Develop Reference

AngularJS call method from an ancestor scope inside directive

I have an Angular app where I'm using ui-grid. I want to have a custom action on a cell of the grid that calls a method from my app. So basically, this means calling a method that's somewhere up in the parent hierarchy, from a directive.
This would be achieved by calling something like: $scope.$parent.$parent.$parent.$parent.foo(). But that doesn't seem too nice.
One option would be to create a recursive function that goes up the ancestry of the $scope. That's nicer, but still seems a bit weird.
Also... Is it good practice to try to achieve something like this?

You're correct that $parent.$parent.$parent is definitely not a good practice.
If the method you're calling is another directive, you can require that directive in your child directive and then, the parentDirective's controller function will be injected as the fourth parameter to your link function:
In your DDO:
return {
require : '^parentDirective',
restrict : 'E',
link : function (scope, elem, attrs, parentDirectiveController) {}
}
If what you're trying to call is on a factory/service, you can inject that factory/service into your directive, although this sometimes is a code smell, depending on what you're trying to inject.
Finally, another way to do it is to use event propagation. From your directive, you can use $scope.$emit to send information up to parent controllers:
From the directive:
$scope.$emit('directiveDidStuff', {
data : 'blah'
});
In the parent controller:
$scope.$on('directiveDidStuff', function (evt, params) {
this.data = params.data; // equals blah
});

You can achieve the same by using "&" through one of the scope variable in directive.Like this, you can bind your event to the controller method and from the method, you could do your desired things or if the original business logic which you wants to achieve on onClick of the grid is used across many modules than you can bisect it in service and make it reusable and call the service from the event method. Let me know if you do have any doubts with the approach.
Key Code of example:
Html
<my-component attribute-foo="{{foo}}" binding-foo="foo" isolated-expression- foo="updateFoo(newFoo)" >
Directive
var myModule = angular.module('myModule', [])
.directive('myComponent', function () {
return {
restrict:'E',
scope:{
/* NOTE: Normally I would set my attributes and bindings
to be the same name but I wanted to delineate between
parent and isolated scope. */
isolatedAttributeFoo:'#attributeFoo',
isolatedBindingFoo:'=bindingFoo',
isolatedExpressionFoo:'&'
}
};
})

Exposing angular directive function to another module

Suppose I have a module with a directive as follows (this is a rough not tested)
I need to implement 3 basic things
Configuration for the element that will appear
Event listeners that the base controller can use
Public methods that the base controller can call
angular.module("componentModule",[]) .directive("myComp",function(){
return{
replace:true,
template:'<h2>This is my component</h2>',
scope:{config= "#"},
link:function(scope,element,attr){
this.deleteElement = function(id){
//writing the code to delete this component
//This is a API function that the user can call to delete
}
if (!scope.config.visible){
//this is a configuration object for the element
this.visible(false)}
}
} })
then i have my base HTML like containing the directive call like below
<div myComm="first" config="eleConfig"></myComp>
<div myComm="second" config="newEleConfig"></myComp>
I have a separate controller for my base HTML as follows,
angular.module("baseApp",['componentModule'])
.controller('baseCtrl',function(){
$scope.eleConfig = {
visible:true,
delete:function(e){
//This is called if we call the delete method
}
}
//this is how the delete method is to be called
$scope.first.deleteElement();
})
Question
How to call the deleteElement() method in the baseCtrl as shown above (want to do it the same way KENDO UI does)

The pattern that angular uses is to expose the directive API to the scope. This is how ng-model and ng-form both expose ngModelController and ngFormController APIs.
Here is how I would do it:
angular.module("componentModule",[])
.directive("myComp",function($parse){
return{
replace:true,
scope: {
config: '&'
},
template:'<h2>This is my component</h2>',
controller: function($scope) {
//Directive API functions should be added to the directive controller here or in the link function (if they need to do DOM manipulation)
},
link:function(scope,element, attr, ctrl){
//add to directive controller
if(scope.config().visible) {
//element should be visible, etc.
}
ctrl.deleteElement = function(){
//if this function is called we want to call the config.delete method:
if(scope.config && scope.config.delete) {
//calling the scope.config() method returns the config object from the parent
scope.config().delete(element);
}
}
if(attr.myComp) {
//change to scope.$parent
scope.$parent[attr.myComp] = ctrl;
}
}
}
})
Assuming markup of:
<div my-comp="first" config="configObject"></div>
<div my-comp="second" config="configObject"></div>
In your base controller
$scope.first.deleteElement();
or
$scope.second.deleteElement();
would delete the appropriate element.
UPDATE:
I've updated the directive based on your updated question. You want to pass a config object into the directive. The best way to do that is with an & binding. If you use the & binding, you need to remember that the directive will create a new scope, and you have to attach the controller to $scope.$parent.

In your first requirement, you said you want to write the delete function in the directive, but in the case of KendoUI the actual delete(change) function implementation is done in the base controller and the delete(change) event triggered when the component value changes, which in turn calls the delete function defined in the base controller by the directive.
If you want to implement something like KendoUI does then look at this
link toplunker
Switch on the browser console to see the log. KendoUI component's change event happens automatically when the input element changes but in this case i manually triggered the delete event after 3 seconds.

How to update directives based on service changes?

I have a directive(parent-directive) containing a slider(mySlider), that on stop event, call an angular $resource service with 2 params and the service return an object.
Directives structure:
<parent-directive>
<div ui-slider="slider.options" ng-model="mySlider" id="my-slider">
<span child-directive-one></span>
<span child-directive-two></span>
<span child-directive-three></span>
<div>
<span child-directive-four></child-directive-four>
</div>
</parent-directive
Whenever the user drag the slider, the service is called with different params and retieve new result, based on it I need to update the child directives.
I have in mind three ways:
using ng-model for all child elements instead directives, binding them on the scope of a controller in parent-directive;
the second one, that I don't know how to do it, is to create a controller in the parent-directive, that send and receive data from the service and share it to child-directives in order to update them.
the last one is to to create a state variable in the service and update it using a controller like to point 1.(see it above) and use a $watch to supervise the variable state and when it's changed then update the child-directives.
How should I proceed?
Please have a look here to see a brief code:
http://jsfiddle.net/v5xL0dg9/2/
Thanks!

ngModel is intended for two way binding, i.e. controls that allow the user to interfere with the value. From the description, it seems they are display-only components. So I would advise against using the ngModel.
Normally child directives require their parent. This allows them to call methods on the parent controller. What you need is the opposite: the parent controller needs to call methods on the children. It can be done: the children call a registerChild() method, and the parent iterates all registered children when it needs to call them. I find this implementation cumbersome.
Services are globals/singletons. I would vote against tying the service implementation to the UI needs.
My advice looks like your implementation of option 3, but with the parent controller holding the data:
1) Place the data you want to share with the child directives in a member variable of the parent controller:
myApp.directive('parentDirective', ['myService', function(myService){
...
controller: function($scope) {
...
this.sharedThing = ...;
}
}]);
The sharedThing can be updated when the service returns new data, or any other time it is necessary.
2) Have the children require the parent (just like your option 2), and watch this property:
myApp.directive('childDirectiveOne', function() {
return {
...
require: 'parentDirective',
link: function(scope, elem, attrs, parentDirective) {
scope.$watch(
function() {
return parentDirective.sharedThing;
},
function(newval) {
// do something with the new value; most probably
// you want to place it in the scope
}
});
}
};
});
Depending on the nature of the data, a deep watch may be required.

AngularJS : Modify model of parent scope in a directive with '=xxx' isolate scope?

I have an Angular directive which permit to render an user, and create a link to view the user profile, declared as:
.directive('foafPerson', function() {
return {
restrict: 'E',
templateUrl: 'templates/person.html',
scope: {
personModel: '=',
onClickBindTo: '=',
onPersonClick: '&'
}
};
As you can see, I'm trying 2 solutions to be able to visit and load the full user profile: onClickBindTo and onPersonClick
I use it like that to render a list of persons + their friends:
// display the current user
<foaf-person person-model="person" on-person-click="changeCurrentProfileUri(person.uri)" on-click-bind-to="currentProfileUri"></foaf-person>
// display his friends
<div class="profileRelationship" ng-repeat="relationship in relationships">
<foaf-person person-model="relationship" on-person-click="changeCurrentProfileUri(relationship.uri)" on-click-bind-to="currentProfileUri"></foaf-person>
</div>
On the template, I have a link that is supposed to change an attribute of the controller (called currentProfileUri)
<a href="" ng-click="onClickBindTo = personModel.uri">
{{personModel.name}}
<a/>
I can see that the controller scope variable currentProfileUri is available in the personTemplate.html because I added a debug input: <input type="text" ng-model="onClickBindTo"/>
Unfortunately, when I modify the input value, or when I click on the link, the currentProfileUri of the controller is not updated. Is this normal or am I missing something?
With the other method it seems to work fine:
<a href="" ng-click="onPersonClick()">
{{personModel.name}}
<a/>
So to modify a model of the parent scope, do we need to use parent scope functions?
By the way, passing an expression with &, I tried another solution: not using a function declared in the controller scope:
<foaf-person person-model="relationship" on-person-click="currentProfileUri = relationship.uri"></foaf-person>
How comes it does not work?
My controller has nothing really fancy:
$scope.currentProfileUri = 'https://my-profile.eu/people/deiu/card#me';
$scope.$watch('currentProfileUri', function() {
console.debug("currentProfileUri changed to "+$scope.currentProfileUri);
loadFullProfile($scope.currentProfileUri);
})
$scope.changeCurrentProfileUri = function changeCurrentProfileUri(uri) {
console.debug("Change current profile uri called with " + uri);
$scope.currentProfileUri = uri;
}
I am new to Angular and read everywhere that using an isolate scope permits a two-way data binding with the parent scope, so I don't understand why my changes are not propagated to the parent scope and my debug statement doesn't fire unless I use the scope function changeCurrentProfileUri
Can someone explain me how it works?

In your example the scopes hierarchy is the following:
controller scope
ng-repeat scope
foaf-person scope
so when you declare two-way binding for 'currentProfileUri' it is actually bound to the scope created by ng-repeat, not by the controller, and when your code changes value of onClickBindTo then angularjs executes 'currentProfileUri = newValue' in the ng-repeat scope.
Solution is to use objects instead of primitive values for two-way bindings - in this case scopes inheritance always work in proper way. I mean something like that:
// display the current user
<foaf-person person-model="person" on-click-bind-to="currentProfile.uri"></foaf-person>
// display his friends
<div class="profileRelationship" ng-repeat="relationship in relationships">
<foaf-person person-model="relationship" on-click-bind-to="currentProfile.uri"></foaf-person>
</div>
I've prepared a js-fiddle which illustrates this behavior

Angular JS: What is the need of the directive’s link function when we already had directive’s controller with scope?

I need to perform some operations on scope and the template. It seems that I can do that in either the link function or the controller function (since both have access to the scope).
When is it the case when I have to use link function and not the controller?
angular.module('myApp').directive('abc', function($timeout) {
return {
restrict: 'EA',
replace: true,
transclude: true,
scope: true,
link: function(scope, elem, attr) { /* link function */ },
controller: function($scope, $element) { /* controller function */ }
};
}
Also, I understand that link is the non-angular world. So, I can use $watch, $digest and $apply.
What is the significance of the link function, when we already had controller?

After my initial struggle with the link and controller functions and reading quite a lot about them, I think now I have the answer.
First lets understand,
How do angular directives work in a nutshell:
We begin with a template (as a string or loaded to a string)
var templateString = '<div my-directive>{{5 + 10}}</div>';
Now, this templateString is wrapped as an angular element
var el = angular.element(templateString);
With el, now we compile it with $compile to get back the link function.
var l = $compile(el)
Here is what happens,
$compile walks through the whole template and collects all the directives that it recognizes.
All the directives that are discovered are compiled recursively and their link functions are collected.
Then, all the link functions are wrapped in a new link function and returned as l.
Finally, we provide scope function to this l (link) function which further executes the wrapped link functions with this scope and their corresponding elements.
l(scope)
This adds the template as a new node to the DOM and invokes controller which adds its watches to the scope which is shared with the template in DOM.
Comparing compile vs link vs controller :
Every directive is compiled only once and link function is retained for re-use. Therefore, if there's something applicable to all instances of a directive should be performed inside directive's compile function.
Now, after compilation we have link function which is executed while attaching the template to the DOM. So, therefore we perform everything that is specific to every instance of the directive. For eg: attaching events, mutating the template based on scope, etc.
Finally, the controller is meant to be available to be live and reactive while the directive works on the DOM (after getting attached). Therefore:
(1) After setting up the view[V] (i.e. template) with link. $scope is our [M] and $controller is our [C] in M V C
(2) Take advantage the 2-way binding with $scope by setting up watches.
(3) $scope watches are expected to be added in the controller since this is what is watching the template during run-time.
(4) Finally, controller is also used to be able to communicate among related directives. (Like myTabs example in https://docs.angularjs.org/guide/directive)
(5) It's true that we could've done all this in the link function as well but its about separation of concerns.
Therefore, finally we have the following which fits all the pieces perfectly :

Why controllers are needed
The difference between link and controller comes into play when you want to nest directives in your DOM and expose API functions from the parent directive to the nested ones.
From the docs:
Best Practice: use controller when you want to expose an API to other directives. Otherwise use link.
Say you want to have two directives my-form and my-text-input and you want my-text-input directive to appear only inside my-form and nowhere else.
In that case, you will say while defining the directive my-text-input that it requires a controller from the parent DOM element using the require argument, like this: require: '^myForm'. Now the controller from the parent element will be injected into the link function as the fourth argument, following $scope, element, attributes. You can call functions on that controller and communicate with the parent directive.
Moreover, if such a controller is not found, an error will be raised.
Why use link at all
There is no real need to use the link function if one is defining the controller since the $scope is available on the controller. Moreover, while defining both link and controller, one does need to be careful about the order of invocation of the two (controller is executed before).
However, in keeping with the Angular way, most DOM manipulation and 2-way binding using $watchers is usually done in the link function while the API for children and $scope manipulation is done in the controller. This is not a hard and fast rule, but doing so will make the code more modular and help in separation of concerns (controller will maintain the directive state and link function will maintain the DOM + outside bindings).

The controller function/object represents an abstraction model-view-controller (MVC). While there is nothing new to write about MVC, it is still the most significant advanatage of angular: split the concerns into smaller pieces. And that's it, nothing more, so if you need to react on Model changes coming from View the Controller is the right person to do that job.
The story about link function is different, it is coming from different perspective then MVC. And is really essential, once we want to cross the boundaries of a controller/model/view (template).
Let' start with the parameters which are passed into the link function:
function link(scope, element, attrs) {
scope is an Angular scope object.
element is the jqLite-wrapped element that this directive matches.
attrs is an object with the normalized attribute names and their corresponding values.
To put the link into the context, we should mention that all directives are going through this initialization process steps: Compile, Link. An Extract from Brad Green and Shyam Seshadri book Angular JS:
Compile phase (a sister of link, let's mention it here to get a clear picture):
In this phase, Angular walks the DOM to identify all the registered
directives in the template. For each directive, it then transforms the
DOM based on the directive’s rules (template, replace, transclude, and
so on), and calls the compile function if it exists. The result is a
compiled template function,
Link phase:
To make the view dynamic, Angular then runs a link function for each
directive. The link functions typically creates listeners on the DOM
or the model. These listeners keep the view and the model in sync at
all times.
A nice example how to use the link could be found here: Creating Custom Directives. See the example: Creating a Directive that Manipulates the DOM, which inserts a "date-time" into page, refreshed every second.
Just a very short snippet from that rich source above, showing the real manipulation with DOM. There is hooked function to $timeout service, and also it is cleared in its destructor call to avoid memory leaks
.directive('myCurrentTime', function($timeout, dateFilter) {
function link(scope, element, attrs) {
...
// the not MVC job must be done
function updateTime() {
element.text(dateFilter(new Date(), format)); // here we are manipulating the DOM
}
function scheduleUpdate() {
// save the timeoutId for canceling
timeoutId = $timeout(function() {
updateTime(); // update DOM
scheduleUpdate(); // schedule the next update
}, 1000);
}
element.on('$destroy', function() {
$timeout.cancel(timeoutId);
});
...