I have this situation:
TeamComponent.js:
....more code
<WorkItemComponent workType="Beautiful">
<WorkItemComponent workType="VeryBad">
....more code
WorkItemComponent.js:
import React, { Component } from "react";
import { graphql } from "react-apollo";
import { compose, withHandlers } from "recompose";
import MY_BEAUTIFUL_WORKTYPE_QUERY from "./MY_BEAUTIFUL_WORKTYPE_QUERY";
import MY_VERYBAD_WORKTYPE_QUERY from "./MY_VERYBAD_WORKTYPE_QUERY";
import AmazingComponent from "./AmazingComponent";
class WorkItemComponent extends Component {
<AmazingComponent/>
}
export default compose(
graphql(MY_BEAUTIFUL_WORKTYPE_QUERY), // <-- here I need to change this query
choosing from [MY_BEAUTIFUL_WORKTYPE_QUERY, MY_VERYBAD_WORKTYPE_QUERY] based on "workType" prop in parent component "TeamComponent".
withHandlers({
...
})
)(WorkItemComponent);
I need to change the query "MY_BEAUTIFUL_WORKTYPE_QUERY" choosing MY_BEAUTIFUL_WORKTYPE_QUERY or MY_VERYBAD_WORKTYPE_QUERY
based on "workType" prop in parent component "TeamComponent".
But how?!
Maybe I have to rethink everything?
Where am I wrong?
I think there are two easy approaches you could take here:
1) Execute both queries ... and choose which results set you want inside WorkItemComponent. Obviously this is slightly wasteful as you'll be running one query you don't need.
2) Export two different components. Wrap them in a 3rd component that does the choosing. Example code:
const handlers = withHandlers({
...
});
const ComponentOne = compose(
graphql(MY_BEAUTIFUL_WORKTYPE_QUERY),
handlers
)(WorkItemComponent);
const ComponentOne = compose(
graphql(MY_VERYBAD_WORKTYPE_QUERY),
handlers
)(WorkItemComponent);
const Switcher = ({workType}) => workType === "something" ? <ComponentOne/> : <ComponentTwo/>;
export default Switcher;
So, compose up two different components, and switch between them at render time. Functional components and recompose make this rather simple and elegant!
Related
I am having a lot of trouble trying to implement tests for a component using the useSelector hook from react redux. I've seen some questions already about this subject but I didn't manage to fix my problem using the suggested solutions to those questions.
My component is pretty big so I won't post it all but the part giving me trouble looks like this :
Total.tsx
import React from 'react';
import clsx from 'clsx';
import i18next from 'i18next';
import { useSelector } from 'react-redux';
import { Trans } from 'react-i18next';
import Box from '#material-ui/core/Box';
import CustomTooltip from '../CustomTooltip/CustomTooltip';
import SkeletonTotal from 'components/Skeletons/Total';
import { ApplicationHelper } from 'helpers';
import './Total.scss';
//Some interfaces here for types since this is in TypeScript
function Total(props: TotalProps) {
const { currency } = useSelector(
(state: { currencyReducer: any }) => state.currencyReducer
);
...
}
I first tried to test it like another component that doesn't use redux like so :
Total.test.js (first attempt)
import React from 'react';
import Total from './Total';
import { render } from '#testing-library/react';
test('test', () => {
const { container } = render(
<Total priceLoading={false} bookingPrice={bookingPrice} values={myFormValues} />
);
});
But I was getting an error saying I need a react-redux context value and to wrap my component in a Provider which led me to try this :
Total.test.js (attempt 2)
import React from 'react';
import { Provider } from 'react-redux'
import Total from './Total';
import { render } from '#testing-library/react';
test('test', () => {
const { container } = render(
<Provider>
<Total priceLoading={false} bookingPrice={bookingPrice} values={myFormValues} />
</Provider>
);
});
I am now getting a "Cannot read property 'getState' of undefined" error for the Provider component. I did try to mock a store to pass to my Provider as well as using jest to mock a return value like so
const spy = jest.spyOn(redux, 'useSelector')
spy.mockReturnValue({currency: 'cad'})
Unfortunately I was unsuccessful to make this work and could not find a working solution in the other questions that might relate to this. Any ideas how I could make this work? Thanks
The useSelector hook relies on the redux Context in order to access the state, so it must be inside of a Provider component in order to work. Your second attempt is on the right track, but you haven't set the store prop on the Provider, so the store is undefined and you get error "Cannot read property 'getState' of undefined".
Since you'll likely have many components that you'll want to test with redux context, the redux docs suggest creating your own version of the react testing library's render function which wraps the element in a provider before rendering it. This new render function adds two new optional options to the standard RTL options: initialState and store.
You can basically copy and paste that entire test-utils.js example from the docs, but I modified the return to include the created store so that we can dispatch to it directly (rather than just interacting with the component in ways that will dispatch an action).
return {
...rtlRender(ui, { wrapper: Wrapper, ...renderOptions }),
store
};
With typescript annotations.
Inside your component test file, you will use your test-utils to render the Total component. It's fine to return the container element but you don't actually need to because you can query matching elements on the global RTL screen object or on the bound queries for your base element. We are basically looking to see that the outputted HTML code matches the expectations. You could test the selector itself in isolation, but it seems like you are trying to test the component.
Your test might look something like this:
import React from "react";
import Total from "./Total";
import { render, screen } from "./test-utils";
// if you want events: import userEvent from "#testing-library/user-event";
test( 'gets currency from redux', () => {
// render with an initial currency
const { store, container, getByLabelText } = render(
// not sure where these props come from, presumable constants in the file
<Total priceLoading={false} bookingPrice={bookingPrice} values={myFormValues} />,
{ initialState: { currency: USD } }
);
// some sort of RTL matcher or document.querySelector
const currencyElement = getByLabelText(/currency/i); // uses regex for case-insensitivity
// some sort of check for value
expect(currencyElement?.innerText).toBe("USD");
// dispatch an action to change the currency
// might want to wrap in `act`?
store.dispatch(setCurrency("EUR"));
// check that the value changed
expect(currencyElement?.innerText).toBe("EUR");
});
Working example that I created based on a basic counter component.
Writing unit testing in react using jest and enzyme. While checking with a component state , it throws an error "ReactWrapper::state() can only be called on class components ".
import React from 'react';
import { mount } from 'enzyme';
import expect from 'expect';
import CustomerAdd from '../CustomerAdd'
import MUITheme from '../../../../Utilities/MUITheme';
import { ThemeProvider } from '#material-ui/styles';
describe('<CustomerAdd />', () => {
const wrapper = mount(
<ThemeProvider theme={MUITheme}>
<CustomerAdd {...mockProps}></CustomerAdd>
</ThemeProvider>
);
test('something', () => {
expect(wrapper.find(CustomerAdd).state('addNewOnSubmit')).toEqual(true);
});
});
In the above code CustomerAdd Component is class component.I don't what wrong with my code. Can any one help me out of this problem. Thanks in advance.
So your default export
export default withStyles(styles)(CustomerAdd);
exports functional(HOC) wrapper about your class-based component. And it does not matter if name of class and import in
import CustomerAdd from '../CustomerAdd'
are equal. Your test imports wrapped version and after calling .find(CustomerAdd) returns that HOC not your class. And you're unable to work with instance.
Short time solution: export class directly as named export.
export class CustomerAdd extends React.Component{
...
}
export default withStyles(styles)(CustomerAdd);
Use named import in your tests:
import { CustomerAdd } from '../CusomerAdd';
Quick'n'dirty solution: use .dive to access your underlying class-based component:
expect(wrapper.find(CustomerAdd).dive().state('addNewOnSubmit')).toEqual(true);
It's rather antipattern since if you add any additional HOC in your default export you will need to monkey-patch all related tests with adding appropriate amount of .dive().dive()....dive() calls.
Long-term solution: avoid testing state, it's implementation details.
Instead focus on validating what's been rendered. Then you are safe in case of lot of different refactoring technics like replacing class with functional component, renaming state/instance members, lifting state up, connecting component to Redux etc.
We are building a Storybook UI library from our existing code base. The code wasn't written with component driven development in mind. There are many instances where a component renders descendants that are connected to the Redux store.
E.g., Parent (connected) -> Child (unconnected) -> Grandchild (connected)
Now if I'm building a story for Parent, I understand how to pass hard-coded data as a prop to an immediate child component in order to avoid Redux all together. However, I can't figure out how to do this when the connected component is more deeply nested.
Ideally I don't want to have to use Redux at all for stories, but even if I do initialize a Redux store and wrap the parent component in a Provider as described here, would this even work to connect the grandchild component?
Any ideas would be helpful.
When using storybook you can add a Decorator for all stories (see link for most updated API).
It is common to wrap your stories with the state manager store provider in order to not break the story avoiding "adding a store for each story".
// # config.js
import { configure, addDecorator } from '#storybook/react';
import React from 'react';
import { createStore } from 'redux';
import { Provider } from 'react-redux';
import rootReducer from 'reducers/root.reducer';
const store = createStore(rootReducer);
addDecorator(S => (
<Provider store={store}>
<S />
</Provider>
));
configure(require.context('../src', true, /\.stories\.js$/), module);
Note that you can avoid connecting all your components with redux-hooks which in addition removes all the boilerplate code of redux.
React Redux now offers a set of hook APIs as an alternative to the existing connect() Higher Order Component. These APIs allow you to subscribe to the Redux store and dispatch actions, without having to wrap your components in connect().
If you want to solve the problem within your story file (and just fetch your store), use decorator like this:
import React from "react";
import { Provider } from 'react-redux'
import Parent from "./Parent";
import { store } from "../../../redux/store";
export default = {
title: "pages/Parent",
component: Parent,
decorators : [
(Story) => (<Provider store={store}><Story/></Provider>)
]
};
Sidenote, if this gives you the error useNavigate() may be used only in the context of a <Router> component., then you may need <MemoryRouter><Provider store={store}><Story/></Provider></MemoryRouter> (import {MemoryRouter} from 'react-router-dom')
After wrapping a React Component with the appropriate provider, the store is still not found within the jest testing environment. Is there something that I am missing, or another cleaner way to go about this?
This is the practice that is functional for other stores, and I have used with other components, so I don't see a reason why this shouldn't work. The renderer should be creating an object wrapped with the TextContext that it needs to read from in order to populate fields.
Context
import { connect } from 'react-redux';
import React, { createContext } from 'react';
export const TextContext = createContext({});
export function TextProvider({ children, text }) {
return <TextContext.Provider value={text}>{children}</TextContext.Provider>;
}
export const TextConsumer = TextContext.Consumer;
function renderComposition(props) {
const text = {
... // some text objects
};
return (
<TextProvider text={text}>
<Composition {...props} />
</TextProvider>
);
}
target failing line
beforeEach(() => {
...
subject = mount(renderer.create(renderComposition(props)));
...
)};
with error of
Invariant Violation: Could not find "store" in either the context or props of "Connect(Composition)". Either wrap the root component in a <Provider>, or explicitly pass "store" as a prop to "Connect(Composition)".
I guess your component requires mocked store, you can provide it by creating mockReduxState.js
import configureMockStore from "redux-mock-store";
export const createMockStore = state => configureMockStore()(state);
Updating the failing test by passing mockedStore.
beforeEach(() => {
...
let updatedProp = {...props, store:createMockStore};
subject = mount(renderer.create(renderComposition(updatedProp)));
...
)};
Turns out the issue was unrelated, I was importing the component rather than the connected container, so the store was never getting set. Names are half of the battle turns out. The mocking the store option is also a great way to handle this 👍 thanks paragxvii
I want to make a simple application as a proof of concept for react components, and I was wondering if there was a way to implement recompose in such a way that it creates a store accesible from anywhere. This is what I have tried:
import App from './app-container'
import { withContext } from 'recompose'
import React, {
Component,
PropTypes,
} from 'react'
// Sets up application store.
const provide = store => withContext(
{ store: PropTypes.object },
() => ({ store })
)
var appStore = {
toast: null,
test: "hi"
}
const AppWithContext = provide(appStore)(App)
export default AppWithContext
Your code just put the store into the context, which is indeed something similar to react-redux/Provider, but you also need to implement something like react-redux/connect, which is more complicated, not recompose good at.