I'm trying to "customize" the mongolab example to fit my own REST API. Now I'm running into this error and I am not sure what I am doing wrong:
Error: Unknown provider: ProductProvider <- Product
at Error (unknown source)
at http://localhost:3000/js/vendor/angular.min.js:28:395
at Object.c [as get] (http://localhost:3000/js/vendor/angular.min.js:26:180)
at http://localhost:3000/js/vendor/angular.min.js:28:476
at c (http://localhost:3000/js/vendor/angular.min.js:26:180)
at d (http://localhost:3000/js/vendor/angular.min.js:26:314)
This is my controller:
function ProductListCtrl($scope, Product) {
$scope.products = Product.query();
}
and this is the module:
angular.module('productServices', ['ngResource']).
factory('Product', ['$resource', function($resource){
var Product = $resource('/api/products/:id', { }, {
update: { method: 'PUT' }
});
return Product;
}]);
Your code looks good, in fact it works (apart from the calls themselves) when copied & pasted into a sample jsFiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/VGaWD/
Hard to say what is going on without seeing a more complete example but I hope that the above jsFiddle will be helpful. What I'm suspecting is that you are not initializing your app with the 'productServices' module. It would give the same error, we can see this in another jsFiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/a69nX/1/
If you are planning to work with AngularJS and MongoLab I would suggest using an existing adapter for the $resource and MongoLab: https://github.com/pkozlowski-opensource/angularjs-mongolab
It eases much of the pain working with MongoLab, you can see it in action here: http://jsfiddle.net/pkozlowski_opensource/DP4Rh/
Disclaimer! I'm maintaining this adapter (written based on AngularJS examples) so I'm obviously biased here.
I got that error because I was passing an incorrect parameter to the factory definition. I had:
myModule.factory('myService', function($scope, $http)...
It worked when I removed the $scope and changed the factory definition to:
myModule.factory('myService', function( $http)...
In case you need to inject $scope, use:
myModule.factory('myService', function($rootScope, $http)...
I just had a similar problem.
The error said the same the in the question, tried to solve it with the answer of pkozlowski.opensource and Ben G, which both are correct and good answers.
My problem was indeed different with the same error:
in my HTML-Code I had the initialisation like this...
<html ng-app>
A bit further down I tried to do something like this:
<div id="cartView" ng-app="myApp" ng-controller="CartCtrl">
I got rid of the first one... then it worked... obviously you can't initialise ng-app twice or more times. fair enough.
I totaly forgot about the first "ng-app" and got totaly frustrated. Maybe this is gonna help someone oneday...
Make sure your main app.js includes the services on which it depends. For example:
/* App Module */
angular.module('myApp', ['productServices']).
.....
pkozlowski's answer is correct, but just in case this happens to someone else, I had the same error after creating the same module twice by mistake; the second definition was overriding the provider of the first:
I created the module by doing
angular.module('MyService'...
).factory(...);
then a bit further down in the same file:
angular.module('MyService'...
).value('version','0.1');
The correct way of doing this is:
angular.module('MyService'...
).factory(...).value('version','0.1');
In my case, I've defined a new provider, say, xyz
angular.module('test')
.provider('xyz', function () {
....
});
When you were to config the above provider, you've to inject it with Provider string appended --> xyz becomes xyzProvider.
Ex:
angular.module('App', ['test'])
.config(function (xyzProvider) {
// do something with xyzProvider....
});
If you inject the above provider without the 'Provider' string, you'll get the similar error in OP.
At the end of the JS file to close the factory function I had
});
instead of
}());
This took me way too long to track down. Make sure you minisafe your controller within your directive.
.directive('my_directive', ['injected_item', function (injected_item){
return {
controller: ['DO_IT_HERE_TOO', function(DO_IT_HERE_TOO){
}]
}
}
Hope that helps
To add my own experience in here, I was trying to inject a service into one of my module config functions. This paragraph from the docs which I eventually found explains why that doesn't work:
During application bootstrap, before Angular goes off creating all services, it configures and instantiates all providers. We call this the configuration phase of the application life-cycle. During this phase, services aren't accessible because they haven't been created yet.
Meaning you can inject providers into module.config(...) functions, but you can't inject services, for that you need to wait until module.run(...), or expose a provider you can inject to module.config
For me, this error was caused by running the minified version of my angular app. Angular docs suggest a way to work around this. Here is the relevant quote describing the issue, and you can find the suggested solution in the docs themselves here:
A Note on Minification
Since Angular infers the controller's dependencies from the names of arguments to the controller's constructor function, if you were to minify the JavaScript code for PhoneListCtrl controller, all of its function arguments would be minified as well, and the dependency injector would not be able to identify services correctly.
Since this is the top result for "angularjs unknown provider" on Google right now, here's another gotcha. When doing unit testing with Jasmine, make sure you have this statement in your beforeEach() function:
module('moduleName');
Otherwise you'll get this same error in your tests.
Yet another case where this error will occur, if you're service is defined in a separate javascript file, make sure you reference it! Yes, I know, rookie mistake.
I was forgetting to inject the file that held my services altogether. Remember to do this when initializing your app module:
angular.module('myApp', ['myApp.services', ... ]);
In my case, I used an anonymous function as a wrapper for the angular module, like this:
(function () {
var app = angular.module('myModule', []);
...
})();
After closing the parenthesis, I forgot to call the anonymous function by opening and closing the parentheses again as above.
For me the problem was lazy loading; I loaded my controller and service late, so they were not available at page load (and Angular initialization). I did this with an ui-if tag, but that's irrelevant.
The solution was to load the service with the page load already.
Here's another possible scenario where you can see this error:
If you use Sublime Text 2 and the angular plugin, it will generate stubs like this
angular.module('utils', [])
.factory('utilFactory', [''
function() {
return {
}
}
]);
notice the empty ' ' as the first element of the array after the 'utilFactory' string. If you don't have any dependencies, remove that so it's like this:
angular.module('utils', [])
.factory('utilFactory', [
function() {
return {
}
}
]);
Since this question is top google result, I will add another possible thing to the list.
If the module that you're using has a failure on the dependency injection wrapper, it will provide this same result. For example copy & paste modules from the internet may rely on underscore.js and attempt to inject with '_' in the di wrapper. If underscore doesn't exist in your project dependency providers, when your controller attempts to reference your module's factory, it will get 'unknown provider' for your factory in the browser's console log.
The problem for me was that there were some new javascript files I created that referenced the service yet Chrome saw only the older version. A CTRL + F5 fixed it for me.
I got an "unknown provider" error related to angular-mocks (ngMockE2E) when compiling my project with Grunt. The problem was that angular-mocks cannot be minified so I had to remove it from the list of minified files.
After handling with this error too, I can support this list of answers with my own case.
It's at the same time simple and dumb (maybe not dumb for beginners like me, but yes for experts), the script reference to angular.min.js must be the first one in your list of scripts in the html page.
This works:
<script src="Scripts/angular.min.js"></script>
<script src="MyScripts/MyCartController.js"></script>
<script src="MyScripts/MyShoppingModule.js"></script>
This not:
<script src="MyScripts/MyCartController.js"></script>
<script src="MyScripts/MyShoppingModule.js"></script>
<script src="Scripts/angular.min.js"></script>
Notice about the angular.min.js.
Hope it helps anyone !! :)
My problem was with Yeoman, using (capitalized):
yo angular:factory Test
Made files (uncapitalized):
app/scripts/services/test.js
but the index.html file included (capitalized):
<script src="scripts/services/Test.js"></script>
Hope this helps someone.
Yet another possibility.
I had unknown Provider <- <- nameOfMyService. The error was caused by the following syntax:
module.factory(['', function() { ... }]);
Angular was looking for the '' dependency.
My scenario may be a little obscure but it can cause the same error and someone may experience it, so:
When using the $controller service to instantiate a new controller (which was expecting '$scope' as it's first injected argument) I was passing the new controller's local scope into the $controller() function's second parameter. This lead to Angular trying to invoke a $scope service which doesn't exist (though, for a while, I actually thought that I'd some how deleted the '$scope' service from Angular's cache). The solution is to wrap the local scope in a locals object:
// Bad:
$controller('myController', newScope);
// Good:
$controller('myController, {$scope: newScope});
None of the answers above worked for me, maybe I was doing completely wrong, but as a beginner that's what we do.
I was initializing the controller in a div in order to have a list:
<div ng-controller="CategoryController" ng-init="initialize()">
And then using $routeProvider to map a URL to the same controller. As soon as I removed the ng-init the controller worked with the route.
I had same problem. I fixed that using $('body').attr("ng-app", 'MyApp') instead of <body ng-app="MyApp"> to boostrap.
Because I did
angular.element(document).ready(function () {
angular.bootstrap(document, [App.Config.Settings.AppName]);
})
for architecture requirements.
In my Ruby on Rails app, I had done the following:
rake assets:precompile
This was done in the 'development' environment, which had minified Angular.js and included it in the /public/assets/application.js file.
Removing the /public/assets/* files solved the problem for me.
I faced similar issue today and issues was really very small
app.directive('removeFriend', function($scope) {
return {
restrict: 'E',
templateUrl: 'removeFriend.html',
controller: function($scope) {
$scope.removing = false;
$scope.startRemove = function() {
$scope.removing = true;
}
$scope.cancelRemove = function() {
$scope.removing = false;
}
$scope.removeFriend = function(friend) {
var idx = $scope.user.friends.indexOf(friend)
if (idx > -1) {
$scope.user.friends.splice(idx, 1);
}
}
}
}
});
If you observe the above block, in the first line you will observe I injected $scope by mistake which is incorrect. I removed that unwanted dependency to solve the issue.
app.directive('removeFriend', function() {
return {
restrict: 'E',
templateUrl: 'removeFriend.html',
controller: function($scope) {
$scope.removing = false;
$scope.startRemove = function() {
$scope.removing = true;
}
$scope.cancelRemove = function() {
$scope.removing = false;
}
$scope.removeFriend = function(friend) {
var idx = $scope.user.friends.indexOf(friend)
if (idx > -1) {
$scope.user.friends.splice(idx, 1);
}
}
}
}
});
I had this error after I created a new factory and used it within a component but I did not check the specs of that components
so if the failure in your (specs) test files
you need to add beforeEach(module('YouNewServiceModule'));
Another 'gotcha': I was getting this error injecting $timeout, and it took a few minutes to realize I had whitespace in the array values. This will not work:
angular.module('myapp',[].
controller('myCtrl', ['$scope', '$timeout ',
function ($scope, $timeout){
//controller logic
}
]);
Posting just in case some else has a silly error like this.
My case was dodgy typing
myApp.factory('Notify',funtion(){
function has a 'c' !
Related
I have an app where I use the ngCart directive in order to store the items added to a basket. The problem is that this directive just has the functionality of sending the information about the items added by the user, but I would need also to send some information that I would get from a form.
So in order to send it in a single object, I need first to extract the data stored in the directive to my main scope, and then merge it with the data I get from the form.
For that I need to modify the ngCart.js directive. I tried to make a service, as adviced here, but I don't get to get it working. The code I added to the directive is this
.service('ngCartData', ['ngCart', function(ngCart){
return {
data:ngCart;
};
}])
, but I get an error saying Module 'ngCart' is not available!
I'm totally new to services and factories in angular, so I don't know exactly where to look to make it work. I made a plunkr with my code (I tried modifying the ngCart.js file with the code above, but the plunkr shows the directive without any modification). I just need to be able to send the data stored in the directive in the scope ngCart so that I can listen to it in the parent controller (see the checkout section in the plunkr).
Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks!
did you load the js file like this :
<script src="pathto/angular/angular.js"></script>
<script src="pathto/ngCart.js"></script> or ngCart.min.js
did you load the module in your declaration module like this ? :
var myApp = angular.module('myApp',['ngCart']);
You actually have this backward. You can't inject a directive into a service. You must inject the service into the main controller and into the directive so that you can use it as a bridge between the two. Services are singletons so if you modify the properties of a service those modifications will be available anywhere else it is asked for.
Your service will look something like this:
.service('ngCartData', [function(){
return {
data:[],
addData: function(newData){
this.data.push(newData);
},
getData: function(){
return this.data;
}
};
}])
then in your controller and directive use the ngCartData api, which would look something like this:
$scope.someData = ngCartData.getData();
$scope.someFunction = function(dataToStore){
ngCartData.addData(dataToStore);
};
You had the right idea in mind, and I'm surprised it didn't work for you.
I have edited your app in the following way (in script.js)
app.controller('myCtrl', function($scope, ngCart, myCart) {
$scope.names = [...];
...
console.log(myCart.cart);
})
.factory('myCart',function(ngCart){
return {
cart: ngCart.$cart
};
})
and it logged {shipping: 30, taxRate: null, tax: null, items: Array[2]}, which I think is what you need (I added 2 items before it logged).
Notice that adding a the service is redundant; The data is accessible whenever and wherever you need. Just inject ngCart to your controller/service/etc. and the updated data will be available to you.
Therefore, the following code is equivalent:
app.controller('myCtrl', function($scope, ngCart) {
$scope.names = [...];
...
console.log(ngCart.$cart);
});
A possible reason for the getting the error you got might be that, while editing the ngCart module, you had some sort of error (like a typo), which led to ngCart being invisible to angular.
First of all, this is an honest question. And I'm looking for honest and justified answers on why I shouldn't be doing this...
angular
.module('X', ['Y'])
.config(function (myFactoryProvider, myServiceProvider) {
myFactoryProvider.$get().myFn();
myServiceProvider.$get().myFn();
});
angular
.module('Y', [])
.factory('myFactory', ['$location', function ($location) {
return {
myFn: function () {
console.log('factory');
console.log($location.absUrl());
}
}
}])
.service('myService', ['$location', function ($location) {
this.myFn = function () {
console.log('service');
console.log($location.absUrl());
}
}]);
Here's a JSFiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/1vetnu6o/
This is working as you can see above and it solves a few problems for me. But I shouldn't probably be doing this and I want to understand why. I really need good reasons to not do this. Despite the fact that I really want to.
tl;dr;
Here's the context of the problem...
I have this internal framework used by multiple products where there's this one service (which happens to be a factory) that basically contains a group of related helper methods. In this case device related like isMobileDevice, isAndroid, getDeviceType (with returns mobile, tablet or desktop), and few others...
This service must be injected into the config() phase of the application using the framework because we need access to the getDeviceType function. The thing is, we need to get the deviceType to load proper templates with $routeProvider. It's in the config() phase that we are building the correct template paths to be used for all the routes. Some of them depend on the deviceType, while others have a generic template independent of the device.
Since this is a service, we cannot inject it directly into the config() phase but we can call that method using the technique I mentioned earlier in the post.
How I'm currently solving this? The helper service is actually a provider and all the methods are exposed both in the provider section as well as in the factory function. Not ideal, but it works. I consider this a work-around, but I'd rather have a work-around in the application and not the framework, thus the technique first mentioned.
Thoughts?
I didn't knew but actually you can invoke on config phase.
The problem is that myService will be instantiated twice :/
angular
.module('X', [])
.config(function(myServiceProvider) {
myServiceProvider.$get().myFn();
})
.run(function(myService) {
myService.myFn();
})
.service('myService', ['$location', function($location) {
console.log('myService!');
this.myFn = function() {
console.log($location.absUrl());
}
}]);
output:
"myService!"
"location"
"myService!"
"location"
This is dangerous if you call $get on config of a service that has a big nested dependency tree :/
I think the correct approach, if you need a utility service (with no dependency), is to use a constant (in this way you can inject it everywhere). Otherwise if you need dependencies use a service and stick to the run() block.
The config() block it's the place to instruct your services how they should work with the help of their providers.
The run() block it's the perfect place to do some logic when your app starts (aka main method).
I'm trying to run a function and have services injected into it. I thought this could easily be accomplished using $injector. So I tried the following (simplified example):
angular.injector().invoke( [ "$q", function( $q ) { $q.something(); } ] );
Which results in Uncaught Error: [$injector:unpr] Unknown provider: $qProvider <- $q.
I know I can solve that by using angular.injector( ["ng"] ) instead, but there are actually several more dependencies.
It would be perfectly fine, if I could just retrieve the injector instance that is used everywhere else in my application.
The documentation for angular.injector suggests that you can retrieve it with angular.element(document).injector(), but that results in undefined for me.
You shouldn't be needing this, but you can get your app's $injector using the root-element of your app (or any child element).
E.g., if you use ngApp on the body:
angular.element(document.body).injector();
ExpertSystem's answer worked perfectly for me
This works perfectly for me. I'm trying to invoke a function from an angular service outside the angular scope in the document "resume" event for use in my cordova application. Here is the code that I used
var injector = angular.element(document.body).injector(); //get the document
injector.invoke(['myService', function (myService) {
myService.doSomething();
}]);
Try this:
var $injector = angular.injector(['myApp','ng'])
For $location you need to bootstrap the app to the page (start the app):
var $injector = angular.bootstrap(document, ['myApp'])
This will return the injector every time you call it but won't create any conflicts if the script was already loaded.
I'd like to work with both angularjs and requirejs. Before that, I worked with backbonejs and requirejs. I felt a bit more comfortable with that combination.
I also got the bower-seed from github, but it's too nested for the beginning.
Here's what I don't understand:
Require forces me to bootstrap angular myself.
Therefore I create a module named by my app.
Then I bootstrap that module to the document.
angular.module('app', []);
angular.bootstrap(document, ['app']);
That happens after the document ist ready, which is checked by this function:
angular.element(document).ready(function() { ... bootstraping ... }
So far I get it. But how and at what point do I put the ng-app into the header?
app.js has the function to put all my controllers, routers etc. into the app. By returning all modules I loaded inside the require-module. In my case I only load controllers
///app.js///
define(['angular', 'controller'], function (angular){
return angular.module('app',[
'app.controller',
'app.router'
]);
});
My controller:
define(['index', 'uirouter'], function(controllers){
controllers.controller('homeCtrl', function($scope, $routeParams){
$scope.logId = "testId";
});
});
Each controller puts it's content in a collection inside the index-module
my Index file:
///index///
define(['angular'], function(angular){
return angular.module('app.controllers',[]);
});
The Index file returs the controller-module to every controller-file requiring it. So I have all controllers in one module, by loading different controller-files
Here's my question: is this procedure correct and can I go on loading all angular-modules like this?
Im confused by working with angular-modules and require-modules ... Maybe anyone got a nice instruction in how to set up a angular-require project easily :)
Here's a link to the project:LINK ;)
Maybe anyone could help me a little bit :)
I am experimenting with this example: https://github.com/nikospara/angular-require-lazy
I also mentioned it in this SO question.
It needs work, but it is working; discussion on this topic really interests me.
A similar question was asked here but it did not help me.
I am learning angularjs and I noticed the controller is executed twice.
I have a very simple fiddle example that shows the behavior here
I built the example as I was learning about services and at first I thought it was the injecting of the services into the controller but I commented all the code related to the services and still the controller is executed twice.
My example works but I am afraid I am doing something wrong.
<div ng-app="MyApp">
<div ng-controller="MyCtrl">
{{data1}}
</div>
</div>
var app = angular.module('MyApp', [])
app.service('Service1', function(){
return {
ajxResponse1: 'dataFromService1'
};
});
function MyCtrl($scope, Service1){
alert('Entering MyCtrl');
$scope.data1 = Service1.ajxResponse1;
alert('Exiting MyCtrl');
}
One possible source is this: if you are using Routing and specify the controller in routes - you must not specify it in template that the route uses. We had that problem when this was overlooked.
Your controller was running twice in the fiddle because angular is referenced twice (once via the Frameworks & Extensions drop down and another as an External Resource).
See this updated fiddle where I removed the External Resource and the alerts only show up once.
The code remains unchanged:
function MyCtrl($scope, Service1, Service2, Service3){
alert('Entering MyCtrl');
$scope.data1 = Service1.ajxResponse1;
$scope.data2 = Service2.ajxResponse2;
$scope.data3 = Service3.ajxResponse3;
alert('Exiting MyCtrl');
}
I had a similar problem and it was due to slashes in my routing.
I had something like /post{slug:[a-z0-9-]*/} for my route and when visiting the page at domain.com/post it would redirect to the version with a slash on the end.
Took me ages to work it out!
Edit:
Actually, just took a more detailed look at your code and noticed there is no routing in there, so this is probably not the cause in your case.
Might be useful for people like me who were looking for a different solution though.
For all the people using rails and angularjs:
The rails framework that maps URLS to views and loads them clashes with the angularjs $route even when you have a single-view application.
To prevent the double-loading of your controller:
go to application.js and remove "//= require turbolinks
You're welcome.