First and foremost, the plunker: http://plnkr.co/edit/v1uTz5
This is a working demo of the issue I am running into.
I have a ng-include
to inc
ng-include
creates its own scope and it is different than outer scope. Use this.test
instead of $scope.test
inside ng-include
template. It will work properly.
John Lindquist has a video about it. Although he doesn't quite explains why you need to use an object.
Basically every time there is a new non-isolated scope, every property of the parent scope is copied to the new scope and, as @charlietfl explained, copying a primitive type really creates a "copy" but with objects what you get is a reference, hence the changes are global.
Instead of using a primitiive to define the variable, make it an object.
$scope.model={test:''};
Directives create their own scope for each item. When you equate a primitive to a new scope variable, it has no binding to the original, however when original is an object, a reference is created , not a copy, and changes made in one will reflect in the other
Simple explanatory example:
var a ='foo';
var b= a;
/* now change a*/
a='bar';
alert( b) // is still 'foo'
now do the same with object:
var obj_1= {a:'foo'};
var obj_2=obj_1;
/* now change obj_1.a*/
obj_1.a='bar';
alert( obj_2.a) // change to obj_1 will also change obj_2 and alert returns "bar"*/
Your Plunker Modified
Read this article on angular wiki for more detailed explanation