<script type="text/x-handlebars">
<div class="wrapper">
<div class="sideMenu">
{{#link-to 'home'}}Home{{/link-to}}
{{#link-to 'posts'}}Posts{{/link-to}}
</div>
<div class="content">
{{outlet}}
</div>
</div>
</script>
I am new to ember js. How can I add a class on 'content' class each time when view changes.
We do something like this:
Ember.Route.reopen({
activate: function() {
var cssClass = this.toCssClass();
// you probably don't need the application class
// to be added to the body
if (cssClass !== 'application') {
Ember.$('body').addClass(cssClass);
}
},
deactivate: function() {
Ember.$('body').removeClass(this.toCssClass());
},
toCssClass: function() {
return this.routeName.replace(/\./g, '-').dasherize();
}
});
It would add a class to the body (in your case just use content), that is the same as the current route.
#torazaburo had some excellent points about #Asgaroth (accepted) answer, but I liked the idea of not having to write this same functionality over and over again. So, what I am providing below is a hybrid of the two solutions plus my own two cents and I believe it addresses #torazaburo concerns regarding the accepted answer.
Let's start with the 2nd point:
I also don't like the idea of polluting Ember.Route
Can you pollute Ember.Route without polluting Ember.Route? (Huh?) Absolutely! :) Instead of overwriting activate, we can write our own function and tell it to run .on(activate) This way, our logic is run, but we are not messing with the built-in/inherited activate hook.
The accepted answer is very procedural, imperative, jQuery-ish, and un-Ember-like.
I have to agree with this as well. In the accepted answer, we are abandoning Ember's data binding approach and instead fall back on the jQuery. Not only that, we then have to have more code in the deactivate to "clean up the mess".
So, here is my approach:
Ember.Route.reopen({
setContentClass: function(){
this.controllerFor('application').set("path", this.routeName.dasherize());
}.on('activate')
});
We add our own method to the Ember.Route class without overwriting activate hook. All the method is doing is setting a path property on the application controller.
Then, inside application template, we can bind to that property:
<div {{bind-attr class=":content path"}}>
{{outlet}}
</div>
Working solution here
Just bind the currentPath property on the application controller to the class of the element in the template:
<div {{bind-attr class=":content currentPath"}}>
{{outlet}}
</div>
In case you're not familiar with the {{bind-attr class= syntax in Ember/Handlebars:
the class name preceded with a colon (:content) is always added to the element
properties such as currentPath result in the current value of that property being inserted as a class, and are kept dynamically updated
To be able to access currentPath in a template being driven by a controller other than the application controller, first add
needs: ['application']
to the controller, which makes the application controller available under the name controllers.application, for use in the bind-attr as follows:
<div {{bind-attr class=":content controllers.application.currentPath"}}>
You may use currentRouteName instead of or in addition to currentPath if that works better for you.
The class name added will be dotted, such as uploads.index. You can refer to that in your CSS by escaping the dot, as in
.uploads\.index { }
Or, if you would prefer dasherized, add a property to give the dasherized path, such as
dasherizedCurrentPath: function() {
return this.('currentPath').replace(/\./g, '-');
}.property('currentPath')
<div {{bind-attr class=":content dasherizedCurrentPath"}}>
This has been tested in recent versions of ember-cli.
Related
How can I can concatenate strings( or how to add classes ) on templates on EmberJs?
ex.
<script type="text/x-handlebars">
// This div I want to add a class go, Is this the right way to do it?
<div class="fly {{isGo}}">Fly now</div>
// Or it's something like this?
<div class="fly "{{isGo}} >Fly now</div>
</script>
bind-attr used to be a good way of working around a limitation within Ember's rendering. Now with HTMLbars Ember has recommend that we move away from bind-attr as we have more powerful methods.
Ember 1.13 deprecated bind-attr in favor of the new syntax.
http://emberjs.com/deprecations/v1.x/#toc_bind-attr
Working example of the two proposed methods can be seen in action on ember twiddle ,here:
https://ember-twiddle.com/38f69f01d2fd994af3b0965f10882005?openFiles=templates.application.hbs%2C
Method 1
If you want to do the combination inside your handlebars template you could do something like:
<div class={{concat "fly " isGo}}>Fly now</div>
Method 2
otherwise use a computed property like:
flyingClass: Ember.computed('isGo', function() {
// return a string with 'fly' and the value of
// isGo. Will be updated if isGo changes.
// Array values are created with space delimited by
// ['className', 'anotherClassName', 'lastClastName'].join(' ');
// => "className anotherClassName lastClassName"
let going = this.get('isGo') ? 'going' : ''
return ['fly', going].join(' ');
})
and then in your handlebars template:
<div class={{flyingClass}}>Fly now</div>
The main difference between the two methods depends on how you want your separation of concerns. Right now it might be easier to just do Method 1, but as conditions get more complicated you could hide more of the work in the computed property.
There is a complete discussion of this in the Ember guide: http://emberjs.com/guides/templates/binding-element-class-names/
But you'd do it like this:
<div {{bind-attr class="isGo"}}>Fly now</div>
And in your controller:
App.MyController = Ember.ObjectController.extend({
flightIsAGo: true,
isGo: function() {
return "fly"+this.get('flightIsAGo') ? ' isGo' : '';
}.property('flightIsAGo')
}
I'm really struggling to understand the routing concept in Ember but is more complicate than what it seem. From the doc. you can see you have different route whenever there is different url or path and if you have different path in the same url, easy you just need to create a nested template.
But what about when you have 3 different path in one url?
And what's the difference from this.resource and this.route?
Since live example are always better than pure theory, here my app.
In index or '/' I should render "list template", "new template" and when user click on a list link, the "note template" is render instead "new template".
My router:
Notes.Router.map(function () {
this.resource('index', { path: '/' }, function (){
this.resource('list', {path: ':note_title'});
this.resource('new', {path: '/'});
this.resource('note', { path: ':note_id' });
});
});
My template:
<script type="text/x-handlebars" data-template-name="index">
<div class="wrap">
<div class="bar">
{{input type="text" class="search" placeholder="Where is my bookmark??" value=search action="query"}}
<div class="bar-buttons">
<button {{action "addNote"}}> NEW </button>
</div>
</div>
{{outlet}}
</div>
</script>
<script type="text/x-handlebars" data-template-name="list">
<aside>
<h4 class="all-notes">All Notes {{length}}</h4>
{{#each item in model}}
<li>
{{#link-to 'note' item}} {{item.title}} {{/link-to}}
</li>
{{/each}}
</aside>
</script>
<script type="text/x-handlebars" data-template-name="new">
<section>
<div class="note">
{{input type="text" placeholder="Title" value=newTitle action="createNote"}}
<div class="error" id="error" style="display:none"> Fill in the Title! </div>
{{input type="text" placeholder="What you need to remember?" value=newBody action="createNote"}}
{{input type="text" placeholder="Url:" value=newUrl action="createNote"}}
</div>
</section>
</script>
<script type="text/x-handlebars" data-template-name="note">
<section>
<div class="note">
{{#if isEditing}}
<h2 class="note-title input-title"> {{edit-input-note value=title focus-out="modified" insert-newline="modified"}} </h2>
<p class="input-body"> {{edit-area-note value=body focus-out="modified" insert-newline="modified"}} </p>
{{edit-input-note value=url focus-out="modified" insert-newline="modified"}}
{{else}}
<h2 {{action "editNote" on="doubleClick"}} class="note-title" > {{title}} </h2>
<button {{action "removeNote"}} class="delete"> Delete </button>
<p {{action "editNote" on="doubleClick"}}> {{body}} </p>
{{input type="text" placeholder="URL:" class="input" value=url }}
{{/if}}
</div>
</section>
</script>
Or here the Js Bin: http://jsbin.com/oWeLuvo/1/edit?html,js,output
If my controllers or model are needed I will add that code as well.
thanks in advance
Your example seems to be working.
You just miss dependencies. You haven't included Handlebars and Ember.data
If you'd have checked your javascript console, you'd have seen the error thrown.
working example: http://jsbin.com/oWeLuvo/2/
In Ember a resource and a route are both routes. They have two names in order for Ember to differentiate between what is a resource and a route. In all honesty to remember that they are both routes and to keep your sanity you could refer to them respectively as a 'resource route' and a 'route'. A resource can be nested and have children resources or routes nested within them. Routes on the other hand cannot have nested anything.
Install the Ember Inspector if you are not already using it. It is a chrome extension and will help you with routes, controllers, templates, data and alot of other things with Ember, that you install into the Chrome Web Browser. The last that I heard the Ember Inspector is available in the FireFox Dev Tools as well. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ember-inspector/bmdblncegkenkacieihfhpjfppoconhi?hl=en
So if have a resource, you can nest a resource, and a route. The nested resources will preserve their name space, routes will get appended to nested name space. Remember you can not nest anything within a route.
App.Router.map(function() {
//creating a resource
this.resource('foo', {path: 'somePathYouPut'}, function() {
//nesting stuff inside of the resource above
//could open another nest level here in bar if you want
this.resource('bar');
//can not nest in route. Sad face. Sorry
this.route('zoo');
});
});
Since you can not nest anything into a route your {{outlet}} in the index template does not have any children to look for and by default and render into that {{outlet}}. I believe that is what you think is going to happen.
<script type="text/x-handlebars" data-template-name="index">
<div class="wrap">
<div class="bar">
{{input type="text" class="search"
placeholder="Where is my bookmark??" value=search action="query"}}
<div class="bar-buttons">
<button {{action "addNote"}}> NEW </button>
</div>
</div>
{{outlet}}
</div>
</script>
In your code you referred to the index as a resource, its a route. Since the index is a route, remember you can not nest elements within a route, your code should have looked more like this. Also your resource 'new' path / can be removed as well.
Notes.Router.map(function () {
//this is a route not a resource you had it as resource
//and tried to nest in your code
this.route('index', { path: '/' });
this.resource('list', {path: ':note_title'});
this.resource('new');
this.resource('note', { path: ':note_id' });
});
You get an index at each nested level starting with the top most level which comes from the application level but you don't have to explicitly define them in the Router they are just there. The index route that you get for free at each nested level is associated with its immediate parent by default and render into its parents 'outlet' by default. You could think of the Router looking something like this.
For Illustrative purposes only:
Notes.Router.map(function() {
//think of this as your application level stuff that Ember just does!!
//this is not written like this but to illustrate what is going on
//you would get application template, ApplicationRoute, ApplicationController
this.resource('application', function() {
//this is an index that you get for free cause its nested
//its that index template, IndexController, and IndexRoute you were using
this.route('index', { path: '/' });
this.resource('foo', {path: 'somePathYouPutHere' }, function() {
//since you started another nested level surprise you get another `index`
//but this one is `foo/index` template.
this.route('index', {path: '/'});
this.route('zoo');
});
});
});
The first part of the above exaggerated router example, Ember does automatically behind the scenes, its part of the 'magic' you hear about. It does two things it sets up an Application environment for its self and you get ApplicationRoute, ApplicationController, and a application template which are always there behind the scene. Second it makes that index and you get IndexController, IndexRoute, and a index template that you can use or ignore. So if you do nothing else, no other code that declaring and Ember App in a file like var App = Ember.Application.create(); and open the Ember Inspector and look into routes you will see the above mentioned assets.
Now, the resource foo in the above router is an example of a resource you would make and as you see you get an index in there because you started to nest. As mentioned above you do not have to define the index at each nest level, this.route('index', {path: '/'}); from inside foo could be totally omitted and Ember will still do the same thing. You will end up with foo/index template, FooIndexRoute, FooIndexController along with the expected foo template, FooRoute, and FooController. You can think of thefooindex as a place that says 'hey' before anything else gets rolled into my parentfoo` and gets rendered I can show something if you want, use me.
This is also a good time to highlight what happens with namespace when you nest route in a resource like this.route('zoo') in the above example. The namespace of the route zoo is now going to be appended to resource foo and you end up with foo/zoo template, FooZooRoute and a FooZooController.
If you were to change zoo to a resource nested in the foo resource this.resource('zoo'); the namespace will be keep for zoo. You will end up with 'zoo' template, ZooRoute and a ZooController. The namespace is kept. Ok, enough side tracking what about your App.
You said that you wanted / url of your app to render the list template. In order to accomplish that you have to override the default behavior that happens when Ember boots up. You override the top level / by adding the {path: '/'} to the first resource or route in the Router. From the fake router code above the first index route you get is associate with the application. By default if you do nothing Ember will push that index template into the application template. However that is not what you want you want your list template to be pushed into the application template when you hit the base url of /' for your App.
Notes.Router.map(function() {
this.resource('list', {path: '/'});
this.resource('new');
this.resource('note', { path: ':note_id' });
});
By adding the code {path: '/'} to the first resource like I did above, you are now telling Ember 'hey' when my app url reaches the base url of / or when you boot up use my list template not your default index template and render that into the application template. In addition since the other resources are not nested when your App transitions to those routes via the url they will blow out whats in the application template {{outlet}} and replace themselves in there.
You mentioned about defining a "path" in a route what that does is tell Ember how you want to represent that route in the url. In the above example if you leave the new resource as is, Ember by default will use the routes name as the path, the url would be /new. You can put any name in path for the new resource, this.resource(new, {path :'emberMakesMeKingOfWorld'}); and that name will be represented in the url as /emberMakesMeKingOfWorld and that long thing will still be associated with you new route. Your user might be confused what this url means but behind the scence you would know its tied to your new route. Its just an example but probably good practice to use descriptive names so your user knows what hitting a url in your App is meant to do.
After overriding the default index template that is associated with the application. I moved your code into the application template. The reason for that it seemed as though you wanted that bar with the 'newNote' action to be present all the time. If you want something present all the time in your App, like a navigation bar, footer, im sure you can think of better stuff, place it in the application template.
Here is a JSBIN and I adjusted you code a little
http://jsbin.com/oWeLuvo/8
I hope this helps Happy Coding.
I'd like to create a dynamic classname on an object with a value I'm getting from my model. One of the keys is named provider which contains either "twitter" or "facebook". What I'd like to do is to prepend the string "icon-" to the provider so that the resulting class is icon-twitter or icon-facebook.
This is the code that I've got now.
<i {{bindAttr class=":avatar-icon account.provider"}}></i>
Ember offers a way to include a static string within the attribute by prepending : to it. You can see that I'm also adding a class called avatar-icon in this example. I've already tried :icon-account.provider which simply resulted in the literal string "icon-account.provider".
RESPONSE
Nice one. I'm working on a solution similar to your answer right now. Question though: this view will be used within the context of an each loop. How would I pass in the current item to be used within the view? I have this right now:
{{#each account in controller}}
{{#view "Social.AccountButtonView"}}
<i {{bindAttr class="account.provider"}}></i>
{{/view}}
{{/each}}
Is it possible to just do this:
{{#view "Social.AccountButtonView" account="account"}}
?
I have previously stated that attributeBindings would be a suitable solution for this, but I was mistaken. When binding the class attribute of a given View, as pointed out, you should use classNames or classNameBindings. Please refer to the sample below:
App.ApplicationView = Em.View.extend({
provider: 'Facebook',
classNameBindings: 'providerClass',
providerClass: function() {
return 'icon-avatar icon-%#'.fmt(this.get('provider').toLowerCase());
}.property('provider')
});
This will render the following HTML:
<div id="ember212" class="ember-view icon-avatar icon-facebook">
<h1>App</h1>
</div>
Here's a fiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/schawaska/HH9Sk/
(Note: The fiddle is linking to a version of Ember.js earlier than RC)
The problem is as follows:
In our application we have several buttons, navigation icons etc., which we want to be 'selected' when they have been clicked. We can have multiple elements marked at the same time.
The secondary reason for me wanting to do this is that when I read the new Guides on emberjs.com I get the feeling that templates should be used more than stated before and that templates should have the responsibility of rendering the DOM, while the views should be used to handle sophisticated events (if any) or to create common/shared components to be reused in the application.
Currently the view is handling this:
app.NavView = Ember.CollectionView.extend({
...
itemViewClass: Ember.View.extend({
...
classNameBindings: ['isSelected:selected']
isSelected: function () {
return this.get('controller.selected') === this.get('content');
}.property('controller.selected')
})
});
But that is all the View basically is doing, I would like to drop the entire View and just use a template for this
I have tried with a template approach, and dropped the entire View concept.
<div id="main-menu">
{{#each content}}
<div {{bindAttr class="controller.isSelected:selected"}}>
{{{iconsvg}}}
{{name}}
</div>
{{/each}}
</div>
But my problem here of course is that bindAttr doesn't know about the context it’s in, and cannot 'send' this to the isSelected property on the controller to evaluate if it is this element that is selected or not.
Is there a good solution to do this without a view, or am I forced to use a view?
Or am I thinking the design part and responsibility of Templates/views/controllers wrong?
Any response is appreciated!
In the current documentation: http://emberjs.com/guides/templates/displaying-a-list-of-items/ there is a mention explaining how to use the {{each}} helper which doesn't override the current context.
In your case, this would be something like:
<div id="main-menu">
{{#each item in controller}}
<div {{bindAttr class="isSelected:selected"}}>
{{{item.iconsvg}}}
{{item.name}}
</div>
{{/each}}
</div>
Note I have remove the reference to 'controller' in the {{bindAttr}} since I assume it's an ember controller, then it's the current context, so basically isSelected is equivalent to controller.isSelected
There are numerous questions that ask in one way or another: "How do I do something after some part of a view is rendered?" (here, here, and here just to give a few). The answer is usually:
use didInsertElement to run code when a view is initially rendered.
use Ember.run.next(...) to run your code after the view changes are flushed, if you need to access the DOM elements that are created.
use an observer on isLoaded or a similar property to do something after the data you need is loaded.
What's irritating about this is, it leads to some very clumsy looking things like this:
didInsertElement: function(){
content.on('didLoad', function(){
Ember.run.next(function(){
// now finally do my stuff
});
});
}
And that doesn't really even necessarily work when you're using ember-data because isLoaded may already be true (if the record has already been loaded before and is not requested again from the server). So getting the sequencing right is hard.
On top of that, you're probably already watching isLoaded in your view template like so:
{{#if content.isLoaded}}
<input type="text" id="myTypeahead" data-provide="typeahead">
{{else}}
<div>Loading data...</div>
{{/if}}
and doing it again in your controller seems like duplication.
I came up with a slightly novel solution, but it either needs work or is actually a bad idea...either case could be true:
I wrote a small Handlebars helper called {{fire}} that will fire an event with a custom name when the containing handlebars template is executed (i.e. that should be every time the subview is re-rendered, right?).
Here is my very early attempt:
Ember.Handlebars.registerHelper('fire', function (evtName, options) {
if (typeof this[evtName] == 'function') {
var context = this;
Ember.run.next(function () {
context[evtName].apply(context, options);
});
}
});
which is used like so:
{{#if content.isLoaded}}
{{fire typeaheadHostDidRender}}
<input type="text" id="myTypeahead" data-provide="typeahead">
{{else}}
<div>Loading data...</div>
{{/if}}
This essentially works as is, but it has a couple of flaws I know of already:
It calls the method on the controller...it would probably be better to at least be able to send the "event" to the ancestor view object instead, perhaps even to make that the default behavior. I tried {{fire typeaheadHostDidRender target="view"}} and that didn't work. I can't see yet how to get the "current" view from what gets passed into the helper, but obviously the {{view}} helper can do it.
I'm guessing there is a more formal way to trigger a custom event than what I'm doing here, but I haven't learned that yet. jQuery's .trigger() doesn't seem to work on controller objects, though it may work on views. Is there an "Ember" way to do this?
There could be things I don't understand, like a case where this event would be triggered but the view wasn't in fact going to be added to the DOM...?
As you might be able to guess, I'm using Bootstrap's Typeahead control, and I need to wire it after the <input> is rendered, which actually only happens after several nested {{#if}} blocks evaluate to true in my template. I also use jqPlot, so I run into the need for this pattern a lot. This seems like a viable and useful tool, but it could be I'm missing something big picture that makes this approach dumb. Or maybe there's another way to do this that hasn't shown up in my searches?
Can someone either improve this approach for me or tell me why it's a bad idea?
UPDATE
I've figured a few of the bits out:
I can get the first "real" containing view with options.data.view.get('parentView')...obvious perhaps, but I didn't think it would be that simple.
You actually can do a jQuery-style obj.trigger(evtName) on any arbitrary object...but the object must extend the Ember.Evented mixin! So that I suppose is the correct way to do this kind of event sending in Ember. Just make sure the intended target extends Ember.Evented (views already do).
Here's the improved version so far:
Ember.Handlebars.registerHelper('fire', function (evtName, options) {
var view = options.data.view;
if (view.get('parentView')) view = view.get('parentView');
var context = this;
var target = null;
if (typeof view[evtName] == 'function') {
target = view;
} else if (typeof context[evtName] == 'function') {
target = context;
} else if (view.get('controller') && typeof view.get('controller')[evtName] == 'function') {
target = view.get('controller');
}
if (target) {
Ember.run.next(function () {
target.trigger(evtName);
});
}
});
Now just about all I'm missing is figuring out how to pass in the intended target (e.g. the controller or view--the above code tries to guess). Or, figuring out if there's some unexpected behavior that breaks the whole concept.
Any other input?
UPDATED
Updated for Ember 1.0 final, I'm currently using this code on Ember 1.3.1.
Okay, I think I got it all figured out. Here's the "complete" handlebars helper:
Ember.Handlebars.registerHelper('trigger', function (evtName, options) {
// See http://stackoverflow.com/questions/13760733/ember-js-using-a-handlebars-helper-to-detect-that-a-subview-has-rendered
// for known flaws with this approach
var options = arguments[arguments.length - 1],
hash = options.hash,
hbview = options.data.view,
concreteView, target, controller, link;
concreteView = hbview.get('concreteView');
if (hash.target) {
target = Ember.Handlebars.get(this, hash.target, options);
} else {
target = concreteView;
}
Ember.run.next(function () {
var newElements;
if(hbview.morph){
newElements = $('#' + hbview.morph.start).nextUntil('#' + hbview.morph.end)
} else {
newElements = $('#' + hbview.get('elementId')).children();
}
target.trigger(evtName, concreteView, newElements);
});
});
I changed the name from {{fire}} to {{trigger}} to more closely match Ember.Evented/jQuery convention. This updated code is based on the built-in Ember {{action}} helper, and should be able to accept any target="..." argument in your template, just as {{action}} does. Where it differs from {{action}} is (besides firing automatically when the template section is rendered):
Sends the event to the view by default. Sending to the route or controller by default wouldn't make as much sense, as this should probably primarily be used for view-centric actions (though I often use it to send events to a controller).
Uses Ember.Evented style events, so for sending an event to an arbitrary non-view object (including a controller) the object must extend Ember.Evented, and must have a listener registered. (To be clear, it does not call something in the actions: {…} hash!)
Note that if you send an event to an instance of Ember.View, all you have to do is implement a method by the same name (see docs, code). But if your target is not a view (e.g. a controller) you must register a listener on the object with obj.on('evtName', function(evt){...}) or the Function.prototype.on extension.
So here's a real-world example. I have a view with the following template, using Ember and Bootstrap:
<script data-template-name="reportPicker" type="text/x-handlebars">
<div id="reportPickerModal" class="modal show fade">
<div class="modal-header">
<button type="button" class="close" data-dissmis="modal" aria-hidden="true">×</button>
<h3>Add Metric</h3>
</div>
<div class="modal-body">
<div class="modal-body">
<form>
<label>Report Type</label>
{{view Ember.Select
viewName="selectReport"
contentBinding="reportTypes"
selectionBinding="reportType"
prompt="Select"
}}
{{#if reportType}}
<label>Subject Type</label>
{{#unless subjectType}}
{{view Ember.Select
viewName="selectSubjectType"
contentBinding="subjectTypes"
selectionBinding="subjectType"
prompt="Select"
}}
{{else}}
<button class="btn btn-small" {{action clearSubjectType target="controller"}}>{{subjectType}} <i class="icon-remove"></i></button>
<label>{{subjectType}}</label>
{{#if subjects.isUpdating}}
<div class="progress progress-striped active">
<div class="bar" style="width: 100%;">Loading subjects...</div>
</div>
{{else}}
{{#if subject}}
<button class="btn btn-small" {{action clearSubject target="controller"}}>{{subject.label}} <i class="icon-remove"></i></button>
{{else}}
{{trigger didRenderSubjectPicker}}
<input id="subjectPicker" type="text" data-provide="typeahead">
{{/if}}
{{/if}}
{{/unless}}
{{/if}}
</form>
</div>
</div>
<div class="modal-footer">
Cancel
Add
</div>
</div>
</script>
I needed to know when this element was available in the DOM, so I could attach a typeahead to it:
<input id="subjectPicker" type="text" data-provide="typeahead">
So, I put a {{trigger}} helper in the same block:
{{#if subject}}
<button class="btn btn-small" {{action clearSubject target="controller"}}>{{subject.label}} <i class="icon-remove"></i></button>
{{else}}
{{trigger didRenderSubjectPicker}}
<input id="subjectPicker" type="text" data-provide="typeahead">
{{/if}}
And then implemented didRenderSubjectPicker in my view class:
App.ReportPickerView = Ember.View.extend({
templateName: 'reportPicker',
didInsertElement: function () {
this.get('controller').viewDidLoad(this);
}
,
didRenderSubjectPicker: function () {
this.get('controller').wireTypeahead();
$('#subjectPicker').focus();
}
});
Done! Now the typeahead gets wired when (and only when) the sub-section of the template is finally rendered. Note the difference in utility, didInsertElement is used when the main (or perhaps "concrete" is the proper term) view is rendered, while didRenderSubjectPicker is run when the sub-section of the view is rendered.
If I wanted to send the event directly to the controller instead, I'd just change the template to read:
{{trigger didRenderSubjectPicker target=controller}}
and do this in my controller:
App.ReportPickerController = Ember.ArrayController.extend({
wireTypeahead: function(){
// I can access the rendered DOM elements here
}.on("didRenderSubjectPicker")
});
Done!
The one caveat is that this may happen again when the view sub-section is already on screen (for example if a parent view is re-rendered). But in my case, running the typeahead initialization again is fine anyway, and it would be pretty easy to detect and code around if need be. And this behavior may be desired in some cases.
I'm releasing this code as public domain, no warranty given or liability accepted whatsoever. If you want to use this, or the Ember folks want to include it in the baseline, go right ahead! (Personally I think that would be a great idea, but that's not surprising.)