I have a directive with an isolate-scope (so that I can reuse the directive in other places), and when I use this directive with an ng-repeat, it fails to work.
I have read all the documentation and Stack Overflow answers on this topic and understand the issues. I believe I have avoided all the usual gotchas.
So I understand that my code fails because of the scope created by the ng-repeat directive. My own directive creates an isolate-scope and does a two-way data-binding to an object in the parent scope. My directive will assign a new object-value to this bound variable and this works perfectly when my directive is used without ng-repeat (the parent variable is updated correctly). However, with ng-repeat, the assignment creates a new variable in the ng-repeat scope and the parent variable does not see the change. All this is as expected based on what I have read.
I have also read that when there are multiple directives on a given element, only one scope is created. And that a priority can be set in each directive to define the order in which the directives are applied; the directives are sorted by priority and then their compile functions are called (search for the word priority at http://docs.angularjs.org/guide/directive).
So I was hoping I could use priority to make sure that my directive runs first and ends up creating an isolate-scope, and when ng-repeat runs, it re-uses the isolate-scope instead of creating a scope that prototypically inherits from the parent scope. The ng-repeat documentation states that that directive runs at priority level 1000. It is not clear whether 1 is a higher priority level or a lower priority level. When I used priority level 1 in my directive, it did not make a difference, so I tried 2000. But that makes things worse: my two-way bindings become undefined and my directive does not display anything.
I have created a fiddle to show my issue. I have commented out the priority setting in my directive. I have a list of name objects and a directive called name-row that shows the first and last name fields in the name object. When a displayed name is clicked, I want it to set a selected variable in the main scope. The array of names, the selected variable are passed to the name-row directive using two-way data-binding.
I know how to get this to work by calling functions in the main scope. I also know that if selected is inside another object, and I bind to the outer object, things would work. But I am not interested in those solutions at the moment.
Instead, the questions I have are:
How do I prevent ng-repeat from creating a scope that prototypically inherits from the parent scope, and instead have it use my directive's isolate-scope?
Why is priority level 2000 in my directive not working?
Using Batarang, is it possible to know what type of scope is in use?
Okay, through a lot of the comments above, I have discovered the confusion. First, a couple of points of clarification:
ngRepeat does not affect your chosen isolate scope
the parameters passed into ngRepeat for use on your directive's attributes do use a prototypically-inherited scope
the reason your directive doesn't work has nothing to do with the isolate scope
Here's an example of the same code but with the directive removed:
<li ng-repeat="name in names"
ng-class="{ active: $index == selected }"
ng-click="selected = $index">
{{$index}}: {{name.first}} {{name.last}}
</li>
Here is a JSFiddle demonstrating that it won't work. You get the exact same results as in your directive.
Why doesn't it work? Because scopes in AngularJS use prototypical inheritance. The value selected on your parent scope is a primitive. In JavaScript, this means that it will be overwritten when a child sets the same value. There is a golden rule in AngularJS scopes: model values should always have a . in them. That is, they should never be primitives. See this SO answer for more information.
Here is a picture of what the scopes initially look like.
After clicking the first item, the scopes now look like this:
Notice that a new selected property was created on the ngRepeat scope. The controller scope 003 was not altered.
You can probably guess what happens when we click on the second item:
So your issue is actually not caused by ngRepeat at all - it's caused by breaking a golden rule in AngularJS. The way to fix it is to simply use an object property:
$scope.state = { selected: undefined };
<li ng-repeat="name in names"
ng-class="{ active: $index == state.selected }"
ng-click="state.selected = $index">
{{$index}}: {{name.first}} {{name.last}}
</li>
Here is a second JSFiddle showing this works too.
Here is what the scopes look like initially:
After clicking the first item:
Here, the controller scope is being affected, as desired.
Also, to prove that this will still work with your directive with an isolate scope (because, again, this has nothing to do with your problem), here is a JSFiddle for that too, the view must reflect the object. You'll note that the only necessary change was to use an object instead of a primitive.
Scopes initially:
Scopes after clicking on the first item:
To conclude: once again, your issue isn't with the isolate scope and it isn't with how ngRepeat works. Your problem is that you're breaking a rule that is known to lead to this very problem. Models in AngularJS should always have a ..
Without directly trying to avoid answering your questions, instead take a look at the following fiddle:
http://jsfiddle.net/dVPLM/
Key point is that instead of trying to fight and change the conventional behaviour of Angular, you could structure your directive to work with ng-repeat as opposed to trying to override it.
In your template:
<name-row
in-names-list="names"
io-selected="selected">
</name-row>
In your directive:
template:
' <ul>' +
' <li ng-repeat="name in inNamesList" ng-class="activeClass($index)" >' +
' <a ng-click="setSelected($index)">' +
' {{$index}} - {{name.first}} {{name.last}}' +
' </a>' +
' </li>' +
' </ul>'
In response to your questions:
ng-repeat will create a scope, you really shouldn't be trying to change this.
Priority in directives isn't just execution order - see: AngularJS : How does the HTML compiler arrange the order for compiling?
In Batarang, if you check the performance tab, you can see the expressions bound for each scope, and check if this matches your expectations.
Related
I am trying to understand a working code. It can build a very simple json data by adding name:value pairs one by one with GUI; by a custom directive and its link function, it builds a html template as the right hand of the image below:
What puzzles me is ng-model="$parent.keyName" in the highlighted part, as well as $parent.valueType, ng-model="$parent.valueName" in other part.
1) What does the $parent refer to (in the code or in the example of the above image)?
2) Is there a way to show the value of $parent or $parent.keyName in the console or by adding something (e.g., alert) in the program?
1) $parent refers to the parent scope (of any given scope). All scopes have a parent apart from $rootScope which is the top level scope. They can be created by any angular ng-* directive, including but not limited to ng-controller.
Generally speaking, it's considered bad practice to use $parent because it refers to the immediate parent scope which is subject to change. If the scope hierarchy does change (which it could do by adding a ng-* directive to a html element held in a custom directive template for example) then the hierarchy can be broken and $parent won't refer to the same scope that it once did.
2) Yes you can. In Chrome developer tools, if you Right Click > Inspect Element (as you have in the screen shot), you select the element. Then if you leave that element highlighted and go to the console tab and type:
angular.element($0).scope()
That returns the scope that the selected element resides in. Then if you type:
angular.element($0).scope().$parent()
That returns the parent scope of the scope that the selected element resides in. And for what it's worth you can also do:
angular.element($0).scope().$parent().$parent()
and keep going up the scope hierarchy.
Also check out the AngularJS Batarang chrome extension which allows you to look through the scopes in the Chrome Developer Tools.
What does this $parent refer to?
Parent refers to the scope of your parent controller. The image in your question doesn't give a clear picture so I will add an example for it.
<div ng-controller="EditorController">
<div ng-controller="ChildEditorController">
....
</div>
</div>
Assume you have a property called editorsList (array) in your EditorController (which is the parent controller here), you can do something like
<div ng-controller="EditorController">
<div ng-controller="ChildEditorController">
Editors Count: {{$parent.editorsList.length}}
</div>
</div>
So you can access the scope of your parent with the $parent.
I am facing a strange situation in which I have created a directive, to which a controller is attached, and one of the two tiny functions of the controller is never called from the view whereas the other function is.
Here is the plunker.
The message I expect is (bold is what does not show up)
You are limited to: Prison
I have already created tens of directives, whether in their own right or as wrappers around existing directives available on GitHub, from lightweight ones such as custom-select to behemoths such as angular-ui-grid.
I am at the end of my wits here as to why {{getArea()}} produces no text at all in the view. I've scrutinized the code, trying to do it with new eyes, so to speak, and I see nothing wrong. I've created a specific project in Eclipse for this tiny piece of code, installed Wampserver just so I could set breakpoints in Firebug and God knows to what great lengths I had to go just so that I could understand what is wrong with the code I wrote.
For instance, in isRestricted(), I can call getArea() without any problem. However, Angular seems to not find the function from the directive.
A few similar questions have already been asked but none of the errors (missing controller or ng-app specification, missing dependency list at module declaration, nested controllers, etc.) seem to apply. There's obviously an important lesson to be learned here and I'm truly eager to learn it.
EDIT: The lesson learned is that ng-if creates a new scope. That new scope comes in between the controller and the directive, which leads to the template of the directive losing access to anything defined in the controller (at least, that's how I would phrase it). (Note that a comment hinted at directive priority.)
There are several solutions, which all maintain the prototypical inheritance needed for the template to access the functions defined in the controller:
not using an isolate scope
not defining the ng-if directive on the top-level element of my directive, as that causes a conflict (between my controller's scope and the scope defined by ng-if). I believe ng-if wins here, which leads to the controller's scope being out of reach of the directive. Using ng-if on a child div does the trick (because then, the ng-if scope inherits my controller's scope, hence making the functions available to the template).
Because of the CSS styling needed with this directive, I have used scope: false.
<span class="scoop-badge-content">{{$parent.getArea()}}</span>
Or in directive :
scope:true
This is because ng-if use how own scope
The strange thing is that when i have this problem i usually use dot notation. But it doesn't work here, probably because we're inside a directive, and i didn't had the case until now.
EDIT : a last way of doing this chaging the template :
<div class="scoop-badge scoop-badge-ua">
<div ng-if="isRestricted()">
<span class="scoop-badge-title">You are limited to:</span>
<span class="scoop-badge-content">{{getArea()}}</span>
</div>
</div>
I think this work because you have replace true and ng-if will conflict with ng-scope if it's on the top DOM element.
When you have scope = {} in your directive, Angular creates an isolated scope. Which means it can't get to the getArea() function.
You can completely remove the scope = {} line or set it to scope = true or scope = false depending on what you're trying to achieve later on.
When set to scope = true Angular will create a new scope object and assign it to the directive. This scope object is prototypically inherited from its parent scope.
When set to scope = false the directive will use its parent scope. (This is the default value. It has the same effect if you remove this line).
More information about scopes here
Removing scope: {} from directive definition solves problem.
app.directive('scoopBadgeUa', function() {
return {
restrict : "A",
scope: {}, // This is not needed, creates conflict
templateUrl : "scoop-badge-ua.html",
replace : true,
controller : 'ScoopBadgeUaController',
};
});
Your code is correct, you don't have to do anything more than adding a <div></div> wrapping your code in scoop-badge-ua.html.
<div>
<div class="scoop-badge scoop-badge-ua" ng-class="{'visible': isRestricted()}" ng-if="isRestricted()">
<span class="scoop-badge-title">You are limited to:</span>
<span class="scoop-badge-content">{{getArea()}}</span>
</div>
</div>
I like this solution better than transclude: true because it doesn't include the directive's tag in your html code, which ultimately translates to a cleaner code.
Please help me understand scopes in AngularJS.
If I associate a controller within a directive (as opposed to within html), is it supposed to have any impact on the scope associated with the directive ?
How can I use ng-repeat after scope isolation ?
For e.g. here is an example: http://plnkr.co/edit/0flo5mru61r9h3H8kiW5?p=preview
ex1. If I comment out (div ng-controller="Ctrl")[line 40, 43] and instead uncomment (// controller: 'Ctrl')[line 35] within the directive, why aren't the same scopes/hierarchy created (as viewed in Batarang).
ex2. How can I run ng-repeat for instructorList and profList (separately) without changing the current controller and only playing around with the scope ?
I am not sure how to inspect plunkers in batarang, but.
If you do this, you're instantiating the controller twice: once on each directive element. Each time you instantiate it, you're creating a new scope. As such, you have two separate sibling scopes. You can see just from looking at the html that the heirarchy won't be the same as if you had them both within the same element that has its own scope. In the latter case, changes made by child element 1 would affect the same scope used by child element two.
It's not very clear what you mean here. ng-repeat should be done in html. You could put it in the template like this:
template: '<label ng-repeat="person in teacherList">{{person.id}}<input ng-model="person.name"><br></label>'
See this
Related Post, but didn't help:
Scoping issue when setting ngModel from a directive
EDIT: Can I use ng-model with isolated scope? didn't work either.
I got the some problem but in a more complex way I guess. I want to write a pulldown that does not use any input for data saving. I'd rather have the ngModel to take care of it.
http://jsfiddle.net/QeM6g/6/
The jsFiddle example above shows a demo where the above described methods didn't work.
// this is what should work but doesn't
ngModel.$setViewValue(value);
scope.$apply(attr.ngModel,value);
For some reason the scope of the ngModelController is a sibling of my scope. so it doesn't pass the changes back to the parent. at least all other sibling scopes behave as you'd expect. i.e. ng-change works in combination.
Angularjs doesn't deal very well with direct bindings to primitive types.
If you change this line:
$scope.productId = 16;
to something like this:
$scope.selectedProduct = {
id: 16
}
and change those references on the rest of the code, you should be able to overcome the issue.
jsFiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/M2cL7/
Don't bind to primitives in a scope, bind to an object in the scope.
From https://github.com/angular/angular.js/wiki/Understanding-Scopes
... until you try 2-way data binding
(i.e., form elements, ng-model) to a primitive (e.g., number, string,
boolean) defined on the parent scope from inside the child scope. It
doesn't work the way most people expect it should work. What happens
is that the child scope gets its own property that hides/shadows the
parent property of the same name. This is not something AngularJS is
doing – this is how JavaScript prototypal inheritance works. New
AngularJS developers often do not realize that ng-repeat, ng-switch,
ng-view and ng-include all create new child scopes, so the problem
often shows up when these directives are involved.
This issue with primitives can be easily avoided by following the
"best practice" of always have a '.' in your ng-models
so
<input ng-model="tweetText">
becomes
<input ng-model="tweet.text">
A great summary is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhfUv0spHCY&feature=youtu.be&t=30m
I want to write 'edit in place' directive in angularjs.
I want that directive is reusable, therefore I have following requirements on the directive:
it must be an attirbute that can deocorate any element, that makes sense (div,span,li)
it must support edit button, clicking on that will change set ot displayd elements into input fileds. Typically properties of one object, e.g. contact (number, name)
I disocvere trickery behaviour of scope visibility in the directive that can be seen in this fiddle http://jsfiddle.net/honzajde/ZgNbU/1/.
Comenting out in the directive: template and scope -> contact.number and contact.name are displayed
Comenting out in the directive: scope -> contact.number only is displayed
Not commenting out anything -> nothing is displayed
=> when both are commented out just adding template to the directive makes it render contact.number even though template is not used.
I am asking what are the rules of the game?
<div>
<div ng-controller="ContactsCtrl">
<h2>Contacts</h2>
<br />
<ul>
<li ng-repeat="contact in contacts">
<span edit-in-place="" ng-bind="contact.number"></span> |
<span edit-in-place="" >{{contact.name}}</span>
</li>
</ul>
<br />
<p>Here we repeat the contacts to ensure bindings work:</p>
<br />
<ul>
<li ng-repeat="contact in contacts">
{{contact.number}} | {{contact.name}}
</li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
var app = angular.module( 'myApp', [] );
app.directive( 'editInPlace', function() {
return {
restrict: 'A',
//scope: { contact:"=" },
template: '<span ng-click="edit()" ng-bind="value"></span><input ng-model="value"></input>',
link: function ( $scope, element, attrs ) {
// Let's get a reference to the input element, as we'll want to reference it.
var inputElement = angular.element( element.children()[1] );
// This directive should have a set class so we can style it.
element.addClass( 'edit-in-place' );
// Initially, we're not editing.
$scope.editing = false;
// ng-click handler to activate edit-in-place
$scope.edit = function () {
$scope.editing = true;
// We control display through a class on the directive itself. See the CSS.
element.addClass( 'active' );
// And we must focus the element.
// `angular.element()` provides a chainable array, like jQuery so to access a native DOM function,
// we have to reference the first element in the array.
inputElement[0].focus();
};
// When we leave the input, we're done editing.
inputElement.prop( 'onblur', function() {
$scope.editing = false;
element.removeClass( 'active' );
});
}
};
});
app.controller('ContactsCtrl', function ( $scope ) {
$scope.contacts = [
{ number: '+25480989333', name: 'sharon'},
{ number: '+42079872232', name: 'steve'}
];
});
You are running into problems because you are misusing angular.
First, a directive should be self-contained, but you are pulling functionality out of it, which makes it less universal and less reusable. In your code, you have functionality in the DOM and in the controller that belongs in the directive. Why?
Second, it's also unclear from your markup and javascript specifically want you want to accomplish when all these pieces are strung together.
Third, in most cases, directives should have their own isolated scope, which is done by declaring a scope object with attributes it should bind. You shouldn't be passing an expression (i.e. {{contact.name}}) inside the directive as it will break the binding and your contact will not be updated when the edit-in-place finishes. The proper way is to establish bi-directional binding through an = property on the scope. ng-bind isn't what you want here: that's scope-specific, so we use it inside the directive's scope. As Valentyn suggested, you could do some magic to get around this, but it's not a good idea and it's super-simple to set it up the right way. What's the issue with doing this by an attribute?
This is all bad Ju-ju.
As I pointed out in your other question on this same topic, you must make your directive self-contained and work with angular, rather than against it. Here's an attribute-based version of the fiddle I gave you previously, meeting the first of your requirements. Please let me know what is wrong specifically with this implementation and we can talk about the angular way of fixing it.
Lastly, if you provide further context on what you need in terms of a "button", I'll incorporate that into the fiddle too.
[update]
It is possible to make the directives work your way, but you will run into problems eventually (or right now, it would seem). All components in an angular app (or any app for that matter) should be as self-contained as is feasible. It's not a "rule" or limitation; it's a "best practice". Similarly, communication between directive components can occur through a controller, but it shouldn't. Ideally, you shouldn't reference the DOM in a controller at all - that's what directives are for.
If your specific purpose is a row that is editable, then that is your directive. It's okay to have a lower-level generic edit-in-place directive that the larger directive uses, but there is still the higher-level directive too. The higher-level directive encapsulates the logic between them. This higher-level component would then require a contact object.
Lastly, no, there isn't necessarily a big difference between ng-bind="var" and {{var}}. But that's not the issue; the issue was where that binding takes place. In your example, a value was passed to the directive instead of a bi-directionally-bound variable. My point was that the directive needs access to the variable so it can change it.
Summary: You are coding in a very jQuery-style way. That's great for coding in jQuery, but it doesn't work so well when coding in Angular. In fact, it causes a lot of problems, like the ones you're experiencing. In jQuery, you would, for example, dynamically insert DOM elements, declare and handle events, and manually bind variables all within a single code block, all manually. In Angular, there is a clean separation of concerns and most of the binding is automatic. In most cases, it leads to javascript code at least two-thirds smaller than the jQuery alternative. This is one of those cases.
That said, I have created a Plunker that contains a more sophisticated version of both the edit-in-place as well as a new higher-level directive to incorporate additional features: http://plnkr.co/edit/LVUIQD?p=preview.
I hope this helps.
[update 2]
These are the answers to your new round of questions. They may be good for your edification, but I already gave you the "angular way" to fix your problem. You will also find that I already addressed these questions (in broader strokes) earlier in my original answer as well as in my update. Hopefully, this makes it more apparent.
Question: "Comenting out in the directive: template and scope -> contact.number and contact.name are displayed"
My Reply: When you do not specify a scope, the directive inherits its parent scope. You bound and interpolated the name and number within the context of the parent, so it "works". Because the directive will alter the value, however, this is not a good way way to solve it. It really should have its own scope.
Question: "Comenting out in the directive: scope -> contact.number only is displayed"
My Reply: You bound a scope property of the parent to the "contact.number" directive, so it will get placed inside during the $digest loop - after the directive has been processed. On the "contact.name", you put it inside the directive, which can only work if the directive codes for transclusion.
Question: "Not commenting out anything -> nothing is displayed"
My Reply: Right. If the directive has its own scope (and this one definitely should), then you must use a defined directive scope property to communicate values, as my several code samples demonstrate. Your code, however, tries to use the parent scope in the directive when we explicitly forbid that by using the scope property in its definition.
Summary: While this second update may be informative (and I hope that it is), it doesn't answer the question beneath your questions: how do I use angular components correctly so that the scope I'm using is always what I think it is? My first post and the subsequent update, answer that question.
Here is little bit updated your fiddle, but it need further improvements to meet full list of your requirements: http://jsfiddle.net/5VRFE/
Key point is:
scope: { value:"=editInPlace" },
Some notes: its better to use ng-show ng-hide directivies for visual appearing-hiding instead of changing css classes. Also its better to spread functionality into different directives to have better separation of concerns (check ngBlur directive)
About your confusion of scope check guide about scopes paragraph "Understanding Transclusion and Scopes": Each directive have separate isolated scopes, if you want to have access from directive's template to controller's scope use directive scope binging ("scope" field of directive definition object). And also transcluded elements have a scope of from where you defined transcluding template.
From the first view those isolated scope sounds little bit strange, but when you have good structured directives (note also that one directive can require another and share bindings) you can find it extremly usefull.