Whenever we pass in input for validation, AJV will output the validated input. But it mutates the original input. Is there a way to prevent this?
It's been asked in the issue #549.
Ajv only mutates the data if there are options that ask Ajv to mutate it: removeAdditional, useDefaults, coerceTypes. Without these options the data is not changed.
There is no general way to copy the object in JavaScript so if you want to both apply the changes and to preserve the original data you need to copy the object in your code, which in a your case can be as simple as JSON.parse(JSON.stringify()) but in general case can be either much more complex or even not possible.
Related
I've a question regarding the useState hook since the docs say that it completely replaces the old state with the new one you provided.
unlike this.setState in a class, updating a state variable always
replaces it instead of merging it.
Following that can I just destruct whatever property inside an object state and mutate it directly instead of shallow/deep copying it? I mean it doesn't make any sense to shallow/deep copy to mutate it when the old state will be discarded and replaced with a brand new one.
Correct me if I'm wrong because this part confuses me.
Also, I made a little sandbox to demonstrate my point.
I wish to update particular input value, I suceeded to do so with one dimensional array but unfortunatelly in my case 2d is necessary and I have no idea how to do so as I tried already all combinations of rows and cells.
Here is link to demo -> https://codesandbox.io/s/stoic-mirzakhani-46exz?file=/src/App.js
Basically, thing is that after typing some value to for example X-axis in first row, I wish only this field value to be updated. I have button which can add new row to inputValue which contains all input titles, and contents.
Another thing is that if I write something to the input now, it transforms aray into object and because of that app crash
Alright, so you had a few issues going on here, but overall it was a good effort!
You were attempting to update the state directly instead of using the mutation function provided by array destruction and hooks
In the state update, you were not merging objects properly leading to the same value to be passed
You were not using props properly
To address these I made a new input component that tracks each component row and col inside its props. Then these values will be used alongside the prop drilled mutation function and retrieved content value from your chunk component.
Please let me know if this is not working
Below is a link to the working version, please look at the console to see the updates and there is a button that will print the current value of inputValue for you as well. State now also updates as you enter.
Edit: I have addressed your comment and fixed the example so that it follows your request. I went ahead and switched to using the useReducer hook instead now as it makes the logic a little easier to understand and to read in my opinion. Feel free to try to figure it out with useState too, if you wanted to do that. For now, though here is the link again: https://codesandbox.io/s/prod-resonance-wokey?fontsize=14&hidenavigation=1&theme=dark
One pattern I've seen recommended is to use selectors to where possible to hide the shape of the store. That way if you need to update the shape of the store, you should be able to get away with only updating your selectors, and not other parts of the application.
However the same problem arises with the use of models within the state.
As one of many examples, let's assume I'm building a file system in Redux. I have a list of files which can either be a directory or a file.
My store might have a fileList property which contains an array of file ids as well as a files object which maps fileId to a file object.
Let's say I have a list of files and I want to, depending on whether it's a file or directory, have a different Item component (i.e. DirectoryItem and FileItem).
One way to achieve this is to do something like:
{
files.map(file => {
file.type = 'directory' ?
<DirectoryItem key={file.id} ...file /> :
<FileItem key={file.id} ...file />
)}
}
(or I could create a higher-order FileListItem component, for example, that does the check and renders either the DirectoryItem or FileItem)
However this might not be ideal because now my component needs to know the structure of the file object. I might want to add a different type of object (i.e. a shortcut file or shared file) and might decide that a type property isn't how I want to represent my data anymore. As such, I'd need to go and update all my components, etc.
If I were doing this in Backbone, for example, I would've probably chosen to define an isDirectory() function on my model, however that doesn't seem to be the Redux way of doing things.
One possible solution I can think of is creating a FileUtils helper class which exports an isDirectory method and takes a file object as a parameter.
Another option will be creating an isDirectory selector which takes a file id as a prop, doing something like:
(files, props) => state.files[props.fileId].type == 'directory'
If I were to create the selector, I suppose I would need to create a higher-order component to call the selector from.
Just wondering if either approach is recommended in Redux? Am I missing another approach that could help solve this issue?
The functional way of doing things simply prescribes tearing the method off of the object and calling it a function.
The recommended way to call it is to instead of having a this, simply pass a regular parameter. This is not a requirement. You can just use call or apply. That may seem real strange in js, but this may change soon with a new :: operator.
Now, you can give this function anything you like to help it get its data.
In your example
(files, props) => state.files[props.fileId].type == 'directory'
You pass it state (naming mistake there) and props and then use this info to come up with an answer. But you could instead choose to pass it a directory entry object. No need to go fetch it from state.
Note that this makes it very close to a method.
isDirectory = entry => entry.type === 'dir';
Now, because it's not getting state, it isn't selecting anything from state and is therefore not a selector.
However, it's plenty functional in nature. There really is no need or use to make life more complicated than that. Adding a higher order component or trying to shoehorn our problems into a more Redux-y way of doing things is needlessly complicating matters.
Selectors are recommended for selecting state so state usage is not tied to state shape. It's an abstraction layer, separating your mapStateToProps from your reducers.
Selectors are now considered part of the Redux Way, but that wasn't always true. And so, at your discretion, being informed of why something is done the way it is, you can then choose to not use it.
And, at your discretion, you can choose to substitute the current trend with your own version. It is highly recommended to do this, of course after consideration of alternatives.
Often the best solution is the one you come up with yourself. Being the most informed about your problem domain, you are uniquely qualified to formulate a matching solution.
Those who have developed great ideas that all of us feed off of and get inspiration from will probably move on from their viewpoint when something better comes along.
There isn't (and probably shouldn't be) a sacred paradigm. Everything is eligible for reconsideration. Occam's razor dictates that the simplest answer is most likely the right one.
And Redux is very much about simplicity. So to do things the Redux Way is mostly about doing things the straightforward way.
Basically I would like to perform Object.assign to get copy of my data, without anything that AngularJS attached in the past, it attaches now, or may attach in future versions.
Sure I can delete such property as $$hashKey after assignment but this approach is totally fragile, on the other hand I could manually construct the object with fields I want but this on the other hand is tiresome (and also fragile if I change definition of my source object).
Is there something solid in between?
There are no other properties as $$hashKey, it is one of a kind.
All of Angular object helpers are aware of this property and remove it at the end of the operation. angular.extend is a direct Angular counterpart of Object.assign and should be used instead.
angular.copy seems to be helpful in this case
I'm new to Redux - and I'm really trying to get the big picture of using functional programming to make unidirectional data more elegant.
The way I see it- each reducer is taking the old state, creating a new state without mutating the old state and then passing off the new state to the next reducer to do the same.
I get that not causing side effects helps us get the benefits of a unidirectional flow of data.
I just really don't get what is so important about not mutating the old state.
The only thing I can think of is maybe the "Time-Traveling" I've read about because, if you held on to every state, you could perform and "undo".
Question:
Are there other reasons why we don't want to mutate the old state at each step?
Working with immutable data structures can have a positive impact on performance, if done right. In the case of React, performance often is about avoiding unnecessary re-rendering of your app, if the data did not change.
To achieve that, you need to compare the next state of your app with the current state. If the states differ: re-render. Otherwise don't.
To compare states, you need to compare the objects in the state for equality. In plain old JavaScript objects, you would need to deep compare in order to see if any property inside the objects changed.
With immutable objects, you don't need that.
immutableObject1 === immutableObject2
basically does the trick. Or if you are using a lib like Immutable.js Immutable.is(obj1, obj2).
In terms of react, you could use it for the shouldComponentUpdate method, like the popular PureRenderMixin does.
shouldComponentUpdate(nextProps, nextState) {
return nextState !== this.state;
}
This function prevents re-rendering, when the state did not change.
I hope, that contributes to the reasoning behind immutable objects.
The key of the "no-mutations" mantra is that if you can not mutate the object, you are forced to create a new one (with the properties of the original object plus the new ones).
To update the components when an action is dispatched, Redux connector checks if the object is different, not if the properties have changed (which is a lot faster), so:
If you create a new object, Redux will see that the object is not the same, so it will trigger the components updates.
If you mutate the objet that it is already in the store (adding or changing a property, for example) Redux will not see the change, so it will not update the components.
I'm pretty new to Redux (and React.js) too, but this is what I understand from learning this stuff.
There are several reasons why immutable state is chosen over the mutable one.
First of all, mutation tracking is pretty difficult. For example when you are using a variable in several pieces of code and the variable can be modified in each of this places, you need to handle each change and synchronize results of mutation.
This aproach in many cases leads to bidirectional data flows. Pieces of data are flowing up and down across the functions, variables and so on. Code starts beeing polluted by if-else constructions that are oly responsible for handling state changes.
When you add some asynchronous calls your state changes can be even harder to track.
Of course we can subscribe to data events (for example Object.observe), but it can lead to situation that some part of application that missed change stays out of sync with other part of your program.
Immutable state helps you to implement unidirectional data flow that helps you to handle all changes. First of all data flows from top to bottom. That means all changes that were applied to the main model are pushed to the lower components. You can always be sure that the state is the same in all places of the application, because it can be changed only from one place in the code - reducers.
There is also one thing worth of mentioning - you can reuse data in several components. State cannot be changed (a new one can be created), so it's pretty safe to use same piece of data in several places.
You can find more information about pros and cons of mutability (and about the reason why it was chosen as a main approach of Redux) here:
Pros and Cons of using immutability with React.js
React.js Conf 2015 - Immutable Data and React
Immutable Data Structures and JavaScript
Introduction to Immutable.js and Functional Programming Concepts
Why immutable collections?
Redux checks if the old object is the same as the new object by comparing the memory locations of the two objects. If you mutate the old object’s property inside a reducer, the “new state” and the “old state” will both point to the same object and Redux will infer that nothing has changed.
No reasons. The are no any fundamental reasons that shouldComponentUpdate "pure render" optimization can't work with mutable state containers. This library does it, for instance.
https://github.com/Volicon/NestedReact
With immutable data the reference to the data structure itself can be used as version token. Thus, comparing the references you're comparing the versions.
With mutable data you will need to introduce (and compare) separate version tokens, which is hard to do manually but can easily be achieved with smart "observable" objects.
There are several reasons.
Because of the history (undo/redo) feature.
You can use the history feature also for debugging.
Race conditions: Lets say you have a service that logs some state data
after 1s. If you change the state before the service has logged the
data the service will log the wrong data. Of course you could copy
the state before passing it to the service, but it's easy to enforce
this rule if you do it in a mutation/method in one place, the store, the
single source of truth.