angular directive - correlative requests - javascript

I created a custom directive for the following widget attribute:
<div widget></div>
Basically the directive just creates some template code and puts the html inside the widget-tag.
Here's the directive:
skdApp.directive("widget", function() {
return {
restrict: 'A',
template: htmlTemplate,
link: function($scope, element, attri) {
/*
* setup event handler and twitter bootstrap components here
*/
}
}
The htmlTemplate is basic html code which also uses custom directives (e.g. the <seal> tag):
var htmlTemplate = '<div ng-controller="OfferCtrl">' +
'<div class="container">' +
<seal></seal>' +
'...'+
'</div>' +
'</div>';
In my Controller I first request some data to display in <div widget>.
I have an 'Offer' service that capsules all the logic to request data from the server. The method I'm using is called Offer.query().
skdApp.controller('OfferCtrl', function OfferCtrl ($scope, Offer) {
var o = Offer.query({id: 1}, function (response) {
$scope.offer = response;
});
});
In the response handler I'm binding the result to the scope.
The problem I'm facing now is that the directive also requests data but this request depends on the received data from Offer.query().
I.e. the response from Offer.query() returns an ID (let's call it myID) which is required by the seal directive to request more data.
Therefore I simply put all my logic in the callback Offer.query callback function. This doesn't seem to be the best way to do.
So I was thinking of moving this part to the link function of the <seal> directive:
skdApp.directive("seal", function() {
var sealHTML = '<div>{{offer.data.foobar}}</div>';
return {
restrict: 'E',
template: sealHTML,
link: function($scope, element, attrs) {
$scope.$watch('offer.myId', function (newValue, oldValue) {
if (typeof newValue !== "undefined") {
/* request more data with myId
* and bind the result to offer.data
*/
}
});
}
});
Is this approach 'angular'-compliant or is there some other better way (in terms of structure) to do this in angular?

You are able to watch offer.myId in child directive because both parent(widget) and child(seal) shares the same scope.By default directive does not create a new scope.
I think you broadcast custom event to notify the child directive and isolate scope if required to avoid scope clobbering.
http://docs.angularjs.org/api/ng.$rootScope.Scope

I'll float this Reverse-Jeopardy style (A question in the form of an answer). I've been mulling over a solution to this problem I saw recently. It clearly works, but it has some behavioral traits that I was first tempted to label as "wrong". On deeper reflection, I realized that those traits may be desirable in some very specific scenarios.
I would certainly not pitch this as a general solution to use each time you run into a need to bind data that is returned asynchronously. I present it to highlight the fact that the questions posed by this scenario have multiple potential answers. In some cases, there may be a genuine business logic need to block the UI rendering until the service call returns. In other cases, keeping the UI live and responsive for unrelated work may be more appropriate.
For example, in the case of an order processing system, I might very well want to block the client thread from interacting with view elements until the result of a sales transaction was known. The same could not be said of something like a web-based spreadsheet application with server-side formula calculations.
I think its a wonderful thing that both asynchronous and synchronous modes of addressing this need can co-exist. That is to say, returning a promise object does not obligate a client to use it any more than placing the return values in a scope obligates a client to watch them.
What follows demonstrates a way of handling this requirement synchronously alongside the previously explored asynchronous watch( ) style.:
var servicesModule = servicesModule || angular.module('myModule', []);
servicesModule.factory('thingClient',
['$http', '$q', function( $http, $q ) {
return new ThingClient($http, $q);
}]
);
function ThingClient($http, $q) {
function callService(scopeObject) {
var defer = $q.defer();
var promise = defer.promise;
$http({
method: 'POST',
url: 'http://at/some/url/',
data: { x: 'y', y: 'z', z: 'x', one: 1, two: 2, three: 3},
cache: false
}, function(data) {
scopeObject.data = data;
defer.resolve(data);
}, function() {
scopeObject.data = null;
defer.resolve(null)
});
return promise;
}
}
client-service.js
function ConsumingController( $scope, thingClient ) {
// Be careful to use an object (so you have data wrapped such that it
// is eligible for prototypical inheritance and call by reference without
// passing the scope itself). Leave the 'data' element undefined so you
// can trigger the transition from undefined -> null in the failure case
// and not just the on-success case.
$scope.dto = { data: undefined };
var promise = thingClient.callService(scope.dto);
// Asynchronous strategy
$scope.$watch('offer.myId', function (newValue, oldValue) {
if( newValue == null ) {
// Fail!
} else {
// Succeed!
}
}
// Synchronous strategy
if( promise.then(
function(data) {
if( data == null ) {
// Fail
} else {
// Succeed
}
}
}
}
consuming-controller.js

Related

Unable to add $scope to service in angularjs? [duplicate]

I have a Service:
angular.module('cfd')
.service('StudentService', [ '$http',
function ($http) {
// get some data via the $http
var path = 'data/people/students.json';
var students = $http.get(path).then(function (resp) {
return resp.data;
});
//save method create a new student if not already exists
//else update the existing object
this.save = function (student) {
if (student.id == null) {
//if this is new student, add it in students array
$scope.students.push(student);
} else {
//for existing student, find this student using id
//and update it.
for (i in students) {
if (students[i].id == student.id) {
students[i] = student;
}
}
}
};
But when I call save(), I don't have access to the $scope, and get ReferenceError: $scope is not defined. So the logical step (for me), is to provide save() with the $scope, and thus I must also provide/inject it to the service. So if I do that like so:
.service('StudentService', [ '$http', '$scope',
function ($http, $scope) {
I get the following error:
Error: [$injector:unpr] Unknown provider: $scopeProvider <- $scope <-
StudentService
The link in the error (wow that is neat!) lets me know it is injector related, and might have to do with order of declaration of the js files. I have tried reordering them in the index.html, but I think it is something more simple, such as the way I am injecting them.
Using Angular-UI and Angular-UI-Router
The $scope that you see being injected into controllers is not some service (like the rest of the injectable stuff), but is a Scope object. Many scope objects can be created (usually prototypically inheriting from a parent scope). The root of all scopes is the $rootScope and you can create a new child-scope using the $new() method of any scope (including the $rootScope).
The purpose of a Scope is to "glue together" the presentation and the business logic of your app. It does not make much sense to pass a $scope into a service.
Services are singleton objects used (among other things) to share data (e.g. among several controllers) and generally encapsulate reusable pieces of code (since they can be injected and offer their "services" in any part of your app that needs them: controllers, directives, filters, other services etc).
I am sure, various approaches would work for you. One is this:
Since the StudentService is in charge of dealing with student data, you can have the StudentService keep an array of students and let it "share" it with whoever might be interested (e.g. your $scope). This makes even more sense, if there are other views/controllers/filters/services that need to have access to that info (if there aren't any right now, don't be surprised if they start popping up soon).
Every time a new student is added (using the service's save() method), the service's own array of students will be updated and every other object sharing that array will get automatically updated as well.
Based on the approach described above, your code could look like this:
angular.
module('cfd', []).
factory('StudentService', ['$http', '$q', function ($http, $q) {
var path = 'data/people/students.json';
var students = [];
// In the real app, instead of just updating the students array
// (which will be probably already done from the controller)
// this method should send the student data to the server and
// wait for a response.
// This method returns a promise to emulate what would happen
// when actually communicating with the server.
var save = function (student) {
if (student.id === null) {
students.push(student);
} else {
for (var i = 0; i < students.length; i++) {
if (students[i].id === student.id) {
students[i] = student;
break;
}
}
}
return $q.resolve(student);
};
// Populate the students array with students from the server.
$http.get(path).then(function (response) {
response.data.forEach(function (student) {
students.push(student);
});
});
return {
students: students,
save: save
};
}]).
controller('someCtrl', ['$scope', 'StudentService',
function ($scope, StudentService) {
$scope.students = StudentService.students;
$scope.saveStudent = function (student) {
// Do some $scope-specific stuff...
// Do the actual saving using the StudentService.
// Once the operation is completed, the $scope's `students`
// array will be automatically updated, since it references
// the StudentService's `students` array.
StudentService.save(student).then(function () {
// Do some more $scope-specific stuff,
// e.g. show a notification.
}, function (err) {
// Handle the error.
});
};
}
]);
One thing you should be careful about when using this approach is to never re-assign the service's array, because then any other components (e.g. scopes) will be still referencing the original array and your app will break.
E.g. to clear the array in StudentService:
/* DON'T DO THAT */
var clear = function () { students = []; }
/* DO THIS INSTEAD */
var clear = function () { students.splice(0, students.length); }
See, also, this short demo.
LITTLE UPDATE:
A few words to avoid the confusion that may arise while talking about using a service, but not creating it with the service() function.
Quoting the docs on $provide:
An Angular service is a singleton object created by a service factory. These service factories are functions which, in turn, are created by a service provider. The service providers are constructor functions. When instantiated they must contain a property called $get, which holds the service factory function.
[...]
...the $provide service has additional helper methods to register services without specifying a provider:
provider(provider) - registers a service provider with the $injector
constant(obj) - registers a value/object that can be accessed by providers and services.
value(obj) - registers a value/object that can only be accessed by services, not providers.
factory(fn) - registers a service factory function, fn, that will be wrapped in a service provider object, whose $get property will contain the given factory function.
service(class) - registers a constructor function, class that will be wrapped in a service provider object, whose $get property will instantiate a new object using the given constructor function.
Basically, what it says is that every Angular service is registered using $provide.provider(), but there are "shortcut" methods for simpler services (two of which are service() and factory()).
It all "boils down" to a service, so it doesn't make much difference which method you use (as long as the requirements for your service can be covered by that method).
BTW, provider vs service vs factory is one of the most confusing concepts for Angular new-comers, but fortunately there are plenty of resources (here on SO) to make things easier. (Just search around.)
(I hope that clears it up - let me know if it doesn't.)
Instead of trying to modify the $scope within the service, you can implement a $watch within your controller to watch a property on your service for changes and then update a property on the $scope. Here is an example you might try in a controller:
angular.module('cfd')
.controller('MyController', ['$scope', 'StudentService', function ($scope, StudentService) {
$scope.students = null;
(function () {
$scope.$watch(function () {
return StudentService.students;
}, function (newVal, oldVal) {
if ( newValue !== oldValue ) {
$scope.students = newVal;
}
});
}());
}]);
One thing to note is that within your service, in order for the students property to be visible, it needs to be on the Service object or this like so:
this.students = $http.get(path).then(function (resp) {
return resp.data;
});
Well (a long one) ... if you insist to have $scope access inside a service, you can:
Create a getter/setter service
ngapp.factory('Scopes', function (){
var mem = {};
return {
store: function (key, value) { mem[key] = value; },
get: function (key) { return mem[key]; }
};
});
Inject it and store the controller scope in it
ngapp.controller('myCtrl', ['$scope', 'Scopes', function($scope, Scopes) {
Scopes.store('myCtrl', $scope);
}]);
Now, get the scope inside another service
ngapp.factory('getRoute', ['Scopes', '$http', function(Scopes, $http){
// there you are
var $scope = Scopes.get('myCtrl');
}]);
Services are singletons, and it is not logical for a scope to be injected in service (which is case indeed, you cannot inject scope in service). You can pass scope as a parameter, but that is also a bad design choice, because you would have scope being edited in multiple places, making it hard for debugging. Code for dealing with scope variables should go in controller, and service calls go to the service.
You could make your service completely unaware of the scope, but in your controller allow the scope to be updated asynchronously.
The problem you're having is because you're unaware that http calls are made asynchronously, which means you don't get a value immediately as you might. For instance,
var students = $http.get(path).then(function (resp) {
return resp.data;
}); // then() returns a promise object, not resp.data
There's a simple way to get around this and it's to supply a callback function.
.service('StudentService', [ '$http',
function ($http) {
// get some data via the $http
var path = '/students';
//save method create a new student if not already exists
//else update the existing object
this.save = function (student, doneCallback) {
$http.post(
path,
{
params: {
student: student
}
}
)
.then(function (resp) {
doneCallback(resp.data); // when the async http call is done, execute the callback
});
}
.controller('StudentSaveController', ['$scope', 'StudentService', function ($scope, StudentService) {
$scope.saveUser = function (user) {
StudentService.save(user, function (data) {
$scope.message = data; // I'm assuming data is a string error returned from your REST API
})
}
}]);
The form:
<div class="form-message">{{message}}</div>
<div ng-controller="StudentSaveController">
<form novalidate class="simple-form">
Name: <input type="text" ng-model="user.name" /><br />
E-mail: <input type="email" ng-model="user.email" /><br />
Gender: <input type="radio" ng-model="user.gender" value="male" />male
<input type="radio" ng-model="user.gender" value="female" />female<br />
<input type="button" ng-click="reset()" value="Reset" />
<input type="submit" ng-click="saveUser(user)" value="Save" />
</form>
</div>
This removed some of your business logic for brevity and I haven't actually tested the code, but something like this would work. The main concept is passing a callback from the controller to the service which gets called later in the future. If you're familiar with NodeJS this is the same concept.
Got into the same predicament. I ended up with the following. So here I am not injecting the scope object into the factory, but setting the $scope in the controller itself using the concept of promise returned by $http service.
(function () {
getDataFactory = function ($http)
{
return {
callWebApi: function (reqData)
{
var dataTemp = {
Page: 1, Take: 10,
PropName: 'Id', SortOrder: 'Asc'
};
return $http({
method: 'GET',
url: '/api/PatientCategoryApi/PatCat',
params: dataTemp, // Parameters to pass to external service
headers: { 'Content-Type': 'application/Json' }
})
}
}
}
patientCategoryController = function ($scope, getDataFactory) {
alert('Hare');
var promise = getDataFactory.callWebApi('someDataToPass');
promise.then(
function successCallback(response) {
alert(JSON.stringify(response.data));
// Set this response data to scope to use it in UI
$scope.gridOptions.data = response.data.Collection;
}, function errorCallback(response) {
alert('Some problem while fetching data!!');
});
}
patientCategoryController.$inject = ['$scope', 'getDataFactory'];
getDataFactory.$inject = ['$http'];
angular.module('demoApp', []);
angular.module('demoApp').controller('patientCategoryController', patientCategoryController);
angular.module('demoApp').factory('getDataFactory', getDataFactory);
}());
Code for dealing with scope variables should go in controller, and service calls go to the service.
You can inject $rootScope for the purpose of using $rootScope.$broadcast and $rootScope.$on.
Otherwise avoid injecting $rootScope. See
Common Pitfalls: $rootScope exists, but it can be used for evil.

How to dynamically bound value to a link using AngularJS

The problem that I need to generate link on the fly since the link is set in ng-repeat. I think I need to execute custom function inside ng-repeat loop which gets data from $http and pushes link to $scope.array. Then bound href to $scope.array[someIndex]....The problem I don't know if:
it's the only way
a good design
how to implement it
Example:
HTML
<div ng-repeat-start="item in items">
the link
// here execute $scope.getUrl(item ) somehow
<div class="extra-div">
<div ng-repeat-end=""></div>
Controller:
$scope.arrayOfUrls= [];
$scope.getUrl = function(url){
$http.get(url).then(
function(data){
arrayOfUrls.push(data.link);
}
)
}
How to execute getUrl during ng-repeat cycle?
PS. I cannot bound href directly to getUrl function since there is $http which eventually result in infinite digest loop.
Also promises can be returned not in order so expecting that first call to getUrl will push link to $scope.arrayOfUrls[0] is false assumption.
UPDATE:
As #Claies suggested I trie to prefetch links like this:
Contoller executes $scope.loadFeed();
$scope.loadFeed = function() {
http.jsonp('feed url').then(function(res) {
$scope.feeds = res.data.responseData.feed.entries;
$scope.feeds.forEach(function(e) {
// prefetch content and links for each feed
//hook new entryStateUrl property to feed objects
e['entryStateUrl'] = $scope.getEntryStateUrl(e.link); // e['entryStateUrl'] is undefined
})
})
}
}
$scope.getEntryStateUrl = function(inputUrl) {
$http.get(inputUrl).then(function(data) {
// do stuff
return data.link;
});
}
}
Now seems like I am trying pre-fetch urls but getting undefined for e['entryStateUrl']...
The problem maybe about assigning scope variable when $http is not done getting results... Also it seems like there are nested promises: $http.jsonp and inside it $http.get.
How to fix it?
As this requires UI enhancement, a directive would be a good approach. How about a directive like this ( JSFiddle here ). Please note that I am calling $window.open here - you can replace this with whatever the application requires. :-
todoApp.directive('todoLinks', ['$window',function ($window) {
var directive = {};
directive.restrict = 'A';
directive.transclude = 'true';
directive.scope = { ngModel: '=ngModel', jsOnClick:'&' };
directive.template = '<li ng-repeat="item in ngModel">{{item.name}}</li>';
directive.link = function ($scope, element, attributes) {
$scope.openLink = function (idx) {
$window.open($scope.ngModel[idx].link); //Replace this with what your app. requires
if (attributes.jsOnClick) {
//console.log('trigger post jsOnClick');
$scope.jsOnClick({ 'idx': idx });
}
};
};
return directive;
}]);
When the controller fills the todo items like this:-
todoApp.controller("ToDoCtrl", ['$scope','$timeout','dbService',function($scope, $timeout, dbService)
{
$scope.todo=[{"name":"google","link":"http://www.google.com"},{"name":"bing","link":"http://www.bing.com"},{"name":"altavista","link":"http://www.altavista.com"}];
}]);
Usage of this directive is simple:-
<div todo-links ng-model="todo"></div>

Exporting methods from an angular factory or directive to use later

I have developed a web application using Angular.js (It's my first). The application features a collection of interactive graphics (seat maps); so I created a module to handle the Raphael stuff, including a directive, like so:
angular.module('raphael', [])
.factory('fillData', function() {
return function(paper, data) {
var canvas = $(paper.canvas);
// Do fill the data and more ...
canvas.on('click', '[id]', function(e) {
this.classList.toggle('selected');
});
};
})
.directive('raphael', ['fillData',
function(fillData) {
return {
scope: {
raphael : '&',
seatData: '&'
},
link: function(scope, element, attrs) {
var paper = null;
var updateSeatData = function() {
if(scope.seatData()) fillData(paper, scope.seatData());
};
scope.$watch(scope.raphael, function() {
element.empty();
paper = new Raphael(element[0], '100%', '100%');
paper.add(scope.raphael());
updateSeatData();
});
scope.$watch(scope.seatData, function() {
updateSeatData();
});
}
};
}
]);
Everything works fine, until it get to the point where we need to interact with the vector in another level. Let's say, getting a count of selected seats, or deselecting all (triggered by some random element in the document).
I don't seem to be able to find a reasonable way of implementing it.
What do you suggest?
Is there any other approach to using a second library inside angular?
From what I understand you want to have directive which have certain internal state but you would like to access it's state from outside (other directive, service, etc.).
If so, then it seems that you could use service as state holder. In such case your directive will not hold state but it will be accessing it.
What do you mean by a reasonable way of implementing it? It looks good, although I would prefer to bind to the attribute seatData instead of passing function like
scope: {
seatData: '='
}
And then watch it
scope.$watch('seatData', function() {
fillData(paper, scope.seatData);
});
Is this you issue or I haven't understood it?
OK, here is the solution I came up with; I accessed the parent scope and put essential methods there.
Adding this line to the fillData factory:
return {
deselectAll: function() { ... }
};
And changed updateSeatData method to:
var updateSeatData = function() {
if(scope.seatData) {
var result = fillData(paper, scope.seatData[scope.level]);
angular.extend(scope.$parent, result);
}
};
p.s. Still open to hearing moreā€¦

Preloading data in a Directive using promises in a service using AngularJS

I hope someone can help me. I have not been able to figure this one out.
I wrote a directive (see below) to dump a pre-written ul-list on a page based on html data that I retrieved async from a database server. Both the Directive and The Service work.
I assumed that the "then" in "MenuService.getMenuData().then" would force a wait until the data arrived to the directive but some how the directive completes and shows the '3empty' message before the data arrived, which indicates that the directive completed earlier. I know I could put a timeout delay but that is not good. Do you have a suggestion as to what could the problem be?
The other technique I used was to put a ng-show="dataarrived" and set the dataarrived to true only when the promised completed. But same issue.
The purpose of this directive is to retrieve the Nav menu list from the serve and display it on the index.html but It does Not matter if I put this code in a controller or in a service or directive I get the same result. It shows nothing. It is particular to displaying it in the index.html before any other view is displayed.
Here is my directive if it make sense.
TBApp.directive('tbnavMenu', function ($compile, MenuService) {
var tbTemplate = '3empty';
MenuService.getMenuData().then(function (val) {
tbTemplate = val;
});
var getTemplate = function () {
return tbTemplate;
}
var linker = function (scope, element, attrs) {
element.html(tbTemplate).show();
$compile(element.contents())(scope);
}
return {
restrict: "E",
replace: true,
link: linker,
controller: function ($scope, $element) {
$scope.selectedNavMenu = GlobalService.appData.currentNavMenu;
$scope.menuClicked = function ($event, menuClicked) {
$event.preventDefault();
$scope.selectedNavMenu = menuClicked;
$scope.tbnavMenuHander({ navMenuChanged: menuClicked });
};
$scope.isSelected = function (menuClicked) {
return $scope.selectedNavMenu === menuClicked;
}
},
scope: {
tbnavMenuHander: '&'
}
}
}
I could be incredibly wrong but if your service is returning an $http object at the getMenuData method then these lines:
MenuService.getMenuData().then(function (val) {
tbTemplate = val;
});
should change to either:
MenuService.getMenuData().then(function (val) {
tbTemplate = val.data;
});
or
MenuService.getMenuData().success(function (val) {
tbTemplate = val;
});
My personal recomendation is to use the .then option as it enables the concatenation of more promises.

Callback function inside directive attr defined in different attr

So I have this directive called say, mySave, it's pretty much just this
app.directive('mySave', function($http) {
return function(scope, element, attrs) {
element.bind("click", function() {
$http.post('/save', scope.data).success(returnedData) {
// callback defined on my utils service here
// user defined callback here, from my-save-callback perhaps?
}
});
}
});
the element itself looks like this
<button my-save my-save-callback="callbackFunctionInController()">save</button>
callbackFunctionInController is for now just
$scope.callbackFunctionInController = function() {
alert("callback");
}
when I console.log() attrs.mySaveCallback inside my-save directive, it just gives me a string callbackFunctionInController(), I read somewhere that I should $parse this and it would be fine, so I tried to $parse(attrs.mySaveCallback) which gave me back some function, but hardly the one I was looking for, it gave me back
function (a,b){return m(a,b)}
What am I doing wrong? Is this approach flawed from the beginning?
So what seems like the best way is using the isolated scope as suggested by ProLoser
app.directive('mySave', function($http) {
return {
scope: {
callback: '&mySaveCallback'
}
link: function(scope, element, attrs) {
element.on("click", function() {
$http.post('/save', scope.$parent.data).success(returnedData) {
// callback defined on my utils service here
scope.callback(); // fires alert
}
});
}
}
});
For passing parameters back to controller do this
[11:28] <revolunet> you have to send named parameters
[11:28] <revolunet> eg my-attr="callback(a, b)"
[11:29] <revolunet> in the directive: scope.callback({a:xxx, b:yyy})
There are a lot of ways to go about what you're doing. The FIRST thing you should know is that the $http.post() is going to be called as soon as that DOM element is rendered out by the template engine, and that's it. If you put it inside a repeat, the call will be done for each new item in the repeater, so my guess is this is definitely not what you want. And if it is then you really aren't designing things correctly because the existence of DOM alone should not dictate queries to the backend.
Anyway, directly answering your question; if you read the albeit crappy docs on $parse, it returns you an evaluation expression. When you execute this function by passing the scope to evaluate on, the current state of that expression on the scope you passed will be returned, this means your function will be executed.
var expression = $parse(attrs.mySave);
results = expression($scope); // call on demand when needed
expression.assign($scope, 'newValu'); // the major reason to leverage $parse, setting vals
Yes, it's a little confusing at first, but you must understand that a $scope changes constantly in asynchronous apps and it's all about WHEN you want the value determined, not just how. $parse is more useful for a reference to a model that you want to be able to assign a value to, not just read from.
Of course, you may want to read up on creating an isolate scope or on how to $eval() an expression.
$scope.$eval(attrs.mySave);
You can use .$eval to execute a statement in the given scope
app.directive('mySave', function($http) {
return function(scope, element, attrs) {
$http.post('/save', scope.data).success(returnedData) {
// callback defined on my utils service here
// user defined callback here, from my-save-callback perhaps?
scope.$eval(attrs.mySaveCallback)
}
}
});
TD: Demo
If you want to share data between a directive and a controller you can use the two way binding
app.controller('AppController', function ($scope) {
$scope.callbackFunctionInController = function() {
console.log('do something')
};
$scope.$watch('somedata', function(data) {
console.log('controller', data);
}, true);
});
app.directive('mySave', function($http, $parse) {
return {
scope: {
data: '=mySaveData',
callback: '&mySaveCallback' //the callback
},
link: function(scope, element, attrs) {
$http.get('data.json').success(function(data) {
console.log('data', data);
scope.data = data;
scope.callback(); //calling callback, this may not be required
});
}
};
});
Demo: Fiddle
scope: {
callback: '&mySaveCallback'
}
Setting the scope explicitly could be a good solution but if you want the reach other parts of the original scope you can't because you have just overwritten it. For some reason, I needed to reach other parts of the scope too so I used the same implementation as ng-click do.
The use of my directive in HTML:
<div my-data-table my-source="dataSource" refresh="refresh(data)">
Inside the directive (without setting the scope explicitly):
var refreshHandler = $parse(attrs.refresh);
scope.$apply(function () {
refreshHandler( {data : conditions}, scope, { $event: event });
});
With this I can call the function in controller and pass parameters to it.
In the controller:
$scope.refresh= function(data){
console.log(data);
}
And it prints the conditions correctly out.
This worked for me
Inside the view script
<tag mycallbackattrib="scopemethod">
Inside the directive
$scope[attrs.mycallbackattrib](params....);
It is correctly called and params are passed, but maybe is not a best 'angular way' to work.
You should be using ng-click instead of creating your own directive.
app.directive('mySave', function($http, $parse) {
return {
scope: {
data: '=mySaveData',
callback: '&' //the callback
},
link: function(scope, element, attrs) {
$http.get('data.json').success(function(data) {
console.log('data', data);
if (scope.callback()) scope.callback().apply(data);
});
}
};
});

Categories

Resources