStyles, function(val, style) {
element.css(style, '');
});
}
if (newStyles) element.css(newStyles);
}
$scope.$watch(attr.slngStylePrelink, ngStyleWatchAction, true);
// Run immediately, because the watcher's first run is async
ngStyleWatchAction($scope.$eval(attr.slngStylePrelink));
}
};
}
};
});
html
<body ng-app="myapp">
<div slng-style-prelink="{height:'500px'}" drctv-name='parent' style="border:1px solid" name="parent">
<div slng-style-prelink="{height:'50%'}" drctv-name='child' style="border:1px solid red" name='child'>
</div>
</div>
</body>
compile: used when we need to modify directive template, like add new expression, append another directive inside this directive
controller: used when we need to share/reuse $scope data
link: it is a function which used when we need to attach event handler or to manipulate DOM.