Which component should control the loading state of a lower component? - ajax

Let's say I have these components:
Translator
TranslationList
Translator determines translation context, has translate function.
TranslationList must show these "visual states": loading, result list, no results.
The Translator moves around the page (one instance): on focusing an input, it moves "below" it and gives a dropdown with suggestion.
So each time it moves, it has to:
Show that it's loading translations
Show translation list or no results message.
So my question is:
Which component should control the "loading" visual state?
If the Translator component controls it, it has to pass loading=true translations=[] as props to Translation list. Then later it has to rerender it again with new props loading=false translations=[...]. This seems a bit counter-intuitive, because loading feels like the state of the TranslationList component.
If we the TranslationList component has loading state, then it also has to have a way to translate things, meaning that I have to pass translate function as prop. I would then hold translations and loading as state. This all gets a bit messy, since it must now also receive string to translate, context.
I also don't want to have separate components for loading message, no results message. I'd rather keep these inside the TranslationList, because these 3 share that same wrapper <div class="list-group"></div>
Perhaps there should be one more Component in between these two components, responsible only for fetching translation data?

Translator component should control the loading state of a lower component list component. hold the loading and translating logic but with help by wrapping it in a high order component where you should put most of the logic. link for HOC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymJOm5jY1tQ.
const translateSelected = wrappedComponent =>
//return Translator component
class extends React.Component {
state = {translatedText: [], loading:true}
componentDidMount(){
fetch("text to translate")
.then(transText => this.setState({translatedText: transText, loading: false}))
}
render() {
const {translatedText} = this.state
return <WrappedComponent {..this.props} {...translatedText}
}
}
const Translator_HOC = translateSelected(Translator);

You could introduce a Higher Order Component to control the switching of the loading state and the TranslationList. That way you separate the loading display away from your TranslationList as being it's concern. This also allows you to use the HOC in other areas.
The Translator can act as "container" component which does the data fetching/passing.
For example:
// The Loadable HOC
function Loadable(WrappedComponent) {
return function LoadableComponent({ loaded, ...otherProps }) {
return loaded
? <WrappedComponent {...otherProps} />
: <div>Loading...</div>
}
}
// Translation list doesn't need to know about "loaded" prop
function TranslationList({ translations }) {
return (
<ul>
{
translations.map((translation, index) =>
<li key={index}>{translation}</li>
)
}
</ul>
)
}
// We create our new composed component here.
const LoadableTranslationList = Loadable(TranslationList)
class Translator extends React.Component {
state = {
loaded: false,
translations: []
}
componentDidMount() {
// Let's simulate a data fetch, typically you are going to access
// a prop like this.props.textToTranslate and then pass that to
// an API or redux action to fetch the respective translations.
setTimeout(() => {
this.setState({
loaded: true,
translations: [ 'Bonjour', 'Goddag', 'Hola' ]
});
}, 2000);
}
render() {
const { loaded, translations } = this.state;
return (
<div>
<h3>Translations for "{this.props.textToTranslate}"</h3>
<LoadableTranslationList loaded={loaded} translations={translations} />
</div>
)
}
}
ReactDOM.render(<Translate textToTranslate="Hello" />)
Running example here: http://www.webpackbin.com/NyQnWe54W

Related

Using React Hooks to Show Component Render Time and Date

My application contains a view that is a functional react component. I'm trying to add a timestamp at the bottom of the view displaying the date and time when the user navigated to this view. I'm wondering what would be appropriate way to implement this using hooks. I guess one option would be to use const [date] = useState(new Date()) and simply provide no setter for the state since it would never change. However, this makes me wonder if useState is the appropriate hook to begin with. Should I just do const date = new Date() in the component body or would that have some unexpected side effects?
For what you intend to accomplish, the code below would work just fine:
// solution # 1
function MyComponent() {
const [time, setTime] = useState(new Date());
return (
<div>
View created at {time.toLocaleTimeString()}
</div>
)
}
However, it is important to know that it is not following React rules. That is because we are calling new Date() from inside the component, making it impure. React expects the components to be pure functions. This means that it should return the same thing for the same input. But React cannot guarantee that a function component doesn't have side effects, and that is why that first solution would work just fine.
According to this gist, a better approach for this task would be:
// solution # 2
function MyComponent() {
const [time, setTime] = useState<Date>();
useEffect(() => {
setTime(new Date());
}}, [])
return (
<div>
View created at {time && time.toLocaleTimeString()}
</div>
)
}
Roughly speaking, all side effects should live inside useEffect. So, things like calling an external API or calling impure functions (such as Math.random() or Date.now()) should be there. From my understanding, this solution would be more appropriate.
If we are not obeying React guidelines, the library might not work as advertised. Before version 18, React had only synchronous rendering. This means that the moment the render phase is kicked off (either by a initial render or by a state update), nothing could interrupt it from committing those updates to the browser. In that situation, I don't think the first solution I presented would be problematic. But, in React 18, we have the concurrent mode features by which rendering can be interrupted before the diffs are committed to the screen. With that, React can be more intelligent about how it breaks up all the work it needs to do (for example, we can now define high-priority updates).
In order for these new APIs to work properly, React assumes that the components are pure functions, which means that it has no side effects. These APIs are very new and there are still many more additional features coming in. I am not quite sure about how sensitive they are to function impurity, but I believe our second solution (with all side effects living inside the useEffect) is a better bet for this task.
The following seems to work. Still not sure if this is optimal though.
import React from 'react'
export function View(_props) {
const [viewCreated] = React.useState(Date.now())
return (
<div>
View created {String(new Date(viewCreated))}
</div>
)
}
useState(new Date()) is better. Here is complete component
import React, { useState , useEffect } from 'react'
export const DateTime = () => {
var [date,setDate] = useState(new Date());
useEffect(() => {
var timer = setInterval(()=>setDate(new Date()), 1000 )
return function cleanup() {
clearInterval(timer)
}
});
return(
<div>
<p> Time : {date.toLocaleTimeString()}</p>
<p> Date : {date.toLocaleDateString()}</p>
</div>
)
}
export default DateTime

Component only rerenders if ternary expression is directly inside render() method

I'm building an app with React, Redux and TypeScript.
In the top navbar I have a "Log in" link which when clicked dispatches an action. For now, all this action does is set a boolean called auth to true.
I have a lot of connected components which listen to that auth property of the redux store and decide which sub-components to render, based on ternary expressions that evaluate this.props.auth.
I was surprised to see that when I clicked "Log in" some components would rerender as expected while others would have their state successfully changed but would only alter their display if I refreshed the page or routed away and came back. After some hours of hair-pulling I believe I finally isolated the difference between the two kinds of components described above: if the ternary expression that evaluates this.props.auth is directly inside the render() method, the component behaves as expected, however, if the ternary expression is inside a .map() function which is then called by the render() method, then this weird behavior happens where I have to refresh in order for the correct rendering to match the prop values. What's going on? Does this lose it's value, is this a sync/async problem?
class LatestArticles extends Component<LatestArticlesProps> {
public latestArticlesList: JSX.Element[] = Articles.map((a: IArticle) => {
return (
<React.Fragment key={a.id}>
// some TSX
{this.props.auth === true ? <UserImgOverlay /> : <UnlockButton />}
// some more TSX
</React.Fragment>
)
});
public render(): JSX.Element {
return (
<React.Fragment>
// some TSX
{this.latestArticles}
// some more TSX
</React.Fragment>
)
}
Do let me know if you need any more context but I would like to ask for help understanding what's going on. Why does the prop change only trigger a rerender if the ternary expression is directly inside the render() method and is there any way to go around this while still mapping the data? Thank you for your attention.
EDIT
Here's my mapStateToProps:
// Components/Navbar/index.tsx
const mapStateToProps = ({ articles, auth }: IApplicationState) => {
return {
articlesPerPage: articles.articlesPerPage,
articlesPerPageStep: articles.articlesPerPageStep,
auth: auth.auth
}
}
I actually have another example of this kind of behavior happening with an onClick method:
class LatestArticles extends Component<LatestArticlesProps> {
public latestArticlesList: JSX.Element[] = Articles.map((a: IArticle) => {
return (
<React.Fragment key={a.id}>
// some TSX
<StarsRating rating={3} onClick={this.handleRatingClick} />
// some more TSX
</React.Fragment>
)
});
constructor(props: LatestArticlesProps & IOwnProps) {
super(props)
this.handleRatingClick = this.handleRatingClick.bind(this);
}
public render(): JSX.Element {
return (
<React.Fragment>
// some TSX
{this.latestArticles}
// some more TSX
</React.Fragment>
)
}
public handleRatingClick = () => {
alert('Clicked!')
}
}
^ When I click on the star nothing happens, but if I extract <StarsRating rating={3} onClick={this.handleRatingClick} /> from the .map function and put it directly inside the render() method, I get the alert saying 'Clicked!'... I suspect this is losing its value but I'm not sure how to test that.
I think the problem is with the latestArticlesList variable. It is initialized too early. It should be a function:
public latestArticlesList: JSX.Element[] = () => Articles.map((a: IArticle) => {
I assume Articles should be this.props.articlesPerPage.
And finally when you use it, call it:
<React.Fragment>
// some TSX
{this.latestArticles()}
// some more TSX
</React.Fragment>

Use scrollToAnchor from ViewportScroller in angular 6

I cannot figure out how to use the function ViewportScroller.scrollToAnchor(string anchor).
First of all - how do I define an anchor in my html? I may be confusing anchors, routerlinks and fragments.
My code which is based on fragments as of now:
export class ItemsOverviewPage implements OnInit {
public items: Item[];
constructor(private route: ActivatedRoute,
private scroller: ViewportScroller) {}
public async ngOnInit(): Promise<void> {
const fragment = await this.route.fragment.first().toPromise();
if (fragment !== undefined || fragment !== null) {
this.scroller.scrollToAnchor(fragment);
}
}
}
The html is something like
<ion-card mode="md"
*ngFor="let i of items"
routerDirection="forward"
id="{{ i.title) }}">
</ion-card>
How can I refer to the id? Or should I do an <a>...</a> around whatever I want to scroll to?
I am navigating to the page like:
this.router.navigate(['/items'], { fragment: item.title });
I don't think you can do it that way.
It seems that, when you are using a ngFor, the scrolling to the anchor gets called before the DOM is finalized.
So, in your ngOnInit you can get the fragment, but won't be able to find the anchor, as the ngFor has not completed yet.
One way way to do what you want, could be to use a route parameter rather than a fragment.You can retrieve the parameter in the ngOnInit of your ItemsOverviewPageComponent and store it in a variable (e.g. _fragment), and then scroll to the anchor in the ngAfterViewInit() hook using document.getElementById(this._fragment).scrollIntoView();
Another option, could be using navigationExtras.
Even better, if you need to pass data and potentially complex objects via routes, would be to set up a service that stores the data and then inject it into the components
For more information see ActivatedRoute, NavigationExtras

react-redux together with components status

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 :)

Children dynamic content with reactjs

I'm trying to experiment here. I want to build a component that auto populates some data from an ajax request after mounting. Something like this:
var AjaxComponent = React.createClass({
getInitialState: function() {
return {
data: {}
};
},
render: function() {
return (
<div>
{this.state.data.text}
</div>
);
},
componentDidMount: function() {
makeAjaxResquest(this.props.url).then(function(response){
this.setState({
data: response.body // or something
});
}.bind(this));
}
});
With that example component, I'd use <AjaxComponent url="/url/to/fetch" /> to display the content.
Now, what if I'd like to access different bits of data from children elements? Can I do something like this?
<AjaxComponent url="/url/to/fetch">
<div>
<header>{RESPONSE.title}</header>
<div>
{RESPONSE.text}
</div>
</div>
</AjaxComponent>
No problem if it doesn't render anything before the ajax request ends. The thing is how could I pass the data for children to render, not as props. Is it possible?
I had a similar scenario where I had similar Components that would query data from different APIs. Assuming you know the expected response from a given API, you could do it the same way perhaps.
Essentially make a generic Component where it props functions as an "API" of sorts, then define different types of sub components and their associated render function.
For example:
In widget, you then do something like this, where widgets is just a plain javascript file with a bunch of functions:
componentDidMount: widgets[type].componentDidMount(),
render: widgets[type].render().
In widgets, it would be like this:
var widgets = {
widget1: {
componentDidMount: function () {
//Ajax call..
},
render: function() {
//How should I draw?
}
},
widget2: //Same format, different functions
Then in some parent component you simply go
< Widget type="widget1" \>
or whatever.
There are a couple weird things about this that probably don't sit right with React. First off, you should take state all the way up to the top-level component, so I wouldn't do my ajax calls in componentDidMount...I'd more likely get the data I want for the widgets I want to render at a higher level, then pass that in as a prop too if it won't change until I make another API call (thinking Flux style flow here). Then, just pass in the data as a prop as well and just specify the render functions:
< Widget data={this.state.data[0]} type=widget1 />
The "gotcha" here is that you are making an assumption that whatever is in this data prop will match what you need in the widget type. I would pass in an object, and then validate it all in the render function etc.
That's one way. Not sure if it's valid, I'm sure someone who knows more could pick it apart but it suited my use case and I now have a library of similar components that I can selectively render by passing in data and a type, then looking up the appropriate render function and checking to make sure the data object contains everything I need to render.

Resources