I have a function that I'm calling in a component template. It reacts on changes in a vue-select component.
<v-select
v-model="model"
:options="eventList"
:placeholder="currentEventTitle"
v-on:input="selectedEvent"
taggable
label="name"
></v-select>
...
</template>
<script>
...
methods: {
...mapActions({
selectedEvent: "selectedEvent"
})
}
This selectedEvent action that is being dispatched contains many HTTP calls, commits to the store, and calls to other actions. The issue is that once this has been called, the UI completely locks and doesn't update until about halfway through the function.
How should I call an action that will commit (mutate), and dispatch other actions, and not lock the UI?
Update
The problem has disappeared in our production build and only exists when we have development mode enabled.
If vuex observer/ reactivity is the reason for the ui block one can simply freeze big objects to prevent reactivity:
actions = {
// ...,
assignBigData(context, data){
//...
// mutate data
const clone = {...data}
context.commit('commiter', Object.freeze(clone))
},
selectedEvent: async function(context, ...args){
const response = await request()
context.dispatch('assignBigData', Object.freeze(response))
}
}
Related
I tried as following but on change of localstorage useEffect is not getting called.
I have also tried adding dependency localStorage.getItem('quantity') but doesn't work.
import React from 'react';
import Categories from '../molecules/Categories';
import './SideBar.scss';
import { useState, useEffect } from 'react';
const SideBar = () => {
let [quantity, setQuantity] = useState(JSON.parse(localStorage.getItem('quantity')));
useEffect(() => {
console.log("in useEffect");
const onStorage = () => {
setQuantity(JSON.parse(localStorage.getItem('quantity')));
};
window.addEventListener('storage', onStorage);
return () => {
window.removeEventListener('storage', onStorage);
};
}, []);
return (
<div className='sidebar'>
<Categories />
<div>count:{quantity}</div>
</div>
)
}
export default SideBar;
Having an empty dependency array (as in your code above) will ensure that a useEffect runs only once, but I'm not sure why you would need this useEffect to run whenever storage is updated. This useEffect basically just adds an event listener, which does not need to be renewed after every storage update.
It looks like onStorage is what you actually want to run whenever storage is updated, but that is handled by the event listener that the useEffect adds. If you add a console.log inside onStorage, you should see that onStorage is running after every storage update.
Note, too, though, that a storage event will fire only if localStorage is updated by a different window/page; see this MDN article. If the same window is updating localStorage, then to trigger your event handler you will need to dispatch a storage event manually whenever you update the quantity in localStorage:
window.dispatchEvent(new Event('storage'));
in a react UI I have a table component. You can edit one row of the table by clicking a edit button or you can add a new record by clicking a "new-record-button". When clicking the edit button an redux-action is triggered which takes the row and sets a visible property of a modal dialog. When the "new-record-button" is clicked an action is triggered which creates a new empty data item and the same modal dialog is triggered.
In the modal dialog I have several text components with onChange method.
in this onChange-method the data-item is written.
When to user clicks a save-button the edited dataItem is saved to the database.
So my code looks like:
const mapStateToProps = (state) => ({
dataItem: state.datItemToEdit || {},
...
});
...
handleTextChange(event) {
const {
dataItem
} = this.props;
const id = event.target.id;
const text = event.target.value;
switch (id) {
case 'carId': {
dataItem.carId = text;
break;
}
...
}
this.forceUpdate();
}
...
<TextField
...
onChange={event => this.handleTextChange(event)}
/>
I have several question regarding this approach. First I do not understand why in handleTextChange we can write to dataItem. It does work apparently.
dataItem.carId is set in the example code but I thought
const {dataItem} = this.props;
gives us a local read-only variable dataItem just to read from the props...
Next thing I think is a poor design. After reading in a book about react I think we should not write to props but only set a state.
In my example I get the the dataItem from the redux-state. The mapStateToProps maps it to the (read-only) props of the component, right?!. But I want to EDIT it. So I would have to copy it to the state of my component?
But where to do it?
Once in the state of my component I could simply call this.setState for the various text-fields and the component would render and I could abstain from forceUpdate(), right?!
Can someone explain how the redux status plays together with the component status and props for this example?
In redux or react, you shouldn't write to the props directly because you should keep your props as immutable. Redux forces us to use immutable state because state is a source of truth for the application. If the reference to state changes then only your app should render. If you'll mutate your state (objects) then the references don't get changed and your app doesn't know whether some state has been changed or not. React/Redux doesn't give you read-only objects automatically. You can mutate them anytime but as I told you, it can cause problems that Your app won't know when to re-render. If you want to have this read-only property inherently, you should probably use immutable.js
About your second question that you'll have to copy the props to the component's state and where you should do it. You should do it in the constructor of the component and you should use immutibility helper
import React from React;
import update from 'immutibility-helper';
class Modal extends React.Component {
constructor(props){
this.state = {
dataItem: dataItem,
};
}
...other methods
handleTextChange(event) {
const {
dataItem
} = this.props;
const id = event.target.id;
const text = event.target.value;
switch (id) {
case 'carId': {
this.props.updateItem(this.state.dataItem, text); //fire a redux action to update state in redux
this.setState(update(this.state, {
dataItem: {
carId: {$set: text},
}
});
break;
}
...
}
}
}
You wouldn't have to do forceUpdate in such case because the reference to state will change and the component will re-render itself.
Also, you can use forceUpdate in your application but personally I don't find it a great idea because when React/Redux is giving you the flow of state, by using forceUpdate, you're breaking the flow.
The last question is how redux and react state plays together. That is also a matter of choice. If I have a app level state, e.g., in your case you've some app level data, you should put that in your redux state and if you have a component level things, such as opening a modal or opening a third pane. That's the convention I follow but that can really depend on how you want to exploit react and redux state.
Also, in above code, I put the redux state in component state too (because you asked where to put that) but Ideally you should fire a redux action and update in redux state. In this way, you will restrict yourself from state duplication in react and redux.
import React from React;
import {updateItem} from './actions';
class Modal extends React.Component {
...other methods
handleTextChange(event) {
const {
dataItem
} = this.props;
const id = event.target.id;
const text = event.target.value;
switch (id) {
case 'carId': {
this.props.updateItem(this.props.dataItem, text); //fire a redux action to update state in redux
break;
}
...
}
}
}
const mapStateToProps = (state) => ({
dataItem: getDataItem(state), //get Data Item gets Data from redux state
});
export default connect(mapStateToProps, {updateItem: updateItem})(Modal);
in Actions:
updateItem = (dataItem, text) => dispatch => {
dispatch({type: 'UPDATE_ITEM', payLoad: {dataItem, text});
};
in Reducer:
export default (state = {}, action) => {
switch(action){
case 'UPDATE_ITEM': {
return {
...state,
dataItem: {
...action.dataItem,
carId: action.text,
}
};
}
}
}
In this way, your state will be pure and you don't have to worry about immutibility.
EDIT:
As constructor will be called only once, you should probably use componentWillReceiveProps so that whenever you render the component, you get the next updated props of the component. You can check whether the carId of dataItem is same or not and then update the state.
componentWillReceiveProps(nextProps){
if(nextProps.dataItem.carId !== this.props.dataItem.carId){
this.setState({dataItem: nextProps.dataItem});
}
}
You should only use redux when you want different, unrelated components in your app to know and share the specific state.
e.g. - When a user logs in to your app, you might want all components to know that user so you'll connect your different containers to the user reducer and then propagate the user to the components.
Sounds like in this case you have a classic use case for using the inner state.
You can use the parent of all TextFields to maintain all rows, edit them by index, etc.
Once you start using redux, it's really easy to make the mistake of transferring the entire state of the components to the reducers, I've been there and stopped doing it a while ago :)
I've read through the Ractive Documentation and I'm scratching my head a bit, because it seems like the default events initialization option allows me to do something - create new eventtypes - far more complex than what i need but conversely, there's no hook for the simpler, (more common?) task of defining default events
Could someone advise on how to provide global events that could be fired for traditional DOM events?
Example:
I have a 3 Component application page. I want to define a getOptions event, such that any <select on-click='getOptions'>...</select> will be handled by the same function. I don't want to have to define that function in each component.
My intuition would have been to do the following:
Ractive.events['getOptions'] = function(event){
//logic for getting the options for the value in event.keypath
}
or, if i wanted a true default that could be overridden...
Ractive.default.events['getOptions'] = function(event){
//logic for getting the options for the value in event.keypath
}
but my understanding of the documentation, is that Ractive.events and Ractive.default.events do not provide this, but rather provide a way to define new event plugins, that depend on a separate mechanism for getting fired:
Ractive.events.getoptions = function(node,fire){
//here goes logic for interacting with DOM event listeners, etc
}
//and then i would need to do this
ractive = Ractive.extend({...});
ractive.on('someOtherEventName',function(event){
//logic for getting the options for the value in event.keypath
});
//and then I could do this...
<select on-getoptions='someOtherEventName'>...</select>
but what would fire the getoptions in this case - from the template, rather than js ractive.fire()?
Would something like <select on-getoptions='someOtherFunction' on-click=getoptions>...</select> work? That seems very strange to me. Do I understand the concept correction? If not, what am i missing?
Is there a simple way to achieve the first example?
Ractive.events refers to custom events for mediating between the dom and the template:
Ractive.events.banana = function( node, fire ) { ... };
<div on-banana="doSomething()"/>
The handler for the event can either be the name of an event to fire, or a method on the component instance.
In your case, I think defining a method on the Ractive.prototype would be the best way to have a common handler:
Ractive.prototype.getOptions = function( /* pass in arguments */ ){
// and/or this.event will give you access
// to current event and thus context
// you can also override this method in components and
// call this base method using this._super(..)
}
// now any ractive instance can use:
<select on-click="getOptions(data)">...</select>
An event based approach usually entails letting the root instance or common parent in the view hierarchy handle same event across child components:
var app = new Ractive({
template: "<componentA/><componentB/>",
oninit(){
this.on( '*.getOptions', ( event, arg ) => {
// any child component (at any depth)
// that fires a "getOptions" event will
// end up here
});
}
});
// in component A or B:
<select on-click="getOptions">...</select>
UPDATE: If you wanted to assign an event handler to the prototype, so in essence every component is pre-wired to handle an event of a set name, you could do:
Ractive.prototype.oninit = function(){
this.on( 'getOptions', ( event ) => {
// handle any "getOptions" event that happens in the instance
});
}
Just be aware that you must call this._super(); in any component in which you also implement oninit:
var Component = Ractive.extend({
oninit() {
// make sure we call the base or event listener won't happen!
this._super();
// do this component instances init work...
}
}
I need to update the context after an ajax request has finished. I'm using the flux architecture and everything works to the point that when my component is notified about the updated I need to set the new context.
A simple demostration:
I have a parent component which generates the context by calling a store. The store gets the data after an ajax request is initialized somewhere else. Like this:
RowAPI.ajaxGetAllRows();
Then I have my component which holds the context:
let ParentComponent = React.createClass({
childContextTypes: {
rows: React.PropTypes.object
},
getChildContext: function() {
return {
rows: RowStore.getAllRows(),
};
},
componentDidMount: function() {
RowStore.addChangeListener(this._onRowsChanged);
},
componentWillUnmount: function() {
RowStore.removeChangeListener(this._onRowsChanged);
},
render() {
return (
<ChildComponent />
);
},
_onRowsChanged: function() {
//Now we need to update context
}
});
Now since we are listening for row changes, we will get an update when our ajax request has finished and put the data into our store. Now we need to get that data and set it as context. That is the problem.
This is my child component that uses the context. I know that I just can pass the rows as a props to my child but this is just an example and in my real scenario I have many children which would need to pass the props.
let ChildComponent = React.createClass({
contextTypes: {
rows: React.PropTypes.object
},
render() {
return (
<div style={styles.wrapper}>
{this.context.rows}
</div>
);
},
});
Thanks in advance!
I would change the getChildContext in ParentComponent to refer to the state instead of a function call to the RowStore.
getChildContext: function() {
return {
rows: this.state.rows,
};
}
Then, whenever a row changes, and the _onRowsChanged callback it called, it can set this.state.rows accordingly.
I believe that the issue with the original method of calling RowStore.getAllRows() inside getChildContext is that it is only called once. Nothing is forcing it to call RowStore.getAllRows() on every change.
However, by using a state, you can use Flux concepts to "force" a change in state on every update, and that will be reflected in the context.
How should one access state (just state, not the React State) of child components in React?
I've built a small React UI. In it, at one point, I have a Component displaying a list of selected options and a button to allow them to be edited. Clicking the button opens a Modal with a bunch of checkboxes in, one for each option. The Modal is it's own React component. The top level component showing the selected options and the button to edit them owns the state, the Modal renders with props instead. Once the Modal is dismissed I want to get the state of the checkboxes to update the state of the parent object. I am doing this by using refs to call a function on the child object 'getSelectedOptions' which returns some JSON for me identifying those options selected. So when the Modal is selected it calls a callback function passed in from the parent which then asks the Modal for the new set of options selected.
Here's a simplified version of my code
OptionsChooser = React.createClass({
//function passed to Modal, called when user "OK's" their new selection
optionsSelected: function() {
var optsSelected = this.refs.modal.getOptionsSelected();
//setState locally and save to server...
},
render: function() {
return (
<UneditableOptions />
<button onClick={this.showModal}>Select options</button>
<div>
<Modal
ref="modal"
options={this.state.options}
optionsSelected={this.optionsSelected}
/>
</div>
);
}
});
Modal = React.createClass({
getOptionsSelected: function() {
return $(React.findDOMNode(this.refs.optionsselector))
.find('input[type="checkbox"]:checked').map(function(i, input){
return {
normalisedName: input.value
};
}
);
},
render: function() {
return (
//Modal with list of checkboxes, dismissing calls optionsSelected function passed in
);
}
});
This keeps the implementation details of the UI of the Modal hidden from the parent, which seems to me to be a good coding practice. I have however been advised that using refs in this manner may be incorrect and I should be passing state around somehow else, or indeed having the parent component access the checkboxes itself. I'm still relatively new to React so was wondering if there is a better approach in this situation?
Yeah, you don't want to use refs like this really. Instead, one way would be to pass a callback to the Modal:
OptionsChooser = React.createClass({
onOptionSelect: function(data) {
},
render: function() {
return <Modal onClose={this.onOptionSelect} />
}
});
Modal = React.createClass({
onClose: function() {
var selectedOptions = this.state.selectedOptions;
this.props.onClose(selectedOptions);
},
render: function() {
return ();
}
});
I.e., the child calls a function that is passed in via props. Also the way you're getting the selected options looks over-fussy. Instead you could have a function that runs when the checkboxes are ticked and store the selections in the Modal state.
Another solution to this problem could be to use the Flux pattern, where your child component fires off an action with data and relays it to a store, which your top-level component would listen to. It's a bit out of scope of this question though.