Hi Matthew,
I agree with Sander and would add that some basic controller test coverage
for your inner controller should verify that you misnamed a variable.
function create_inner_controller(){
inner_controller = controller('inner_controller', {
$scope: inner_controller_scope,
CurrentUser: 'test user'
});
}
it("should have a proper scope variable name", function() {
// arrange
create_inner_controller();
// act
inner_controller_scope.$digest();
// assertions
expect(inner_controller_scope.currentUser).toBe('test user');
});
-Aleck
On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 2:10:48 AM UTC-7, Matthew Simpson wrote:
>
> I am currently refactoring a large-ish angular app in an attempt to DRY up
> the code and slim down some very fat controllers. I have moved almost all
> my API access into services and it's working very well for me, but
> something has popped up which is really bothering me.
>
> Essentially, I now have no use for scope inheritance in my controllers
> whatsoever. All my dependencies are injected, I never use anything from the
> parent scope. Furthermore, any data I want exposed to my views I explicitly
> attach to the scope for that controller, because I think it's clearer, more
> declarative, more testable etc. At the same time, I am aware that a lot of
> the time the scope will already contain that data because there are certain
> things I attach to the scope all over the place, e.g. currentUser. I would
> rather that the scope was not inherited from the enclosing scope, because
> it's simpler to test & reason about my controllers if I know I'm getting a
> blank-slate scope every time.
>
> Here's an illustration of what's bothering me:
>
> http://plnkr.co/edit/4yJ8KYfcdazIkyHNQaFp?p=preview
>
> As you can see, there are two controllers, one inside the other. Each has
> its dependencies injected and attaches them to the scope for use by the
> view. They're completely encapsulated. And it works fine. Except, look at
> the inner controller! I've misspelt the name of my scope property, so the
> view shouldn't show anything! But of course it does show something, because
> the currentUser scope property is inherited from the enclosing view. This
> bugs me.
>
> I've actually tried to write an alternative version of ngController that
> uses an isolate scope, but I can't get it to work (for some reason angular
> doesn't attach the scope to the view).
>
> My questions are:
>
> 1. Is there an easy way to get an isolate scope in my controllers?
> 2. Is there a complicated/clever way to get an isolate scope in my
> controllers?
> 3. Should I just replace all my controllers with directives? (I don't want
> to do this)
> 4. Should I just use the "Controller as" syntax? (I don't want to do this
> either)
> 5. Should I just forget about this and get on with my life?
>
> Thanks for reading this long and waffly post.
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"AngularJS" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/angular.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
