$compile throws error inconsistently if isolated-scope directive's priority is set/unset #4402

buunguyen · 2013-10-14T02:33:46Z

This bit me today. Assume having this directive:

app.directive('dir', function() {
  return {
    priority: 1, 
    scope: {},
    link: function() {}
  }
});

And controller:

<body ng-controller="MainCtrl" dir>
  <p>Hello {{name}}!</p>
</body>

The app will fail with:

Error: [$compile:multidir] Multiple directives [dir, ngController] asking for isolated scope on: <body ng-controller="MainCtrl" dir="" class="ng-isolate-scope ng-scope">

However, removing priority in the directive or set it to 0, the error disappears. Plunker is here: http://plnkr.co/edit/nElgQQklbiLlD9vuvRov?p=preview.

This is caused by this line: https://github.com/angular/angular.js/blob/master/src/ng/compile.js#L802

Is this intentional or a bug? If it's intentional, shouldn't it fail regardless of directives' priority? I can submit a PR if this is a bug.

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

petebacondarwin · 2013-10-14T05:07:25Z

This does seem like a bug since either we block all cases where two or more directives request a new scope or new scopes can live beside a single isolated scope.

buunguyen · 2013-10-14T16:32:17Z

I looked at 1.0.8 and noticed the same issue. The following is the behavior:

If multiple directives in an element ask for new scope (i.e. scope: true), only one scope is created and shared by all
If multiple directives in an element ask for new isolated scope => error
If one directive asks for isolated scope and others ask for new scope: this is the when the inconsistency happens:
- If the isolated-scope-asking directive is applied before all new-scope-asking directives: error
- If the isolated-scope-asking directive is applied after all new-scope-asking directives: all share the isolated scope, no error

The first 2 items should be fine, I think developers wouldn't be surprised when learning about them. For the third item, $compile should pick one path or another regardless of directive declaration order and priority.

Among the 2 choices, I think the error makes more sense. This is because when a directive asks for a new (but not isolated) scope, it might need to access properties of the parent scope. Using the isolated scope will break that directive. So it's better to fail fast.

What do you think?

… applied before isolated-scope directive Given dirA, which requests new scope, and dirB, which requests new & isolated scope. If dirA is applied *after* dirB, $compile reports an error ('Multiple directives [dirB, dirA] asking for new/isolated scope'), which is expected. However, if dirA is applied *before* dirB, e.g. because dirA has high priority, then no error is thrown. This is the inconsistency. Plus, dirA ends up sharing the isolated scope created for dirB, which may break dirA because it might need to access to parent scope's members. This fix addresses this situation by throwing error regardless of order of directive application. Closes angular#4402

buunguyen mentioned this issue Oct 15, 2013

fix($compile): fix missing error handling when new-scope directive is applied before isolated-scope directive #4421

Closed

petebacondarwin closed this as completed in 2cde927 Jun 10, 2014

sbialy mentioned this issue Mar 24, 2015

fix for #11343 - bindToController for multiple directives #11345

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

$compile throws error inconsistently if isolated-scope directive's priority is set/unset #4402

$compile throws error inconsistently if isolated-scope directive's priority is set/unset #4402

buunguyen commented Oct 14, 2013

petebacondarwin commented Oct 14, 2013

buunguyen commented Oct 14, 2013

$compile throws error inconsistently if isolated-scope directive's priority is set/unset #4402

$compile throws error inconsistently if isolated-scope directive's priority is set/unset #4402

Comments

buunguyen commented Oct 14, 2013

petebacondarwin commented Oct 14, 2013

buunguyen commented Oct 14, 2013