As per Doc
useSelector(selector: Function, equalityFn?: Function)
useSelector accepts two params and second one is optional since by default it compare strict === reference equality check but not shallow equality.
const state = useSelector(state => {
console.log("useSelector rerendering");
return state.counter
}, shallowEqual)
Another is
const state = useSelector(state => {
console.log("useSelector rerendering");
return state.counter
})
In both Cases component rerendering when redux store state changes and also when local state changes then it will render (print console.log inside useSelector)
I really didn't understand exactly how it works
Full source code
import React, { useState } from 'react'
import { shallowEqual, useDispatch, useSelector } from 'react-redux'
import { decrement, increment } from './store/actions'
export default function CounterHooks(props) {
const [submit, setSubmit] = useState(false)
const state = useSelector(state => {
console.log("useSelector rerendering");
return state.counter
}, shallowEqual)
const dispatch = useDispatch()
console.log("component rerendering");
const increments = () => {
dispatch(increment());
}
const decrements = () => {
dispatch(decrement());
}
const submitButton = () => {
console.log("component submit", submit);
setSubmit((previousState) => !previousState)
}
return (
<div>
<button onClick={increments} >Incrmeent Counter</button>
<br />
<button onClick={decrements} >Decrement Counter</button>
<br />
<button onClick={submitButton} >Submit</button>
<br />
<h2>total : {state.count}</h2> <br />
<h2>Submit:{String(submit)}</h2> <br />
</div>
)
}
MY question is how exactly second param works ?
In your example, it does not make a difference.
shallowEquals makes sense when you select an object that might be similar in contents, but different by reference.
See these two objects:
const a = { foo: "bar" }
const b = { foo: "bar" }
console.log( a === b ) // will log false
console.log( shallowEquals(a, b)) // will log true
While a and b are two objects with similar shape and contents, they are not the same object.
Now shallowEquals does a === comparison between a.foo and b.foo and since both are strings with the same content, a.foo === b.foo will be true.
This does play a role if you create a new object in your selector, say
const result = useSelector((state) => {
return { a: state.foo.bar, b: state.baz.boo }
})
The result of this will always be a new object, so per default useSelector will always assume they are different, even when state.foo.bar and state.baz.boo actually did not change.
If you use a shallowEqual, useSelector will look at the direct (only 1 level deep) child properties of the objects and compare those. Then it will notice that they are in fact equal and not rerender.
Consider the below as reducer,
const userSlice = (
{name: "user", initialState: {name: "test", isLoggedIn: true},
reducers: {updateUser(state, action) => (state.isLoggedIn=action.payload["isLoggedIn"])}
}
If we dispatch an action to reducer with same data like below,
const result = useSelector(state => state.users)
dispatch({isLoggedIn: true})
The above code will not cause the component to re-render, since we the state.users we are referring is same as previous one.
We can make it to re-render with the below changes,
const result = useSelector(state => ({name: state.users.name, isLoggedIn: state.users.isLoggedIn)
dispatch({isLoggedIn: true})
In the above code, we are returning an object directly so whenever the useSelector runs the returned objects will not be same due to referential equality. This make component to re-render
With useSelector you can also override the default strategy for rendering.
This hook takes an optional equality comparison function as the second parameter that allows you to customize the way the selected state is compared to determine whether the component needs to be re-rendered.*
https://github.com/reduxjs/react-redux/blob/master/src/hooks/useSelector.ts
Related
I am building this project to try and improve my understanding of react :), so I am a n00b and therefore still learning the ropes of extracting components, states, props etc =)
I have a child Component DescriptionDiv, its parent component is PlusContent and finally the parent component is PlusContentHolder. The user types some input into the DescriptionDiv which then, using a props/callback passes the user input to the PlusContent.
My question/problem is: after setting useState() in the PlusContent component, I am after a button click in the PlusContentHolder component, returned with an undefined in the console.log.
How come I cannot read the useState() in the next parent component, the PlusContentHolder?
I know that useState() is async so you cannot straight up call the value of the state in the PlusContent component, but shouldn't the state value be available in the PlusContentHolder component?
below is my code for the DescriptionDiv
import './DescriptionDiv.css';
const DescriptionDiv = props => {
const onDescriptionChangeHandler = (event) => {
props.descriptionPointer(event.target.value);
}
return (
<div className='description'>
<label>
<p>Description:</p>
<input onChange={onDescriptionChangeHandler} type='text'></input>
</label>
</div>);
}
export default DescriptionDiv;
Next the code for the PlusContent comp
import React, { useState } from "react";
import DescriptionDiv from "./div/DescriptionDiv";
import ImgDiv from "./div/ImgDiv";
import "./PlusContent.css";
import OrientationDiv from "./div/OrientationDiv";
const PlusContent = (props) => {
const [classes, setClasses] = useState("half");
const [content, setContent] = useState();
const [plusContent, setPlusContent] = useState({
orientation: "left",
img: "",
description: "",
});
const onOrientationChangeHandler = (orientationContent) => {
if (orientationContent == "left") {
setClasses("half left");
}
if (orientationContent == "right") {
setClasses("half right");
}
if (orientationContent == "center") {
setClasses("half center");
}
props.orientationInfo(orientationContent);
};
const onDescriptionContentHandler = (descriptionContent) => {
props.descriptionInfo(setPlusContent(descriptionContent));
console.log(descriptionContent)
};
const onImageChangeHandler = (imageContent) => {
props.imageInfo(imageContent);
setContent(
<>
<OrientationDiv
orientationPointer={onOrientationChangeHandler}
orientationName={props.orientationName}
/> {/*
<AltDiv altPointer={onAltDivContentHandler} />
<TitleDiv titlePointer={onTitleDivContentHandler} /> */}
<DescriptionDiv descriptionPointer={onDescriptionContentHandler} />
</>
);
};
return (
<div className={classes}>
<ImgDiv imageChangeExecutor={onImageChangeHandler} />
{content}
</div>
);
};
export default PlusContent;
and lastly the PlusContentHolder
import PlusContent from "../PlusContent";
import React, { useState } from "react";
const PlusContentHolder = (props) => {
const onClickHandler = (t) => {
t.preventDefault();
descriptionInfoHandler();
};
const descriptionInfoHandler = (x) => {
console.log(x) // this console.log(x) returns and undefined
};
return (
<div>
{props.contentAmountPointer.map((content) => (
<PlusContent
orientationInfo={orientationInfoHandler}
imageInfo={imageInfoHandler}
descriptionInfo={descriptionInfoHandler}
key={content}
orientationName={content}
/>
))}
<button onClick={onClickHandler}>Generate Plus Content</button>
</div>
);
};
export default PlusContentHolder;
The reason why the descriptionInfoHandler() function call prints undefined in its console.log() statement when you click the button, is because you never provide an argument to it when you call it from the onClickHandler function.
I think that it will print the description when you type it, however. And I believe the problem is that you need to save the state in the PlusContentHolder module as well.
I would probably add a const [content, setContent] = useState() in the PlusContentHolder component, and make sure to call setContent(x) in the descriptionInfoHandler function in PlusContentHolder.
Otherwise, the state will not be present in the PlusContentHolder component when you click the button.
You need to only maintain a single state in the PlusContentHolder for orientation.
Here's a sample implementation of your use case
import React, { useState } from 'react';
const PlusContentHolder = () => {
const [orientatation, setOrientation] = useState('');
const orientationInfoHandler = (x) => {
setOrientation(x);
};
const generateOrientation = () => {
console.log('orientatation', orientatation);
};
return (
<>
<PlusContent orientationInfo={orientationInfoHandler} />
<button onClick={generateOrientation}>generate</button>
</>
);
};
const PlusContent = ({ orientationInfo }) => {
const onDescriptionContentHandler = (value) => {
// your custom implementation here,
orientationInfo(value);
};
return <DescriptionDiv descriptionPointer={onDescriptionContentHandler} />;
};
const DescriptionDiv = ({ descriptionPointer }) => {
const handleChange = (e) => {
descriptionPointer(e.target.value);
};
return <input type="text" onChange={handleChange} />;
};
I would suggest to maintain the orientation in redux so that its easier to update from the application.
SetState functions do not return anything. In the code below, you're passing undefined to props.descriptionInfo
const onDescriptionContentHandler = (descriptionContent) => {
props.descriptionInfo(setPlusContent(descriptionContent));
};
This shows a misunderstanding of the use of state. Make sure you're reading about "lifting state" in the docs.
You're also declaring needless functions, e.g. onDescriptionContentHandler in your PlusContent. The PlusContent component could just pass the descriptionInfoHandler from PlusContentHolder prop directly down to DescriptionDiv, since onDescriptionContentHandler doesn't do anything except invoke descriptionInfoHandler.
You may want to consider restructuring your app so plusContent state is maintained in PlusContentHolder, and pass that state down as props. That state would get updated when DescriptionDiv invokes descriptionInfoHandler. It'd subsequently pass the updated state down as props to PlusContent.
See my suggested flowchart.
I haven't been in React for a while and now I am revising. Well I faced error and tried debugging it for about 2hours and couldn't find bug. Well, the main logic of program goes like this:
There is one main context with cart object.
Main property is cart array where I store all products
If I add product with same name (I don't compare it with id's right now because it is small project for revising) it should just sum up old amount of that product with new amount
Well, I did all logic for adding but the problem started when I found out that for some reason when I continue adding products, it linearly doubles it up. I will leave github link here if you want to check full aplication. Also, there I will leave only important components. Maybe there is small mistake which I forget to consider. Also I removed logic for summing up amount of same products because that's not neccesary right now. Pushing into state array is important.
Github: https://github.com/AndNijaz/practice-react-
//Context
import React, { useEffect, useReducer, useState } from "react";
const CartContext = React.createContext({
cart: [],
totalAmount: 0,
totalPrice: 0,
addToCart: () => {},
setTotalAmount: () => {},
setTotalPrice: () => {},
});
const cartAction = (state, action) => {
const foodObject = action.value;
const arr = [];
console.log(state.foodArr);
if (action.type === "ADD_TO_CART") {
arr.push(foodObject);
state.foodArr = [...state.foodArr, ...arr];
return { ...state };
}
return { ...state };
};
export const CartContextProvider = (props) => {
const [cartState, setCartState] = useReducer(cartAction, {
foodArr: [],
totalAmount: 0,
totalPrice: 0,
});
const addToCart = (foodObj) => {
setCartState({ type: "ADD_TO_CART", value: foodObj });
};
return (
<CartContext.Provider
value={{
cart: cartState.foodArr,
totalAmount: cartState.totalAmount,
totalPrice: cartState.totalAmount,
addToCart: addToCart,
}}
>
{props.children}
</CartContext.Provider>
);
};
export default CartContext;
//Food.js
import React, { useContext, useState, useRef, useEffect } from "react";
import CartContext from "../../context/cart-context";
import Button from "../ui/Button";
import style from "./Food.module.css";
const Food = (props) => {
const ctx = useContext(CartContext);
const foodObj = props.value;
const amountInput = useRef();
const onClickHandler = () => {
const obj = {
name: foodObj.name,
description: foodObj.description,
price: foodObj.price,
value: +amountInput.current.value,
};
console.log(obj);
ctx.addToCart(obj);
};
return (
<div className={style["food"]}>
<div className={style["food__info"]}>
<p>{foodObj.name}</p>
<p>{foodObj.description}</p>
<p>{foodObj.price}$</p>
</div>
<div className={style["food__form"]}>
<div className={style["food__form-row"]}>
<p>Amount</p>
<input type="number" min="0" ref={amountInput} />
</div>
<Button type="button" onClick={onClickHandler}>
+Add
</Button>
</div>
</div>
);
};
export default Food;
//Button
import style from "./Button.module.css";
const Button = (props) => {
return (
<button
type={props.type}
className={style["button"]}
onClick={props.onClick}
>
{props.children}
</button>
);
};
export default Button;
Issue
The React.StrictMode component is exposing an unintentional side-effect.
See Detecting Unexpected Side Effects
Strict mode can’t automatically detect side effects for you, but it
can help you spot them by making them a little more deterministic.
This is done by intentionally double-invoking the following functions:
Class component constructor, render, and shouldComponentUpdate methods
Class component static getDerivedStateFromProps method
Function component bodies
State updater functions (the first argument to setState)
Functions passed to useState, useMemo, or useReducer <-- here
The function passed to useReducer is double invoked.
const cartAction = (state, action) => {
const foodObject = action.value;
const arr = [];
console.log(state.foodArr);
if (action.type === "ADD_TO_CART") {
arr.push(foodObject); // <-- mutates arr array, pushes duplicates!
state.foodArr = [...state.foodArr, ...arr]; // <-- duplicates copied
return { ...state };
}
return { ...state };
};
Solution
Reducer functions are to be considered pure functions, taking the current state and an action and compute the next state. In the sense of pure functionality, the same next state should result from the same current state and action. The solution is only add the new foodObject object once, based on the current state.
Note also for the default "case" just return the current state object. Shallow copying the state without changing any data will unnecessarily trigger rerenders.
I suggest also renaming the reducer function to cartReducer so its purpose is more clear to future readers of your code.
const cartReducer = (state, action) => {
switch(action.type) {
case "ADD_TO_CART":
const foodObject = action.value;
return {
...state, // shallow copy current state into new state object
foodArr: [
...state.foodArr, // shallow copy current food array
foodObject, // append new food object
],
};
default:
return state;
}
};
...
useReducer(cartReducer, initialState);
Additional Suggestions
When adding an item to the cart, first check if the cart already contains that item, and if so, shallow copy the cart and the matching item and update the item's value property which appears to be the quantity.
Cart/item totals are generally computed values from existing state. As such these are considered derived state and they don't belong in state, these should computed when rendering. See Identify the minimal (but complete) representation of UI state. They can be memoized in the cart context if necessary.
There's a bunch of articles out there that show how Redux can be replaced with context and hooks (see this one from Kent Dodds, for instance). The basic idea is to make your global state available through a context instead of putting it inside a Redux store. But there's one big problem with that approach: components that subscribe to the context will be rerendered whenever any change happens to the context, regardless of whether or not your component cares about the part of the state that just changed. For functional components, React-redux solves this problem with the useSelector hook. So my question is: can a hook like useSelector be created that would grab a piece of the context instead of the Redux store, would have the same signature as useSelector, and, just like useSelector, would only cause rerenders to the component when the "selected" part of the context has changed?
(note: this discussion on the React Github page suggests that it can't be done)
No, it's not possible. Any time you put a new context value into a provider, all consumers will re-render, even if they only need part of that context value.
That's specifically one of the reasons why we gave up on using context to propagate state updates in React-Redux v6, and switched back to using direct store subscriptions in v7.
There's a community-written React RFC to add selectors to context, but no indication the React team will actually pursue implementing that RFC at all.
As markerikson answers, it is not possible, but you can work around it without using external dependencies and without falling back to doing manual subscriptions.
As a workaround, you can let the component re-render, but skip the VDOM reconciliation by memoizing the returned React element with useMemo.
function Section(props) {
const partOfState = selectPartOfState(useContext(StateContext))
// Memoize the returned node
return useMemo(() => {
return <div>{partOfState}</div>
}, [partOfState])
}
This is because internally, when React diffs 2 versions of virtual DOM nodes, if it encountered the exact same reference, it will skip reconciling that node entirely.
I created a toolkit for managing state using ContextAPI. It provides useSelector (with autocomplete) as well as useDispatch.
The library is available here:
https://www.npmjs.com/package/react-context-toolkit
https://github.com/bergkvist/react-context-toolkit
It uses:
use-context-selector to avoid unneccesary rerenders.
createSlice from #reduxjs/toolkit to make the state more modular and to avoid boilerplate.
I've created this small package, react-use-context-selector, and it just does the job.
I used the same approach as used in Redux's useSelector. It also comes with type declarations and the return type matches the selector function's return type making it suitable for using in TS project.
function MyComponent() {
// This component will re-render only when the `name` within the context object changes.
const name = useContextSelector(context, value => value.name);
return <div>{name}</div>;
}
Here is my take on this problem:
I used the function as child pattern with useMemo to create a generic selector component:
import React, {
useContext,
useReducer,
createContext,
Reducer,
useMemo,
FC,
Dispatch
} from "react";
export function createStore<TState>(
rootReducer: Reducer<TState, any>,
initialState: TState
) {
const store = createContext({
state: initialState,
dispatch: (() => {}) as Dispatch<any>
});
const StoreProvider: FC = ({ children }) => {
const [state, dispatch] = useReducer(rootReducer, initialState);
return (
<store.Provider value={{ state, dispatch }}>{children}</store.Provider>
);
};
const Connect: FC<{
selector: (value: TState) => any;
children: (args: { dispatch: Dispatch<any>; state: any }) => any;
}> = ({ children, selector }) => {
const { state, dispatch } = useContext(store);
const selected = selector(state);
return useMemo(() => children({ state: selected, dispatch }), [
selected,
dispatch,
children
]);
};
return { StoreProvider, Connect };
}
Counter component:
import React, { Dispatch } from "react";
interface CounterProps {
name: string;
count: number;
dispatch: Dispatch<any>;
}
export function Counter({ name, count, dispatch }: CounterProps) {
console.count("rendered Counter " + name);
return (
<div>
<h1>
Counter {name}: {count}
</h1>
<button onClick={() => dispatch("INCREMENT_" + name)}>+</button>
</div>
);
}
Usage:
import React, { Reducer } from "react";
import { Counter } from "./counter";
import { createStore } from "./create-store";
import "./styles.css";
const initial = { counterA: 0, counterB: 0 };
const counterReducer: Reducer<typeof initial, any> = (state, action) => {
switch (action) {
case "INCREMENT_A": {
return { ...state, counterA: state.counterA + 1 };
}
case "INCREMENT_B": {
return { ...state, counterB: state.counterB + 1 };
}
default: {
return state;
}
}
};
const { Connect, StoreProvider } = createStore(counterReducer, initial);
export default function App() {
return (
<StoreProvider>
<div className="App">
<Connect selector={(state) => state.counterA}>
{({ dispatch, state }) => (
<Counter name="A" dispatch={dispatch} count={state} />
)}
</Connect>
<Connect selector={(state) => state.counterB}>
{({ dispatch, state }) => (
<Counter name="B" dispatch={dispatch} count={state} />
)}
</Connect>
</div>
</StoreProvider>
);
}
Working example: CodePen
Solution with external store (Redux or Zustand like approach) with new hook useSyncExternalStore comes with React 18.
For React 18: Define createStore and useStore functions:
import React, { useCallback } from "react";
import { useSyncExternalStore } from "react";
const createStore = (initialState) => {
let state = initialState;
const getState = () => state;
const listeners = new Set();
const setState = (fn) => {
state = fn(state);
listeners.forEach((l) => l());
};
const subscribe = (listener) => {
listeners.add(listener);
return () => listeners.delete(listener);
};
return { getState, setState, subscribe };
};
const useStore = (store, selector) =>
useSyncExternalStore(
store.subscribe,
useCallback(() => selector(store.getState()), [store, selector])
);
Now use it :
const store = createStore({ count: 0, text: "hello" });
const Counter = () => {
const count = useStore(store, (state) => state.count);
const inc = () => {
store.setState((prev) => ({ ...prev, count: prev.count + 1 }));
};
return (
<div>
{count} <button onClick={inc}>+1</button>
</div>
);
};
For React 17 and any React version that supports hooks:
Option 1: You may use the external library (maintained by React team)
use-sync-external-store/shim :
import { useSyncExternalStore } from "use-sync-external-store/shim";
Option 2: If you don't want to add new library and don't care about concurency problems:
const createStore = (initialState) => {
let state = initialState;
const getState = () => state;
const listeners = new Set();
const setState = (fn) => {
state = fn(state);
listeners.forEach((l) => l());
}
const subscribe = (listener) => {
listeners.add(listener);
return () => listeners.delete(listener);
}
return {getState, setState, subscribe}
}
const useStore = (store, selector) => {
const [state, setState] = useState(() => selector(store.getState()));
useEffect(() => {
const callback = () => setState(selector(store.getState()));
const unsubscribe = store.subscribe(callback);
callback();
return unsubscribe;
}, [store, selector]);
return state;
}
Sources:
A conference talk from Daishi Kato from React Conf 2021
A blog post about same conference talk by Chetan Gawai
Simple approach to prevent additional renders with HoC and React.memo:
const withContextProps = (WrappedComponent) => {
const MemoizedComponent = React.memo(WrappedComponent);
return (props) => {
const state = useContext(myContext);
const mySelectedState = state.a.b.c;
return (
<MemoizedComponent
{...props}
mySelectedState={mySelectedState} // inject your state here
/>
);
};
};
withContextProps(MyComponent)
I have made a library, react-context-slices, which can solve what you are looking for. The idea is to break the store or state in slices of state, that is, smaller objects, and create a context for each one. That library which I told you does this, exposes a function createSlice which accepts a reducer, initial state, name of the slice, and a function for creating the actions. You create as slices as you want ('todos', 'counter', etc) and integrate them in a unique interface easily, exposing at the end two custom hooks, useValues and useActions, which can 'attack' all the slices (that is, in your client components you do not use useTodosValues but useValues). The key is that useValues accepts a name of the slice, so would be equivalent to the useSelector from redux. The library use immer as redux does. It's a very tiny library which the key point is how is used, which is explained in the readme file. I have also made a post about it. The library exposes only two functions, createSlice and composeProviders.
I'd like to start a discussion on the recommended approach for creating callbacks that take in a parameter from a component created inside a loop.
For example, if I'm populating a list of items that will have a "Delete" button, I want the "onDeleteItem" callback to know the index of the item to delete. So something like this:
const onDeleteItem = useCallback(index => () => {
setList(list.slice(0, index).concat(list.slice(index + 1)));
}, [list]);
return (
<div>
{list.map((item, index) =>
<div>
<span>{item}</span>
<button type="button" onClick={onDeleteItem(index)}>Delete</button>
</div>
)}
</div>
);
But the problem with this is that onDeleteItem will always return a new function to the onClick handler, causing the button to be re-rendered, even when the list hasn't changed. So it defeats the purpose of useCallback.
I came up with my own hook, which I called useLoopCallback, that solves the problem by memoizing the main callback along with a Map of loop params to their own callback:
import React, {useCallback, useMemo} from "react";
export function useLoopCallback(code, dependencies) {
const callback = useCallback(code, dependencies);
const loopCallbacks = useMemo(() => ({map: new Map(), callback}), [callback]);
return useCallback(loopParam => {
let loopCallback = loopCallbacks.map.get(loopParam);
if (!loopCallback) {
loopCallback = (...otherParams) => loopCallbacks.callback(loopParam, ...otherParams);
loopCallbacks.map.set(loopParam, loopCallback);
}
return loopCallback;
}, [callback]);
}
So now the above handler looks like this:
const onDeleteItem = useLoopCallback(index => {
setList(list.slice(0, index).concat(list.slice(index + 1)));
}, [list]);
This works fine but now I'm wondering if this extra logic is really making things faster or just adding unnecessary overhead. Can anyone please provide some insight?
EDIT:
An alternative to the above is to wrap the list items inside their own component. So something like this:
function ListItem({key, item, onDeleteItem}) {
const onDelete = useCallback(() => {
onDeleteItem(key);
}, [onDeleteItem, key]);
return (
<div>
<span>{item}</span>
<button type="button" onClick={onDelete}>Delete</button>
</div>
);
}
export default function List(...) {
...
const onDeleteItem = useCallback(index => {
setList(list.slice(0, index).concat(list.slice(index + 1)));
}, [list]);
return (
<div>
{list.map((item, index) =>
<ListItem key={index} item={item} onDeleteItem={onDeleteItem} />
)}
</div>
);
}
Performance optimizations always come with a cost. Sometimes this cost is lower than the operation to be optimized, sometimes is higher. useCallback it's a hook very similar to useMemo, actually you can think of it as a specialization of useMemo that can only be used in functions. For example, the bellow statements are equivalents
const callback = value => value * 2
const memoizedCb = useCallback(callback, [])
const memoizedWithUseMemo = useMemo(() => callback, [])
So for now on every assertion about useCallback can be applied to useMemo.
The gist of memoization is to keep copies of old values to return in the event we get the same dependencies, this can be great when you have something that is expensive to compute. Take a look at the following code
const Component = ({ items }) =>{
const array = items.map(x => x*2)
}
Uppon every render the const array will be created as a result of a map performed in items. So you can feel tempted to do the following
const Component = ({ items }) =>{
const array = useMemo(() => items.map(x => x*2), [items])
}
Now items.map(x => x*2) will only be executed when items change, but is it worth? The short answer is no. The performance gained by doing this is trivial and sometimes will be more expensive to use memoization than just execute the function each render. Both hooks(useCallback and useMemo) are useful in two distinct use cases:
Referencial equality
When you need to ensure that a reference type will not trigger a re render just for failing a shallow comparison
Computationally expensive operations(only useMemo)
Something like this
const serializedValue = {item: props.item.map(x => ({...x, override: x ? y : z}))}
Now you have a reason to memoized the operation and lazily retrieve the serializedValue everytime props.item changes:
const serializedValue = useMemo(() => ({item: props.item.map(x => ({...x, override: x ? y : z}))}), [props.item])
Any other use case is almost always worth to just re compute all values again, React it's pretty efficient and aditional renders almost never cause performance issues. Keep in mind that sometimes your efforts to optimize your code can go the other way and generate a lot of extra/unecessary code, that won't generate so much benefits (sometimes will only cause more problems).
The List component manages it's own state (list) the delete functions depends on this list being available in it's closure. So when the list changes the delete function must change.
With redux this would not be a problem because deleting items would be accomplished by dispatching an action and will be changed by a reducer that is always the same function.
React happens to have a useReducer hook that you can use:
import React, { useMemo, useReducer, memo } from 'react';
const Item = props => {
//calling remove will dispatch {type:'REMOVE', payload:{id}}
//no arguments are needed
const { remove } = props;
console.log('component render', props);
return (
<div>
<div>{JSON.stringify(props)}</div>
<div>
<button onClick={remove}>REMOVE</button>
</div>
</div>
);
};
//wrap in React.memo so when props don't change
// the ItemContainer will not re render (pure component)
const ItemContainer = memo(props => {
console.log('in the item container');
//dispatch passed by parent use it to dispatch an action
const { dispatch, id } = props;
const remove = () =>
dispatch({
type: 'REMOVE',
payload: { id },
});
return <Item {...props} remove={remove} />;
});
const initialState = [{ id: 1 }, { id: 2 }, { id: 3 }];
//Reducer is static it doesn't need list to be in it's
// scope through closure
const reducer = (state, action) => {
if (action.type === 'REMOVE') {
//remove the id from the list
return state.filter(
item => item.id !== action.payload.id
);
}
return state;
};
export default () => {
//initialize state and reducer
const [list, dispatch] = useReducer(
reducer,
initialState
);
console.log('parent render', list);
return (
<div>
{list.map(({ id }) => (
<ItemContainer
key={id}
id={id}
dispatch={dispatch}
/>
))}
</div>
);
};
I have issues with communication between a parent and a child component.
I would like the parent (Host) to hold his own state. I would like the child (Guest) to be passed that state and modify it. The child has his local version of the state which can change however the child wants. However, once the child finishes playing with the state, he passes it up to the parent to actually "Save" the actual state.
How would I correctly implement this?
Issues from my code:
on the updateGlobalData handler, I log both data and newDataFromGuest and they are the same. I would like data to represent the old version of the data, and newDataFromGuest to represent the new
updateGlobalData is being called 2X. I can solve this by removing the updateGlobalData ref from the deps array inside useEffect but I don't want to heck it.
My desired results should be:
the data state should hold the old data until updateGlobalData is called
I want updateGlobalData to be fired only once when I click the button
Code from Codesandbox:
import React, { useState, useEffect } from "react";
import ReactDOM from "react-dom";
const Host = () => {
const [data, setData] = useState({ foo: { bar: 1 } });
const updateGlobalData = newDataFromGuest => {
console.log(data);
console.log(newDataFromGuest);
setData(newDataFromGuest);
};
return <Guest data={data} updateGlobalData={updateGlobalData} />;
};
const Guest = ({ data, updateGlobalData }) => {
const [localData, setLocalData] = useState(data);
const changeLocalData = newBarNumber => {
localData.foo = { bar: newBarNumber };
setLocalData({ ...localData });
};
useEffect(() => {
updateGlobalData(localData);
}, [localData, updateGlobalData]);
return (
<div>
<span>{localData.foo.bar}</span> <br />
<button onClick={() => changeLocalData(++localData.foo.bar)}>
Increment
</button>
</div>
);
};
const rootElement = document.getElementById("root");
ReactDOM.render(<Host />, rootElement);
NOTE: Code solution below
Problem 1:
I want updateGlobalData to be fired only once when I click the button
To solve this issue, I have used a mix between React.createContext and the hook useReducer. The idea is to make the Host dispatcher available through its context. This way, you do not need to send the "updateGlobalData" callback down to the Guest, nor make the useEffect hook to be dependant of it. Thus, useEffect will be triggered only once.
Note though, that useEffect now depends on the host dipatcher and you need to include it on its dependencies. Nevertheless, if you read the first note on useReducer, a dispatcher is stable and will not cause a re-render.
Problem 2:
the data state should hold the old data until updateGlobalData is called
The solution is easy: DO NOT CHANGE STATE DATA DIRECTLY!! Remember that most values in Javascript are passed by reference. If you send data to the Guest and you directly modify it, like here
const changeLocalData = newBarNumber => {
localData.foo = { bar: newBarNumber }; // YOU ARE MODIFYING STATE DIRECTLY!!!
...
};
and here
<button onClick={() => changeLocalData(++localData.foo.bar)}> // ++ OPERATOR MODIFYES STATE DIRECLTY
they will also be modified in the Host, unless you change that data through the useState hook. I think (not 100% sure) this is because localData in Guest is initialized with the same reference as data coming from Host. So, if you change it DIRECTLY in Guest, it will also be changed in Host. Just add 1 to the value of your local data in order to update the Guest state, without using the ++ operator. Like this:
localData.foo.bar + 1
This is my solution:
import React, { useState, useEffect, useReducer, useContext } from "react";
import ReactDOM from "react-dom";
const HostContext = React.createContext(null);
function hostReducer(state, action) {
switch (action.type) {
case "setState":
console.log("previous Host data value", state);
console.log("new Host data value", action.payload);
return action.payload;
default:
throw new Error();
}
}
const Host = () => {
// const [data, setData] = useState({ foo: { bar: 1 } });
// Note: `dispatch` won't change between re-renders
const [data, dispatch] = useReducer(hostReducer, { foo: { bar: 1 } });
// const updateGlobalData = newDataFromGuest => {
// console.log(data.foo.bar);
// console.log(newDataFromGuest.foo.bar);
// setData(newDataFromGuest);
// };
return (
<HostContext.Provider value={dispatch}>
<Guest data={data} /*updateGlobalData={updateGlobalData}*/ />
</HostContext.Provider>
);
};
const Guest = ({ data /*, updateGlobalData*/ }) => {
// If we want to perform an action, we can get dispatch from context.
const hostDispatch = useContext(HostContext);
const [localData, setLocalData] = useState(data);
const changeLocalData = newBarNumber => {
// localData.foo = { bar: newBarNumber };
// setLocalData({ ...localData });
setLocalData({ foo: { bar: newBarNumber } });
};
useEffect(() => {
console.log("useEffect", localData);
hostDispatch({ type: "setState", payload: localData });
// updateGlobalData(localData);
}, [localData, hostDispatch /*, updateGlobalData*/]);
return (
<div>
<span>{localData.foo.bar}</span> <br />
<button onClick={() => changeLocalData(localData.foo.bar + 1)}>
Increment
</button>
</div>
);
};
const rootElement = document.getElementById("root");
ReactDOM.render(<Host />, rootElement);
If you see anything not matching with what you want, please, let me know and I will re-check it.
I hope it helps.
Best,
Max.