As I understad, a template in emberjs gets it's data from controller. So, it's a controller's job to get hold of model data and present it to the template.
The docs here associate a model with a route like this:
App.FavoritesRoute = Ember.Route.extend({
model: function() {
// the model is an Array of all of the posts
return App.Post.find();
}
});
In this case and ArrayController is automatically generated.
However, there's also the setupController function. So, can we also do this :
App.FavoritesRoute = Ember.Route.extend({
setupController: function(controller) {
controller.set('model', App.Post.find());
}
});
as the first example given here do?
Do the two ways do the same thing?
Do the two ways do the same thing?
Almost. In both cases the controller's content property will be set to the result of App.Post.find(). And both will work.
That said, using the model hook is the preferred way to do this. If your model hook returns a promise, the router will wait for it to resolve before moving on. That is not the case with the setupController hook. generally you will want to avoid anything async from the setupController hook.
Related
In my Ember application, I wanted to have a controller wrapping a collection of models, that I could inject into other controllers.
I've set it up like this:
app/controllers/zones.js:
export default Ember.Controller.extend({
model: function () {
return this.store.find('zone');
}
});
app/controllers/zones/index.js:
export default Ember.Controller.extend({
needs: ['zones'],
zones: Ember.computed.alias('controllers.zones.model')
});
This seems like it ought to work, but unfortunately, it doesn't. I get this error in my JavaScript console (in the browser):
Error: Assertion Failed: The value that #each loops over must be an Array. You passed function () {
"use strict";
return this.store.find('zone');
}
I've tried moving stuff around, or using ArrayController rather than just Controller, but I still get this error.
This makes very little sense to me, any ideas?
Here is the thing, model is the function need to resolve the model for route not controller. That model then automatically injected to controllers model property.
Ember way
In ember way I would suggest move this model definition to the route for controller. Something like this.
export default Ember.Route.extend({
model: function (param) {
return this.store.find('zone');
}
});
This is the Ember way of doing thing. Resolve model in route then have controller to filter / decorate it.
I would also suggest using ArrayController instead of Controller since you are handling number of models.
The other way
Again if you want to have model resolved in controller. I warn you its not the Ember way but you can do it something like this -
export default Ember.ArrayController.extend({
//dont override the model property
mydata: function () {
return this.store.find('zone');
}.property('model'),
});
I figured out the problem – I just needed to set my overridden model implementation to be a property, like this:
app/controllers/zones.js (injected controller):
export default Ember.Controller.extend({
model: function () {
return this.store.find('zone');
}.property() // `.property()` turns the function into an iterable object for use in templates and the like.
});
The main controller is still the same.
app/controllers/zones/index.js (active route controller):
export default Ember.Controller.extend({
needs: ['zones'],
zones: Ember.computed.alias('controllers.zones.model')
});
I have a problem getting the models inside a controller of a route accessed using {{link-to}}
From my understanding (after reading http://emberjs.com/guides/routing/asynchronous-routing/) the model hook of a route doesn't get called when the route is accessed from a {{link-to 'route' model}}. The model is passed directly to the controller. This is a way that Ember ensures that no AJAX called will be made unnecessarily.
For example if I go to {{link-to 'post-review' post}} and I need to pass more than a post model to the PostReviewController.
App.Router.map(function () {
...
this.resource('post-review' , {path: '/post-review/:id'});
...
});
PostReviewRoute = Ember.Route.extend({
//method doesn't get called
model: function(params){
return Em.RSVP.hash({
post: this.store.find('post', params.id),
reviewTypes: this.store.find('reviewType')
});
}
});
The ReviewTypeis a model which has no relationship with Post so that I can access it directly using post.reviewType. A post has several reviews. A review has a reviewType. But I must show all the reviewTypes inside of a combobox.
Anyways, the model hook doesn't get called and I cannot access the this.get('reviewTypes') from PostReviewController. I understand that the beforeModel or afterModel hooks are used for this purpose: to pass additional models to a controller when the route it's accessed from a link-to and not directly from the browser URL. The documentation doesn't show how you can do that! Please enlighten me if you know how!
Thanks!
setupController to the rescue, in your route use the setupController hook to set the reviewTypes like so:
PostReviewRoute = Ember.Route.extend({
setupController: function(controller, model){
var postId = model.get('id');
this._super.apply(this, arguments);
this.store.find('reviewType').then((records)=> {
controller.set('reviewTypes', records);
});
this.store.find('post', postId).then(....)
},
// your code
});
You should now be able to call this.get('reviewTypes').
Let me know if this does it for you.
Working hard on my Ember app here, and it's going along fine. However, I've run into an issue of unexpected behaviour and I'm not sure regarding the best approach to this problem.
The problem is that in a specific route, I want to render another route into another outlet. However, the other route that I render into the other outlet doesn't retain it's own model.
If I do this:
App.TestRoute = Ember.Route.extend({
model: function() {
return {
heading: "Test",
testContent: "This is test."
}
}
});
App.IndexRoute = Ember.Route.extend({
renderTemplate: function() {
this.render("test", {
outlet: "left"
});
this.render({
outlet: "right"
});
},
model: function() {
return {
heading: "Index",
indexContent: "This is index."
}
}
});
... and access the IndexRoute, I would expect the TestRoute's model to be rendered into the TestRoute's template, but only the IndexRoute's model is relayed to both templates.
Fiddle here:
http://jsfiddle.net/3TtGD/1/
How do I allow Ember to use the default model for a route without having to expressively merge them? It seems tedious.
Also, having the same name of some model properties, like {{heading}} is desirable, but not necessary.
What's the best approach for solving this issue?
Thank you for your time.
Best regards,
dimhoLt
In the renderTemplate method you're telling Ember to render a template inside an outlet but it will just default the controller to the one managing the route. Given it's the controller handling the route it makes sense that it manages all the templates within that route.
Of course you can specify a different controller using:
this.render("test", {
outlet: "left",
controller: 'test'
});
it can in turn be a controller you already instantiated (and maybe set its content):
var testController = this.controllerFor('test');
testController.set(....)
this.render("test", {
outlet: "left",
controller: testController
});
About using the model: You can call this.modelFor('test') inside the route and it will return the model of the test route (it even knows if it has already been resolved). I usually do this when I need to access the model of one of the parent routes.
I believe it makes sense to access the model of a parent route, but not so much if you're accessing the model of an unrelated route. Why don't you want to merge both models?
I have a route that loads all my models, and a nested route that allows the user to add a new model.
App.Router.map(function() {
this.resource("foo", {path: "/foo"}, function() {
this.route("add", {path: "/add"});
});
});
My add template looks like this (very basic)
{{input value=wat}}
Here is the linkTo from my index template
{{#linkTo 'foo.add'}}Add A New Model{{/linkTo}}
When I click the add button I simply create the model using $.ajax and transition back to the list route. All works great, until I click the "add" link again.
When the add route loads up the template from above the 2nd time it still shows the "wat" value I entered previously. I was hoping it would not persist any state as each time I "add" a new model it should be unaware of any previous model data.
How can I achieve this with ember 1.1.2+
Update
The approach I took was to reset each element in the setupController method of the route (as this is invoked each time you load the controller).
App.FooAddRoute = Ember.Route.extend({
model: function(params) {
var parentId = 1;
return Ember.Object.create({'bar': parentId});
},
setupController: function(controller, model) {
this._super(controller, model);
controller.set('bazz', '');
}
});
The quick and dirty answer is you want to use a model on the route. If you didn't, you'd have to manually blank out the values on the controller. Ember builds up singleton controllers. This generally is super convenient and very performant.
Singleton controllers keep state. The best way to keep them stateless is to have them backed by a model (return an empty object from the model hook, and don't have the values defined on the controller). By returning something from the model hook it will use an ObjectController (or you'll need to update your code to use an ObjectController on your controller). Then all values will be proxied to the model instead of being stored on the controller.
http://emberjs.jsbin.com/OPaguRU/1/edit
I have a very basic route setup that allows me to first show "all" records for some object. Then if the user selects a dropdown they can filter this down using a date.
I recently upgraded to RC2 and realized that "needs" has replaced or will soon replace controllerFor.
I'm curious how I can use "needs" in the below situation where I need the nested / inner route for "records.date" to change the content for the parent "records" route when a date is selected.
What is missing from below is that inside the App.RecordsDateRoute I need to change the content of the "records" controller to be a new filter (by date this time) and everything I seem to do just dumps the handlebars template and show nothing -even when I try to use something simple like
this.controllerFor("records").set('content', App.Record.find(new Date(model.loaded)))
from within the setupController method of the RecordsDateRoute
App.Router.map(function(match) {
return this.resource("records", { path: "/" }, function() {
return this.route("date", { path: "/:date_loaded" });
});
});
App.RecordsController = Ember.ArrayController.extend({
selected: 0,
dates: Ember.computed(function() {
return App.Date.find();
}).property()
});
App.RecordsIndexRoute = Ember.Route.extend({
model: function() {
this.controllerFor("records").set("selected", 0);
return App.Record.find();
}
});
App.RecordsDateRoute = Ember.Route.extend({
model: function(params) {
//the controllerFor below seems to be working great ... but what about needs?
this.controllerFor("records").set("selected", params.date_loaded);
return App.Date.create({ loaded: params.date_loaded });
}
});
With rc2, instances of other controllers can be retrieved via "controllers.controllerName", in you case it would be this.get('controllers.records').
The "needs" declaration makes the referencing controller sort of import the reference to the other controller; in your case, the date controller would be:
App.RecordsDateRoute = Ember.Route.extend({
needs: ['records'],
model: function(params) {
this.get("controllers.records").set("selected", params.date_loaded);
return App.Date.create({ loaded: params.date_loaded });
}
});
Regarding App.Record.find(new Date(model.loaded)), find() expects an id or an object whose keys and values will be used to filter the collection of models, but you're giving it a Javascript date.
Did you mean App.Record.find(new App.Date(model.loaded)), or maybe something like App.Record.find({ loaded: model.loaded }) /* assuming it's already a Date */?
There is also an initController(controller, model) method in the route called , maybe you could use that instead of "overloading" the model() method with too many responsibilities. http://emberjs.com/api/classes/Ember.Route.html#method_setupController
I recently upgraded to RC2 and realized that "needs" has replaced or will soon replace controllerFor.
To access another controller from route hooks you should continue to use controllerFor. Controller.needs is for communication between controllers, it replaces the now deprecated use of controllerFor method on controllers. AFAIK there is no plan to deprecate controllerFor on ember Routes.
I'm curious how I can use "needs" in the below situation where I need the nested / inner route for "records.date" to change the content for the parent "records" route when a date is selected.
For this use case it would be best to stick with controllerFor. It is possible to use needs this way, by specifying that App.RecordsDateController needs = ['records'] you could access the records controller via controller.get('controllers.records') from within your route's setupController hook.
What is missing from below is that inside the App.RecordsDateRoute I need to change the content of the "records" controller to be a new filter (by date this time) and everything I seem to do just dumps the handlebars template and show nothing -even when I try to use something simple like this.controllerFor("records").set('content', App.Record.find(new Date(model.loaded))) from within the setupController method of the RecordsDateRoute
App.RecordsDateRoute = Ember.Route.extend({
model: function(params) {
return App.Date.create({ loaded: params.date_loaded });
},
setupController: function(controller, model) {
var recordsController = this.controllerFor("records");
// Moved this from model hook, since here you are 'setting up a controller'
recordsController.set("selected", model.date_loaded);
// Set query based on current route's model
var query = { loaded: model.loaded };
recordsController.set("content", App.Record.find(query));
}
});