This commit relaxes the type of the `formControlName` input to accept both a `string` and a `number`.
Currently, when using a `FormArray`, most templates look like:
```
<div formArrayName="tags">
<div *ngFor="let tag of tagsArray.controls; index as i">
<input [formControlName]="i">
</div>
</div>
```
Here `formControlName` receives a number whereas its input type is a string.
This is fine for VE and `fullTemplateTypeCheck`, but not for Ivy which does a more thorough type checking on inputs with `fullTemplateTypeCheck` enabled and throws `Type 'number' is not assignable to type 'string'`. It is fixable by using `formControlName="{{i}}"` but you have to know the difference between `a="{{b}}"` and `[a]="b"` and change it all over the application codebase. This commit allows the existing code to still type-check.
PR Close#30606
This commit relaxes the type of the `formControlName` input to accept both a `string` and a `number`.
Currently, when using a `FormArray`, most templates look like:
```
<div formArrayName="tags">
<div *ngFor="let tag of tagsArray.controls; index as i">
<input [formControlName]="i">
</div>
</div>
```
Here `formControlName` receives a number whereas its input type is a string.
This is fine for VE and `fullTemplateTypeCheck`, but not for Ivy which does a more thorough type checking on inputs with `fullTemplateTypeCheck` enabled and throws `Type 'number' is not assignable to type 'string'`. It is fixable by using `formControlName="{{i}}"` but you have to know the difference between `a="{{b}}"` and `[a]="b"` and change it all over the application codebase. This commit allows the existing code to still type-check.
PR Close#30606
This method is a more convenient and efficient way of removing all
components from a FormArray. Before it, we needed to loop the FormArray
removing each component until empty.
Resolves#18531
PR Close#28918
@angular/forms declares several directives and a module which are not
exported from the package via the entrypoint, either intentionally or as a
historical accident.
Ivy's locality principle necessitates that directives used in user code be
importable from the package which defines them. This requires these forms
directives to be exported.
Several directives which define ControlValueAccessors are exported:
* NumberValueAccessor
* RangeValueAccessor
A few more directives and a module are exported privately (with a ɵ prefix):
* NgNoValidate
* NgSelectMultipleOption
* InternalFormsSharedModule
PR Close#27743
Internally getError and hasError call the AbstractControl#get method which takes `path: Array<string | number> | string` as input, since there are different ways to traverse the AbstractControl tree.
This change matches the method signitures of all methods that use this.
PR Close#20211
This has been deprecated to keep selector consistent with other core Angular selectors. As element selectors are in kebab-case.
Now deprecated:
```
<ngForm #myForm="ngForm">
```
After:
```
<ng-form #myForm="ngForm">
```
You can also choose to supress this warnings by providing a config for `FormsModule` during import:
```ts
imports: [
FormsModule.withConfig({warnOnDeprecatedNgFormSelector: 'never'});
]
Closes: #23678
PR Close#23721
Within an @NgModule it's common to include in the imports a call to
a ModuleWithProviders function, for example RouterModule.forRoot().
The old ngc compiler was able to handle this pattern because it had
global knowledge of metadata of not only the input compilation unit
but also all dependencies.
The ngtsc compiler for Ivy doesn't have this knowledge, so the
pattern of ModuleWithProviders functions is more difficult. ngtsc
must be able to determine which module is imported via the function
in order to expand the selector scope and properly tree-shake
directives and pipes.
This commit implements a solution to this problem, by adding a type
parameter to ModuleWithProviders through which the actual module
type can be passed between compilation units.
The provider side isn't a problem because the imports are always
copied directly to the ngInjectorDef.
PR Close#24862
Support for using the `ngModel` input property and `ngModelChange`
event with reactive form directives has been deprecated in
Angular v6 and will be removed in Angular v7.
Now deprecated:
```html
<input [formControl]="control" [(ngModel)]="value">
```
```ts
this.value = 'some value';
```
This has been deprecated for a few reasons. First, developers have
found this pattern confusing. It seems like the actual `ngModel`
directive is being used, but in fact it's an input/output property
named `ngModel` on the reactive form directive that simply approximates
(some of) its behavior. Specifically, it allows getting/setting the
value and intercepting value events. However, some of `ngModel`'s other
features - like delaying updates with`ngModelOptions` or exporting the
directive - simply don't work, which has understandably caused some
confusion.
In addition, this pattern mixes template-driven and reactive forms
strategies, which we generally don't recommend because it doesn't take
advantage of the full benefits of either strategy. Setting the value in
the template violates the template-agnostic principles behind reactive
forms, whereas adding a FormControl/FormGroup layer in the class removes
the convenience of defining forms in the template.
To update your code before v7, you'll want to decide whether to stick
with reactive form directives (and get/set values using reactive forms
patterns) or switch over to template-driven directives.
After (choice 1 - use reactive forms):
```html
<input [formControl]="control">
```
```ts
this.control.setValue('some value');
```
After (choice 2 - use template-driven forms):
```html
<input [(ngModel)]="value">
```
```ts
this.value = 'some value';
```
You can also choose to silence this warning by providing a config for
`ReactiveFormsModule` at import time:
```ts
imports: [
ReactiveFormsModule.withConfig({warnOnNgModelWithFormControl: 'never'});
]
```
Alternatively, you can choose to surface a separate warning for each
instance of this pattern with a config value of `"always"`. This may
help to track down where in the code the pattern is being used as the
code is being updated.
Note: `warnOnNgModelWithFormControl` is set up as deprecated so that it
can be removed in v7 when it is no longer needed. This will not display
properly in API docs yet because dgeni doesn't yet support deprecating
properties in object literals, but we have an open issue to resolve the
discrepancy here: https://github.com/angular/angular/issues/22640.
PR Close#22633
closes#17958
BREAKING CHANGE:
- `AbstractControl#statusChanges` now emits an event of `'PENDING'` when you call `AbstractControl#markAsPending`
- Previously it did not emit an event when you called `markAsPending`
- To migrate you would need to ensure that if you are filtering or checking events from `statusChanges` that you account for the new event when calling `markAsPending`
PR Close#20212
* Remove now unnecessary portions of build.
* Add a compilePackageES5 method to build ES5 from sources
* Rework all package.json and rollup config files to new format
* Remove "extends" from tsconfig-build.json files and fixup compilation roots
PR Close#18541
This commit introduces a new Input property called
`ngFormOptions` to the `NgForm` directive. You can use it
to set default `updateOn` values for all the form's child
controls. This default will be used unless the child has
already explicitly set its own `updateOn` value in
`ngModelOptions`.
Potential values: `change` | `blur` | `submit`
```html
<form [ngFormOptions]="{updateOn: blur}">
<input name="one" ngModel> <!-- will update on blur-->
</form>
```
For more context, see [#18577](https://github.com/angular/angular/pull/18577).
This commit introduces a new option to template-driven forms that
improves performance by delaying form control updates until the
"blur" or "submit" event. To use it, set the `updateOn` property
in `ngModelOptions`.
```html
<input ngModel [ngModelOptions]="{updateOn: blur}">
```
Like in AngularJS, setting `updateOn` to `blur` or `submit` will
delay the update of the value as well as the validation status.
Updating value and validity together keeps the system easy to reason
about, as the two will always be in sync. It's also worth noting
that the value/validation pipeline does still run when the form is
initialized (in order to support initial values).
Upcoming PRs will address:
* Support for setting group-level `updateOn` in template-driven forms
* Option for skipping initial validation run or more global error
display configuration
* Better support of reactive validation strategies
See more context in #18408, #18514, and the [design doc](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dlJjRXYeuHRygryK0XoFrZNqW86jH4wobftCFyYa1PA/edit#heading=h.r6gn0i8f19wz).
cexbrayat
Kara Erickson
Igor Minar
Renan Montebelo
alsami
Alex Rickabaugh
Fabian Wiles
Lars Gyrup Brink Nielsen
Pete Bacon Darwin
Alex Eagle
Alan
harunurhan
Trotyl
Oussama Ben Brahim
Victor Berchet
tinayuangao
Jason Aden