Here is my plnkr: http://plnkr.co/edit/n8cRXwIpHJw3jUpL8PX5?p=preview You have to click on a li element and the form will appear. Enter a random string and hit 'add notice'. Instead of the textarea text you will get undefined.
Markup:
<ul>
<li ng-repeat="ticket in tickets" ng-click="select(ticket)">
{{ ticket.text }}
</li>
</ul>
<div ui-if="selectedTicket != null">
<form ng-submit="createNotice(selectedTicket)">
<textarea ng-model="noticeText"></textarea>
<button type="submit">add notice</button>
</form>
</div>
JS part:
$scope.createNotice = function(ticket){
alert($scope.noticeText);
}
returns 'undefined'. I noticed that this does not work when using ui-if of angular-ui. Any ideas why this does not work? How to fix it?
Your problem lies in the ui-if part. Angular-ui creates a new scope for anything within that directive so in order to access the parent scope, you must do something like this:
<textarea ng-model="$parent.noticeText"></textarea>
Instead of
<textarea ng-model="noticeText"></textarea>
This issue happened to me while not using the ng-if directive on elements surrounding the textarea element. While the solution of Mathew is correct, the reason seems to be another. Searching for that issue points to this post, so I decided to share this.
If you look at the AngularJS documentation here https://docs.angularjs.org/api/ng/directive/textarea , you can see that Angular adds its own directive called <textarea> that "overrides" the default HTML textarea element. This is the new scope that causes the whole mess.
If you have a variable like
$scope.myText = 'Dummy text';
in your controller and bind that to the textarea element like this
<textarea ng-model="myText"></textarea>
AngularJS will look for that variable in the scope of the directive. It is not there and thus he walks down to $parent. The variable is present there and the text is inserted into the textarea. When changing the text in the textarea, Angular does NOT change the parent's variable. Instead it creates a new variable in the directive's scope and thus the original variable is not updated. If you bind the textarea to the parent's variable, as suggested by Mathew, Angular will always bind to the correct variable and the issue is gone.
<textarea ng-model="$parent.myText"></textarea>
Hope this will clear things up for other people coming to this question and and think "WTF, I am not using ng-if or any other directive in my case!" like I did when I first landed here ;)
Update: Use controller-as syntax
Wanted to add this long before but didn't find time to do it. This is the modern style of building controllers and should be used instead of the $parent stuff above. Read on to find out how and why.
Since AngularJS 1.2 there is the ability to reference the controller object directly instead of using the $scope object. This may be achieved by using this syntax in HTML markup:
<div ng-controller="MyController as myc"> [...] </div>
Popular routing modules (i.e. UI Router) provide similar properties for their states. For UI Router you use the following in your state definition:
[...]
controller: "MyController",
controllerAs: "myc",
[...]
This helps us to circumvent the problem with nested or incorrectly addressed scopes. The above example would be constructed this way. First the JavaScript part. Straight forward, you simple do not use the $scope reference to set your text, just use this to attach the property directly to the controller object.
angular.module('myApp').controller('MyController', function () {
this.myText = 'Dummy text';
});
The markup for the textarea with controller-as syntax would look like this:
<textarea ng-model="myc.myText"></textarea>
This is the most efficient way to do things like this today, because it solves the problem with nested scopes making us count how many layers deep we are at a certain point. Using multiple nested directives inside elements with an ng-controller directive could have lead to something like this when using the old way of referencing scopes. And no one really wants to do that all day!
<textarea ng-model="$parent.$parent.$parent.$parent.myText"></textarea>
Bind the textarea to a scope variable's property rather than directly to a scope variable:
controller:
$scope.notice = {text: ""}
template:
<textarea ng-model="notice.text"></textarea>
It is, indeed, ui-if that creates the problem. Angular if directives destroy and recreate portions of the dom tree based on the expression. This is was creates the new scope and not the textarea directive as marandus suggested.
Here's a post on the differences between ngIf and ngShow that describes this well—what is the difference between ng-if and ng-show/ng-hide.
Related
I have a scenario where when i mouse enter on some text i need to get an input box and text should hide and when i leave the text box the box should hide and i should show the text back
but this is not happening
Html
<div ng-app>
<div ng-controller="showCrtl">
<div ng-hide="showme">
<p ng-mouseenter="showme=!showme">
mouse enter
</p>
</div>
<input type="search" ng-if="showme" ng-mouseleave="showme=false">
</div>
</div>
JS:
function showCrtl($scope){
$scope.showme=false;
}
Here is what i have tried DEMO
Any help is appreciated.
The problem is you had primitive value on ng-if directive, You know ng-if does create child scope whenever it renders that element on DOM. To resolve this issue what I'd suggest you to do is, just follow Dot Rule by defining new object. And then define all the property which you want to use inside that object.
If you want do dig deeper how scope inheritance work, you can refer to this answer.
So in your code, you should define an object suppose i.e. $scope.model = {} and then have showme property inside that object itself. And wherever you use showme on view replace that with model.showme.
Demo Fiddle
More convenient way to resolve such kind of scope inheritance issue is, you could use controllerAs pattern. In that you don't use $scope inside controller, you just place with controller context this. While using controller on view you need to create it alias and when you want to get variable value you can use variable reference.
The issue is that you have multiple nested scopes. The showme that is being set in the input box is different from the showme being set in the p. This happens because Angular implicitly adds a new scope for many built-in directives (ng-if is one of them).
You need to be sure that you are always setting and reading the same showme property. The easiest way to do this is to add the showme property to the controller.
Try this:
<div ng-app>
<div ng-controller="showCrtl">
<div ng-hide="showCrtl.showme">
<p ng-mouseenter="showCrtl.showme=!showCrtl.showme">
mouse enter
</p>
</div>
<input type="search" ng-if="showCrtl.showme" ng-mouseleave="showCrtl.showme=false">
</div>
</div>
In fact, as a general rule of thumb, never access the scope directly in your templates since it is very difficult to be sure you are accessing the scope that you think you are accessing. Always access properties through the controller you are working with.
so if found this very interesting bug in angular.js. if you have a custom directive inside a ng-repeat that is actively changing the variables in the directive don't update. meaning if i have 3 elements in my array for ng-repeat it initializes just fine but if i delete element 1 from the array any variables that element 1 had passed to its child directive somehow end up in element 2's child directive here is my example code.
<div ng-app='testing'>
<div ng-controller='testing as test'>
<div ng-repeat='item in test.example track by $index'>
{{item.title}}
<child scope='item.data'></child>
<button ng-click="test.delete($index)">
Delete
</button>
</div>
</div>
</div>
then in my js file
console.log('hello world');
var app=angular.module('testing',['testingChild']);
app.controller('testing',[function(){
this.example=[{
title:"this is the first title",
data:"this is the first index"
},{
title:"this is the second title",
data:"this is the second index"
},{
title:"this is the third title",
data:"this is the third index"
}];
this.delete=function(index){
this.example.splice(index,1);
};
}]);
var child=angular.module('testingChild',[]);
child.directive('child',[function(){
return{
restrict:"E",
scope:{
parent:"=scope"
},
template:"<div>{{child.parent}}</div>",
controller:['$scope',function($scope){
this.parent=$scope.parent;
}],
controllerAs:"child"
};
}]);
and i have a functioning jsfiddle here. all you have to do to see it work is delete one of the first elements. does anyone know what causes this and how to fix it?
Side note:
I thought it might be useful also to mention that when using this in a slighty different situation with editable elements in the child (like a text box) the data binding worked from the child to the parent. so assigning a variable attached to the controller to the scoped variable from the parent worked in that direction. this seems to be the only situation i have come across where it would be from the parent to the child and that is what is not working.
Change:
template:"<div>{{child.parent}}</div>",
controller:['$scope',function($scope){ this.parent=$scope.parent; }]
To:
template:"<div>{{parent}}</div>"
controller:function(){ }
since you are using controllerAs syntax, you dont need the $scope injection.
For the binding work as expected, you dont use child.parent, only parent (or whatever you inject in the this context on your controller
I found a property in the $compile service that fixes this problem. adding the attribute bindToController:true to the directive takes all of the variables defined in your scope attribute and attaches them to the controller rather then the scope itself meaning the 2 way data binding is to the variable on the controller rather then the variable on the scope. so the end result has these changes
in your directive definition
scope:{
parent:"=scope"
},
bindToController:true,
and in the controller remove the this.parent=$scope.parent
here is an updated jsfiddle
I'm creating a custom Angular directive for a slide in menu which needs to watch a couple of attributes and one of those attributes needs to be two way bound to the main controller scope (sometimes). However, sometimes the attribute will not be added by the developer so it needs to be added automatically and set to the default (false). So, the directive can be used like this.
<slide-menu position="right" is-open="menuIsOpen"></slide-menu>
or like this:
<slide-menu></slide-menu>
When used the first way the main controller will be able to open and close the menu by changing the value of the boolean $scope.menuIsOpen.
When used without supplying the is-open attribute it should default to false and is obviously used internally and by a child toggle directive.
An additional complication is that whether the attribute is supplied by the developer or not it should exist in the DOM. so in the second example above the directive would set itself to false by default and add the attribute is-open="false" to the DOM?
The reason for requiring is-open="false/true" in the DOM at all times is that the menu is actually operated using CSS tansitions which use the following selector:
slide-menu[is-active="true"]{
// Slide the menu in using transforms/transitions
}
There is a jsfiddle here which shows how far I have got.
http://jsfiddle.net/jonhobbs/gEPvE/
Obviously it doesn't work, but it shows how I have tried to set a default and how I have tried to use # and & on the isolated scope for a one time binding (the menu position) and a 2 way bound expression for the is-open variable.
I'm clearly a long way from achieving what I need but any advice would really be appreciated.
Have a look at this fiddle http://jsfiddle.net/gEPvE/38/
I took the one you started and updated it to act like you specified.
You can make a two way binding value optional by adding a ? on the scope definition.
Like this
{
scope: {
'isOpen':'=?'
}
}
Now the is-open attribute is optional.
Then you can set the default value in the directive controller, like you had started to do.
Next, in order to synchronize the DOM attribute with the scope value you can use $watch.
$scope.$watch('isOpen', function(val) {
$element.attr('is-open', val);
});
Finally, I changed the second 'slideMenuToggle' directive to wrap/transclude its element in order to add an ng-click handler. This is mainly to avoid any nastiness with calling $scope.$apply yourself.
Let me know if that works for you.
EDIT
Answering your question in the comment, you can pass a value directly without having it be bound to the scope, you just need to wrap the value in quotes.
For example
<div ng-controller='ctrl'>
<hello world='imOnScope'></hello>
</div>
Assuming 'hello' is a directive with a scope of 'world': '=?' then angular will assign a reference to the parent scope's 'imOnScope' object to the directive's $scope.world member, allowing a two way binding scenario.
To just provide a value directly you may do something like this
<div ng-controller="ctrl">
<hello world="'directValue'"></hello>
</div>
In this scenario angular will just assign 'directValue' to the directive's $scope.world member.
You need to add ngTouch to your module.
var app = angular.module('app', ['ngTouch']);
And add this script:
http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/angularjs/1.2.1/angular-touch.js
The reason for requiring is-open="false/true" in the DOM at all times
is that the menu is actually operated using CSS tansitions which use
the following selector
Forcing directive attributes to be appropriate for css selectors is terrible idea. As you correctly stated, they are for developers. So add a class to the element dynamically.
It seems that you're misusing &, it would be ok to set up a callback, but since you don't do this, in its current state you can end up with one-way # with confidence.
I guess it can be something like this (just added ngTouch and ng-controller for parent scope).
You could replace
$scope.watch('isOpen', function () {
$element.toggleClass('opened', $scope.isOpen);
});
with
$scope.watch('isOpen', function () {
$attrs.isOpen = !!$scope.isOpen;
});
and get the behaviour you're asking for, easy as that. Ok, it is boolean now, and it reflects the scope, and you can use [is-open=true] selector. But guess what will happen with your binding? Broken. Fortunately, you can do
$scope.watch('isOpen', function () {
$element.attr('is-open', !!$scope.isOpen);
});
instead. Voila, we tricked Angular because it doesn't look after jqlite. But what will will happen with the binding when the directive will be re-compiled for any reason? Again, isOpen's binding is non-existing 'true' or 'false' scope variable. Broken.
So I am trying to bind inside a directive (to access outside) to a model inside of an ng-repeat. So in the outer controller I have a variable I would like to bind in like
//in the directive scope
filterArray: '='
Inside the directive that would be bound inside the directive to a model in an ng-repeat like so -
//inside the directive
<li ng-repeat="value in filter.values">
<input type="checkbox" ng-model="filterObject[filter.name][value]" ng-change="filterChange()">{{value}}
</li>
This worked fine until I changed the directive to have an isolate scope, now it is saying cannot set property of undefined. Is there any way to get this working as intended? The idea is the variable would build out when the user clicks the inputs so the outer controller would be able to see the built object.
Apologies if this is a bit confusing - I have made a fiddle to clarify : https://jsfiddle.net/vt1uasw7/42/ .
I want the outer controller to have access to the object built by binding the model - again this was working before I added the isolate scope. Thanks!
Edit: maybe the trick in this case is not to use the isolate scope? This one has me stumped, I've tried every combination of scope attributes :(.
If you can't pre-initialize your outter filterObject you can let the directive controller handle that for you:
$scope.filterArray[$scope.filter.name] = {};
And check your parameters as Claies stated, inside your directive you need to use filterArray and also the attribute name in the outter ng-repeat needs to be "filter-array and not "filterArray".
<div ng-repeat="filter in searchResults.filters" class="my-directive" filter="filter" filter-change="filterChange" filter-array="filterObject"> </div>
See this https://jsfiddle.net/vt1uasw7/164/
I have an element that has both a controller and a directive with an isolate scope applied to it:
scope: {
dirVar: '='
}
The goal is to run certain parts of the directive only if a variable holds true. I'm setting that variable in the controller and trying to pass it into the directive through an attr.
The problem is that when I do something like
<div ng-controller="MyCtrl" my-directive active="ctrlVar"></div>
and try to get active in the directive with scope.active, it always comes up undefined.
Here is an example: http://jsfiddle.net/u3t2u/1/
Any explanation as to why or how to properly do this? I assume the problem is with the controller and directive being applied to the same element and wish to get around that.
Another option would be to remove the directive's isolate scope and have it evaluate an attr passed to it, but I'm not sure how to do that ($parse keeps throwing errors).
That is because your directive is not inside the controller. Try this:
<div ng-app="myApp">
<div ng-controller="MyCtrl">
<div my-directive="" active="myValue">
Testing.
</div>
</div>
</div>
Ended up changing the way I structured the directive because it wasn't something that should really have had an isolate scope, and the only reason it did was so it could take expressions and evaluate them to true or false.
So I changed it to use $parse, which left the directive looking something like:
var active = $parse(attrs.isActive);
// Evaluate contents of attrs.isActive
// as if they are variables within its scope,
// which is inherited from parent scopes
if(active(scope)) {
// do something
}
I am not too familiar with certain things like transclude and creating an isolated scope, but this is what I got after reading the docs for Directives and fiddling around:
http://jsfiddle.net/u3t2u/4/
I only changed this portion of the html:
<div ng-controller="MyCtrl">
<div my-directive active="myValue">
Testing.
</div>
</div>
I believe that in this case, you do not actually have to pass a value to the my-directive directive, since you are already using an isolate scope with an =. Sorry if my explanation is not that good. You can read more at http://docs.angularjs.org/guide/directive , under the section Writing directives (long version).