I recently made a pull request at my company and got feedback on some code that I had written and I wanted some other opinions on this.
We have an component called Icon that can take another component as a prop like so:
<Icon component={ArrowDown}/>
this simply renders the following:
<IconContainer>
<ArrowDown/>
</IconContainer>
Now you can also do the follow if you need to create a custom icon:
<Icon component={()=><div>custom Icon</div>}/>
The reviewer commented that the function ()=><div>custom Icon</div> should be removed outside the scope for performance reasons to prevent re-rendering:
const CustomIcon = ()=><div>custom Icon</div>
const someComponent = ()=><Icon component={customIcon}/>
I'm not convinced that this will improve performance (code-readability sure) but wanted to get some other opinions on it.
Thanks!
Arrow functions are anonymous and will be re-instantiated on every render.
If you create a named component, it will have a reference and will not be re-rendered by React unless and until required (through state update).
And also, as you mentioned, it provides better readability and an option for code splitting.
Related
I've been reading about the advantages of using Context in React and I am unconvinced. I'm wondering if there's something I've missed.
Context provides a way to pass data through the component tree without having to pass props down manually at every level.
What's the hassle in creating a props object in the main component and just passing it around among the underlings? Something like:
// do this once at top level (I'm assuming [foo, foo_set] and [bar, bar_set] are state variables):
const props = {foo, foo_set, bar, bar_set, thisAndThat, theOther, whatever, etcAndEtc}
// including one component
<MyComponent1 {...props } />
// including another
<MyComponent2 {...props } />
(Maybe better to use another name than props for this object, as the components can have other properties. Anyway.)
Then in MyComponent1 you can access all the props you want, or not access them. Either:
...
const MyComponent1 = (props) => {
...
// here we can use any props we need, props.bar, props.bar_set, props.theOther for example
const localVar = props.bar * 2;
props.bar_set(localVar);
// this changes the value of bar throughout the app
...
}
the advantage of the above, as I see it, is that you can pass around the props object to other sub-sub-components and not worry about whether you have anything missing.
Or:
...
const MyComponent1 = ({bar, bar_set, theOther }) => {
...
// here we can use bar, bar_set, theOther in the same example
const localVar = bar * 2;
bar_set(localVar);
...
}
The advantage of this option being that the syntax is shorter.
So my point is why not just use the standard JavaScript syntax? Why introduce new concepts when there are plenty to assimilate to do all sorts of other things?
Consider a fairly common case for most applications: You have authentication information (eg, the current user), a routing library (eg, react-router), and a theme object (what colors to use). These are needed in components scattered throughout the app.
You want to render a button somewhere down at the tip of the component tree. It's going to show the user's avatar, so it needs the authentication data. It's going to navigate when clicked, so it needs the navigate function from the routing library. And it needs to style itself according to the theme.
This certainly can be done through props, but in order for the button to get the props, every component in the chain above it must get and forward those props too. This could be many components deep, like page component -> section component -> table -> row -> widget -> button, and most of them don't need that information for themselves, so they're just taking the props in order to forward it along.
And you can easily imagine cases where there are more than 3 pieces of data that are needed across the app.
What's the hassle
Most people find this "prop drilling" to be a hassle, but let's assume you don't. You still have the problem that it has bad performance. If every component must receive the full set of "global" values that the app might need, then any time anything changes, the entire app must rerender. Optimizations like react.memo become effectively useless. You will get much better performance if you only pass the props you need.
Easier to edit code (You don't have to delete for example unused variable)
Better redability (You dont see unnescesary variables, and You see which component is using variables)
Lesser performance waste (preventing from consuming unnescesarry variables)
Suppose You got 10 descendants in - You would have to pass one variable through 10 of components.
What if some could have the same variable name ? You would have to edit Your passed variable for a while, then edit back later.
To sum up:
Using Context more efficient than stuffing everything into a single object variable, because it avoids re-rendering the whole app when anything changes.
People think passing a single variable around is more hassle than introducing specific syntax.
Context also allows you to have different values for the same variable in different parts of the app. This is shown here (the best explanation IMHO) : https://beta.reactjs.org/learn/passing-data-deeply-with-context
The above article also specifies that sometimes passing props is the best solution. It gives a list of use cases for context, and the advantages provided in each case.
Important note:
I am aware of createRoot and root.unmount()! Unfortunately (If I understand this correctly) they should be used just once in the application for mounting the react application.
Problem description:
In our app we have a modal component that is rendered dynamically and added to the body of the html via ReactDOM.render(). When this modal is hidden, we unmountComponentAtNode().
Unfortunately, after upgrading to react18, unmountComponentAtNode becomes deprecated and the new unmount is (in my understanding) for the root only. The same problem is about if I try to modify the ReactDOM.Render() for createRoot. Then we would have 2 roots in the app which is wrong.
What is the proper way to attach the modal to the body element (next to root!) and unmount it after it should be destroyed? The implementation is a little bit "weird" (partially in jsx, partially not...) and I would like to avoid refactoring the whole component as there will be a lot of refactoring already in the code... So I would like to focus on refactoring this component (into jsx one) later. Now I have to figure out only the rendering / unmounting. I have been thinking about using Portals, but anyway I have to create that elements somehow and render them into the DOM where portals does not help me a lot.
Calling the createRoot and then render on the root in this modal component fires an error You are calling ReactDOMClient.createRoot() on a container that has already been passed to createRoot() before. Instead, call root.render() on the existing root instead if you want to update it. which is obvious. But there is no "useRoot()" hook or anything like that. Should I store the returned object (root) in some context or somewhere to use it later? Or what should be the best option to call the render? :/
I know how I should do that with classical functional component... But maybe there is some way that I can just refactor a piece of the code instead of the whole component and all its usecases. Maybe there is something I am not aware of (there is definitely thousands of things I am not aware of :D) that should simplify my life...
function modal() {
return (
<div>
...
</div>
)
}
Modal.show = () => {
modalEl = document.createElement('div');
util.destroy(el) => {
ReactDOM.unmountComponentAtNode(el);
el.remove();
}
const childs = props.childs;
REactDOM.render(childs, modalEl);
}
When I was thinking about portals, I thought I will just rewrite the last line of ReactDOM.render to portal like createPortal(childs, modalEl), unfortunately this does not render anything (except modalEl, but no childs inside). The childs are of type ReactNode (using typescript) and they are not empty (because of ReactDOM.render works without any problem).
I'm confused on the point of React.forwardRef. As explained in its documentation, I understand that its main use is for a Parent Component to gain access to DOM elements of the Child Component. But I can already do that without even having to use it.
Here is a code example that you can plug into CodeSandbox and see that it works:
import React, {useRef, useEffect} from "react";
import "./styles.css";
const ChildComponent = (props) => {
useEffect( ()=> {
props.callbackFunction()
})
return(
<div ref={props.fRef}>
{"hello"}
</div>
)
}
export default function App() {
const callbackFunction = () => {
console.log("The parent is now holding the forwarded ref to the child div: ")
console.log(forwardedRef)
}
const forwardedRef = useRef(null)
return (
<div className="App">
<h1>Hello CodeSandbox</h1>
<ChildComponent name="gravy" callbackFunction={callbackFunction} fRef={forwardedRef}/>
</div>
);
}
Or here's the embed of this example. Honestly, I'm kind of new to this and I don't know exactly how embeds work and whether someone fiddling with the embed changes my original Sandbox or not, so I was hesitant to put it. But here it is.
Example Forwarding Ref
In the example, the parent App() component successfully passes a ref to the child which the child attaches to its rendered div. After it renders, it calls a callback function to the parent. The parent then does a console log where it proves that its forwarded ref now has a hold of the child's div. And this is all done without React.forwardRef.
So what then is the use for React.forwardRef?
You're absolutely right that you can do what you've described. The downside is that you're forced to expose an API (ie: the fRef prop) for it to work. Not a huge deal if you're a solo developer building an app, but it can be more problematic eg. if you're maintaining an open-source library with a public API.
In that case, consumers of the library won't have access to the internals of a component, meaning you'd have to expose it for them somehow. You could simply do what you're suggesting in your example and add a named prop. In fact, that's what libraries did before React 16.3. Not a huge deal, but you'd have to document it so people know how to use it. Ideally, you'd also want some kind of standard that everyone used so it wasn't confusing (many libraries used the innerRef naming convention), but there'd have to be some consensus around that. So all doable, but perhaps not the ideal solution.
Using forwardRef, passing a ref to a component just works as expected. The ref prop is already standardized in React, so you don't need to go look at docs to figure out how to pass the ref down or how it works. However, the approach you describe is totally fine and if it meets your needs, by all means go with that.
As mentioned in the docs , it's useful for highly reusable components, meaning components that tend to be used like regular HTML DOM elements.
This is useful for component libraries where you have lots of "leaf" components. You've probably used one like Material UI.
Example:
Let's say you're maintaining a component library.
You create a <Button/> and <Input/> component that maybe just adds some default styling.
Notice how these components literally are just like regular HTML DOM elements with extra steps.
If these components were made to be used like regular HTML DOM elements, then I expect all the props to be the same, including ref, no?
Wouldn't it be tedious if to get the button ref from your <Button/> component I'd have to get it through something like fRef or buttonRef ?
Same with your <Input/>, do I have to go to the documentation just to find out what ref to use and it's something like inputRef ? Now I have to memorize?
Getting the ref should be as simple as <Button ref={}/>
Problem
As you might know, ref will not get passed through props because, like key, it is handled differently by React.
Solution
React.forwardRef() solves this so I can use <Button ref={}/> or <Input ref={}/>.
Lately I've been trying to write my React components as "Pure Functions" and I've noticed that sometimes I want to have something which feels a lot like state. I was thinking about passing my state as a second parameter to my component. I can achieve this by calling my component as a normal function with two parameters, props and state.
For example:
// abstracted to it's own module
const useState = (Component, state = {}) => {
return class extends React.Component {
state = createState(this, state); // will traverse and update the state
render() {
const { props, state } = this;
return Component(props, state); // <-- call the Component directly
}
};
};
const Component = (props, { index, increase }) => (
<div onClick={increase} {...props}>
Click me to increase: {index}
</div>
);
const componentState = {
index: 0,
increase: (event, state) => ({ ...state, index: state.index + 1 })
};
const StatefullComponent = useState(Component, componentState);
<StatefullComponent style={{ color: "purple" }} />;
I have a CodeSandbox example:
My questions are:
Will this pattern harm performance?
I'm no longer extending the props with state values, this might be a good thing
I am messing with the way components are rendered by default, this might be a bad thing
Will this Pattern break things like shouldComponentUpdate? (I have a sinking feeling this is modelling the old context api)
How worried should I be that future react updates will break this code?
Is there a more "Reacty" way of using State in a Pure function without resorting to libraries like Redux?
Am I trying to solve something which should not be solved?
Note: I'm using state in this example, but it could also be a theme, authorisation rules or other things you might want passed into your component.
EDIT 19-03-2018: I have noticed that people seem to be confused about what I'm asking. I'm not looking for a new framework or a conversation about "why do you want to separate your concerns?". I am quite sure this pattern will clean up my code and make it more testable and "cleaner" in general. I really want to know if the React framework will in any way hinder this pattern.
At first glanced when I checked your code I had a question:
"Why do you make it so complicated? When you can simply make it with a class declaration".
But later when I have splitted your code I found it really worth to do that.
Question 1: Doesn't really make a difference, it is the way how HOC does the composition.
I'm no longer extending the props with state values, this might be a good thing
Why/When might it be a good thing?
I am messing with the way components are rendered by default, this might be a bad thing
I don't see that you break or mess the rendering by default, I think the HOC pattern promotes the same philosophy, the difference you separate state from props.
Question 2: If a developer decide to use a stateless component then he/she should realize all “lifecycle methods” or references ref will be not available.
Your pattern make stateless component as “statefull” but in stateless declaration - amazing 😋.
Like in JSX you write in JS an "HTML" and inside it JS code with another "HTML":
<ul>
{list.map(text => <li>text</li>)} // I know there should be used key
</ul>
Mr. Baudin pattern (state-full like stateless):
import React from 'react'
import {useState} from './lib'
const state = {
index: 0,
increase: (event, state) => ({index: state.index + 1})
}
const Component = (props, state) => (
<div onClick={state.increase} {...props}>
Click me to increase: {state.index}
</div>
)
export default useState(Component, state)
Question 3: It depends what break changes will be in coming versions.
Question 4: Well... I don't think the offered pattern (implemented library) can be considered as application state management but it can be used within any state management like Redux or Mobx because it deals with internal component state.
Question 5: No, I don't think. Your solution makes code less and clean. Functional components are good for very simple or representational components and now it can be extended with state.
While this question has been open I've done some painful research on the subject and I'd like to share this research with you.
Question 1: Performance; Calling your components as functions or even as constructor functions doesn't really make a difference. You simply get your component instead of a type.
// the component
const MyComponent = () => (<div>This is my page</div>);
console.log(MyComponent());
console.log(new MyComponent());
console.log(<MyComponent />);
console.log(React.createElement(MyComponent));
Pen (Don't forget to inspect the developer tools!)
What I've noticed is that when you call a component directly you lose a little information, for example, when I use JSX the type information is preserved:
React.createElement(MyComponent).type === MyComponent // <- true
MyComponent() // <- Now way to find out what constructed this...
This doesn't seem like a big deal because the MyComponent() is seen as a normal div so it should render correctly; but I can imagine that React might do some lookup on the type of the component and calling your function like this that might interfere with the performance.
Haven't found anything in the documentation nor in the source code to suggest that this is the case, so I see no reason to worry about performance at this point.
Question 2: Does this break shouldComponentUpdate; the answer is "maybe not", but not because I need to write a class as was suggested. The problem is that React does a shallow compare on the props when you use a PureComponent and with pure functions just expects that with the same props you get the same result. In my case, because of the second parameter it might think the component doesn't need to update but actually it should. Because of some magic in my implementation this seems to work for child components of a root component wrapped with the useState function.
This is as I expected the same problem as with the original implementation of the context api. And as such I should be able to solve it using some reactive techniques.
Question 3: Seeing how "just calling a component as a function" seems to be the entire idea behind react and seeing how it results in almost exactly the same component without the original type information I see no reason why this should break in the future.
Question 4/5: No, there is no more "Reacty" way of really solving this problem. There is how ever a more functional way. I could use a state monad and lift the entire thing up; but that would envolve a lot of work and I really can't see the benefit of doing that. Passing state as a second parameter seems, at least for now, as something which might be strange but viable and actually feasable.
Question 5: When I started looking around I didn't find a lot os answers to these questions, but now that I've really dug myself in I can see a few other libraries doing the same thing. For example: recompose which calls itself "lodash for react". They seem to use this pattern of wrapping your component in a function and returning a class a lot. (Their withState implementation).
Extra information: My conclusion is that this pattern (because it's nothing more than a pattern) is valid and does not break any fundamental rules of React. Just to give a little bit of extra information Bernardo Ferreira Bastos Braga wrote that I needed to use a class to do it "the React way". I fail to see how wrapping your function and returning a class with state is anything other than "using a class".
I do however realise that wrapping a function increases complexity, but not by much; function calls are really optimised and because you write for maintainability and optimise later.
One of my biggest fears is that when the software gets more and more complocated and we get more cross-cutting concerns to deal with, it will get harder and harder to handle every concern as a parameter. In this case it might be good to use a destructuring pattern to get the concerns which you need from a "concerns" obejct passed as the second parameter.
One last thing about this pattern. I've done a small test (Just selenium rendering a page a 100 times) and this pattern, on a small scale, is faster than using Redux. The bigger your redux state gets and the more components you connect the faster this pattern becomes. The down side is that you are now doing a bit of manual state management, this comes with a real cost in complexity. Just remember to weigh all options.
A few examples of why this state component
Applications which interact with users, require that you try to keep track of the interactions they have. These interactions can be modeled in different ways but I really like a stateful approach. This means that you 'thread' state through your application. Now in react you have a few ways of creating components. The three I want o mention are:
create a class and extend from Component
create a class and extend from PureComponent
create a stateless function
I really like the last option but, to be honest, it's a pain keeping your code performant. There are a lot of articles our there explaining how lambda expression will create a new function every time your component is called, breaking the shallow compare of the props done by PureComponent.
To counteract this I use a pattern where I wrap my stateless component in a HoC where I pass my component and my state object. This HoC does some magic and passes the state as a second parameter to the stateless function, ensuring that when the props are tested by the compare of the PureComponent it should work.
Now to make the wrapper even better I memoize the lambdas so that only a single reference to that function exists so that even if you were to test the function by reference it should still be OK.
The code I use for this is:
return Object.entries(_state).reduce(
(acc, entry) => {
const [key, value] = entry;
if (value instanceof Function) {
acc[key] = _.memoize(item => (...args) => {
const newState = value.apply(null, [...args, root.state, root.props]);
root.setState(newState);
});
} else {
acc[key] = value;
}
return acc;
},
{}
);
};
As you can see I memoize the function and call it proxying the arguments and passing in the state and the props. This works as long as you can call these functions with a unique object like so:
const MyComponent = useState((props, { items, setTitle }) => {
return (
<div>
{items.map(item => (
<Component key={item.id} item={item} changeItem={setTitle(item)} />
))}
</div>
);
}, state);
1- Will this pattern harm performance?
Performance is usually not a black/white, rather it is better / worse in different scenarios. Since React already has a standard way of doing this, it it plausible that you'll be missing out on internal optimizations.
2-Will this Pattern break things like shouldComponentUpdate? (I have a sinking feeling this is modelling the old context api)
Yes, you should be using the class declaration if you need to write shouldComponentUpdate functions
3- How worried should I be that future react updates will break this code?
I think is fair to say that you should, since there are obvious and documented ways of doing the same using classes.
4 - Is there a more "Reacty" way of using State in a Pure function without resorting to libraries like Redux?
you could have a container component that has state and pass down callback functions to update the state
5- Am I trying to solve something which should not be solved?
yes, since there is already a mainstream and documented way of archieving what you need using the Component class. You should probably resort to functional components only for very simple or presentational components
I have recently started using React and Redux. One thing that often messes with my brain is how to re-write all the code examples from documentations that are usually written object based to my functional code base.
I am now in one of those situations; I can not find a way to call a method belonging to react-custom-scrollbars (link to docs) which I am using in one of my components. Below is a simplified version of the component. I have commented out the section where I would like to call the method scrollToBottom().
Bonus question: If I skip using the onUpdate() event, how would I go proceed if I want to call scrollToBottom() when a message is appended to the messages array?
const Chat = ({messages, app, keyDown, pressSend, setMessage, toggleEnter}) => {
return (
<div id="orbit-chat-content">
<Scrollbars
onUpdate={() => {
//
// HERE I WANT TO SCROLL TO BOTTOM
//
// this.scrollToBottom()
//
}}
className="react-scrollbar">
<div id="orbit-chat-conversation">
{ messages.map(message => <Message {...message} />) }
</div>
</Scrollbars>
</div>
);
};
export default Chat;
Thank you very much for taking your time to look at this!
The answer to your question:
Stateless components don't have refs. Which you would normally use to access the scrollbars instance.
Your real problem:
...how to re-write all the
code examples from documentations that are usually written object
based to my functional code base.
You don't have to. Statefull components are not deprecated or so. They are the base. PureRender Components / Functional components, are just an addition to the stack to provide a way of writing small independent components, like a Button.
Of course you can write a whole app only with stateless components, but if you need internal state, access to instances, some internal logic, you can and should use Normal Components too.