ChatGPT解决这个技术问题 Extra ChatGPT

AngularJS : Prevent error $digest already in progress when calling $scope.$apply()

I'm finding that I need to update my page to my scope manually more and more since building an application in angular.

The only way I know of to do this is to call $apply() from the scope of my controllers and directives. The problem with this is that it keeps throwing an error to the console that reads :

Error: $digest already in progress

Does anyone know how to avoid this error or achieve the same thing but in a different way?

It's really frustrating thing that we need use $apply more and more.
I am getting this error as well, even though I am calling $apply in a callback. I am using a third-party library to access data on their servers, so I can't take advantage of $http, nor do I want to since I would have to rewrite their library to use $http.
use $timeout()
use $timeout(fn) + 1, It can fix the problem, !$scope.$$phase isn't the best solution.
Only wrap code/call scope.$apply from within timeouts (not $timeout) AJAX functions (not $http) and events (not ng-*). Ensure, if you are calling it from within a function (that is called via timeout/ajax/events), that it's not also being run on load initially.

b
betaorbust

From a recent discussion with the Angular guys on this very topic: For future-proofing reasons, you should not use $$phase

When pressed for the "right" way to do it, the answer is currently

$timeout(function() {
  // anything you want can go here and will safely be run on the next digest.
})

I recently ran into this when writing angular services to wrap the facebook, google, and twitter APIs which, to varying degrees, have callbacks handed in.

Here's an example from within a service. (For the sake of brevity, the rest of the service -- that set up variables, injected $timeout etc. -- has been left off.)

window.gapi.client.load('oauth2', 'v2', function() {
    var request = window.gapi.client.oauth2.userinfo.get();
    request.execute(function(response) {
        // This happens outside of angular land, so wrap it in a timeout 
        // with an implied apply and blammo, we're in action.
        $timeout(function() {
            if(typeof(response['error']) !== 'undefined'){
                // If the google api sent us an error, reject the promise.
                deferred.reject(response);
            }else{
                // Resolve the promise with the whole response if ok.
                deferred.resolve(response);
            }
        });
    });
});

Note that the delay argument for $timeout is optional and will default to 0 if left unset ($timeout calls $browser.defer which defaults to 0 if delay isn't set)

A little non-intuitive, but that's the answer from the guys writing Angular, so it's good enough for me!


I've ran into this many times in my directives. Was writing one for redactor and this turned out to work perfectly. I was at a meetup with Brad Green and he said that Angular 2.0 will be huge with no digest cycle using JS's native observe ability and using a polyfill for browsers lacking that. At that point we won't need to do this anymore. :)
Yesterday I've seen an issue where calling selectize.refreshItems() inside $timeout caused the dreaded recursive digest error. Any ideas how that could be?
If you use $timeout rather than native setTimeout, why do you not use $window instead of the native window?
@LeeGee: The point of using $timeout in this case, is that $timeout ensures that the angular scope is updated properly. If a $digest is not in progress, it will cause a new $digest to run.
@webicy That's not a thing. When the body of the function passed to $timeout is run, the promise is already resolved! There's absolutely no reason to cancel it. From the docs: "As a result of this, the promise will be resolved with a rejection." You can't resolve a resolved promise. Your cancellation won't cause any errors, but it won't do anything positive either.
D
Dan Atkinson

Don't use this pattern - This will end up causing more errors than it solves. Even though you think it fixed something, it didn't.

You can check if a $digest is already in progress by checking $scope.$$phase.

if(!$scope.$$phase) {
  //$digest or $apply
}

$scope.$$phase will return "$digest" or "$apply" if a $digest or $apply is in progress. I believe the difference between these states is that $digest will process the watches of the current scope and its children, and $apply will process the watchers of all scopes.

To @dnc253's point, if you find yourself calling $digest or $apply frequently, you may be doing it wrong. I generally find I need to digest when I need to update the scope's state as a result of a DOM event firing outside the reach of Angular. For example, when a twitter bootstrap modal becomes hidden. Sometimes the DOM event fires when a $digest is in progress, sometimes not. That's why I use this check.

I would love to know a better way if anyone knows one.

From comments: by @anddoutoi

angular.js Anti Patterns

Don't do if (!$scope.$$phase) $scope.$apply(), it means your $scope.$apply() isn't high enough in the call stack.


Seems to me like $digest / $apply should do this by default
Note that in some cases I have to check but the current scope AND the root scope. I've been getting a value for $$phase on the root but not on my scope. Think it has something to do with a directive's isolated scope, but..
"Stop doing if (!$scope.$$phase) $scope.$apply()", github.com/angular/angular.js/wiki/Anti-Patterns
@anddoutoi: Agreed; you're link makes it pretty clear this is not the solution; however, I'm uncertain what is meant by "you are not high enough in the call stack". Do you know what this means?
@threed: see the answer by aaronfrost. The correct way is to use defer to trigger the digest in the next cycle. Otherwise the event will get lost and not update the scope at all.
M
Marwane Boudriga

The digest cycle is a synchronous call. It won't yield control to the browser's event loop until it is done. There are a few ways to deal with this. The easiest way to deal with this is to use the built in $timeout, and a second way is if you are using underscore or lodash (and you should be), call the following:

$timeout(function(){
    //any code in here will automatically have an apply run afterwards
});

or if you have lodash:

_.defer(function(){$scope.$apply();});

We tried several workarounds, and we hated injecting $rootScope into all of our controllers, directives, and even some factories. So, the $timeout and _.defer have been our favorite so far. These methods successfully tell angular to wait until the next animation loop, which will guarantee that the current scope.$apply is over.


Is this comparable to using $timeout(...)? I've used $timeout in several cases to defer to the next event cycle and it seems to work fine--anyone know if there is a reason not to use $timeout?
This should really only be used if you're already using underscore.js. This solution isn't worth importing the entire underscore library just to use its defer function. I much prefer the $timeout solution because everyone already has access to $timeout through angular, without any dependencies on other libraries.
True... but if you aren't using underscore or lodash... you need to reevaluate what you are doing. Those two libs have changed the way that code looks.
We have lodash as a dependency for Restangular (we're going to eliminate Restangular in favor of ng-route soon). I think it's a good answer but it's not great to assume people want to use underscore/lodash. By all means those libs are fine... if you utilize them enough... these days I use ES5 methods which wipe out 98% of the reason I used to include underscore.
You are right @SgtPooki. I modified the answer to include the option to use $timeout as well. $timeout and _.defer will both wait until the next animation loop, which will ensure that the current scope.$apply has ended. Thanks for keeping me honest, and getting me to update the answer here.
o
ojii

Many of the answers here contain good advices but can also lead to confusion. Simply using $timeout is not the best nor the right solution. Also, be sure to read that if you are concerned by performances or scalability.

Things you should know

$$phase is private to the framework and there are good reasons for that.

$timeout(callback) will wait until the current digest cycle (if any) is done, then execute the callback, then run at the end a full $apply.

$timeout(callback, delay, false) will do the same (with an optional delay before executing the callback), but will not fire an $apply (third argument) which saves performances if you didn't modify your Angular model ($scope).

$scope.$apply(callback) invokes, among other things, $rootScope.$digest, which means it will redigest the root scope of the application and all of its children, even if you're within an isolated scope.

$scope.$digest() will simply sync its model to the view, but will not digest its parents scope, which can save a lot of performances when working on an isolated part of your HTML with an isolated scope (from a directive mostly). $digest does not take a callback: you execute the code, then digest.

$scope.$evalAsync(callback) has been introduced with angularjs 1.2, and will probably solve most of your troubles. Please refer to the last paragraph to learn more about it.

if you get the $digest already in progress error, then your architecture is wrong: either you don't need to redigest your scope, or you should not be in charge of that (see below).

How to structure your code

When you get that error, you're trying to digest your scope while it's already in progress: since you don't know the state of your scope at that point, you're not in charge of dealing with its digestion.

function editModel() {
  $scope.someVar = someVal;
  /* Do not apply your scope here since we don't know if that
     function is called synchronously from Angular or from an
     asynchronous code */
}

// Processed by Angular, for instance called by a ng-click directive
$scope.applyModelSynchronously = function() {
  // No need to digest
  editModel();
}

// Any kind of asynchronous code, for instance a server request
callServer(function() {
  /* That code is not watched nor digested by Angular, thus we
     can safely $apply it */
  $scope.$apply(editModel);
});

And if you know what you're doing and working on an isolated small directive while part of a big Angular application, you could prefer $digest instead over $apply to save performances.

Update since Angularjs 1.2

A new, powerful method has been added to any $scope: $evalAsync. Basically, it will execute its callback within the current digest cycle if one is occurring, otherwise a new digest cycle will start executing the callback.

That is still not as good as a $scope.$digest if you really know that you only need to synchronize an isolated part of your HTML (since a new $apply will be triggered if none is in progress), but this is the best solution when you are executing a function which you cannot know it if will be executed synchronously or not, for instance after fetching a resource potentially cached: sometimes this will require an async call to a server, otherwise the resource will be locally fetched synchronously.

In these cases and all the others where you had a !$scope.$$phase, be sure to use $scope.$evalAsync( callback )


$timeout is critiqued in passing. Can you give more reasons to avoid $timeout ?
what about $scope.applyAsync() - no one has mentioned this one in any of the answers to this OP but I have seen it in other threads. When I changed all my $scope.apply() to scope.applyAsync() all my $digest cycle errors went away...don't know if I made more problems for myself, but so far no issues.
l
lambinator

Handy little helper method to keep this process DRY:

function safeApply(scope, fn) {
    (scope.$$phase || scope.$root.$$phase) ? fn() : scope.$apply(fn);
}

Your safeApply helped me understand what was going on a lot more than anything else. Thanks for posting that.
I was about to do the same thing, but doesn't doing this mean there is a chance the changes we make in fn() won't be seen by $digest? Wouldn't it be better to delay the function, assuming scope.$$phase === '$digest' ?
I agree, sometimes $apply() is used to trigger the digest, just calling the fn by itself... won't that result in a problem?
I feel like scope.$apply(fn); should be scope.$apply(fn()); because fn() will execute the function and not fn. Please help me to where I am wrong
@ZenOut The call to $apply supports many different kinds of arguments, including functions. If passed a function, it evaluates the function.
M
Mistalis

I had the same problem with third parties scripts like CodeMirror for example and Krpano, and even using safeApply methods mentioned here haven't solved the error for me.

But what do has solved it is using $timeout service (don't forget to inject it first).

Thus, something like:

$timeout(function() {
  // run my code safely here
})

and if inside your code you are using

this

perhaps because it's inside a factory directive's controller or just need some kind of binding, then you would do something like:

.factory('myClass', [
  '$timeout',
  function($timeout) {

    var myClass = function() {};

    myClass.prototype.surprise = function() {
      // Do something suprising! :D
    };

    myClass.prototype.beAmazing = function() {
      // Here 'this' referes to the current instance of myClass

      $timeout(angular.bind(this, function() {
          // Run my code safely here and this is not undefined but
          // the same as outside of this anonymous function
          this.surprise();
       }));
    }

    return new myClass();

  }]
)

T
Trevor

See http://docs.angularjs.org/error/$rootScope:inprog

The problem arises when you have a call to $apply that is sometimes run asynchronously outside of Angular code (when $apply should be used) and sometimes synchronously inside Angular code (which causes the $digest already in progress error).

This may happen, for example, when you have a library that asynchronously fetches items from a server and caches them. The first time an item is requested, it will be retrieved asynchronously so as not to block code execution. The second time, however, the item is already in cache so it can be retrieved synchronously.

The way to prevent this error is to ensure that the code that calls $apply is run asynchronously. This can be done by running your code inside a call to $timeout with the delay set to 0 (which is the default). However, calling your code inside $timeout removes the necessity to call $apply, because $timeout will trigger another $digest cycle on its own, which will, in turn, do all the necessary updating, etc.

Solution

In short, instead of doing this:

... your controller code...

$http.get('some/url', function(data){
    $scope.$apply(function(){
        $scope.mydate = data.mydata;
    });
});

... more of your controller code...

do this:

... your controller code...

$http.get('some/url', function(data){
    $timeout(function(){
        $scope.mydate = data.mydata;
    });
});

... more of your controller code...

Only call $apply when you know the code running it will always be run outside of Angular code (e.g. your call to $apply will happen inside a callback that is called by code outside of your Angular code).

Unless someone is aware of some impactful disadvantage to using $timeout over $apply, I don't see why you couldn't always use $timeout (with zero delay) instead of $apply, as it will do approximately the same thing.


Thanks, this worked for my case where I'm not calling $apply myself but still getting the error.
The main difference is that $apply is synchronous (its callback is executed, then the code following $apply) while $timeoutis not: the current code following timeout is executed, then a new stack begins with its callback, as if you were using setTimeout. That could lead to graphic glitches if you were updating twice the same model: $timeout will wait for the view to get refreshed before updating it again.
Thanks indeed, threed. I had a method called as a result of some $watch activity, and was trying to update the UI before my external filter had finished executing. Putting that inside a $timeout function worked for me.
d
dnc253

When you get this error, it basically means that it's already in the process of updating your view. You really shouldn't need to call $apply() within your controller. If your view isn't updating as you would expect, and then you get this error after calling $apply(), it most likely means you're not updating the the model correctly. If you post some specifics, we could figure out the core problem.


heh, I spent whole day to find out that AngularJS just can't watch bindings "magically" and I should push him sometimes with $apply().
what at all means you're not updating the the model correctly? $scope.err_message = 'err message'; is not correct update?
The only time you need to call $apply() is when you update the model "outside" of angular(e.g. from a jQuery plugin). It's easy to fall into the trap of the view not looking right, and so you throw a bunch of $apply()s everywhere, which then ends up with the error seen in the OP. When I say you're not updating the the model correctly I just mean all the business logic not correctly populating anything that might be in the scope, which leads to the view not looking as expected.
@dnc253 I agree, and I wrote the answer. Knowing what I know now, I would use $timeout(function(){...}); It does the same thing as _.defer does. They both defer to the next animation loop.
A
Anik Islam Abhi

The shortest form of safe $apply is:

$timeout(angular.noop)

C
CMCDragonkai

You can also use evalAsync. It will run sometime after digest has finished!

scope.evalAsync(function(scope){
    //use the scope...
});

M
Markus

First of all, don’t fix it this way

if ( ! $scope.$$phase) { 
  $scope.$apply(); 
}

It does not make sense because $phase is just a boolean flag for the $digest cycle, so your $apply() sometimes won’t run. And remember it’s a bad practice.

Instead, use $timeout

    $timeout(function(){ 
  // Any code in here will automatically have an $scope.apply() run afterwards 
$scope.myvar = newValue; 
  // And it just works! 
});

If you are using underscore or lodash, you can use defer():

_.defer(function(){ 
  $scope.$apply(); 
});

C
Community

Sometimes you will still get errors if you use this way (https://stackoverflow.com/a/12859093/801426).

Try this:

if(! $rootScope.$root.$$phase) {
...

using both !$scope.$$phase and !$scope.$root.$$phase (not !$rootScope.$root.$$phase) works for me. +1
$rootScope and anyScope.$root are the same guy. $rootScope.$root is redundant.
A
Anik Islam Abhi

You should use $evalAsync or $timeout according to the context.

This is a link with a good explanation:

http://www.bennadel.com/blog/2605-scope-evalasync-vs-timeout-in-angularjs.htm


e
eHayik

try using

$scope.applyAsync(function() {
    // your code
});

instead of

if(!$scope.$$phase) {
  //$digest or $apply
}

$applyAsync Schedule the invocation of $apply to occur at a later time. This can be used to queue up multiple expressions which need to be evaluated in the same digest.

NOTE: Within the $digest, $applyAsync() will only flush if the current scope is the $rootScope. This means that if you call $digest on a child scope, it will not implicitly flush the $applyAsync() queue.

Exmaple:

  $scope.$applyAsync(function () {
                if (!authService.authenticated) {
                    return;
                }

                if (vm.file !== null) {
                    loadService.setState(SignWizardStates.SIGN);
                } else {
                    loadService.setState(SignWizardStates.UPLOAD_FILE);
                }
            });

References:

1.Scope.$applyAsync() vs. Scope.$evalAsync() in AngularJS 1.3

AngularJs Docs


n
nelsonomuto

I would advise you to use a custom event rather than triggering a digest cycle.

I've come to find that broadcasting custom events and registering listeners for this events is a good solution for triggering an action you wish to occur whether or not you are in a digest cycle.

By creating a custom event you are also being more efficient with your code because you are only triggering listeners subscribed to said event and NOT triggering all watches bound to the scope as you would if you invoked scope.$apply.

$scope.$on('customEventName', function (optionalCustomEventArguments) {
   //TODO: Respond to event
});


$scope.$broadcast('customEventName', optionalCustomEventArguments);

A
Anik Islam Abhi

yearofmoo did a great job at creating a reusable $safeApply function for us :

https://github.com/yearofmoo/AngularJS-Scope.SafeApply

Usage :

//use by itself
$scope.$safeApply();

//tell it which scope to update
$scope.$safeApply($scope);
$scope.$safeApply($anotherScope);

//pass in an update function that gets called when the digest is going on...
$scope.$safeApply(function() {

});

//pass in both a scope and a function
$scope.$safeApply($anotherScope,function() {

});

//call it on the rootScope
$rootScope.$safeApply();
$rootScope.$safeApply($rootScope);
$rootScope.$safeApply($scope);
$rootScope.$safeApply($scope, fn);
$rootScope.$safeApply(fn);

C
Charley B.

I have been able to solve this problem by calling $eval instead of $apply in places where I know that the $digest function will be running.

According to the docs, $apply basically does this:

function $apply(expr) {
  try {
    return $eval(expr);
  } catch (e) {
    $exceptionHandler(e);
  } finally {
    $root.$digest();
  }
}

In my case, an ng-click changes a variable within a scope, and a $watch on that variable changes other variables which have to be $applied. This last step causes the error "digest already in progress".

By replacing $apply with $eval inside the watch expression the scope variables get updated as expected.

Therefore, it appears that if digest is going to be running anyways because of some other change within Angular, $eval'ing is all you need to do.


A
Anik Islam Abhi

use $scope.$$phase || $scope.$apply(); instead


p
paulmelnikow

Understanding that the Angular documents call checking the $$phase an anti-pattern, I tried to get $timeout and _.defer to work.

The timeout and deferred methods create a flash of unparsed {{myVar}} content in the dom like a FOUT. For me this was not acceptable. It leaves me without much to be told dogmatically that something is a hack, and not have a suitable alternative.

The only thing that works every time is:

if(scope.$$phase !== '$digest'){ scope.$digest() }.

I don't understand the danger of this method, or why it's described as a hack by people in the comments and the angular team. The command seems precise and easy to read:

"Do the digest unless one is already happening"

In CoffeeScript it's even prettier:

scope.$digest() unless scope.$$phase is '$digest'

What's the issue with this? Is there an alternative that won't create a FOUT? $safeApply looks fine but uses the $$phase inspection method, too.


I'd love to see an informed response to this question!
It is a hack because it means you miss context or don't understand the code a this point: either you are within angular digest cycle and you don't need that, or you are asynchronously outside of that and then you need it. If you cannot know that in that point of the code, then you are not responsible to digest it
r
ranbuch

This is my utils service:

angular.module('myApp', []).service('Utils', function Utils($timeout) {
    var Super = this;

    this.doWhenReady = function(scope, callback, args) {
        if(!scope.$$phase) {
            if (args instanceof Array)
                callback.apply(scope, Array.prototype.slice.call(args))
            else
                callback();
        }
        else {
            $timeout(function() {
                Super.doWhenReady(scope, callback, args);
            }, 250);
        }
    };
});

and this is an example for it's usage:

angular.module('myApp').controller('MyCtrl', function ($scope, Utils) {
    $scope.foo = function() {
        // some code here . . .
    };

    Utils.doWhenReady($scope, $scope.foo);

    $scope.fooWithParams = function(p1, p2) {
        // some code here . . .
    };

    Utils.doWhenReady($scope, $scope.fooWithParams, ['value1', 'value2']);
};

A
Ashu

I have been using this method and it seems to work perfectly fine. This just waits for the time the cycle has finished and then triggers apply(). Simply call the function apply(<your scope>) from anywhere you want.

function apply(scope) {
  if (!scope.$$phase && !scope.$root.$$phase) {
    scope.$apply();
    console.log("Scope Apply Done !!");
  } 
  else {
    console.log("Scheduling Apply after 200ms digest cycle already in progress");
    setTimeout(function() {
        apply(scope)
    }, 200);
  }
}

j
julianm

When I disabled debugger , the error is not happening anymore. In my case, it was because of debugger stopping the code execution.


S
Shawn Dotey

similar to answers above but this has worked faithfully for me... in a service add:

    //sometimes you need to refresh scope, use this to prevent conflict
    this.applyAsNeeded = function (scope) {
        if (!scope.$$phase) {
            scope.$apply();
        }
    };

S
Sachin Mishra

The issue is basically coming when, we are requesting to angular to run the digest cycle even though its in process which is creating issue to angular to understanding. consequence exception in console. 1. It does not have any sense to call scope.$apply() inside the $timeout function because internally it does the same. 2. The code goes with vanilla JavaScript function because its native not angular angular defined i.e. setTimeout 3. To do that you can make use of if(!scope.$$phase){ scope.$evalAsync(function(){ }); }


S
Sergey Sahakyan
        let $timeoutPromise = null;
        $timeout.cancel($timeoutPromise);
        $timeoutPromise = $timeout(() => {
            $scope.$digest();
        }, 0, false);

Here is good solution to avoid this error and avoid $apply

you can combine this with debounce(0) if calling based on external event. Above is the 'debounce' we are using, and full example of code

.factory('debounce', [
    '$timeout',
    function ($timeout) {

        return function (func, wait, apply) {
            // apply default is true for $timeout
            if (apply !== false) {
                apply = true;
            }

            var promise;
            return function () {
                var cntx = this,
                    args = arguments;
                $timeout.cancel(promise);
                promise = $timeout(function () {
                    return func.apply(cntx, args);
                }, wait, apply);
                return promise;
            };
        };
    }
])

and the code itself to listen some event and call $digest only on $scope you need

        let $timeoutPromise = null;
        let $update = debounce(function () {
            $timeout.cancel($timeoutPromise);
            $timeoutPromise = $timeout(() => {
                $scope.$digest();
            }, 0, false);
        }, 0, false);

        let $unwatchModelChanges = $scope.$root.$on('updatePropertiesInspector', function () {
            $update();
        });


        $scope.$on('$destroy', () => {
            $timeout.cancel($update);
            $timeout.cancel($timeoutPromise);
            $unwatchModelChanges();
        });

J
J.Hpour

You can use $timeout to prevent the error.

$timeout(function () {
    var scope = angular.element($("#myController")).scope();
    scope.myMethod(); 
    scope.$scope();
}, 1);

What if I don't want to use $timeout
W
Warren Davis

Found this: https://coderwall.com/p/ngisma where Nathan Walker (near bottom of page) suggests a decorator in $rootScope to create func 'safeApply', code:

yourAwesomeModule.config([
  '$provide', function($provide) {
    return $provide.decorator('$rootScope', [
      '$delegate', function($delegate) {
        $delegate.safeApply = function(fn) {
          var phase = $delegate.$$phase;
          if (phase === "$apply" || phase === "$digest") {
            if (fn && typeof fn === 'function') {
              fn();
            }
          } else {
            $delegate.$apply(fn);
          }
        };
        return $delegate;
      }
    ]);
  }
]);

e
eebbesen

This will be solve your problem:

if(!$scope.$$phase) {
  //TODO
}

Don't do if (!$scope.$$phase) $scope.$apply(), it means your $scope.$apply() isn't high enough in the call stack.