I'm working with Angular version 1.2.2 for the first time and trying to make a simple directive that uses isolate scope with '=' binding to pass in an object. I've done this a few times before so I'm wondering if maybe there was a change in 1.2.2 that changed this?
Here is my directive:
.directive('vendorSelector', function (VendorFactory) {
return {
restrict: 'E',
replace: true,
scope: { vendorId: '=' },
template: '<select ng-model="vendorId" ng-options="id for id in vendorIds">' +
'<option value="">-- choose vendor --</option>' +
'</select>',
link: function (scope, element, attrs) {
VendorFactory.getVendorIds().then(function(result) {
scope.vendorIds = result;
});
}
}
})
My HTML template using the directive is as follows:
<div class="padding">
<vendor-selector vendorId="someValue"></vendor-selector>
{{ someValue }}
</div>
And the backing controller:
.controller('AddProductController', function($scope, ProductFactory, AlertFactory) {
$scope.vendorId = 0;
$scope.someValue = undefined;
})
I've tried using both $scope.someValue and $scope.vendorId as the supplied object in the html template. In both cases the error I'm getting back is Expression 'undefined' used with directive 'vendorSelector' is non-assignable!. Am I missing something obvious that is preventing these values from being 2-way bound in the isolate scope?
In your html:
<vendor-selector vendorId="someValue"></vendor-selector>
Change vendorId="someValue"
to vendor-id="someValue"
HTML attributes are case insensitive so to avoid confusion Angular converts all camel cased variables (vendorId) to snake case attributes (vendor-id).
So someValue wasn't bound to vendorId. Resulting in vendorId being undefined in the template. And thus your error.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With