I'm trying to learn and test React.PureComponent and it keeps rendering even though no state changes for that pure component.
My PureComponent is very simple and it accepts only one Redux Action function via connect hoc
import React from 'react';
import {
Container,
Button
} from 'reactstrap'
import { connect } from 'react-redux'
import { resetWorkouts } from '../actions/workoutApiActions'
class About extends React.PureComponent {
render () {
const { resetWorkouts } = this.props;
console.log('in about render...')
return (
<React.Fragment>
<Container>
<h2>Api Data Reset</h2>
<Button color="danger" onClick={resetWorkouts}>Reset Data</Button>
</Container>
</React.Fragment>
);
}
}
const mapDispatchToProps = dispatch => {
return {
resetWorkouts: () => dispatch(resetWorkouts())
}
}
export default connect(null, mapDispatchToProps)(About);
In the above code, you can see that, there is no state in the component. It only accepts the action function as props from connect. However, whenever I clicks on the Reset Data button, it keeps calling the render method as shown in the screenshot.
In the screenshot, I can see that, global state store has been changed whenever, I click a button. But, that state is not used in my PureComponent and it should be out of the scope and my component should ignore to re-render.
Or Redux Action functions are created every time the global state store has been changed. And passed as a new object to my PureComponent ?
Theoretically, I don't need to write my own shouldComponentUpdate function, right? I'm confused and could you please help me to understand about this behaviour?
My goal is I don't want my PureComponent to render again when a user clicks a button.
Updates:
I have tried like the following according to this article and it's still re-rendering
const mapDispatchToProps = {
resetWorkouts
};
this because react do a shallow comparison between the prevProps and the nextProps,
and you can control that only in the shouldComponentUpdate, react doesn't know that the dispatcher is the same one from the previous render, because you are using return inside the mapDispatchToProps function.
In your component and in your case, while the function will remain the same, you can go with two paths:
path 1:
override the shouldComponentUpdate life cycle hook, to be as the following:
shouldComponentUpdate(){
return false;
}
path 2:
get rid of the return inside mapDispatchToProps and simplify the connect so it be as the following:
`conncect(state => ({}), {
resetWorkouts: resetWorkouts})(YourComponent);`
using one of the above paths should make you good to go
The reason why your component is rendering is because everytime the following function executes:
const mapDispatchToProps = dispatch => {
return {
resetWorkouts: () => dispatch(resetWorkouts())
}
}
your components receives a new instance of a property named resetWorkouts(because you're creating an inline array function). You may look at the ownProps to check if your component already have the resetWorkouts:
const mapDispatchToProps = (dispatch, ownProps) => {
return {
resetWorkouts: ownProps.resetWorkouts || () => dispatch(resetWorkouts())
}
}
The below super simple code is not working as expected.
I am using react and injecting/providing props via redux store. what my understanding is store inject props in the React component.
To make this component work why I need both line1 and line 2 ?
import React from 'react';
import './sytles.css';
import { fetchUsers } from "./actions/userAction"
import { connect } from "react-redux"
#connect((store) => {
return {
signup: store.users,
};
})
class Signup extends React.Component {
handleClick(event) {
this.setState({email: event.target.value}) //line 1
this.props.signup.email = event.target.value; // line 2
}
render() {
return (
<input
type="text"
name="email"
value={this.props.signup.email}
onChange=
{ (event) => this.handleClick(event) }/>
);
}
}
export default Signup;
You can't reassign props -- it's read only even aside from Redux. But to change the Redux store, you dispatch an action. Per the Redux documentation of The Three Principles of Redux:
State is read-only
The only way to change the state is to emit an action, an object describing what happened.
This ensures that neither the views nor the network callbacks will ever write directly to the state. Instead, they express an intent to transform the state. Because all changes are centralized and happen one by one in a strict order, there are no subtle race conditions to watch out for. As actions are just plain objects, they can be logged, serialized, stored, and later replayed for debugging or testing purposes.
You are doing it incorrectly, props must never be mutated directly, also you shouldn't keep a state that is directly derivable from props. Since your data signup is present in store, you need an action creator that updates this value in the store
const handleSignup = (email) => {
return {
type: "SIGNUP_EMAIL",
email
}
}
and dispatch it like
handleClick(event) {
dispatch(handleSignup(event.target.value));
}
My React component has a prop that is a class instance based from data coming from the redux store.
The reason for this is that it is much more convenient to deal with this data using a class and all its custom methods (more than 50).
I cannot use PureComponent as React always consider that this prop has changed. The problem is that most of my React components are connected to this prop...
I am aware of solution like reselect but this would mean having too many (as many as my class has custom methods) selectors only for the manipulation of this data.
What would you suggest?
My redux select looks like this:
getStation(state) {
// some logic to fetch the right station
return new WeatherStation(state.services.stationList[i])
}
where WeatherStation is:
class WeatherStation {
constructor (data) {
this.station = data
}
getId() {...}
// many more methods
}
and within my React Compoonent:
class MyComponent extends React.Component {
...
const mapStateToProps = (state, ownProps) => {
return {
station: getStation(state),
}
}
}
Have you tried using reselect along these lines?
import { createSelector } from 'reselect';
getStationData(state) {
// some logic to fetch the right station
// no new instances here, just selecting the relevant data
return state.services.stationList[i];
}
// create "memoized" selector.
const getEnhancedStation = createSelector(
getStationData,
stationData => new WeatherStation(stationData)
)
If I understand reselect and createSelector correctly, then this should generate a new WeatherStation instance only if the underlying data, ie. the thing returned from getStationData, has changed. (Instead of generating a new instance each time anything in the state changes.)
I've come across a repeated pattern in my react-redux site:
A component displays data from a web api, and it should be populated on load, automatically, without any user interaction.
I want to initiate the async fetch from a container component, but as far as I can tell the only way to do it is from a lifecycle event in a display component. This seems to make it impossible to put all the logic in the container and only use dumb stateless functional components for display.
This means I can't use a stateless functional component for any component that needs async data. That doesn't seem right.
It seems like the "right" way to do this would be to somehow initiate async calls from the container. Then when the call returned, the state would be updated and the container would get the new state and would in turn pass those to its stateless component via mapStateToProps().
Making async calls in mapStateToProps and mapDispatchToProps (I mean actually calling the async function, as opposed to returning it as a property) doesn't make sense.
So what I've ended up doing is putting the async call(s) in a refreshData() function exposed by mapDispatchToProps(), then calling it from two or more of the React lifecycle methods: componentDidMount and componentWillReceiveProps.
Is there a clean way to update the redux store state without putting lifecycle method calls in every component that needs async data?
Should I be making these calls higher up the component heierarchy (thereby reducing the scope of this issue, since only "top-level" components would need to listen to lifecycle events)?
Edit:
Just so there's no confusion what I mean by a connect()ed container component, here's a very simple example:
import React from 'react';
import { connect } from 'react-redux';
import {action} from './actions.js';
import MyDumbComponent from './myDumbComponent.jsx';
function mapStateToProps(state)
{
return { something: state.xxxreducer.something };
}
function mapDispatchToProps(dispatch)
{
return {
doAction: ()=>{dispatch(action())}
};
}
const MyDumbComponentContainer = connect(
mapStateToProps,
mapDispatchToProps
)(MyDumbComponent);
// Uh... how can I hook into to componentDidMount()? This isn't
// a normal React class.
export default MyDumbComponentContainer;
Jamie Dixon has written a package to do this!
https://github.com/JamieDixon/react-lifecycle-component
Usage would look like this:
const mapDispatchToProps = {
componentDidMount: getAllTehDatas
}
...
export default connectWithLifecycle(mapStateToProps, mapDispatchToProps)(WrappedComponent)
edit
With hooks you are now able to implement lifecycle callbacks in a stateless functional component. While this may not directly address all of the points in the question, it may also get around some of the reason for wanting to do what was originally proposed.
edit to original answer
After the discussion in comments and thinking about it more, this answer is more exploratory and can serve as a piece of the conversation. But I don't think it's the right answer.
original answer
On the Redux site there's an example that shows you don't have to do both mapStateToProps and mapDispatchToProps. You can just leverage connect's awesomeness for the props, and use a class and implement the lifecycle methods on the dumb component.
In the example, the connect call is even in the same file and the dumb component isn't even exported, so to the user of the component it's looks the same.
I can understand not wanting to issue async calls from the display component. I think there's a distinction between issuing the async calls from there and dispatching an action which, with thunks, moves the issuing of the async calls up into the actions (even more decoupled from the React code).
As an example, here's a splash screen component where I'd like to do some async action (like asset preloading) when the display component mounts:
SplashContainer.js
import { connect } from 'react-redux'
import Splash from '../components/Splash'
import * as actions from '../actions'
const mapStateToProps = (state) => {
return {
// whatever you need here
}
}
const mapDispatchToProps = (dispatch) => {
return {
onMount: () => dispatch(actions.splashMount())
}
}
const SceneSplash = connect(
mapStateToProps,
mapDispatchToProps
)(Splash)
export default SceneSplash
Splash.js
import React from 'react'
class Splash extends React.Component {
render() {
return (
<div className="scene splash">
<span className="fa fa-gear fa-spin"></span>
</div>
)
}
componentDidMount() {
const { onMount } = this.props
onMount()
}
}
export default Splash
You can see the the dispatch happens in the connected container, and you can imagine in the actions.splashMount() call we issue an async http request or do other async things via thunks or promises.
edit to clarify
Allow me to try to defend the approach. I re-read the question and am not 100% sure I'm addressing the main thing it's after, but bear with me. If I am still not quite on track, I have a modified approach below that may be closer to the mark.
"it should be populated on load" - the example above accomplishes this
"I want to initiate the async fetch from a container" - in the example it's not initiated from the display component or the container, but from an async action
"This seems to make it impossible to put all the logic in the container" - I think you can still put any additional logic needed in the container. As noted, the data loading code isn't in the display component (or the container) but in the async action creator.
"This means I can't use a stateless functional component for any component that needs async data." - in the above example the display component is stateless and functional. The only link is the lifecycle method invoking a callback. It need not know or care what that callback does. It is not a case of the display component trying to be the owner of async data fetching - it's merely letting the code that does handle that know when a particular thing has happened.
So far I'm attempting to justify how the example given meets the question's requirements. That said, if what you're after is having a display component that contains absolutely no code related to the async data load even by indirect callbacks - that is, the only link it has is to consume that data via the props it's handed when that remote data comes down, then I would suggest something like this:
SplashContainer.js
import { connect } from 'react-redux'
import Splash from '../components/Splash'
import * as actions from '../actions'
const mapStateToProps = (state) => {
return {
// whatever you need here
}
}
const mapDispatchToProps = (dispatch) => {
dispatch(actions.splashMount())
return {
// whatever else here may be needed
}
}
const SceneSplash = connect(
mapStateToProps,
mapDispatchToProps
)(Splash)
export default SceneSplash
Splash.js
import React from 'react'
class Splash extends React.Component {
// incorporate any this.props references here as desired
render() {
return (
<div className="scene splash">
<span className="fa fa-gear fa-spin"></span>
</div>
)
}
}
export default Splash
By dispatching the action in mapDispatchToProps you are letting the code for that action reside entirely in the container. In fact, you are starting the async call as soon as the container is instantiated, rather than waiting for the connected display component to spin up and be mounted. However, if you cannot begin the async call until the componentDidMount() for the display component fires, I think you're inherently bound to have code like in my first example.
I haven't actually tested this second approach to see if react or redux will complain about it, but it should work. You have access to the dispatch method and should be able to call it without problems.
To be honest, this second example, while removing all code related to the async action from the display component does kind of strike me as a bit funny since we're doing non-mapping-of-dispatch-to-props things in the eponymous function. And containers don't actually have a componentDidMount to run it in otherwise. So I'm a bit squirmy with it and would lean toward the first approach. It's not clean in the "feels right" sense, but it is in the "simple 1-liner" sense.
Check out redux-saga https://github.com/yelouafi/redux-saga. It's a redux middleware component that creates long-lived watchers that look for specific store actions and can trigger functions or generator functions in response. The generator syntax is particular nice for handling async, and redux-saga has some nice helpers that allow you to treat async code in a synchronous fashion. See some of their examples. https://github.com/yelouafi/redux-saga/blob/master/examples/async/src/sagas/index.js . The generator syntax can be hard to grok at first, but based on our experience this syntax supports extremely complex async logic, including debounce, cancellation and joining/racing multiple requests.
You can do it from a container. Just make a component that extends React.Component but name it with "Container" somewhere in the name. Then use that container's componentDidMount instead of using componentDidMount in the presentational (dumb) component that the container component renders. Reducer will see that you've dispatched an action still, and still update state so your dumb component will be able to get at that data..
I TDD but even if I didn't TDD I separate out my dumb vs container components via file. I hate having too much in one file, especially if mixing dumb vs. container stuff in the same file, that's a mess. I know people do it, but I think that's awful.
I do this:
src/components/someDomainFolder/someComponent.js (dumb component)
src/components/someDomainFolder/someComponentContainer.js (for example you might use React-Redux..have connected container not a connected presentational component..and so in someComponentContainer.js you DO have a react class in this file, as stated, just call it someComponentContainer extends React.Component for example.
Your mapStateToProps() and mapDispatchToProps() would be global functions of that connected container component outside that container class. And connect() would render the container, which would render the presentational component but this allows you to keep all your behavior in your container file, away from dumb presentational component code.
that way you have tests around someComponent that are structural/state based and you have behavior tests around the Container component. Much better route to be going with maintaining and writing tests, and maintaining and making things easy for yourself or other devs to see what's going on and to manage dumb vs. behavioral components.
Doing things this way, your presentational stuff is separated both physically by file AND by code convention. AND your tests are grouped around the right areas of code...not an intermingled mess. AND if you do this, and use a reducer that listens to update state, your presentational component can remain totally stupid....and just look for that updates state via props...since you're using mapStateToProps().
Following up on #PositiveGuy suggestion, here is example code of how to implement a container component that can utilize lifecycle methods. I think this is a pretty clean approach that maintains separation of concerns keeping the presentation component "dumb":
import React from 'react';
import { connect } from 'react-redux'
import { myAction } from './actions/my_action_creator'
import MyPresentationComponent from './my_presentation_component'
const mapStateToProps = state => {
return {
myStateSlice: state.myStateSlice
}
}
const mapDispatchToProps = dispatch => {
return {
myAction: () => {
dispatch(myAction())
}
}
}
class Container extends React.Component {
componentDidMount() {
//You have lifecycle access now!!
}
render() {
return(
<MyPresentationComponent
myStateSlice={this.props.myStateSlice}
myAction={this.props.myAction}
/>
)
}
}
const ContainerComponent = connect(
mapStateToProps,
mapDispatchToProps
)(Container)
export default ContainerComponent
You CAN initiate an async fetch from the parent container (the smart container). You write the function in the smart container and you pass the function as a prop for the dumb container. For example:
var Parent = React.createClass({
onClick: function(){
dispatch(myAsyncAction());
},
render: function() {
return <childComp onClick={this.onClick} />;
}
});
var childComp = React.createClass({
propTypes:{
onClick: React.PropTypes.func
},
render: function() {
return <Button onClick={this.props.onClick}>Click me</Button>;
}
});
childComp is stateless since the onClick definition is determined by the parent.
EDIT: Added connected container example below, excluded other stuff for brevity. Doesn't really show much, and it's a bit cumbersome to setup on fiddle and stuff, point is, I do use lifecycle methods in connected containers and it works out fine for me.
class cntWorkloadChart extends Component {
...
componentWillReceiveProps(nextProps){
if(nextProps.myStuff.isData){
if (nextProps.myStuff.isResized) {
this.onResizeEnd();
}
let temp = this.updatePrintingData(nextProps)
this.selectedFilterData = temp.selectedFilterData;
this.selectedProjects = temp.selectedProjects;
let data = nextProps.workloadData.toArray();
let spread = [];
if(nextProps.myStuff.isSpread) {
spread = this.updateSelectedProjectSpread(nextProps);
for (var i = 0; i < data.length; i++) {
data[i].sumBillableHrsSelectedProjects = spread[data[i].weekCode] ? Number(spread[data[i].weekCode].sumBillableHrsSelectedProjects.toFixed(1)) : 0;
data[i].sumCurrentBudgetHrsSelectedProjects = spread[data[i].weekCode] ? Number(spread[data[i].weekCode].sumCurrentBudgetHrsSelectedProjects.toFixed(1)) : 0;
data[i].sumHistoricBudgetHrsSelectedProjects = spread[data[i].weekCode] ? Number(spread[data[i].weekCode].sumHistoricBudgetHrsSelectedProjects.toFixed(1)) : 0;
}
}
if (nextProps.potentialProjectSpread.length || this.props.potentialProjectSpread.length) { //nextProps.myStuff.isPpSpread) { ???? - that was undefined
let potential = nextProps.potentialProjectSpread;
let ppdd = _.indexBy(potential, 'weekCode');
for (var i = 0; i < data.length; i++) {
data[i].sumSelectedPotentialProjects = ppdd[data[i].weekCode] ? ppdd[data[i].weekCode].sumSelectedPotentialProjects.toFixed(1) : 0;
}
}
for (var i = 0; i < data.length; i++) {
let currObj = data[i];
currObj.sumCurrentBudgetHrs = currObj.currentBudgeted.sumWeekHours;
currObj.sumHistoricBudgetHrs = currObj.historicBudgeted.sumWeekHours;
currObj.fillAlpha = .6; //Default to .6 before any selections are made
//RMW-TODO: Perhaps we should update ALL line colors this way? This would clean up zero total bars in all places
this.updateLineColor(currObj, "sumSelectedPotentialProjects", "potentialLineColor", potentialLineColor);
this.updateLineColor(currObj, "sumHistoricBudgetHrs", "histLineColor", histBudgetLineColor);
this.updateLineColor(currObj, "sumHistoricBudgetHrsSelectedProjects", "histSelectedLineColor", selectedHistBudgetFillColor);
}
if(nextProps.myStuff.isSelectedWeek){
let currWeekIndex = nextProps.weekIndex.index;
let selectedWeek = data[currWeekIndex].fillAlpha = 1.0;
}
if(data.length > 0){
if(data[0].targetLinePercentages && data.length > 9) { //there are target lines and more than 10 items in the dataset
let tlHigh = data[0].targetLinePercentages.targetLineHigh;
let tlLow = data[0].targetLinePercentages.targetLineLow;
if (tlHigh > 0 && tlLow > 0) {
this.addTargetLineGraph = true;
this.upperTarget = tlHigh;
this.lowerTarget = tlLow;
}
}
else {
this.addTargetLineGraph = false;
this.upperTarget = null;
this.lowerTarget = null;
}
}
this.data = this.transformStoreData(data);
this.containsHistorical = nextProps.workloadData.some(currObj=> currObj.historicBudgeted.projectDetails.length);
}
}
...
render() {
return (
<div id="chartContainer" className="container">
<WorkloadChart workloadData={this.props.workloadData}
onClick={this.onClick}
onResizeEnd={this.onResizeEnd}
weekIndex={this.props.weekIndex}
getChartReference={this.getChartReference}
//projectSpread={this.props.projectSpread}
selectedRows={this.props.selectedRows}
potentialProjectSpread={this.props.potentialProjectSpread}
selectedCompany={this.props.selectedCompany}
cascadeFilters={this.props.cascadeFilters}
selectedRows={this.props.selectedRows}
resized={this.props.resized}
selectedFilterData={this.selectedFilterData}
selectedProjects={this.selectedProjects}
data={this.data}
upperTarget={this.upperTarget}
lowerTarget={this.lowerTarget}
containsHistorical={this.containsHistorical}
addTargetLineGraph={this.addTargetLineGraph}
/>
</div>
);
}
};
function mapStateToProps(state){
let myValues = getChartValues(state);
return {
myStuff: myValues,
workloadData: state.chartData || new Immutable.List(),
weekIndex: state.weekIndex || null,
//projectSpread: state.projectSpread || {},
selectedRows: state.selectedRows || [],
potentialProjectSpread: state.potentialProjectSpread || [],
selectedCompany: state.companyFilter.selectedItems || null,
brokenOutByCompany: state.workloadGrid.brokenOutByCompany || false,
gridSortName: state.projectGridSort.name,
gridSortOrder: state.projectGridSort.order,
cascadeFilters: state.cascadeFilters || null,
selectedRows: state.selectedRows || [],
resized: state.chartResized || false,
selectedPotentialProjects: state.selectedPotentialProjects || []
};
}
module.exports = connect(mapStateToProps)(cntWorkloadChart);
I'm building an app that contains a store with an "offers" section of the state tree (ImmutableJS List Object). I need to take some action (play a browser sound) whenever an item is added to this list. Items can be added to this list via several different types of Redux actions.
I am trying to figure out the best way to react to the changes to a particular part of the store. I could do it in each action/reducer method, but then I would have it all over the place. I'd rather have one central place to handle the logic.
What's the best way to handle this? Should I create a generic store subscriber and has it's own logic for keeping track of the list values?
In this case your best bet is a store listener. Either a plain listener function or a redux connected React component.
Assuming a simple function to make noise:
function playSound () {
const audio = new Audio('audio_file.mp3')
audio.play()
}
You can create a store observer and listen for changes:
function createSoundObserver (store) {
let prevState = store.getState()
return store.subscribe(() => {
const nextState = store.getState()
if (prevState.messages.length < nextState.messages.length) {
playSound()
}
prevState = nextState
})
}
You can achieve the same with a React component:
import React, {Component, PropTypes} from 'react'
import {connect} from 'react-redux'
class Notifier extends Component {
static propTypes = {
messages: PropTypes.array.isRequired
}
componentDidUpdate (prevProps) {
if (this.props.messages.length > prevProps.messages.length) {
playSound()
}
}
render () { return null }
}
export default connect((state, props) => {
const {messages} = state
return {messages}
}, {})(Notifier)
As long as a Notifier is present amongst the rendered tree, it will check for changes and play the sound accordingly. The advantage of this approach is that you don't have to take extra care of unsubscribing the event if you want to stay quiet, and it seamlessly works server-side rendering.