Welcome to the Treehouse Community
Want to collaborate on code errors? Have bugs you need feedback on? Looking for an extra set of eyes on your latest project? Get support with fellow developers, designers, and programmers of all backgrounds and skill levels here with the Treehouse Community! While you're at it, check out some resources Treehouse students have shared here.
Looking to learn something new?
Treehouse offers a seven day free trial for new students. Get access to thousands of hours of content and join thousands of Treehouse students and alumni in the community today.
Start your free trialNathan Dragoo
16,468 PointsCreate a new service called 'myServive?'
I am stuck
angular.module('foobar', []);
.service('myService', function(){});
3 Answers
Chad Donohue
5,657 PointsYou need to chain .service
onto the module definition. So, just omit your semi-colon on the first line.
angular.module('foobar', [])
.service('myService', function(){});
By chaining with a .service
, you are attaching the service to the module definition.
Jan Skovgaard
5,188 PointsI'm stuck on step 3/3 on this one - What is the issue here?
angular.module('foobar', []) .service('myService', function(service){ this.testingMyService = function() { console.log("This is my service!"); }; });
I keep getting the "Oops! Looks like task 1 is no longer passing". When I hit "Go to task One" and just hit "Check work" without modifying the code it passes just fine. It passed the 2nd step just fine too but on the 3rd step it's not...can't really see what the issue is? Is there a bug in the test or am I blind? :)
Jan Skovgaard
5,188 PointsNevermind me! I'm blind! :D - Read the brief for task number 2 wrong. God the notion one should add a parameter called "service" to the anonymous function too. But that's clearly not what it says.
So removing the "service" argument made it pass - so the code looks like this
angular.module('foobar', []) .service('myService', function(){ this.testingMyService = function() { console.log("This is my service!"); }; });
However the validation message could have been more clear/helpful.