I have the following object which is my initial state in my reducer:
const INITIAL_STATE = {
campaign_dates: {
dt_start: '',
dt_end: '',
},
campaign_target: {
target_number: '',
gender: '',
age_level: {
age_start: '',
age_end: '',
},
interest_area: [],
geolocation: {},
},
campaign_products: {
survey: {
name: 'Survey',
id_product: 1,
quantity: 0,
price: 125.0,
surveys: {},
},
reward: {
name: 'Reward',
id_product: 2,
quantity: 0,
price: 125.0,
rewards: {},
},
},
}
And my reducer is listening for an action to add a reward to my object of rewards:
case ADD_REWARD:
return {
...state, campaign_products: {
...state.campaign_products,
reward: {
...state.campaign_products.reward,
rewards: {
...state.campaign_products.reward.rewards,
question: action.payload
}
}
}
}
So far so good (despite the fact that every object added is named "question")... its working but its quite messy. I've tried to replace the reducer above using the immutability-helper, to something like this but the newObh is being added to the root of my state
case ADD_REWARD:
const newObj = update(state.campaign_products.reward.rewards, { $merge: action.payload });
return { ...state, newObj }
return { ...state, newObj }
First, you must understand how the object shorthand works. If you're familiar with the syntax before ES2015, the above code translates to:
return Object.assign({}, state, {
newObj: newObj
});
Note how the newObj becomes a key and a value at the same time, which is probably not what you want.
I assume the mentioned immutability-helper is this library: https://www.npmjs.com/package/immutability-helper. Given the documentation, it returns a copy of the state with updated property based on the second argument.
You're using it on a deep property so that it will return a new value for that deep property. Therefore you still have to merge it in the state, so you have to keep the approach you've labelled as messy.
What you want instead is something like:
const nextState = update(state, {
$merge: {
campaign_products: {
reward: {
rewards: action.payload
}
}
}
});
return nextState;
Note how the first argument is the current state object, and $merge object is a whole object structure where you want to update the property. The return value of update is state with updated values based on the second argument, i.e. the next state.
Side note: Working with deep state structure is difficult, as you've discovered. I suggest you look into normalizing the state shape. If applicable, you can also split the reducers into sub-trees which are responsible only for the part of the state, so the state updates are smaller.
Related
I've been breaking my head for a week or something with this !!
My redux state looks similar to this
{
data: {
chunk_1: {
deep: {
message: "Hi"
}
},
chunk_2: {
something: {
something_else: {...}
}
},
... + more
},
meta: {
session: {...},
loading: true (or false)
}
}
I have an array of keys like ["path", "to", "node"] and some data which the last node of my deeply nested state object should be replaced with, in my action.payload.
Clearly I can't use spread operator as shown in the docs (coz, my keys array is dynamic and can change both in values and in length).
I already tried using Immutable.js but in vain.. Here's my code
// Importing modules ------
import {fromJS} from "immutable";
// Initializing State ---------
const InitialState = fromJS({ // Immutable.Map() doesn't work either
data: { ... },
meta: {
session: {
user: {},
},
loading: false,
error: "",
},
});
// Redux Root Reducer ------------
function StoreReducer(state = InitialState, action) {
switch (action.type) {
case START_LOADING:
return state.setIn(["meta"], (x) => {
return { ...x, loading: true };
});
case ADD_DATA: {
const keys = action.payload.keys; // This is a valid array of keys
return state.updateIn(keys, () => action.payload); // setIn doesn't work either
}
}
Error I get..
Uncaught TypeError: state.setIn (or state.updateIn) is not a function
at StoreReducer (reducers.js:33:1)
at k (<anonymous>:2235:16)
at D (<anonymous>:2251:13)
at <anonymous>:2464:20
at Object.dispatch (redux.js:288:1)
at e (<anonymous>:2494:20)
at serializableStateInvariantMiddleware.ts:172:1
at index.js:20:1
at Object.dispatch (immutableStateInvariantMiddleware.ts:258:1)
at Object.dispatch (<anonymous>:3665:80)
What I want ?
The correct way to update my redux state (deeply nested object) with a array containing the keys.
Please note that you are using an incredibly outdated style of Redux. We are not recommending hand-written switch..case reducers or the immutable library since 2019. Instead, you should be using the official Redux Toolkit with createSlice, which allows you to just write mutating logic in your case reducers (and thus also just using any helper library if you want to use one).
Please read Why Redux Toolkit is how to use Redux today.
you could use something like that:
import { merge, set } from 'lodash';
export default createReducer(initialState, {
...
[updateSettingsByPath]: (state, action) => {
const {
payload: { path, value },
} = action;
const newState = merge({}, state);
set(newState, path, value);
return newState; },
...}
I have multiple requests happening one after the other, I handle them with actions and reducers but some of them seem to delete elements of my state when completed.
Can someone explain to me why this is the case?
Here is my reducer:
...
case FETCH_BLOG:
return { ...state, blogs: action.payload.data };
case FETCH_ITEM_LIST:
return { ...state.item, done: true, popular: [ ...state.popular ], nearby: [ ...state.nearby ], item: { ...state.item }, second_item: { ...state.second_item }, items: action.payload.data.item , new_item: action.payload.data.new_item, item_places: action.payload.data.item_places, stories: action.payload.data.stories };
case FETCH_ITEM_NEARBY:
return { ...state, nearby: action.payload.data.nearby, loading: false, count: action.payload.data.count, done: true };
case FETCH_ITEM_NEARBY_START:
return { ...state, loading: true };
case FETCH_ITEM_POPULAR:
return { ...state, popular: action.payload.data.popular };
...
I thought using ...state would keep the previous state and just add elements to it but it seems like it overrides it somehow.
I call my actions in this order, and I can see that after some actions are finished, part of my previous state is deleted.
this.props.itemNearbyFetch();
this.props.itemPopularFetch();
this.props.itemListFetch();
this.props.blogFetch();
in your FETCH_ITEM_LIST action you are only spreading the item into state, which would get rid of any attributes of the state object and replace with whatever attributes your item has. I think you are misunderstanding how the spread operator works.
What you want to do is something like
case FETCH_ITEM_LIST:
return { ...state,
done: true,
items: action.payload.data.items,
new_item: action.payload.data.new_item,
item_places: action.payload.data.item_places,
stories: action.payload.data.stories
};
In the previous example you would now have anything that was previously on state like popular and nearby be copied, stories, items, and item_places from the payload data are returned to the new state.
doing item:{...state.item} is redundant as it is handled when you do {...state, ...}
I want to set state of this form :
this.state = {
filter: {
search: null,
brands: null,
price: null
}
}
How to set value for search / brands / price ?
Do the following:
this.setState({
filter: {
search: 'value',
brands: 'value',
price: 'value'
}
})
The key is that you don't want to ever mutate a value in state. As a result, you must copy the filter object before passing it to setState. Example:
onSearchChange(value) {
this.setState((state) => {
return {
filter: {
...state.filter,
search: value
}
})
}
Note that I am passing a function to setState. Since the next value of state relies on the previous value, you want to use an updater functions, as the setState docs recommend.
In general, it is nicer if you can keep your state flat. So rather than having a filter object in state, your shape could just be
this.state = {
search: null,
brands: null,
price: null,
}
In which case the above onSearchChange function would just be
onSearchChange(value) {
this.setState({search: value})
}
Definitely a lot easier on the eyes.
I recommend avoiding nested objects and keeping your state flat. e.g.
this.state = {
brandsFilter: null,
priceFilter: null,
searchFilter: null,
};
Component state in react is really nothing more than simple key-value pairs; that's what setState supports. Sure you can have nested objects if you really want. But as the other answers demonstrate, supporting such an approach can be needlessly complex.
you should use the setState function, you can set the filter with updated data like so
const newFilter = {...};
this.setState({filter: newFilter});
You should avoid to mutate React state directly, there are some functions can do immutable jobs for you (ex Object.assign):
const currentFilter = this.state.filter;
const newFilter = Object.assign({}, currentFilter, {search: "new search", brands: [], price: 100});
this.setState({filter: newFilter});
ES 6:
const currentFilter = this.state.filter;
this.setState({
filter: {
...currentFilter,
search: "new search",
brands: []
}
});
this.setState({
filter: {
...this.state.filter,
search: "new search",
brands: 'value',
price: 'value'
}
});
You may try this with Spread Operator.
If you need to preserve the previous filter value.
other wise you can,
this.setState({
filter: {
search: "new search",
brands: 'value',
price: 'value'
}
});
let newfilter = Object.assign({}, this.state.filter)
newfilter.search ="value";
newfilter.brands ="value";
newfilter.price ="value";
this.setState({
filter:newfilter
})
You can access the search, brands, price by using:
this.setState({
filter.search = true,
filter.brands = 'stackoverflow',
filter.price = 1400
})
and to access it, just like usual state access (this.state.filter.search).
I have a state Object that looks like this:
//State Object
playlistDict: {
someId1: {
active: false,
id: 'someId',
name: 'someName',
pages: [ 'pageId1', 'pageId2', 'pageId3', etc ] // I want to remove an element from this array
},
someId2: {
active: false,
id: 'someId2',
name: 'someName2',
pages: [ 'pageId11', 'pageId22', 'pageId33', etc ] // I want to remove an element from this array
}
}
I'm trying to write a reducer that removes a page element given the index to remove without using immutability helper.
This is what I'm trying to do but my syntax is off and I'm not sure what's the correct way to write the reducer:
export function _removePageFromPlaylist( playlistId, pageIndex ) {
return { type: types.REMOVE_PAGE_FROM_PLAYLIST, playlistId, pageIndex };
}
case types.REMOVE_PAGE_FROM_PLAYLIST: {
let playlistCopy = Object.assign( {}, state.playlistDict[ action.playlistId ]);
playlistCopy.pages = Object.assign( {}, state.playlistDict[ action.playlistId ].pages );
playlistCopy.pages.splice( action.pageIndex, 1 );
return Object.assign({}, state, {
playlistDict: { ...state.playlistDict, playlistDict[ action.playlistId ]: playlistCopy } // doesn't like this syntax in particular
});
}
EDIT: In regards to people thinking it's the same as my other question, I'm asking this question because I'm trying to figure out if my reducer USING immutability helper is messing up my Firebase database, so I'm trying to figure out how to write the reducer WITHOUT using immutability helper so i can help eliminate what my bug is.
Use spread operator, and write it like this:
case types.REMOVE_PAGE_FROM_PLAYLIST: {
let playlistCopy = [...(state.playlistDict[ action.playlistId ].pages)];
playlistCopy.splice( action.pageIndex, 1 );
return {
...state,
playlistDict: {
...state.playlistDict,
[action.playlistId]: {
...state.playlistDict[action.playlistId],
pages: playlistCopy
}
}
}
}
Using Object Spread Operator:
case types.REMOVE_PAGE_FROM_PLAYLIST: {
return {
...state,
playlistDict: {
...state.playlistDict,
[action.playlistId]: {
...state.playlistDict[action.playlistId],
pages: [...state.playlistDict[action.playlistId].pages].splice(action.pageIndex, 1)
}
}
}
}
Assume the following situation:
1. Page has many posts
2. Post has many comments
I have the following reducers:
1. PagesReducer
2. PostsReducer
3. PostReducer
4. CommentsReducer
I have the following state right now:
pagesByTitle: {
dorrisPage: {
isFetching: false,
data: {
_id: "..."
title: "dorrisPage",
},
posts: [
{
isFetching: false,
data: {
_id: "..",
body: ".."
},
comments: [..]
}
]
}
}
The above structure looked okay initially, but I realized that I had to pass down the action for child states. For example, if I dispatched an action called
ADD_COMMENT
I would pass the action down to PagesReducer, PostsReducer, PostReducer, and CommentsReducer, and finally the CommentsReducer will handle that action. I think this is when I realized why normalizing states is recommended in Redux.
Can you help me with the following questions?
Is my motivation for normalizing states correct in this context?
What's the best way to normalize the example states?
you should avoid nesting.
quote from redux docs:
In a more complex app, you’re going to want different entities to
reference each other. We suggest that you keep your state as
normalized as possible, without any nesting. Keep every entity in an
object stored with an ID as a key, and use IDs to reference it from
other entities, or lists. Think of the app’s state as a database. This
approach is described in normalizr's documentation in detail.
For normalize state you can use normalizr
pages:{
items:{
1:{id: 1,title: "dorrisPage", posts:[33,57]}
2:{id: 2, title: "anotherPage",posts:[57]}
},
isFetching: false,
itemIds:[1,2,..]
},
posts:{
items:{
33:{id: 33,title: "Post33", comments:[1,2]}
57:{id: 57, title: "Post57", comments:[]}
},
isFetching: false,
itemIds:[33,57,..]
}
comments:{
items:{
1:{id: 1, user: "user1", text:"fds"}
2:{id: 2, user: "user2", text:"fds2"}
},
isFetching: false,
itemIds:[1,2,..]
}
"itemIds" is neccessary for items ordering
then reducers may look like this
export const posts = (state = initialState, action) => {
switch (action.type) {
case type.FETCH_POSTS_REQUEST:
case type.FETCH_POSTS_FAILURE:
return {...state, isFetching: action.isFetching};
case type.FETCH_POSTS_SUCCESS:
return {...state,
isFetching: action.isFetching,
items: action.entities.posts, itemsIds: action.result
};
case type.DELETE_POST:
return {...state,
items: omit(state.items, action.id),
itemsIds: state.itemsIds.filter(id=>id !== action.id)
};
case type.UPDATE_POST:
return {...state, items: {...state.items,
[action.post.id]: {...state.items[action.post.id],...action.post}}};
default:
return state;
}
}
much easier to query post by id:
const mapStateToProps = (state,ownProps) =({
post:state.posts.items[ownProps.id]
})
for computing derived data from redux store, you can use Reselect for creating memoized, composable selector functions
video tutorial