101

I have a fairly simple Angular application that runs just fine on my dev machine, but is failing with this error message (in the browser console) after I deploy it:

Uncaught Error: [$injector:unpr] http://errors.angularjs.org/undefined/$injector/unpr?p0=tProvider%20%3C-%20t%20%3C-%20%24http%20%3C-%20%24compile

No other message besides that. It happens when the page first loads.

I'm running ASP.NET MVC5, Angular 1.2RC3, and pushing to Azure via git.

Googling hasn't turned up anything interesting.

Any suggestions?

EDIT:

I'm using TypeScript, and defining my dependencies with the $inject variable, e.g.:

export class DashboardCtrl {

    public static $inject = [
        '$scope',
        '$location',
        'dashboardStorage'
    ];

    constructor(
        private $scope: IDashboardScope,
        private $location: ng.ILocationService,
        private storage: IDashboardStorage) {
    }
}

I believe that should (or is intended to) get around the local variable renaming problems that arise during minification and that can cause this error.

That said, it clearly has something to do with the minification process, as when I set BundleTable.EnableOptimizations = true on my dev machine, I can reproduce it.

Ken Smith
  • 20,305
  • 15
  • 100
  • 147

7 Answers7

168

If you follow your link, it tells you that the error results from the $injector not being able to resolve your dependencies. This is a common issue with angular when the javascript gets minified/uglified/whatever you're doing to it for production.

The issue is when you have e.g. a controller;

angular.module("MyApp").controller("MyCtrl", function($scope, $q) {
  // your code
})

The minification changes $scope and $q into random variables that doesn't tell angular what to inject. The solution is to declare your dependencies like this:

angular.module("MyApp")
  .controller("MyCtrl", ["$scope", "$q", function($scope, $q) {
  // your code
}])

That should fix your problem.

Just to re-iterate, everything I've said is at the link the error message provides to you.

Kriem
  • 8,666
  • 16
  • 72
  • 120
Stuart Nelson
  • 4,202
  • 2
  • 23
  • 26
  • 3
    Thanks for the suggestion to actually visit the link - I'd assumed it was some internal artifact, not something for my benefit. As it turns out, I'm defining all my dependencies via the `$inject` public variable, which I believe is equivalent to the way you suggest (see http://docs.angularjs.org/guide/di). I'll update my question. – Ken Smith Oct 30 '13 at 13:12
  • 2
    That said, it clearly has something to do with the minification process, as when I force ASP.NET MVC minifications on my dev machine (`BundleTable.EnableOptimizations = true;`), I can reproduce the problem. Continuing to look. – Ken Smith Oct 30 '13 at 15:00
  • OK, figured it out. There was another place I was doing DI that I had forgotten about, and it was getting messed up in the minification process. Thanks, this was the right answer. – Ken Smith Oct 30 '13 at 17:12
  • There is also a package that will automatically handle this for you called [ngmin](https://github.com/btford/ngmin) and a corresponding gem for Rails called [ngmin-rails](https://github.com/jasonm/ngmin-rails). – bradleygriffith Mar 21 '14 at 16:26
  • any idea why this would happen upon deployment but not locally? – ryantuck Dec 08 '14 at 22:23
  • because you only minify/uglify/mangle your code on deployment, which messes up the injection process. – Stuart Nelson Dec 09 '14 at 09:34
  • 2
    @RyanTuck - In other words, with unminified code, Angular can just look at the variable names in your functions, and make a good guess about what needs to be injected. But with minified code, the variable names are all munged, so it needs some other mechanism - a mechanism that doesn't change when the code gets minified - to know what to inject. That's where the $inject array and the other mechanisms come into play. – Ken Smith Dec 09 '14 at 15:38
  • @StuartNelson on my end, minification locally works without issue. it's only upon deployment that minification messes things up. – ryantuck Dec 09 '14 at 19:32
  • hm, don't know. does your local env exactly mirror your prod env? – Stuart Nelson Dec 10 '14 at 10:46
  • For reference, this (Inline Array Notation) is now the recommended way to annotate components for DI. Please ensure that if your controller depends on a service, that service should also be annotated correctly (using this approach or through $inject Property Annotation as indicated in another answer below) against minification. – dewtea Feb 03 '15 at 23:49
  • This was a big help when deploying my RoR app on Heroku. I needed to do a few additional adjustments for `$stateProvider` and passing services around. – HarlemSquirrel May 10 '16 at 19:28
  • Note that this technique applies to filters too, for example: app.filter('utcToLocal', function($filter) { ..... }) becomes app.filter('utcToLocal', ['$filter',function($filter) { ...... }) – cbp Feb 04 '20 at 07:36
13

Ran into the same problem myself, but my controller definitions looked a little different than above. For controllers defined like this:

function MyController($scope, $http) {
    // ...
}

Just add a line after the declaration indicating which objects to inject when the controller is instantiated:

function MyController($scope, $http) {
    // ...
}
MyController.$inject = ['$scope', '$http'];

This makes it minification-safe.

Matt
  • 3,676
  • 3
  • 34
  • 38
11

This problem occurs when the controller or directive are not specified as a array of dependencies and function. For example

angular.module("appName").directive('directiveName', function () {
    return {
        restrict: 'AE',
        templateUrl: 'calender.html',
        controller: function ($scope) {
            $scope.selectThisOption = function () {
                // some code
            };
        }
    };
});

When minified The '$scope' passed to the controller function is replaced by a single letter variable name . This will render angular clueless of the dependency . To avoid this pass the dependency name along with the function as a array.

angular.module("appName").directive('directiveName', function () {
    return {
        restrict: 'AE',
        templateUrl: 'calender.html'
        controller: ['$scope', function ($scope) { //<-- difference
            $scope.selectThisOption = function () {
                // some code
            };
        }]
    };
});
Sandeep K
  • 759
  • 6
  • 6
10

If you have separated files for angular app\resources\directives and other stuff then you can just disable minification of your angular app bundle like this (use new Bundle() instead of ScriptBundle() in your bundle config file):

bundles.Add(
new Bundle("~/bundles/angular/SomeBundleName").Include(
               "~/Content/js/angular/Pages/Web/MainPage/angularApi.js",
               "~/Content/js/angular/Pages/Web/MainPage/angularApp.js",
               "~/Content/js/angular/Pages/Web/MainPage/angularCtrl.js"));

And angular app would appear in bundle unmodified.

Schnapz
  • 1,208
  • 13
  • 10
  • About performance, which is better? Bundle() or ScriptBundle()? – Thomas.Benz Feb 23 '16 at 16:22
  • @Thomas.Benz Using of Bundle() will only disable minification for your scripts. Problem here is that when ScriptBundle() minifies some Angular scripts, it shortens function names and do other related stuff. And when Angular tries to do some internal dependency injections, or something like that, it could not find proper functions for that, because their names were changed in custom way (like from 'SuperController' to 's' or else). So it's better to leave angular scripts unmodified or try to use some other library for minification instead of default one. – Schnapz Feb 26 '16 at 10:48
1

If you have separated files for angular app\resources\directives and other stuff then you can just disable minification of your angular app bundle like this (use new Bundle() instead of ScriptBundle() in your bundle config file):

0

Add the $http, $scope services in the controller fucntion, sometimes if they are missing these errors occur.

Omkar Dixit
  • 746
  • 1
  • 9
  • 19
0

I had the same problem but the issue was a different one, I was trying to create a service and pass $scope to it as a parameter.
That's another way to get this error as the documentation of that link says:

Attempting to inject a scope object into anything that's not a controller or a directive, for example a service, will also throw an Unknown provider: $scopeProvider <- $scope error. This might happen if one mistakenly registers a controller as a service, ex.:

angular.module('myModule', [])
       .service('MyController', ['$scope', function($scope) {
        // This controller throws an unknown provider error because
        // a scope object cannot be injected into a service.
}]);
Eugenio Miró
  • 2,398
  • 2
  • 28
  • 38