Angular have problems with Object.prototype

[Akxe]

The bug stated (and is not yet fixed as of 1.3.6) when upgraded from 1.3.0-rc.0 to 1.3.0-rc.1. Sorry to report this late, but I couldn't figure it out.
The bug is easily reproduced by:
Object.prototype.x = function(){};

I think this is a bug, since prevent the user from using prototypes.

[caitp]

1.3.0-rc.1 is ancient, numerous similar bugs have since been fixed. Please try with 1.3.6 and report back =)

[Akxe]

Well updated the original issue, the bug still persists.

[caitp]

okay, we're releasing today and there was one more fix for this that landed recently (I think it landed anyway...), so you might want to try 1.3.7 in a few hours --- in the mean time, please provide a minimal reproduction of your bug with v1.3.6

[Akxe]

Took original plunker from AngularJS - form added 1 line (14.) and error exist (edited plunker)

[caitp]

Okay, so unrelated to filtering --- that doesn't make a lot of sense though.

[caitp]

I am not sure exactly why this is happening, because all iterations over $error seems to be in forEach(), which checks for own properties --- but it is fixed by using createMap() when initializing $error. I'll send a PR

[Akxe]

I saw it is work in progress, I would like to ask how is it going... I can't really do much else

[enigma1]

I am not sure why this is a bug. From what I see you set the native prototype with an enumerable property. This means any object now has the property x and this property can be enumerated.
If you want to see the angular error try the equivalent:

Object.defineProperty(Object.prototype, "x", {enumerable: true})

[Akxe]

I have updated plunker to 1.4.0-beta.0. http://plnkr.co/edit/ZDKnJJAOsng5dBlPv7s7?p=preview

[realityking]

Honestly, I don't think it can be expected that code work with enumerable properties on a built in prototype. Especially modifying Object.prototype can cause all kinds of "interesting" issues.

The easiest fix would be to declare the method in the following way:

Object.defineProperty(Object.prototype.x, 'x', {
  value: function(){},
  writable: true,
  configurable: true
});

[Akxe]

Well it is a working workaround, but forcing people to use different syntax isn't a really good solution to problem.

[realityking]

Just to be clear, this is a best practice (see for example here) and not specific to Angular. Extending Object.prototype is dangerous but extending it with a enumerable method is just asking for trouble.

To a lesser extend the same holds true for Array.prototype, Date.prototype and all other build-ins.

[Akxe]

Allright, I'll redo it, but it should be noted in the docs too.