I have a directive that calculates the height and distance from the top of the window of an element that is passed in as an id to an attribute. The issue I'm running into is that I have several of these directives running (on elements that are attached to the same directive), and I'm running into a race condition where some of the directives that are lower down in the DOM are running before the ones that are higher up for whatever reason.
Is there a way I can make the bottom ones wait for the ones higher up via a promise or something? If so, how would I implement that? Is there a better way of handling this?
If you want code to be executed by your directive in the descending order (higer in the DOM comes first), you should either put that code in your directive's controller, or preLink methods.
The default link method is a shortcut to postLink which is executed in a ascending order.
That being said, I don't know your code so I am just making a guess, but it sounds like a service would be more appropriate than a directive, unless the calcul you're doing is done directly in that directive element, in which case using $element should be enough. But you should probably not pass an id or selector to a directive.
Related
The custom component
I've created a custom component for the navigation of my app. It consists of an ul element and all its li elements are dynamically created based on the items in the router's navigation list. This is happening in the attached event of the component. Nothing special is going on here.
The custom attribute
But because I want to have a good looking fancy menu I also created a custom attribute and implemented it into the root ul element of the custom component. In the attached event of the custom attribute I'd like to do some dom manipulations so that my menu looks like a menu created by those cool kids.
The problem
Although the attached event of the custom attribute is fired AFTER the attached event of the custom component, the dynamically created li items are not part of the dom in the attached event of the custom attribute yet.
The question
My assumption was that on attached event the view of the actual component is attached to dom and that all components before are also attached to the dom. And when I am done with the attached event the html that has been dynamically created here is also attached. Am I mistaken?
On a side note
I am aware of using TaskQueue could solve my problem. However, I would like to know if there's a different approach/solution first because I believe that moving things in time could cause a chain of paradoxes leaving you in a maintenance nightmare.
Allow me take away your misconception about the TaskQueue.
Your idea of moving things in time causing maintenance issues would certainly apply to using setTimeout() because that incurs an actual delay, and forces execution onto the next event loop. queueTask() is more or less the same thing (it uses setTimeout() internally).
However, the TaskQueue's queueMicroTask() method works very differently.
When you call queueMicroTask(), unlike queueTask() and setTimeout(), the task is scheduled for immediate execution on the same event loop. This is a very robust mechanism with a guaranteed execution order, and it's generally considered good practice to use it within attached() before doing any DOM manipulation.
In fact, queueMicroTask() is used internally by Aurelia in various places (mostly in binding and templating-resources). Two notable places are:
Property- and collection observers use it to "delay" notifying subscribers until all other bindings have completed their internal updating work
The repeat attribute uses it to set an ignoreMutations flag (and unset it after the queue is flushed) to prevent infinite recursion while updating its inner collection
You can generally consider there to be two "phases" to the bind() and attached() hooks: a non-queued, and a queued phase. The queued phase is when components do work that relies on the whole component graph to first be done with some other (usually recursive) process.
queueMicroTask() does not delay execution, just pushes it to the end of the call stack
It's the functional equivalent of passing the function as a callback to the end of the call stack, but saves you the trouble of writing the spaghetti code required to locate that last call and wire it all up. It's super clean.
all its li elements are dynamically created based on the items in the
router's navigation list. This is happening in the attached event of
the component
See, whenever you create anything during attached(), you can't rely on that thing being there during another component's attached() as this depends on the order of compilation/composition. That's an internal matter. This is especially true for custom attributes. Custom attributes (particularly those in style libraries) use the TaskQueue all over the place because it's the only way they can rely on the DOM being done.
Using queueMicroTask() here will guarantee two things:
It's executed when aurelia is completely done with the "first pass" of attacheds and rendering
It's executed immediately when aurelia is done with that - not even a microsecond delayed.
The best (and perhaps only correct) way to address this is indeed by using the TaskQueue - I promise :)
I have written a directive which has a two way binding to bring in the text specification for a flow chart which is used to generate the actual objects (steps and connections) inside the directive. I have a $watch set up inside the directive to allow the controller to send in a new specification (e.g. loading a new chart), but I also want to have the directive make changes to the specification in response to user action (e.g. deleting a connection) so that the controller can save the changed specification.
I have a function in the directive which converts the chart objects back into a text specification, but if I simply replace the specification scope variable with the updated value, the original watch sees a change (which it thinks might have come from the controller) and so reloads the chart from the specification. This has the effect of breaking things like dragging elements around because the elements are being removed from the DOM and replaced by new ones.
What I would like to be able to do is temporarily suspend the $watch while I make my internal changes, or in some other way avoid the watch from triggering when the directive makes changes to it, only going off when the controller makes changes from outside. I tried to unbind and rebind the watch around making the change, but because the actual checking happens elsewhere in the cycle that does not work. An alternative solution I could use is to have two variables passed between the controller and directive, one going each way, but that is somewhat inelegant. Any better suggestions would be welcome.
When I do this, usually my $watch looks something like this:
$scope.$watch('MyVar',function(newval,oldval) {
if (oldval == newval) return;
if (newval == $scope.internalval) return;
// process here
})
For precisely the reason you outline. I don't believe you can turn the $watch off, so before I make an internal update to the watched variable, I update a tracking version of the variable to make sure I don't get infinitely-recursing changes. It seems like a pain, but the watched variables are finite and I always use a setter function so the code updating the internal value is only written once
I have a directive that needs to execute a callback function whenever its DOM subtree is mutated (by ngIf or ngRepeat for instance).
The directive is ideally able to be easily inserted to templates I have already made, which rules out putting an ng-init. I've looked at the documentation, and neither ngRepeat or ngIf seem to have any events. Additionally, it seems that most of the browser DOM events have been depreciated as well.
I would use a watch, but I can't think of an expression that will work, as jQuery returns a new object every time and the length of .children() might be unchanged through mutation if ngRepeat removes and inserts a node in the same $digest.
Any suggestions on how to detect any DOM subtree mutation entirely from a template-less directive?
EDIT: For more detail, I have multiple tables that have rows of data inserted with ngRepeat. Whenever a row is inserted, if the table has a resize directive, I need to add CSS to it. The resize directive is general enough to go on every table without needing any input, so I would prefer to not have to add ngInits to all the ngRepeat elements.
For anyone else looking for a solution that will usually work in situations like this, Angular recompiles all the repeated elements, even if they were already present. Thus the actual DOMNode objects are different, so you can just watch a DOMNode.
I understand that ng-show and ng-hide affect the class set on an element and that ng-if controls whether an element is rendered as part of the DOM.
Are there guidelines on choosing ng-if over ng-show/ng-hide or vice-versa?
Depends on your use case but to summarise the difference:
ng-if will remove elements from DOM. This means that all your handlers or anything else attached to those elements will be lost. For example, if you bound a click handler to one of child elements, when ng-if evaluates to false, that element will be removed from DOM and your click handler will not work any more, even after ng-if later evaluates to true and displays the element. You will need to reattach the handler.
ng-show/ng-hide does not remove the elements from DOM. It uses CSS styles to hide/show elements (note: you might need to add your own classes). This way your handlers that were attached to children will not be lost.
ng-if creates a child scope while ng-show/ng-hide does not
Elements that are not in the DOM have less performance impact and your web app might appear to be faster when using ng-if compared to ng-show/ng-hide. In my experience, the difference is negligible. Animations are possible when using both ng-show/ng-hide and ng-if, with examples for both in the Angular documentation.
Ultimately, the question you need to answer is whether you can remove element from DOM or not?
See here for a CodePen that demonstrates the difference in how ng-if/ng-show work, DOM-wise.
#markovuksanovic has answered the question well. But I'd come at it from another perspective: I'd always use ng-if and get those elements out of DOM, unless:
you for some reason need the data-bindings and $watch-es on your elements to remain active while they're invisible. Forms might be a good case for this, if you want to be able to check validity on inputs that aren't currently visible, in order to determine whether the whole form is valid.
You're using some really elaborate stateful logic with conditional event handlers, as mentioned above. That said, if you find yourself manually attaching and detaching handlers, such that you're losing important state when you use ng-if, ask yourself whether that state would be better represented in a data model, and the handlers applied conditionally by directives whenever the element is rendered. Put another way, the presence/absence of handlers is a form of state data. Get that data out of the DOM, and into a model. The presence/absence of the handlers should be determined by the data, and thus easy to recreate.
Angular is written really well. It's fast, considering what it does. But what it does is a whole bunch of magic that makes hard things (like 2-way data-binding) look trivially easy. Making all those things look easy entails some performance overhead. You might be shocked to realize how many hundreds or thousands of times a setter function gets evaluated during the $digest cycle on a hunk of DOM that nobody's even looking at. And then you realize you've got dozens or hundreds of invisible elements all doing the same thing...
Desktops may indeed be powerful enough to render most JS execution-speed issues moot. But if you're developing for mobile, using ng-if whenever humanly possible should be a no-brainer. JS speed still matters on mobile processors. Using ng-if is a very easy way to get potentially-significant optimization at very, very low cost.
From my experience:
1) If your page has a toggle that uses ng-if/ng-show to show/hide something, ng-if causes more of a browser delay (slower). For example: if you have a button used to toggle between two views, ng-show seems to be faster.
2) ng-if will create/destroy scope when it evaluates to true/false. If you have a controller attached to the ng-if, that controller code will get executed every time the ng-if evaluates to true. If you are using ng-show, the controller code only gets executed once. So if you have a button that toggles between multiple views, using ng-if and ng-show would make a huge difference in how you write your controller code.
The answer is not simple:
It depends on the target machines (mobile vs desktop), it depends on the nature of your data, the browser, the OS, the hardware it runs on... you will need to benchmark if you really want to know.
It is mostly a memory vs computation problem ... as with most performance issues the difference can become significant with repeated elements (n) like lists, especially when nested (n x n, or worse) and also what kind of computations you run inside these elements:
ng-show: If those optional elements are often present (dense), like say 90% of the
time, it may be faster to have them ready and only show/hide them, especially if their content is cheap (just plain text, nothing to compute or load). This consumes memory as it fills the DOM with hidden elements, but just show/hide something which already exists is likely to be a cheap operation for the browser.
ng-if: If on the contrary elements are likely not to be shown (sparse) just build them and destroy them in real time, especially if their content is expensive to get (computations/sorted/filtered, images, generated images). This is ideal for rare or 'on-demand' elements, it saves memory in terms of not filling the DOM but can cost a lot of computation (creating/destroying elements) and bandwidth (getting remote content). It also depends on how much you compute in the view (filtering/sorting) vs what you already have in the model (pre-sorted/pre-filtered data).
One important note:
ngIf (unlike ngShow) usually creates child scopes that may produce unexpected results.
I had an issue related to this and I've spent MUCH time to figure out what was going on.
(My directive was writing its model values to the wrong scope.)
So, to save your hair just use ngShow unless you run too slow.
The performance difference is barely noticable anyway and I am not sure yet on who's favour is it without a test...
If you use ng-show or ng-hide the content (eg. thumbnails from server) will be loaded irrespective of the value of expression but will be displayed based on the value of the expression.
If you use ng-if the content will be loaded only if the expression of the ng-if evaluates to truthy.
Using ng-if is a good idea in a situation where you are going to load data or images from the server and show those only depending on users interaction. This way your page load will not be blocked by unnecessary nw intensive tasks.
ng-if on ng-include and on ng-controller will have a big impact matter
on ng-include it will not load the required partial and does not process unless flag is true
on ng-controller it will not load the controller unless flag is true
but the problem is when a flag gets false in ng-if it will remove from DOM when flag gets true back it will reload the DOM in this case ng-show is better, for one time show ng-if is better
I'm still running into the same problem, filters and functions inside ng-repeat being called all the damn time.
Example here, http://plnkr.co/edit/G8INkfGZxMgTvPAftJ91?p=preview, anytime you change something on a single row, someFilter filter is called 1000 times.
Apparently it's because any change on a child scope bubbles up to its parent, causing $digest to run, causing all filters to run(https://stackoverflow.com/a/15936362/301596). Is that right? How can I prevent it from happening in my particular case?
How can I make it run only on the item that has changed?
In my actual use case the filter is called even when the change is not even on the items of ng-repeat, it's so pointless and it is actually causing performance problems..
// edit cleared all the unnecessary stuff from the plunker
http://plnkr.co/edit/G8INkfGZxMgTvPAftJ91?p=preview
This is just how Angular's dirty checking works. If you have an array of 500 items and the array changes, the filter must be reapplied to the entire array. And now you're wondering "why twice"?
From another answer:
This is normal, angularjs uses a 'dirty-check' approach, so it need to call all the filters to see if exists any change. After this it detect that have a change on one variable(the one that you typed) and then it execute all filters again to detect if has other changes.
And the answer it references: How does data binding work in AngularJS?
Edit: If you're really noticing sluggishness (which I'm not on an older Core 2 Duo PC), there are probably a number of creative ways you can get around it depending on what your UI is going to be.
You could put the row into edit mode while the user is editing the data to isolate the changes, and sync the model back up when the user gets out of edit mode
You could only update the model onblur instead of onkeypress using a directive, like this: http://jsfiddle.net/langdonx/djtQR/1/