Considering every component provided by AngularBootstrap is tested, I think what you're saying is false.
Can you show us how they're wrong?
Can you show us how they're wrong?
1) Size and dependencies. Let's say you want to use buttons directive. If you decide to go with angular-ui/bootstrap you will need this https://github.com/angular-ui/bootstrap/blob/master/src/butt... only - 62 LOC. If you decide to go with Strap you will need jQuery + 100 LOC of Bootstrap's JavaScript + 163 LOC of Strap's wrapper (!!!). Please note that the the wrapper itself is _longer_ than the original version. Native version is 1/3 of the size (!).
2) Customization - try to change a template for say, a typeahead. With the strap solution it is hard-coded in Bootstrap's JavaScript, no way to customize. With angular-ui/bootstrap template is here: https://github.com/angular-ui/bootstrap/blob/master/template... and is fully customizable
3) Integration with the AngularJS ecosystem - since anngular-ui/bootstrap directives are native ones they seamlessly work with all the AngularJS goodies like $q promises. This means that you can provide a promise as a source for, say, typeahead or data for modal.
4) wrapping existing jQuery plugins is not always obvious as lifecycles are really different. As the results you need to do hacks - just search Strap's code for setTimeout and $timeout to see what I mean.
At the end of the day just choose a project that works for you but we've started angular-ui effort since we believe that native AngularJS directives offer much lighter and cleaner solution.
angular UI version https://github.com/angular-ui/bootstrap/blob/master/src/aler...
strap version https://github.com/mgcrea/angular-strap/blob/master/src/dire...
It's not neccessary (bootstrap HTML is pretty straightforward) and it prevent you from doing a lot of things like custom html inside dropdown menus (icons, ni-click, etc).
So IMO, It abstract the things at the wrong level (too high)