After reading through the enlightening theory snippets in Step 3 of AngularJS Tutorial, one particular passage piqued my curiosity:
- The scope, which connects our controller and template to create a dynamic view, is not isolated within its own boundaries. This means that a seemingly insignificant change in another part of the page (such as a conflict in property names) could lead to unexpected and challenging-to-diagnose effects on our view.
(the unquoted section 1 from the same link was crystal clear)
I find it difficult to envision a real-life code scenario that demonstrates the issue highlighted in the quoted text. Can you provide an example to illustrate this point?
My interpretation revolves around inherited scopes:
<!doctype html>
<html lang="en" ng-app="phonecatApp">
<head>
...
</head>
<body>
<div ng-controller="PhoneListController">
{{secretObject.dontDareToTouchThat}}
<div ng-controller="PhoneListTwoController">
<ul ng-click="touchThat()">
<li ng-repeat="phone in phones" >
<span>{{phone.name}}</span>
<p>{{phone.snippet}}</p>
</li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>
Controllers' logic:
'use strict';
angular.module('phonecatApp', [])
.controller('PhoneListController', function PhoneListController($scope) {
$scope.secretObject = {
dontDareToTouchThat: 'I"m pure and beautiful'
}
}).controller('PhoneListTwoController', function PhoneListTwoController($scope) {
$scope.touchThat = function(){
$scope.secretObject.dontDareToTouchThat = 'Derp';
}
$scope.phones = [ ... ];
});
However, I harbor doubts about this explanation since the actions of PhoneListTwoController do not resemble a "random, unrelated change in a different part of the page." The scopes are nested within each other, manipulating the outer scope, making me believe the authors were referring to something else, perhaps sibling scopes interfering with each other.
So once again, I urge you to provide a relevant code example to illustrate the quoted passage.