Okay, this is really bugging me. I have a directive with isolate scope, using the controllerAs
syntax and bindToController
:
function exampleDirectiveFactory() {
var bindings = {
foo: '=',
bar: '@'
}
return {
bindToController: true,
controller : 'ExampleController',
controllerAs : 'vm',
scope : bindings,
template : 'foo = {{ vm.foo }}<br />bar = {{ vm.bar }}'
};
}
Assuming a usage like this:
<example foo="FOO" bar="BAR"></example>
...I expect the value of vm.foo
to be two-way bound to the value of the foo
attribute. Instead, it is undefined
.
The value of vm.bar
is equal to the attribute value bar
of the HTML element, which I expect.
When I try to change the value of vm.bar
using a filter, no change persists.
When I store the filtered value of vm.bar
to a new variable, vm.baz
, that works as expected.
So my question has two parts:
A) Why is the value of vm.foo
undefined when using '='
?
B) Why can't I change the value of vm.bar
in the scope of the controller, even if that change does not propagate to the HTML element attribute (which it shouldn't, because I'm using '@'
)?
1.4 changed how bindToController works. Though it appears that angular's documentation is still referring to the field as
true
/false
. Now it can accept an object just like thescope
attribute where the attributes indicate what you want bound and how to bind it.In addition, in your fiddle, FOO is
undefined
on the parent scope, so when it binds, it will pull thatundefined
into the directive's bound controller's scope.Further reading: One major thing that this new
bindToController
syntax allows is the ability for the directive to not be an isolated scope and still identify what to bind. You can actually set scope totrue
on your directive to have a new child scope that will inherit from it's ancestors.