Consider the following directive: (Live Demo)
app.directive('spinner', function() {
return {
restrict: 'A',
scope: {
spinner: '=',
doIt: "&doIt"
},
link: function(scope, element, attrs) {
var spinnerButton = angular.element("<button class='btn disabled'><i class='icon-refresh icon-spin'></i> Doing...</button>");
element.after(spinnerButton);
scope.$watch('spinner', function(showSpinner) {
spinnerButton.toggle(showSpinner);
element.toggle(!showSpinner);
});
}
};
});
which is used like this:
<button ng-click="doIt()" spinner="spinIt">Spin It</button>
When spinner's value (i.e. the value of $scope.spinIt in this example) is true, the element should be hidden and spinnerButton should appear instead. When spinner's value is false, the element should be visible and spinnerButton should be hidden.
The problem here is that doIt() is not in the isolated scope, thus not called on click.
What would be the "Angular way" to implement this directive?
My suggestion is to look at what's going on with these spinners. Be a little more API focused.
Relevant part follows. We use a regular callback to indicate when we're done, so the spinner knows to reset the state of the button.
function SpinDemoCtrl($scope, $timeout, $q) {
$scope.spinIt = false;
$scope.longCycle = function(complete) {
$timeout(function() {
complete();
}, 3000);
};
$scope.shortCycle = function(complete) {
$timeout(function() {
complete();
}, 1000);
};
}
app.directive('spinnerClick', function() {
return {
restrict: 'A',
scope: {
spinnerClick: "=",
},
link: function(scope, element, attrs) {
var spinnerButton = angular.element("<button class='btn disabled'><i class='icon-refresh icon-spin'></i> Doing...</button>").hide();
element.after(spinnerButton);
element.click(function() {
spinnerButton.show();
element.hide();
scope.spinnerClick(function() {
spinnerButton.hide();
element.show();
});
});
}
};
});
Here's one that expects use of $q. It'll work better with Angular-style asynchronous operations, and eliminates the callback functions by instead having the spinner reset on fulfilment of the promise.
Here is the polished version of the directive I ended up with (based on Yuki's suggestion), in case it helps someone: (CoffeeScript)
app.directive 'spinnerClick', ->
restrict: 'A'
link: (scope, element, attrs) ->
originalHTML = element.html()
spinnerHTML = "<i class='icon-refresh icon-spin'></i> #{attrs.spinnerText}"
element.click ->
return if element.is('.disabled')
element.html(spinnerHTML).addClass('disabled')
scope.$apply(attrs.spinnerClick).then ->
element.html(originalHTML).removeClass('disabled')
Use it like so:
<button class="btn btn-primary" spinner-click="createNewTask()"
spinner-text="Creating...">
Create
</button>
Controller's code:
TasksNewCtrl = ($scope, $location, $q, Task) ->
$scope.createNewTask = ->
deferred = $q.defer()
Task.save $scope.task, ->
$location.path "/tasks"
, (error) ->
// Handle errors here and then:
deferred.resolve()
deferred.promise
Yes, it will call doIt in your isolated scope.
You can use $parent.doIt in that case
<button ng-click="$parent.doIt()" spinner="spinIt">Spin It</button>
From the AngularJS Documentation (http://docs.angularjs.org/guide/directive):
& or &attr - provides a way to execute an expression in the context of the parent scope. If no attr name is specified then the attribute name is assumed to be the same as the local name. Given and widget definition of scope: { localFn:'&myAttr' }, then isolate scope property localFn will point to a function wrapper for the count = count + value expression. Often it's desirable to pass data from the isolated scope via an expression and to the parent scope, this can be done by passing a map of local variable names and values into the expression wrapper fn. For example, if the expression is increment(amount) then we can specify the amount value by calling the localFn as localFn({amount: 22}).
so inlclude doIt: "&doIt" in your scope declaration, then you can use doIt as a function in your isolated scope.
I'm confused as to why you are not packaging up everything in the directive as if it's a self-contained module. That's at least what I would do. In other words, you have the click-handler in the HTML, some behavior in the directive and some behavior in the external controller. This makes your code much less portable and more decentralized.
Anyway, you may have reasons for this that are not shared, but my suggestion would be to put all the "Spin It" related stuff in the spinner directive. This means the click-handler, the doIt() function and template stuff all within the link function.
That way there's no need to worry about sharing scope and code entanglement. Or, am I just missing something?
I don't know about the 'angular' way of doing things, but i suggest not using an isolated scope but instead just creating a child scope. You then do attrs.$observe to get any properties you need for your directive.
I.E. :
app.directive('spinner', function() {
return {
restrict: 'A',
scope: true, //Create child scope not isolated scope
link: function(scope, element, attrs) {
var spinnerButton = angular.element("<button class='btn disabled'><i class='icon-refresh icon-spin'></i> Doing...</button>");
element.after(spinnerButton);
//Using attrs.$observe
attrs.$observe('spinner', function(showSpinner) {
spinnerButton.toggle(showSpinner);
element.toggle(!showSpinner);
});
}
};
});
I find this way is better than using '$parent' to escape the isolated scope in other directives (eg ngClick or ngModel) as the end user of your directive does not need to know whether or not using your directive requires them to use '$parent' or not on core angularjs directives.
Using CoffeeScript and a FontAwesome icon.
No need to manually specify the spinner-text
It will just add the spinner content left of the text while loading
We must use finally instead of then for the promise otherwise the spinner will stay there on failure?
I must use $compile because the contents of the button is dynamically compiled as I am using https://github.com/angular-translate/angular-translate
app.directive 'spinnerClick', ["$compile", ($compile) ->
restrict: 'A'
link: (scope, element, attrs) ->
originalHTML = element.html()
spinnerHTML = "<i class='fa fa-refresh fa-spin'></i> "
element.click ->
return if element.is('.disabled')
element.html(spinnerHTML + originalHTML).addClass('disabled')
$compile(element.contents())(scope)
scope.$apply(attrs.spinnerClick).finally ->
element.html(originalHTML).removeClass('disabled')
$compile(element.contents())(scope)
]
Related
In my controller :
myApp.controller('homeCtrl', function($scope, $rootScope, $state, 'red';
$rootScope.$on('new_story', function(event, data) {
$scope.cardObj = {key:'value'};
});
});
In my HTML :
<div clickmeee ></div>
<div id="feedContainer" card='{{cardObj}}'> </div>
In my directive :
myApp.directive('clickmeee', function($compile, $rootScope) {
return {
restrict: 'A',
scope: {
card: '#'
},
link: function(scope, element, attrs) {
element.bind('click', function() {
scope.$watch('card', function(newVal, oldVal) {
alert(scope.card);
});
});
}
};
});
How do I pass data from controller to this directive. I compile some html and prepend it to the div. All of that is sorted out but I need some data from object I am trying to pass.
Any help??
There are several problems in your code:
you define a scope attribute named 'card', but you use cardObj instead
you use a watch that is completely unnecessary. And worse: you create a new watch every time the element is clicked
you don't define any card attribute on your clickmeee element. Instead, you're placing it on another element, on which the directive is not applied
you're passing the attribute with '#'. That works, but the directive will receive a string, containing the JSONified object, rather than the object itself
you're not showming us where you emit an event that will initialize cardObj in the controller scope
Here is a plunkr showing a working version of your code.
Also, note that using bind('click') is a bad idea. You'd better have a template in your directive and use ng-click in the template, or simply not use a directive at all and just use ng-click directly on the div element.
Bad news. You are doing it wrong all the ways.
Firstly
card='{{cardObj}}' >
this one should be put in the
<div clickmeee ></div>
So you can take it as binded scope variable in your directive registration
Secondly
If you managed to use '#' syntax
card: '#'
it will turn your input to string, not a binded scope. Use '=' instead.
In the end
You dont need to use watch here:
scope.$watch('card', function(newVal, oldVal) {
alert(newVal);
});
since scope.card is binded via '=' connector. Just simple use alert(scope.card). (Need to warn you that alert an object is not a good idea)
I have tried your code here: plunker. Changed a litte bit by using cardObj as string for easier presentation. Does it match your work?
You should watch the card object:
myApp.directive('clickmeee', function() {
return {
restrict: 'A',
scope: {
card: '#'
},
link: function(scope, element, attrs) {
scope.$watch('card', function(value) {
console.log(value);
});
}
};
});
And:
<div clickmeee id="feedContainer" card='{{cardObj}}'> </div>
Whenever the controller changes the cardObj, the directive's watch on card is triggered:
$scope.$apply(function() {
$scope.cardObj = "test";
}
//main controller
angular.module('myApp')
.controller('mainCtrl', function ($scope){
$scope.loadResults = function (){
console.log($scope.searchFilter);
};
});
// directive
angular.module('myApp')
.directive('customSearch', function () {
return {
scope: {
searchModel: '=ngModel',
searchChange: '&ngChange',
},
require: 'ngModel',
template: '<input type="text" ng-model="searchModel" ng-change="searchChange()"/>',
restrict: 'E'
};
});
// html
<custom-search ng-model="searchFilter" ng-change="loadResults()"></custom-search>
Here is a simplified directive to illustrate. When I type into the input, I expect the console.log in loadResults to log out exactly what I have already typed. It actually logs one character behind because loadResults is running just before the searchFilter var in the main controller is receiving the new value from the directive. Logging inside the directive however, everything works as expected. Why is this happening?
My Solution
After getting an understanding of what was happening with ngChange in my simple example, I realized my actual problem was complicated a bit more by the fact that the ngModel I am actually passing in is an object, whose properties i am changing, and also that I am using form validation with this directive as one of the inputs. I found that using $timeout and $eval inside the directive solved all of my problems:
//main controller
angular.module('myApp')
.controller('mainCtrl', function ($scope){
$scope.loadResults = function (){
console.log($scope.searchFilter);
};
});
// directive
angular.module('myApp')
.directive('customSearch', function ($timeout) {
return {
scope: {
searchModel: '=ngModel'
},
require: 'ngModel',
template: '<input type="text" ng-model="searchModel.subProp" ng-change="valueChange()"/>',
restrict: 'E',
link: function ($scope, $element, $attrs, ngModel)
{
$scope.valueChange = function()
{
$timeout(function()
{
if ($attrs.ngChange) $scope.$parent.$eval($attrs.ngChange);
}, 0);
};
}
};
});
// html
<custom-search ng-model="searchFilter" ng-change="loadResults()"></custom-search>
The reason for the behavior, as rightly pointed out in another answer, is because the two-way binding hasn't had a chance to change the outer searchFilter by the time searchChange(), and consequently, loadResults() was invoked.
The solution, however, is very hacky for two reasons.
One, the caller (the user of the directive), should not need to know about these workarounds with $timeout. If nothing else, the $timeout should have been done in the directive rather than in the View controller.
And two - a mistake also made by the OP - is that using ng-model comes with other "expectations" by users of such directives. Having ng-model means that other directives, like validators, parsers, formatters and view-change-listeners (like ng-change) could be used alongside it. To support it properly, one needs to require: "ngModel", rather than bind to its expression via scope: {}. Otherwise, things would not work as expected.
Here's how it's done - for another example, see the official documentation for creating a custom input control.
scope: true, // could also be {}, but I would avoid scope: false here
template: '<input ng-model="innerModel" ng-change="onChange()">',
require: "ngModel",
link: function(scope, element, attrs, ctrls){
var ngModel = ctrls; // ngModelController
// from model -> view
ngModel.$render = function(){
scope.innerModel = ngModel.$viewValue;
}
// from view -> model
scope.onChange = function(){
ngModel.$setViewValue(scope.innerModel);
}
}
Then, ng-change just automatically works, and so do other directives that support ngModel, like ng-required.
You answered your own question in the title! '=' is watched while '&' is not
Somewhere outside angular:
input view value changes
next digest cycle:
ng-model value changes and fires ng-change()
ng-change adds a $viewChangeListener and is called this same cycle.
See:
ngModel.js#L714 and ngChange.js implementation.
At that time $scope.searchFilter hasn't been updated. Console.log's old value
next digest cycle:
searchFilter is updated by data binding.
UPDATE: Only as a POC that you need 1 extra cycle for the value to propagate you can do the following. See the other anwser (#NewDev for a cleaner approach).
.controller('mainCtrl', function ($scope, $timeout){
$scope.loadResults = function (){
$timeout(function(){
console.log($scope.searchFilter);
});
};
});
I'm in need of building a transformation directive that transforms custom directives into html.
Input like: <link text="hello world"></link>
should output to: <a class="someclass" ng-click="linkClicked('hello world')"></a>
linkClicked should be called on the parent controller of the directive.
It would have been very easy if I was the one responsible for the html holding the 'link' directive (using isolated scope), but I'm not. It's an as-is input and I have to figure a way to still do it.
There are countless examples on how to do similar bindings using the default scope of the directive, but I'm writing my controllers using John Papa's recommendations with controllerAs, but don't want to create another instance on the controller in the directive.
This is what I have reached so far:
(function () {
'use strict';
angular
.module('app')
.directive('link', link);
link.$inject = ['$compile'];
function link($compile) {
return {
restrict: 'E',
replace: true,
template: '<a class="someclass"></a>',
terminal: true,
priority: 1000,
link: function (scope, element, attributes) {
element.removeAttr('link'); // Remove the attribute to avoid indefinite loop.
element.attr('ng-click', 'linkClicked(\'' + attributes.text + '\')');
$compile(element)(scope);
},
};
}
})();
$scope.linkClicked = function(text){...} in the parent controller works.
element.attr('ng-click', 'abc.linkClicked(..)') in the directive (where the parent's controllerAs is abc) - also works.
The problem is I don't know which controller will use my directive and can't hard-code the 'abc' name in it.
What do you suggest I should be doing?
It's difficult to understand from your question all the constraints that you are facing, but if the only HTML you get is:
<link text="some text">
and you need to generate a call to some function, then the function must either be:
assumed by the directive, or
conveyed to the directive
#1 is problematic because the user of the directive now needs to understand its internals. Still, it's possible if you assume that a function name is linkClicked (or whatever you want to call it), and the user of your directive would have to take special care to alias the function he really needs (could be done with "controllerAs" as well):
<div ng-controller="FooCtrl as foo" ng-init="linkClicked = foo.actualFunctionOfFoo">
...
<link text="some text">
...
</div>
app.directive("link", function($compile){
return {
transclude: "element", // remove the entire element
link: function(scope, element, attrs, ctrl){
var template = '<a class="someclass" ng-click="linkClicked(\'' +
attrs.text +
'\')">link</a>';
$compile(template)(scope, function(clone){
element.after(clone);
});
}
};
});
Demo
#2 is typically achieved via attributes, which isn't possible in your case. But you could also create a sort of "proxy" directive - let's call it onLinkClick - that could execute whatever expression you need:
<div ng-controller="FooCtrl as foo"
on-link-click="foo.actualFunctionOfFoo($data)">
...
<link text="some text">
...
</div>
The link directive now needs to require: "onLinkClick":
app.directive("link", function($compile){
return {
transclude: "element", // remove the entire element
scope: true,
require: "?^onLinkClick",
link: function(scope, element, attrs, ctrl){
if (!ctrl) return;
var template = '<a class="someclass" ng-click="localClick()">link</a>';
scope.localClick = function(){
ctrl.externalFn(attrs.text);
};
$compile(template)(scope, function(clone){
element.after(clone);
});
}
};
});
app.directive("onLinkClick", function($parse){
return {
restrict: "A",
controller: function($scope, $attrs){
var ctrl = this;
var expr = $parse($attrs.onLinkClick);
ctrl.externalFn = function(data){
expr($scope, {$data: data});
};
},
};
});
Demo
Notice that having a link directive would also execute on <link> inside <head>. So, make attempts to detect it and skip everything. For the demo purposes, I used a directive called blink to avoid this issue.
Im wondering if there is a way to pass an argument to a directive?
What I want to do is append a directive from the controller like this:
$scope.title = "title";
$scope.title2 = "title2";
angular.element(document.getElementById('wrapper')).append('<directive_name></directive_name>');
Is it possible to pass an argument at the same time so the content of my directive template could be linked to one scope or another?
here is the directive:
app.directive("directive_name", function(){
return {
restrict:'E',
transclude:true,
template:'<div class="title"><h2>{{title}}</h3></div>',
replace:true
};
})
What if I want to use the same directive but with $scope.title2?
You can pass arguments to your custom directive as you do with the builtin Angular-directives - by specifying an attribute on the directive-element:
angular.element(document.getElementById('wrapper'))
.append('<directive-name title="title2"></directive-name>');
What you need to do is define the scope (including the argument(s)/parameter(s)) in the factory function of your directive. In below example the directive takes a title-parameter. You can then use it, for example in the template, using the regular Angular-way: {{title}}
app.directive('directiveName', function(){
return {
restrict:'E',
scope: {
title: '#'
},
template:'<div class="title"><h2>{{title}}</h2></div>'
};
});
Depending on how/what you want to bind, you have different options:
= is two-way binding
# simply reads the value (one-way binding)
& is used to bind functions
In some cases you may want use an "external" name which differs from the "internal" name. With external I mean the attribute name on the directive-element and with internal I mean the name of the variable which is used within the directive's scope.
For example if we look at above directive, you might not want to specify another, additional attribute for the title, even though you internally want to work with a title-property. Instead you want to use your directive as follows:
<directive-name="title2"></directive-name>
This can be achieved by specifying a name behind the above mentioned option in the scope definition:
scope: {
title: '#directiveName'
}
Please also note following things:
The HTML5-specification says that custom attributes (this is basically what is all over the place in Angular applications) should be prefixed with data-. Angular supports this by stripping the data--prefix from any attributes. So in above example you could specify the attribute on the element (data-title="title2") and internally everything would be the same.
Attributes on elements are always in the form of <div data-my-attribute="..." /> while in code (e.g. properties on scope object) they are in the form of myAttribute. I lost lots of time before I realized this.
For another approach to exchanging/sharing data between different Angular components (controllers, directives), you might want to have a look at services or directive controllers.
You can find more information on the Angular homepage (directives)
Here is how I solved my problem:
Directive
app.directive("directive_name", function(){
return {
restrict: 'E',
transclude: true,
template: function(elem, attr){
return '<div><h2>{{'+attr.scope+'}}</h2></div>';
},
replace: true
};
})
Controller
$scope.building = function(data){
var chart = angular.element(document.createElement('directive_name'));
chart.attr('scope', data);
$compile(chart)($scope);
angular.element(document.getElementById('wrapper')).append(chart);
}
I now can use different scopes through the same directive and append them dynamically.
You can try like below:
app.directive("directive_name", function(){
return {
restrict:'E',
transclude:true,
template:'<div class="title"><h2>{{title}}</h3></div>',
scope:{
accept:"="
},
replace:true
};
})
it sets up a two-way binding between the value of the 'accept' attribute and the parent scope.
And also you can set two way data binding with property: '='
For example, if you want both key and value bound to the local scope you would do:
scope:{
key:'=',
value:'='
},
For more info,
https://docs.angularjs.org/guide/directive
So, if you want to pass an argument from controller to directive, then refer this below fiddle
http://jsfiddle.net/jaimem/y85Ft/7/
Hope it helps..
Controller code
myApp.controller('mainController', ['$scope', '$log', function($scope, $log) {
$scope.person = {
name:"sangeetha PH",
address:"first Block"
}
}]);
Directive Code
myApp.directive('searchResult',function(){
return{
restrict:'AECM',
templateUrl:'directives/search.html',
replace: true,
scope:{
personName:"#",
personAddress:"#"
}
}
});
USAGE
File :directives/search.html
content:
<h1>{{personName}} </h1>
<h2>{{personAddress}}</h2>
the File where we use directive
<search-result person-name="{{person.name}}" person-address="{{person.address}}"></search-result>
<button my-directive="push">Push to Go</button>
app.directive("myDirective", function() {
return {
restrict : "A",
link: function(scope, elm, attrs) {
elm.bind('click', function(event) {
alert("You pressed button: " + event.target.getAttribute('my-directive'));
});
}
};
});
here is what I did
I'm using directive as html attribute and I passed parameter as following in my HTML file. my-directive="push" And from the directive I retrieved it from the Mouse-click event object. event.target.getAttribute('my-directive').
Insert the var msg in the click event with scope.$apply to make the changes to the confirm, based on your controller changes to the variables shown in ng-confirm-click therein.
<button type="button" class="btn" ng-confirm-click="You are about to send {{quantity}} of {{thing}} selected? Confirm with OK" confirmed-click="youraction(id)" aria-describedby="passwordHelpBlock">Send</button>
app.directive('ngConfirmClick', [
function() {
return {
link: function(scope, element, attr) {
var clickAction = attr.confirmedClick;
element.on('click', function(event) {
var msg = attr.ngConfirmClick || "Are you sure? Click OK to confirm.";
if (window.confirm(msg)) {
scope.$apply(clickAction)
}
});
}
};
}
])
Angular newbie here. I am trying to figure out what's going wrong while passing objects to directives.
here's my directive:
app.directive('walkmap', function() {
return {
restrict: 'A',
transclude: true,
scope: { walks: '=walkmap' },
template: '<div id="map_canvas"></div>',
link: function(scope, element, attrs)
{
console.log(scope);
console.log(scope.walks);
}
};
});
and this is the template where I call the directive:
<div walkmap="store.walks"></div>
store.walks is an array of objects.
When I run this, scope.walks logs as undefined while scope logs fine as an Scope and even has a walks child with all the data that I am looking for.
I am not sure what I am doing wrong here because this exact method has worked previously for me.
EDIT:
I've created a plunker with all the required code: http://plnkr.co/edit/uJCxrG
As you can see the {{walks}} is available in the scope but I need to access it in the link function where it is still logging as undefined.
Since you are using $resource to obtain your data, the directive's link function is running before the data is available (because the results from $resource are asynchronous), so the first time in the link function scope.walks will be empty/undefined. Since your directive template contains {{}}s, Angular sets up a $watch on walks, so when the $resource populates the data, the $watch triggers and the display updates. This also explains why you see the walks data in the console -- by the time you click the link to expand the scope, the data is populated.
To solve your issue, in your link function $watch to know when the data is available:
scope.$watch('walks', function(walks) {
console.log(scope.walks, walks);
})
In your production code, just guard against it being undefined:
scope.$watch('walks', function(walks) {
if(walks) { ... }
})
Update: If you are using a version of Angular where $resource supports promises, see also #sawe's answer.
you may also use
scope.walks.$promise.then(function(walks) {
if(walks) {
console.log(walks);
}
});
Another solution would be to add ControllerAs to the directive by which you can access the directive's variables.
app.directive('walkmap', function() {
return {
restrict: 'A',
transclude: true,
controllerAs: 'dir',
scope: { walks: '=walkmap' },
template: '<div id="map_canvas"></div>',
link: function(scope, element, attrs)
{
console.log(scope);
console.log(scope.walks);
}
};
});
And then, in your view, pass the variable using the controllerAs variable.
<div walkmap="store.walks" ng-init="dir.store.walks"></div>
Try:
<div walk-map="{{store.walks}}"></div>
angular.module('app').directive('walkMap', function($parse) {
return {
link: function(scope, el, attrs) {
console.log($parse(attrs.walkMap)(scope));
}
}
});
your declared $scope.store is not visible from the controller..you declare it inside a function..so it's only visible in the scope of that function, you need declare this outside:
app.controller('MainCtrl', function($scope, $resource, ClientData) {
$scope.store=[]; // <- declared in the "javascript" controller scope
ClientData.get({}, function(clientData) {
self.original = clientData;
$scope.clientData = new ClientData(self.original);
var storeToGet = "150-001 KT";
angular.forEach(clientData.stores, function(store){
if(store.name == storeToGet ) {
$scope.store = store; //declared here it's only visible inside the forEach
}
});
});
});