Using selectors with smart/dumb components in redux - reactjs

Say I have a top most smart component called Forecast that looks like this:
function mapStateToProps(state) {
return {
dates: state.getIn(['forecast', 'dates']),
isFetching: state.getIn(['forecast', 'isFetching'])
};
}
export default connect(mapStateToProps, {
fetchForecast
})(Forecast));
Which wraps a Forecast component like this:
import { getSummary, getDayForecast } from '../selectors/selectors';
export default class Forecast extends Component {
render() {
const { dates, isFetching } = this.props;
return (
<div className="row">
{dates.map(date => (
<Weather
key={date}
date={date}
getSummary={getSummary}
getDayForecast={getDayForecast}
/>
))}
</div>
);
}
};
Here I am passing 2 selectors as props into a Weather component. The selectors look like this:
import { createSelector } from 'reselect';
import moment from 'moment';
import { fromJS } from 'immutable';
const getDay = (state, key) => state.getIn(['forecast', 'forecast']).find(x => x.get('id') === key);
export const getSummary = createSelector(
[getDay],
(day => {
const firstPeriod = day.get('periods').first();
return fromJS({
date: day.get('date'),
outlook: firstPeriod.get('outlook'),
icon: firstPeriod.get('icon')
});
})
);
export const getDayForecast = createSelector(
[getDay],
(day) => day.get('periods').map(period => fromJS({id: period.get('id') }))
);
I don't have to pass these selectors down as props, I could easily just reference them in the weather component but I am confused as to how I would use these selectors in the Weather component as the Weather component is also dumb and won't have any reference to state. I only want 1 container or smart component at the top which the child components call or get props passed down.
The only way I can see of making this work is to have an intermediatary WeatherContainer component that looks something like this:
import React, { Component, PropTypes } from 'react';
import { connect } from 'react-redux';
import Weather from '../components/Weather';
import { getSummary, getDayForecast } from '../selectors/selectors';
function mapStateToProps(state, ownProps) {
return {
summary: getSummary(state, ownProps.date),
detail: getDayForecast(state, ownProps.date)
};
}
export default(connect(mapStateToProps,{}))(Weather);
And I would call like this:
{dates.map(date => (
<WeatherContainer
key={date}
date={date}
getSummary={getSummary}
getDayForecast={getDayForecast}
/>
))}
This seems completely wrong to have to create a container component like this.
How can I make use of selectors in dumb components or how can I pass them down as props baring in mind that they also need reference to the state?

In your WeatherContainer mapStateToProps you use your selectors but you're still passing them down as props. This is not necessary.
Besides that, you should know that creating your container WeatherContainer is the right way to go about things. You should never give a selector to a component. They should always be used in mapStateToProps. React-Redux will reevaluate this when state changes and will tell React to update your components whenever the result is different. This is a very important point. If you just grab the state inside a component, whether using a selector or not, then React-Redux doesn't know you're using this data and won't we able to tell React to rerender when this data changes.
Now, a lot of people are confused on this matter. There are dumb components, which just display stuff, and container components, which do stuff, like make API calls or implement functionality of sorts. But when you take a dumb component and connect it to Redux, then this doesn't make for a smart or container component. It still only displays stuff. Even if you use mapDispatchToProps to feed it some event listeners, this still doesn't really make the component smart. It could become smart if it contains significant code in mapStateToProps or mapDispatchToProps I guess. But such is life. The line between these things is just blurry.
The Redux Way is to connect everything that needs data. You can certainly pass data down to children, just as in plain React, but you create a more performant app by connecting components. Still, it's up to you to decide. But it is still important that anywhere you grab data from the store, it should be put inside a mapStateToProps so React-Redux can keep an eye on the data. You can safely pass it from a parent to a child as long as the data came from mapStateToProps.
This means passing selectors to children is a no-no. Also, where's the child going to get the state to pass as a parameter to the selectors? It doesn't work well so it's not a good idea. Note that whenever you connect a component, you're not creating an entirely new component. Is just a simple wrapper. It should contain very little code in very few lines. This should not give you pause. Just go for it. connect those components.
I should also mention that you can connect your Weather component directly inside the weather.js file. Unless you're going to reuse it, there's not much need to keep the unconnected component around. For testing you can export the unconnected component with a named export. If later on you decide you need to reuse theWeather component, you can always easily separate the component and the connect call into separate files.

Related

How to change state of component from anywhere without Redux?

Is this bad practices or not ?
export state change function from component
import it from other file.
call the function to change state?
In this way we can change some component state from anywhere.
For example...
We want to change the Model.js state from anywhere.
Modal.js
import React from 'react';
export let toggleModal;
export default class Modal extends React.Component {
constructor(props) {
super(props);
this.state = {
open: false,
};
toggleModal = this.toggleModal;
}
toggleModal = () => {
this.setState({ open: !this.state.open });
};
render() {
const { open } = this.state;
return <div style={{ color: 'red' }}>{open && 'Hello Modal'}</div>;
}
}
App.js(Some Top Level component)
import React from 'react';
import Modal from './Modal';
export default () => (
<>
...
<Modal />
...
</>
);
Somewhere.js
import React from 'react';
import {toggleModal} from './Modal';
export default () => (
<>
<h1>Hello!</h1>
<button onClick={() => toggleModal()}>open Modal!</button>
</>
);
  
But there is no reference in React Official docs, so is this bad practices ?
What React Docs recommends...
Just passing function props to change parent state from parent to children
Use context
Redux or Mobx
But, these are too complex for me.
Example code here
https://next.plnkr.co/edit/37nutSDTWp8GGv2r?preview
Everything seems pretty much overwhelming and difficult at the beginning. But as we get out hands on them, it's give us more confidence to dig into.
I would recommend to use redux that's how we tackled props drilling problem. You can dispatch a action and connect reducer to corresponding component which upon updating state will re render. This is what I recommend to most of the people to learn the tale of redux with a real life example:
Understanding Redux: The World’s Easiest Guide to Beginning Redux
Apart from this you can take Dan Abramov, author of the library, free redux course on egghead.io:
Getting Started with Redux
The problem you run into, almost immediately like your code example does is this:
It will not work: your toggleModal() method expects a this to refer to an actual component instance. When your onClick() handler fires you invoke toggleModal() as a plain function. The this context will be wrong, and so at best (in your example) you will get an error because you try to invoke something undefined, at worst (in general) you end up invoking the wrong method.
When you think about it, for any non-trivial React component you will have a hard time obtaining a reference to the actual instance that is currently being used: you have to make sure that you are not forgetting to invoke the method on the right component instance and also you have to consider that instances may be created/destroyed 'at will' for whatever reason. For example: what if your component is rendered indirectly as part of some other component's render() method? Multiple layers of indirection like that make it even harder.
Now, you could fix all that by abusing ref with abandon but you will find that now you have to keep track of which ref refers to what particular instance, if you happen to have multiple of the components to consider in one render tree...
Whenever you think one component needs to handle the state of its siblings, the solution is usually to lift the state one level up.
export default class Modal extends React.Component {
render() {
const { isOpen } = this.props;
return <div style={{ color: 'red' }}>{isOpen && 'Hello Modal'}</div>;
}
}
export default class Home {
this.state = {
isOpen: false,
};
toggleModal = () => {
this.setState({ isOpen: !this.state.isOpen });
}
render() {
const { isOpen } = this.state;
return (
<>
<h1>Hello {name}!</h1>
<button onClick={() => this.toggleModal()}>open Modal!</button>
<Modal isOpen={isOpen}/>
<p>Start editing and see your changes reflected here immediately!</p>
</>
)
}
}
This way the Home handle the state and your problem is solved.
This can get annoying if the state needs to be "drilled down" to children, that's a problem than redux or react-context can solve.
Here <Modal /> is the child component. So to call a function in a child component you can simply use Ref.
You can refer this page to get more info about Ref.
You can assign a class variable as a ref to this child and use this class variable as an object to call its function.
I found if in special case, my way is okay.
Special case means something like customAlert component.
It is okay only one instance of customAlert component mounted at a time in App.
To achieve this...
1.Use ref to access and change DOM
2.attach state changing function or component to window and call window.function
3.my case: export state changing function and import it from other file.
And here is how to do with react Context
https://next.plnkr.co/edit/EpLm1Bq3ASiWECoE?preview
I think Redux is overkill if the main thing you are interested in is to make some states-like data available and updatable throughout your App without props drilling.
For that purpose, a much simpler approach (maybe not available at the time the question was posted?) is to use react context: https://frontend.turing.edu/lessons/module-3/advanced-react-hooks.html
"context - an API given to us by React, allowing for the passing of
information to child components without the use of props
[...]
useContext - a react hook, allowing functional components to take
advantage of the context API"

converting react classes to functions with redux

I'm still new to react/redux, after getting something like this to function
User.js
class User extends React.Component {
componentWillMount() {
this.props.fetchUser(.....);
}
render() {
return (
<Profile />
)
}
export default connect(null, {fetchUser})(User);
Profile.js
class Profile extends React.Component {
render() {
const { user } = this.props
return (
<h1>{user.profile.name}</h1>
)
}
const mapStateToProps = state => ({
user: state.store.user
});
export default connect(mapStateToProps, {})(Profile)
actions.js
export const fetchUser = (.....) => dispatch => {
fetch()
.....
}
reducers.js
case FETCH_USER:
return {
...state,
user: action.payload.user
};
As I understand it, the User component calls an action (fetchUser) from connect on componentWillMount(). That action calls an api, gets the data and the reducer adds that to the store within the state. The Profile component can then use connect to map the data from fetchUser in the store and display that data.
After reading some tutorials including https://github.com/reactjs/redux/blob/master/docs/basics/UsageWithReact.md
It looks like things can be simplified a bit without using classes.
If I were to change the User and Profile components to a more functional way, how would I do it?
eg.
const User = () => {
return (
<Profile />
)
}
how do I dispatch the fetchUser action and how do I simulate it to be called with the flow of componentWillMount()?
or am I just over complicating things?
There is also a way to support lifecycle methods in functional components.
https://www.npmjs.com/package/react-pure-lifecycle
import React from 'react';
import lifecycle from 'react-pure-lifecycle';
// create your lifecycle methods
const componentDidMount = (props) => {
console.log('I mounted! Here are my props: ', props);
};
// make them properties on a standard object
const methods = {
componentDidMount
};
const FunctionalComponent = ({children}) => {
return (
<div>
{children}
</div>
);
};
// decorate the component
export default lifecycle(methods)(FunctionalComponent);
I think you should keep using statefull components with redux...
https://medium.com/#antonkorzunov/2-things-about-purecomponent-you-probable-should-know-b04844a90d4
Redux connect — is a PureComponent.
Yes — a very important thing, a HoC for a molecule is a pure one. And works even inside other pure components. And gets store from a current context.
Same is working, for example, for styled-component — you can wrap it with PureComponent, but it will still react to Theme changes.
Solution is simple — bypass logic, use old school events bus, subcribe, wait and emit events.
Styled-componets:
componentWillMount() {
// subscribe to the event emitter. This
// is necessary due to pure components blocking
// context updates, this circumvents
// that by updating when an event is emitted.
const subscribe = this.context[CHANNEL];
this.unsubscribe = subscribe(nextTheme => { <----- MAGIC
React-redux:
trySubscribe() {
if (shouldSubscribe && !this.unsubscribe) {
this.unsubscribe =
this.store.subscribe(this.handleChange); <----- MAGIC
}
}
componentDidMount() {
this.trySubscribe();
}
Thus, even if parent Pure Component will block any update enables you to catch a change, store update, context variable change, or everything else.
So — something inside pure components is very soiled and absolutely impure. It is driven by side effects!
But this bypass straight logic flow, and works just differently from the rest of application.
So — just be careful. And don’t forget about magic.
Aaaand….
And this is a reason, why any redux store update will cause redraw in each connected component, and why you should use reselect just next to connect HoC —
to stop unnecessary change propagation.
But you should read this from another point of view:
redux-connect is a source of a change propagation.
redux connect is the end of a change propagation. It is still PureComponent.
And this leads to quite handy thing — you can control change propagation with redux-connect only. Just create a boundaries for a change. Lets talk about this in another article.
Conclusion
Pure components keep your application fast. Sometimes — more predictable, but often — less predictable, as long they change the way application works.
Stateless components are not pure, and may run slower than PureComponents by any kind.
But… if you very wish to create a fast application with good user experience — you have to use Pure Component.
No choice. But, now — you know hidden truth, and knew some magic…
React recommends that ajax request be made in componentDidMount(), rather than in componentWillMount(). For more info on this, read this post.
Since you want to make ajax requests in componentDidMount(), you need a class. There are two ways of writing component definitions: functional component and the class component. Functional components are more concise, but you don't get component lifecycle methods like componentDidMount(). Think of it as just a render function that takes props as inputs and outputs DOMs (in JSX). To override those lifecycle methods, you need to define them as a class.
If you want to use Redux, and want to make ajax requests in a Redux action, you should import the action creator function (fetchUser(..) in your case) that makes the ajax request, and dispatch(fetchUser(..)) in componentDidMount(). connect(..)ed components get dispatch(..) function passed to it by Redux store.
If you want to see how it's done in other redux apps, see the official example apps in the redux.js repo, paying attention to actions and containers: https://github.com/reactjs/redux/tree/master/examples
In Your case you can continue with statefull components no wrong in that
,If you need to go with functional way
There is a work arround
https://github.com/mobxjs/mobx/issues/162
Suggestion
Calling the api in componentDidMount will make sense than
componentWillMount , Because you can show the user something is
fetching.
I think,User component is designed nicely.It will act as a container for Profile to provide the Data.
Instead of making Profile component class oriented,it should be Stateless.
Lets User component pass the required data for Profile component.
You don't need to connect Profile component using redux-connect.Just render it as a Child component of User.
Profile
const Profile = (props) => {
const {user, likeProfile} = props;
//likeProfile()//call like this using dom event or programmatically.
return (
<h1>{user.profile.name}</h1>
)
}
You need to make some changes in User component.
Get the state for Profile component via mapStateToProps.
class User extends React.Component {
componentWillMount() {
this.props.fetchUser(.....);
}
render() {
const {user, likeProfile} = this.props;
return (
<Profile user= {user} likeProfile={likeProfile} /> //passed the user data to Profile component vua User
)
}
Map the user state for Profile in User connect.
const mapStateToProps = (state)=>{
return{
user : state.somereducerkey.user //this will be accessible in Profile via props { user}
}
}
export default connect(mapStateToProps, {fetchUser, likeProfile})(User);

Benefits of redux

I've started learning React without Redux or Flux and have been hearing a lot about Redux and how it seems to be the favourable pattern to use for managing state going forward. My understanding of it is that the entire state of the App lives in the store which I believe is at the top of the React tree. The various child components then 'subscribe' to various states that are relevant to them.
This is somewhat confusing for me as I thought the core structure of React is already setup in this way? Ie if my component has a certain state then to pass it down to its child components in order to use if further down the React tree I would need to add in this.state.example or this.props.example to a component. To me with this approach i'm 'subscribing' the component in a way as well..
Apologies if this is not the right place for questions like this but if someone could tell me what i'm missing here or the added benefit of Redux that would be very helpful!
You are on the right track on the subscribing portion, but what makes Redux wonderful and many other Flux like state management patterns is that you don't have to pass properties down the child chain just so you could update a childs component like so (you could if you wanted to, but not needed):
function Parent() {
return <ChildOne color="red" />
}
function ChildOne(props) {
return <ChildTwo color={props.color} />
}
function ChildTwo(props) {
return <h1>The Color was: {props.color}</h1>
}
It allows you to "dispatch" (a redux/flux term) an action to the state store to update a property on whichever object a component may be subscribed to.
A helpful library for that "connection" is react-redux. It has many capabilities, but the main that I see is connect which is a higher ordered component (HOC) that "wraps" your component with more logic including the part of the redux store that you want to subscribe to.
So the above could be:
export class Parent extends React.Component {
componentDidMount() {
this.props.dispatch(changeColor('red'));
}
render() {
return <ChildOne />
}
}
export default connect((state) => ({ //This property is the redux store
parent: state.parent,
}))(Parent) //higher order component that wraps the component with redux functionality
function ChildOne(){
return (
<ChildTwo />
);
}
export function ChildTwo(props) { //will have childTwo bound in props object
return (
<h1>The Color is: {props.childTwo.color}
);
}
export default connect((state) => ({ //This property is the redux store
childTwo: state.childTwo,
}))
Where the biggest difference is that you didn't have to pass the color from Parent down 2 levels to ChildTwo because it was "subscribed" to the childTwo object within the redux store and you connected that bit of state to the component so any change to the store will trigger the component to rerender from the state change.
The passing of properties and using Redux will make more sense with this medium post of Presentation and Container components, where passing of properties makes sense as you are only going down one child layer deep and the container component is handling logic such as ajax requests, or dispatches to parts of the redux store, etc.

Reactjs create a provider component that pass Redux to its children

i was wondering if its possible to create a parent wrapper for children that would automaticly pass a part of redux store to its children.
Example
<ReducProvider src="user">
<ul> {this.props.data.map(f=><li>{f.name}</li>)} </ul>
</ReducProvider>
here i want this ul to be rendered with props.data = the data that ReduxProvider passed it to.
i know i can simply get the part i need using connect like so
connect( (state,prop)=>({data:state[prop.src]}) )(ReduxProvider)
but sometimes i dont want the parent to listen to store changes, neither do i want the child to know where this data is coming from, so i was planning to create a Provider for every Reducer i have. this way when ever the store mutates, these providers are the only one who gona get updated.
Although not an answer to your question, this might solve your issue.
You can create meaningless proxy components. These components render the actual components and pass the right variables as props. I recall having read that you can generate such components automatically.
Example of such a component in ES6:
import React from 'react';
import { connect } from 'react-redux';
import User from './User';
class AuthenticatedUser extends React.Component {
render() {
return <User user={this.props.user} />
}
}
export default connect(
(state) => ({ user: state.Authentication.user }),
(dispatch) => {}
)(AuthenticatedUser);
! code is untested
So this code would inject the authenticated user from the state into the User component. Keeping the User component clean, i.e. you can render any user you like from any source. While you also created the option to render a connected version of the user which is automatically linked to the store.
answer to actual question:
I would recommend against this since the context is a bad practice through and through. But you could store your variables in the context. Children can then access these variables when requested using contextTypes property.

Can react-redux connect() -ed containers implement lifecyle methods like componentDidMount?

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);

Resources