I'm using Rivets.js for two two-way data binding in a Backbone project and would like to implement iteration binding. The documentation suggests iteration binding is possible, but there are no examples available. I am using a simple Rails API to send JSON to the client and want to iterate over the contents. Has anyone had any success getting this functionality working in Rivets.js?
Reference material: Simple Example using Backbone.js and Rivets.js
jsFiddle here: http://jsfiddle.net/rhodee/3qcYQ/1/
From the Rivets.js site
Iteration Binding
Even though a binding routine for each-item will likely be included in Rivets.js, you
can use the data-html binding along with a set of formatters in the interim to do
sorting and iterative rendering of collections (amongst other cool things).
<ul data-html="model.tags | sort | tagList"></ul>
Expanding on this answer:
As of 0.3.2 there is now a data-each-[item] binding for exactly this purpose.
Note that you will need to specifically modify your Rivets adapter to work with a Backbone Collection, as the out-of-the-box examples on the Rivets.js site do not fly with this use case.
You'll need something like this in your rivets.configure({ adapter: ... }):
...
read: function( obj, keypath ) {
return obj instanceof Backbone.Collection
? obj["models"]
: obj.get(keypath)
}
And the JS Fiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/tigertim719/fwhuf/70/
For bonus points, Collections embedded in Models will require additional handling in your adapter.
For more information, check this post on Rivets.js Github issues:
Binding to Backbone.Collection with the data-each- binding
As of 0.3.2 there is now a data-each-[item] binding for exactly this purpose.
<ul>
<li data-each-todo="list.todos">
<input type="checkbox" data-checked="todo.done">
<span data-text="todo.summary"></span>
</li>
<ul>
For previous versions of Rivets.js, the work-around that you've referred to is to implement the iterative rendering with a formatter — for example you would have a data-html binding with model.items | itemList where the itemList formatter just loops over the array and returns some rendered HTML.
rivets.formatters.itemList = (array) ->
("<li>#{item.name}</li>" for item in array).join ''
UnderscoreJS is integrated in Backbone so you can use its native methods like _.each() or use the integrated Backbone Collection underscore methods.
Is it this what you are looking for?
cayuu's answer was correct.
But the rivets.js reference in the fiddle was not working, so the result is not displaying.
Check out the version below to see the action.
http://jsfiddle.net/tigertim719/fwhuf/70/
rivets.configure({
adapter: {
subscribe: function(obj, keypath, callback) {
obj.on('change:' + keypath, callback);
},
unsubscribe: function(obj, keypath, callback) {
obj.off('change:' + keypath, callback);
},
read: function(obj, keypath) {
return obj instanceof Backbone.Collection ? obj["models"] : obj.get(keypath);
},
publish: function(obj, keypath, value) {
obj.set(keypath, value);
}
}
});
The most important part is
read: function(obj, keypath) {
return obj instanceof Backbone.Collection ? obj["models"] : obj.get(keypath);
},
That tells rivets how to read your collection and model from Backbone.
Related
I have a Marionette composite view that displays a collection, which I set in my Application start handler:
App.on('start', function() {
Backbone.history.start({pushState: true});
// I load up this.appsCollection in my before:start handler
var tblView = new this.appsTableView({
collection: this.appsCollection
});
this.regions.main.show(tblView);
});
This works as expected, displaying my entire collection. In my models, I have a state field, and I want to display only models with state 0. I tried:
collection: this.appsCollection.where({state: 0})
but that doesn't work. I actually want to display states in 0 and 1, but I'm trying to just display state in 0 for right now.
What am I missing?
The problem probably resides in that .where() doesn't return a collection, but an array. http://backbonejs.org/#Collection-where This was supposedly to maintain compatibility with underscore.
If you change the line to:
collection: new Backbone.Collection( this.appsCollection.where( { state: 0 } ))
Does that help?
I was able to override the filter method in my Marionette CompositeView:
http://marionettejs.com/docs/v2.4.3/marionette.collectionview.html#collectionviews-filter
The problem is I want to render option elements with the value attribute set as well as the text node.
So setting tagName to option in my ItemView does not just do this. The solution I have at the moment is to set it to option and then use the following code in the ItemView constructor to set the value attibute:
onRender: function () {
this.$el.attr('value', this.model.get('name'));
}
This works.
But is there any other way?
What I'd really like to do is just tell Marionette not to output an element at all and then in my ItemView template have this:
<option value="<%= name %>"> <%= name %> </option>
Is this possible?
It's possible but a bit fiddly, by default Backbone always uses a wrapper element (definable by using tagName) but you'd have to expressly populate the attributes (as you are doing above).
It is however possible to circumvent the wrapper element using a slightly convoluted setElement approach and this will enable you keep all markup in a template with attributes on the root node populated from the model. I like this approach as well since I personally think it keeps a clearer separation of concerns.
Take a look here for an example - Backbone, not "this.el" wrapping
Not sure if Marionette has a build in mechanism for doing this.
I am not sure you should from all different kind of reasons.
But I understand that in the use case of a single tag view, the way Marionette/Backbone work you either create another tag and have a view, or you use onRender and query to update the single tag that was already generated for you.
You could have this Object that will extend ItemView, lets call it SingleTagView. Basicly I am extending ItemView and using overrunning it's render function with one change.
Instead of doing:
this.$el.html(html);
I am doing:
var $html = $(html);
this.$el.replaceWith($html);
this.setElement($html);
Here is the code:
var SingleTagView = Marionette.ItemView.extend({
render: function() {
this.isClosed = false;
this.triggerMethod("before:render", this);
this.triggerMethod("item:before:render", this);
var data = this.serializeData();
data = this.mixinTemplateHelpers(data);
var template = this.getTemplate();
var html = Marionette.Renderer.render(template, data);
// above is standart ItemView code
var $html = $(html);
this.$el.replaceWith($html);
this.setElement($html);
// this code above replaced this.$el.html(html);
// below is standart ItemView code
this.bindUIElements();
this.triggerMethod("render", this);
this.triggerMethod("item:rendered", this);
return this;
}
});
If you are going to use this kind of angle, make sure you test the behavior properly (event handling, Dom leaks, different flows with before:render events).
I would try:
var optionTag = Marionette.ItemView.extend({
tagName: "option",
initialize: function(){
this.attributes = {
value: this.model.get('name');
}
}
}
Backbone should then do the rest (i.e. putting the content of attributes into the HTML tag)...
I'm using Backbone.ModelBinder in a Backbone.js Marionette project. I've a scenario which I can't work out how to use ModelBinder to automatically update my model/UI.
My model has a 'status' string attribute, with multiple states. In this example I'll show the code for two: 'soon', 'someday'
In my UI I have a list on which I use click events to set the model status, and update classes to highlight the relevant link in the UI.
<dd id="status-soon"><a>Soon</a></dd>
<dd id="status-someday" class="active"><a>Someday</a></dd>
events: {
'click #status-soon': 'setStatusSoon',
'click #status-someday': 'setStatusSomeday'
},
setStatusSoon: function () {
this.model.set('status', 'soon');
this.$el.find('.status dd').removeClass('active');
this.$el.find('#status-soon').addClass('active');
},
... etc
It feels like I doing this a long-winded and clunky way! The code bloat increases with the number of states I need to support. What's the best way of achieving the same outcome with ModelBinder?
You could probably simplify things with a data attribute, something like this:
<dd data-status="soon" class="set-status"><a>Soon</a></dd>
<dd data-status="someday" class="set-status active"><a>Someday</a></dd>
and then:
events: {
'click .set-status': 'setStatus'
},
setStatus: function(ev) {
var $target = $(ev.target);
var status = $target.data('status');
this.model.set('status', status);
this.$el.find('.status dd.set-status').removeClass('active');
$target.addClass('active');
}
You might not need the set-status class, just keying things on the <dd>s might be sufficient; I prefer separating my event handling from the nitty gritty element details though.
Unfortunately, it is going to be pretty difficult to do exactly what you want with ModelBinder. The main reason being that ModelBinder wants to provide the same value for all elements that are part of a single selector. So doing this with ModelBinder, while possible, is going to be pretty verbose as well.
The cleanup offered by mu is likely to be better than trying to use ModelBinder. 1) because you need a click handler to do the this.model.set no matter what and 2) you would need individual bindings for ModelBinder because the converter function is called once for a single selector and then the value is set on all matching elements (rather than looping through each one).
But if you do want to try and do something with ModelBinder it would look something like this:
onRender : function () {
var converter = function (direction, value) {
return (value == "soon" ? "active" : "");
};
var bindings = {
status : {selector : "#status-soon", elAttribute : "class", converter : converter}
};
this.modelBinder.bind(this.model, this.el, bindings);
}
This would do what you want. Of course the down side as I said above is that you will need multiple selector bindings. You could generalize the converter using this.boundEls[0] but you will still need the separate bindings for it to work.
In case you want to access to the bound element, it is possible to declare 'html' as elAttrbute, modify the element and return its html with converter function:
onRender : function () {
var converter = function (direction, value, attribute, model, els) {
return $(els[0]).toggleClass('active', value === 'soon').html();
};
var bindings = {
status : {
selector : "#status-soon",
elAttribute : "html",
converter : converter
}
};
this.modelBinder.bind(this.model, this.el, bindings);
}
*UPDATE: See final answer code in the last code block below.*
Currently I am having an issue displaying a collection in a collection view. The collection is a property of an existing model like so (pseudo code)
ApplicationVersion { Id: 1, VersionName: "", ApplicationCategories[] }
So essentially ApplicationVersion has a property called ApplicationCategories that is a javascript array. Currently when I render the collection view associated with ApplicationCategories nothing is rendered. If I debug in Chrome's javascript debugger it appears that the categories have not been populated yet (so I assume ApplicationVersion has not been fetched yet). Here is my code as it stands currently
ApplicationCategory Model, Collection, and Views
ApplicationModule.ApplicationCategory = Backbone.Model.extend({
urlRoot:"/applicationcategories"
});
ApplicationModule.ApplicationCategories = Recruit.Collection.extend({
url:"/applicationcategories",
model:ApplicationModule.ApplicationCategory,
initialize: function(){
/*
* By default backbone does not bind the collection change event to the comparator
* for performance reasons. I am choosing to not preoptimize though and do the
* binding. This may need to change later if performance becomes an issue.
* See https://github.com/documentcloud/backbone/issues/689
*
* Note also this is only nescessary for the default sort. By using the
* SortableCollectionMixin in other sorting methods, we do the binding
* there as well.
*/
this.on("change", this.sort);
},
comparator: function(applicationCategory) {
return applicationCategory.get("order");
},
byName: function() {
return this.sortedBy(function(applicationCategory) {
return applicationCategory.get("name");
});
}
});
_.extend(ApplicationModule.ApplicationCategories.prototype, SortableCollectionMixin);
ApplicationModule.ApplicationCategoryView = Recruit.ItemView.extend({
template:"application/applicationcategory-view-template"
});
ApplicationModule.ApplicationCategoriesView = Recruit.CollectionView.extend({
itemView:ApplicationModule.ApplicationCategoryView
});
ApplicationCategory template
<section id="<%=name%>">
<%=order%>
</section>
ApplicationVersion Model, Collection, and Views
ApplicationModule.ApplicationVersion = Backbone.Model.extend({
urlRoot:"/applicationversions"
});
ApplicationModule.ApplicationVersions = Recruit.Collection.extend({
url:"/applicationversions",
model:ApplicationModule.ApplicationVersion
});
ApplicationModule.ApplicationVersionLayout = Recruit.Layout.extend({
template:"application/applicationversion-view-template",
regions: {
applicationVersionHeader: "#applicationVersionHeader",
applicationVersionCategories: "#applicationVersionCategories",
applicationVersionFooter: "#applicationVersionFooter"
}
});
ApplicationModule.ApplicationVersionController = {
showApplicationVersion: function (applicationVersionId) {
ApplicationModule.applicationVersion = new ApplicationModule.ApplicationVersion({id : applicationVersionId});
var applicationVersionLayout = new Recruit.ApplicationModule.ApplicationVersionLayout({
model:ApplicationModule.applicationVersion
});
ApplicationModule.applicationVersion.fetch({success: function(){
var applicationVersionCategories = new Recruit.ApplicationModule.ApplicationCategoriesView({
collection: ApplicationModule.applicationVersion.application_categories
});
applicationVersionLayout.applicationVersionCategories.show(applicationVersionCategories);
}});
// Fake server responds to the request
ApplicationModule.server.respond();
Recruit.layout.main.show(applicationVersionLayout);
}
};
Here is my ApplicationVersion template
<section id="applicationVersionOuterSection">
<header id="applicationVersionHeader">
Your Application Header <%= id %>
</header>
<section id="applicationVersionCategories">
</section>
<footer id="applicationVersionFooter">
Your footer
</footer>
One thing to note I am currently using Sinon to mock my server response, but I don't think this is causing the issues as it is responding with the information as I expect looking through the javascript debugger (and like I said it is displaying ApplicationVersion id correctly). I can provide this code as well if it helps
It is currently displaying the application version id (id in the template), so I know it is fetching the data correctly for normal properties, it just is not rendering my ApplicationCategories javascript array property.
So ultimately I am binding to the success of the fetch for ApplicationVersion, then setting up the view for the ApplicationCategories. Since this isn't working like I expect I am wondering if there is a better way to create this collection view?
Thanks for any help
UPDATE: Working code example that Derek Bailey lead me too.
ApplicationModule.ApplicationVersionController = {
showApplicationVersion: function (applicationVersionId) {
ApplicationModule.applicationVersion = new ApplicationModule.ApplicationVersion({id : applicationVersionId});
var applicationVersionLayout = new Recruit.ApplicationModule.ApplicationVersionLayout({
model:ApplicationModule.applicationVersion
});
ApplicationModule.applicationVersion.fetch();
// Fake server responds to the request
ApplicationModule.server.respond();
Recruit.layout.main.show(applicationVersionLayout);
var applicationVersionCategories = new Recruit.ApplicationModule.ApplicationCategoriesView({
collection: new Backbone.Collection(ApplicationModule.applicationVersion.get('application_categories'))
});
applicationVersionLayout.applicationVersionCategories.show(applicationVersionCategories);
}
};
Marionette's CollectionView requires a valid Backbone.Collection, not a simple array. You need to create a Backbone.Collection from your array when passing it to the view:
new MyView({
collection: new Backbone.Collection(MyModel.Something.ArrayOfThings)
});
In my background script:
var collection = Backbone.Collection.extend({});
chrome.extension.onRequest.addListener(function(request, sender, sendResponse) {
sendResponse(new collection());
}
In my browser_action's javascript:
chrome.tabs.getSelected(null, function(tab) {
chrome.extension.sendRequest({
action: "someAction",
tab: tab
},
function(collection) {
// collection is now a JS array, rather than Backbone.Collection
});
});
As mentioned in the comment above the 'collection' argument in the sendRequest callback turns out to be a regular JS array, rather than Backbone.Collection.
Is this a sanitisation artefact / security measure taken by chromium? Is there any way to pass a Backbone.Collection via sendRequest?
From the onRequest documentation it says that the argument to sendResponse should be a JSON-ifiable object, so I'm assuming that the Collection's toJSON method is being called, leaving you with just the data.
If you have the Collection definition in the target script you could instantiate a new object with the same data.