I am building an app for posting tutorials. Two of the components I have are EditTutorialForm and NewTutorialForm. These two components are essentially the same except for the methods componentDidMount and onSubmit.
What seems to make the most sense is to have an abstract component type called TutorialForm and to extend it to make EditTutorialForm and NewTutorialForm.
I have read on the React docs that inheritance is not recommended with React. Would it be "better" to pass the componentDidMount and onSubmit functions as props to the TutorialForm component, as opposed to extending the component itself?
I would create one component and check within something like the following:
For a new tutorial
<TutorialForm edit={false}>
To edit a tutorial
<TutorialForm edit={true}>
And in TutorialForm
class TutorialForm extends Component{
componentDiMount() {
this.props.edit ? do edit stuff... : do new stuff
}
submitForm = () {
this.props.edit ? submit edit... : submit new
}
}
I'm working on a ReactJS app and i'm a new comer.
I have a Component like this
class Type extends React.Component {
constructor(props) {
super(props);
this.state = {
name : props.type.name,
description : props.type.description,
price : props.type.price,
imageList : props.type.images,
mode : 'view',
// i'm cloning the whole object
clone : props.type
};
}
handleDeleteImage(event) {
const imageId = event.target.getAttribute('data-imageId');
// get the current imageList of this Component
var imageList = this.state.imageList;
// checking the length of 2 image list before removing the
// targeted image
console.log(imageList.length) // displays 3
console.log(this.state.clone.images.length) // displays 3
// remove the targeted imageId
imageList.splice(imageId, 1);
// checking the length of 2 image list after removing the
// targeted image
console.log(imageList.length) // displays 2
console.log(this.state.clone.images.length) // displays 2
}
}
So what i'm doing here is i want to clone the object so when the user changes there mind and doesn't want to make changes anymore, they can hit the cancel button and everything is back to the state they were before (i have a function to handle this as well. I set the fields -name, description, price- to the values of the clone)
But as you can see, i didn't touched the image list in the clone at all still it got changed anyway.
Am i doing anything wrong here?
Thank you for any help.
Hey guys! So I realized that the concept I used in this service is not so efficient.
Like #Michael McQuade said, I should control the data in one flow only which is changing the data in the parent Component, not the child ones. I also reviewed the ReactJS Documentation and I can see why.
But with that being said. Let's say I'm working on a Component which has lots of Child-Component, does that mean I have to callback all the way up to the Parent Component to make changes in the Child one? And does that mean i must have multiple handlers in the Parent one that will be passed down to the Child that needs them?
I hope my question doesn't border you guys. Thanks!
You're using state and props together in a way I wouldn't recommend.
Instead of trying to make a copy of the props and storing it as state, make a stateless function and pass down a function which handles the deletion.
Here is an example:
class Child extends React.PureComponent {
render () {
return (<button onClick={this.props.handleBye}>{this.props.text}</button>)
}
}
class Parent extends React.PureComponent {
state = {
text: "Hello"
}
handler = () => {
this.setState({text: "bye"})
}
render() {
return (<Child text={this.state.text} handleBye={this.handler} />)
}ˆ
}
ReactDOM.render(<Parent />, document.body)
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/react/16.6.3/umd/react.production.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/react-dom/16.6.3/umd/react-dom.production.min.js"></script>
This line will not clone an object, rather it will create a reference
clone : props.type
To clone you can use various techniques (depending on your need) one simple one would be
clone: Object.assign({}, props.type)
beware that this will only create a shallow copy of the object.
To create a deep copy you can use
clone: JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(props.type))
this is an easy technique but it is slow and will not copy dates correctly.
If you need fast and reliable deep clone you better search for something else that suits your needs (maybe a library like lodash).
this.state.clone is just a reference to the props.type object. So when you use splice() you change the contents of the array and therefore "mutate" props.type.
If you really want to clone the object do it like that:
this.state = {
clone: {...props.type} // create a new object and spread the props.type object properties
}
You can read more about the spread operator here
It is a common practice to pass in the form of a prop, from a root component A, to a subcomponent B, a function that will change the state of A. Like so:
class App extends React.Component {
constructor(props) {
super(props);
this.state = {
name: 'foo'
};
this.handleNameChange = this.handleNameChange.bind(this);
}
render() {
return (<NameChanger name={this.state.name} onNameChange={this.handleNameChange} />)
}
handleNameChange: function(newName) {
this.setState({
name: newName
});
}
}
Now as you can see NameChanger is one level down only so not a big issue there. But what if it had been down 3 or even 4 levels? We would have had to pass it down the chain of components and that bothers me big time. Is there a way to make a function globally available within the app?
I looked at Context (https://reactjs.org/docs/context.html) but I am not sure it is the right design choice for globally available functions. Or is it?
Thanks
In a typical React application, data is passed top-down (parent to
child) via props, but this can be cumbersome for certain types of
props (e.g. locale preference, UI theme) that are required by many
components within an application. Context provides a way to share
values like these between components without having to explicitly pass
a prop through every level of the tree.
https://reactjs.org/docs/context.html
Try using Redux or Mobx(very easy to start with) as state management library to solve this problem.
I have a legacy Backbone app which I have begun to rewrite in React. The app has a main view containing two subviews, arranged vetically. The top panel displays some data, and the bottom one displays the result of some algorithm taking this data as input. Since I have many different data sources, each with a different algorithm applied to it, I have an abstract base View class, which I then subclass for each data source, adding, decorating and overriding methods as necessary. Somewhat like this:
// Base View.
const BaseView = Backbone.View.extend({
events: {},
initialize() {
this.subViewA = // instantiate subview...
this.subViewB = // instantiate subview...
},
generateResultData() {
// 'Abstract' method which should be specialised to generate data rendered by subViewB...
},
render() {
// render subviews...
},
});
// Derived View.
const Derived = BaseView.extend({
events: {
// event handlers...
},
add(a, b) {
return a+b;
},
// additional methods...
generateResultData() {
return {
result: this.add(2,2);
}
},
})
This results in a shallow hierarchy of many similar View classes. It's all terribly imperative, but it's a simple, intuitive and easy-to-reason-about pattern, and just works. I'm struggling to see how to achieve the same thing in React, however. Given that subclassing of subclasses of React.Component is considered an anti-pattern, my focus has naturally been on composition, and in particular Higher Order Components. HOCs (which I find beautiful, but unintuitive and often just downright confusing) seem to involve adding general features, rather than specialising/refining something more general. I have also considered passing in more specialised versions of Componenet methods through props. but that just means I have to use the same boilerplate Component definition over and over again:
// General functional component, renders the result of prop function 'foo'.
function GeneralComponent(props) {
const foo = this.props.foo || ()=>"foo";
return (
<div>
<span> { this.props.foo() } </span>
</div>
)
}
// Specialised component 1, overrides 'foo'.
class MySpecialisedComponent extends React.Component {
foo() {
return this.bar()
}
bar() {
return "bar"
}
render() {
return (
<GeneralComponent foo={this.foo} />
)
}
}
// Specialised component 2, overrides 'foo' and adds another method.
class MyOtherSpecialisedComponent extends React.Component {
foo() {
return this.bar() + this.bar()
}
bar() {
return "bar"
}
baz() {
return "baz"
}
render() {
return (
<GeneralComponent foo={this.foo} />
)
}
}
The above is a very simplistic case, obviously, but essentially captures what I need to do (though I would of course be manipulating state, which the example does not do, for simplicity). I mean, I could just do things like that. But I want to avoid having to repeat that boilerplate all over the place. So is there a simpler and more elegant way of doing this?
Generally, if a component is stateless and doesn't use lifecycle hooks, there are no reasons for it to be Component class. A class that acts as a namespace and doesn't hold state can be considered an antipattern in JavaScript.
In constrast to some other frameworks, React doesn't have templates that would need to map variables in order for them to be available in view, so the only place where bar function needs to be mentioned is the place where it's called. JSX is an extension over JavaScript, JSX expressions can use any names that are available in current scope. This allows to compose functions without any classes:
const getBar => "bar";
const getBaz => "baz";
const getBarBaz => getBar() + getBaz();
const MySpecialisedComponent = props => <GeneralComponent foo={getBar} />;
const MyOtherSpecialisedComponent = props => <GeneralComponent foo={getBarBaz} />;
An anonymous function could be passed as foo prop instead of creating getBarBaz but this is generally discouraged because of unnecessary overhead.
Also, default prop values could be assigned with defaultProps without creating new ()=>"foo" function on each component call:
function GeneralComponent({ foo }) {
return (
<div>
<span> {foo()} </span>
</div>
)
}
GeneralComponent.defaultProps = { foo: () => 'foo' };
IMO what is throwing you off isn't inheritance vs composition, it's your data flow:
For example, many of my derived views need to do custom rendering after the main render. I'm using a third-party SVG library, and the data rendered into the 'result' subview is derived from analysis of rendered SVG elements in the main data view above it
So what you're trying to do here is have a child update props of a distantly related component after render, correct? Like this?
// after the svg renders, parse it to get data
<div id="svg-container">
<svg data="foo" />
<svg data="bar />
</div>
// show parsed data from svg after you put it through your algos
<div id="result-container">
// data...
</div>
There's a lot of state management libraries out there that will help you with this problem, that is, generating data in one component and broadcasting it to a distantly related component. If you want to use a tool built-in to react to address this you may want to use context, which gives you a global store that you can provide to any component that wants to consume it.
In your example your child classes have data-specific methods (add, etc.). IMO it's more typical in react to have a generic class for displaying data and simply passing it down map functions as props in order to rearrange/transform the rendered data.
class AbstractDataMap extends PureComponent {
static defaultProps = {
data: [],
map: (obj, i) => (<div key={i}>{obj}</div>)
};
render() {
const { data, map, children } = this.props;
const mapped = data.map(map);
return (
<Fragment>
{mapped.map((obj, i) => (
children(obj, i)
))}
</Fragment>
);
}
}
// in some other container
class View extends Component {
render() {
return (
<div>
<AbstractDataMap data={[1, 2, 3]} map={(n) => ({ a: n, b: n + 1 })}>
{({ a, b }, i) => (<div key={i}>a: {a}, b: {b}</div>)}
</AbstractDataMap>
<AbstractDataMap data={[2, 4, 6]} map={(n) => (Math.pow(n, 2))}>
{(squared, i) => (<div key={i}>squared: {squared}</div>)}
</AbstractDataMap>
</div>
);
}
}
IMO this pattern of using an HOC to abstract away the labor of explicitly using .map in your render calls (among other uses) is the pattern you are looking for. However, as I stated above, the HOC pattern has nothing to do your main issue of shared data store across sibling components.
Answering my own question, which I've never donw before...
So my question really arose from a concern that I would need to refactor a large, imperative and stateful codebase so as to integrate with React’s composition-based model (also with Redux). But it occurred to me after reading the (very insightful and helpful) responses to my question that my app has two parallel parts: the UI, and an engine which runs the algorithms (actually it's a music analysis engine). And I can strip out the Backbone View layer to which the engine is connected quite easily. So, using React’s context API I've built an ‘AnalysisEngineProvider', which makes the engine available to subcomponents. The engine is all very imperative and classically object-oriented, and still uses Backbone models, but that makes no difference to the UI as the latter has no knowledge of its internals - which is how it should be (the models will likely be refactored out at some point too)...
The engine also has responsibility for rendering the SVG (not with BB views). But React doesn’t know anything about that. It just sees an empty div. I take a ref from the div and pass it to the engine so the latter knows where to render. Beyond that the engine and the UI have little contact - the divs are never updated from React state changes at all (other components of the UI are though, obviously). The models in the engine only ever trigger updates to the SVG, which React knows nothing about.
I am satisfied with this approach, at least for now - even if it's only part of an incremental refactor towards a fully React solution. It feels like the right design for the app whatever framework I happened to be using.
What's the correct way to implement the below design?
<Parent with state>
<connected element with Store configuration dependant on parent>
<child of both, dependant on store/connected element>
</connected element>
</parent>
I'm not sure how much code to include and there's almost certainly more than I need so here's a snippet that I think explains what I'm trying to accomplish.
class SceneOne extends React.Component {
constructor (props) {
super(props);
this.state = {
opacity: 0,
script: sceneOneScript
};
}
render () {
return (
<ScriptReader script = {this.state.script}> //This is connected and creates a store from the script passed via state.
<Screen data-image="caves.png" data-opacity={this.state.opacity} >//This uses actual SceneOne.state.opacity which is updated to 1 after a delay in ComponentDidMount
<ConditionalTitle props = {this.props}/> //This needs the store.
</Screen>
</ScriptReader>
);
}
}
I'm really hoping that I don't need to connect <ConditionalTitle> because that feels like it breaks agnostic components principles. I'm also hoping that I don't need to install <ConditionalTitle> inside the definition of <ScriptReader> because I'm planning on reusing it and passing different children/scripts etc.
ie. there'll be a that has a <ScreenReader> child and it may not have a title, or may have elements that aren't required in <SceneOne>.
use a HOC inside the definition of the ScriptReader that composes all of the options