fix(forms): handle standalone <form> tag in NgControlStatusGroup directive correctly
#40344
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…tusGroup` directive The `NgControlStatusGroup` directive is shared between template-driven and reactive form modules. In cases when only reactive forms module is present, the `NgControlStatusGroup` directive is still activated on all `<form>` elements, but if there is no other reactive directive applied (such as `formGroup`), corresponding `ControlContainer` token is missing, thus causing exceptions (since `NgControlStatusGroup` directive relies on it to determine the status). This commit updates the logic to handle the case when no `ControlContainer` is present (effectively making directive logic a noop in this case). Alternative approach (more risky) worth considering in the future is to split the `NgControlStatusGroup` into 2 directives with different set of selectors and include them into template-driven and reactive modules separately. The downside is that these directives might be activated simultaneously on the same element (e.g. `<form>`), effectively doing the work twice. Resolves angular#38391.
AndrewKushnir
changed the title
<form> tag correctly in NgControlStatusGroup directive<form> tag in NgControlStatusGroup directive correctly
| this._cd = cd; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| get ngClassUntouched(): boolean { | ||
| return this._cd.control ? this._cd.control.untouched : false; | ||
| return this._cd?.control ? this._cd.control.untouched : false; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could this be:
Suggested change
| return this._cd?.control ? this._cd.control.untouched : false; | |
| return this._cd?.control?.untouched ?? false; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Great idea (I've updated the change), thanks @petebacondarwin! 👍
I was also thinking to refactor that code in the followup PR to get rid of duplicate getters.
Current code:
export const ngControlStatusHost = {
'[class.ng-untouched]': 'ngClassUntouched',
'[class.ng-touched]': 'ngClassTouched',
...
How it may look like:
export const ngControlStatusHost = {
'[class.ng-untouched]': 'is("untouched")',
'[class.ng-touched]': 'is("touched")',
...
};
and also a new is function:
is(status: string): boolean {
return this._cd?.control?.[status] ?? false;
}
What do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry for the intrusion but why not get rid of null coalescing and do it like this:
is(status: string): boolean {
// or Boolean(...)
return !!this._cd?.control?.[status];
}There was a problem hiding this comment.
@dev054, agree, we can do that too.
…trolStatusGroup` directive
AndrewKushnir
added
action: review
petebacondarwin
approved these changes
Jan 7, 2021
AndrewKushnir
added
action: presubmit
AndrewKushnir
added
target: patch
atscott
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 8, 2021
…tusGroup` directive (#40344) The `NgControlStatusGroup` directive is shared between template-driven and reactive form modules. In cases when only reactive forms module is present, the `NgControlStatusGroup` directive is still activated on all `<form>` elements, but if there is no other reactive directive applied (such as `formGroup`), corresponding `ControlContainer` token is missing, thus causing exceptions (since `NgControlStatusGroup` directive relies on it to determine the status). This commit updates the logic to handle the case when no `ControlContainer` is present (effectively making directive logic a noop in this case). Alternative approach (more risky) worth considering in the future is to split the `NgControlStatusGroup` into 2 directives with different set of selectors and include them into template-driven and reactive modules separately. The downside is that these directives might be activated simultaneously on the same element (e.g. `<form>`), effectively doing the work twice. Resolves #38391. PR Close #40344
3 tasks
|
This issue has been automatically locked due to inactivity. Read more about our automatic conversation locking policy. This action has been performed automatically by a bot. |
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The
NgControlStatusGroupdirective is shared between template-driven and reactive form modules. In cases whenonly reactive forms module is present, the
NgControlStatusGroupdirective is still activated on all<form>elements, but if there is no other reactive directive applied (such as
formGroup), correspondingControlContainertoken is missing, thus causing exceptions (since
NgControlStatusGroupdirective relies on it to determine thestatus). This commit updates the logic to handle the case when no
ControlContaineris present (effectively makingdirective logic a noop in this case).
Alternative approach (more risky) worth considering in the future is to split the
NgControlStatusGroupinto2 directives with different set of selectors and include them into template-driven and reactive modules separately.
The downside is that these directives might be activated simultaneously on the same element (e.g.
<form>),effectively doing the work twice.
Resolves #38391.
PR Type
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
Does this PR introduce a breaking change?