Add custom attributes to linky

[stianjensen]

Optional extra attributes may be defined either as:

• a map of attributes and values
• a function that takes the url as a parameter and returns a map

[googlebot]

Thanks for your pull request. It looks like this may be your first contribution to a Google open source project, in which case you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA).

📝 Please visit https://cla.developers.google.com/ to sign.

Once you've signed, please reply here (e.g. I signed it!) and we'll verify. Thanks.

---

• If you've already signed a CLA, it's possible we don't have your GitHub username or you're using a different email address. Check your existing CLA data and verify that your email is set on your git commits.
• If you signed the CLA as a corporation, please let us know the company's name.

[stianjensen]

I signed it!

[googlebot]

CLAs look good, thanks!

[lgalfaso]

A test would be nice

[Narretz]

Would it make sense to make the third parameter more powerful - i.e. allowing it to add arbitrary attributes by passing a map or a function that returns a map?

[stianjensen]

I guess that would be even better. I'm sure many would like the option of adding classes to links for instance.

I'll take a stab at changing the parameter.
I guess you still want to keep the target parameter as a dedicated one, just for the sake of backwards compatibility?

[Narretz]

@stianjensen Great! Yes, the target parameter should stay. I imagine the API looking something like this (I haven't checked with the current code though):

• the 3rd parameter is either a map of attributes, or a function that receives the url as a parameter and returns a map.
• if the 2nd parameter is set, and the map contains the target attribute, it overrides it

[stianjensen]

if the 2nd parameter is set, and the map contains the target attribute, it overrides it

The 2nd parameter overrides the target attribute from the map, or the other way around?

Also, am I correct that there is no way you could provide a value for the 3rd parameter without also providing a value for the 2nd parameter?

[stianjensen]

I updated the pull request with support for custom attributes now 😄

[Narretz]

We can use angular.isObject

[stianjensen]

Updated

[campersau]

Can this code duplication be prevented using something like this?

var key;
var computedAttributes = {};
if (angular.isFunction(attributes)) {
  attributes = attributes(url);
}
if (angular.isObject(attributes)) {
  computedAttributes = attributes;
  for (key in computedAttributes) {
    html.push(key + '="' + computedAttributes[key] + '" ');
  }
}

This would also check if the return value from the attributes function is an object.

[stianjensen]

I guess that's a good idea. At first I didn't want to reassign the attributes variable, but the extra check for the return value of attributes as a function, is a compelling case for doing it like this.

[petebacondarwin]

Do we need to use a new variable computedAttributes here?
Can't we just assign attributes = {} in an else block starting at line 177?

[stianjensen]

Good idea, I'll do that!

[petebacondarwin]

Other than those two questions, it LGTM

[stianjensen]

ping

[Narretz]

The generated HTML is sanitized before it is inserted. I'll add a test for that.

[Narretz]

Looks like IE and FF insert the attributes in a different order! (see Travis failures). Looks like we'll have to change these expects to be more robust.

[Narretz]

Landed as 06f002b
thx @stianjensen for working on this!