I wrote a directive for dialogs (myPopup) and another one for dragging this dialog (myDraggable), but I allways get the error:
Multiple directives [m
A DOM element is creating a collision with your attempted isolate scopes. Therefore, you should always ask yourself if an isolate scope is needed.
Consider removing the isolate scope on myDraggable
, interpolating the myDraggable value (like you did with isDraggable), and accessing the attribute in the link
function.
<div class="draggable" my-draggable="{{isDraggable}}">I am draggable {{isDraggable}}</div>
...
replace: false,
link: function (scope, elm, attrs) {
var startX, startY, initialMouseX, initialMouseY,
enabled = attrs.myDraggable === 'true';
if (enabled === true) {
...
See your updated Plunker here and notice the change in the myPopup template.
If you want to see the myDraggable attribute changes then implement something like:
attrs.$observe('myDraggable', function(iVal) {
enabled = iVal === 'true';
// AND/OR
if (iVal === 'true') doSomething();
});
See Angular Attribute Docs $observe function
There is a way to work around it.
You will not isolate scope of the directive, instead of it, we will create a new isolated scope using $new method . This method creates a new child scope, if you use true at 1st parameter it will create an isolated scope:
If true, then the scope does not prototypically inherit from the parent scope. The scope is isolated, as it can not see parent >scope properties. When creating widgets, it is useful for the widget to not accidentally read parent state.
But it isn't a problem because we have access to private scope by the directive link function, so is possible to work parallel with "parent" and isolated scope into a very close behavior of a directive with an isolated scope.
Se the example bellow:
app.directive('myDraggable', ['$document',
function ($document) {
return {
restrict: 'A',
replace: false,
scope: false,
//scope: { enabled: '=myDraggable', oneWayAttr: "@" }, //Just for reference I introduced a new
link: function(parentScope, elem, attr) {
var scope = parentScope.$new(true); //Simulated isolation.
scope.oneWayAttr = attr.oneWayAttr; //one-way binding @
scope.myDraggable = parentScope.$parent.$eval(attr.myDraggable);
scope.watchmyDraggable = function () {
return scope.myDraggable = parentScope.$parent.$eval(attr.myDraggable); //parent -> isolatedscope
};
scope.$watch(scope.watchmyDraggable, function(newValue, oldValue) {
//(...)
});
parentScope.innerScope = scope; //If you need view access, you must create a kind of symbolic link to it.
//(...)
}
I developed this work around to a validation directive, that's works very well.
I ran into a similar situation. If it doesn't mess up your layout and you definitely need to have an isolate scope on both directives, my suggestion would be to remove the property replace: true
from the myPopup directive definition.
Leave out scope: { enabled: '=myDraggable' } from your "myDraggable"-directive you don't need it. So:
return {
restrict: 'A',
replace: false,
link: function (scope, elm, attrs) {
From docs:
Example scenarios of multiple incompatible directives applied to the same element include:
Multiple directives requesting isolated scope.
Multiple directives publishing a controller under the same name.
Multiple directives declared with the transclusion option.
Multiple directives attempting to define a template or templateURL.
Try removing isolate scope on myDraggable
's directive:
app.directive('myDraggable', ['$document',
function ($document) {
return {
restrict: 'A',
replace: false,
scope: { enabled: '=myDraggable' }, //remove this line
Replace scope.enabled
with attrs.enabled
:
if (attrs.enabled == "true") {
And modify your template to bind the enable attribute:
<div my-draggable="draggable" enabled="{{draggable}}"
DEMO
I have included my directive js file twice when I compressed my app. This caused the error.