I'm trying to understand if there is a better design pattern to this use case.
I have a react functional component such as this.
const ComponentMajor = (props) => {
[state, setState]
classes = useStyles()
//image a whole bunch of other state.
return (
<div stateDependentProp1 stateDependentProp2>{stateDependent3}</div>
<div stateDependentProp1 stateDependentProp2>{stateDependent3}</div>
<div stateDependentProp1 stateDependentProp2>{stateDependent3}</div>)
//imagine each of these is maybe 50 lines of code and we need 10 of them.
//perfect use case for code re use.
}
So naturally I create a div component, but since it's so coupled with ComponentMajor and only needs to be used in ComponentMajor to eliminate code dupl, i want it to live inside the same file.
Option 1
const ComponentMajor = (props) => {
[state, setState]
classes = useStyles()
const boilerPlateComp = (props) => <div props>{stateDependent3}</div>
//image a whole bunch of other state.
return(
<boilerPlateComp props/>
<boilerPlateComp props/>
<boilerPlateComp props/>)
}
This isn't good because every time ComponentMajor re-renders it redeclares boilerPlateComp and has weird behaviors.
Option 2
declare boilerPlateComp OUTSIDE ComponentMajor - but this makes it inefficient to share scope (which if defined inside ComponentMajor is not an issue) between them. It results in some annoying boiler plate ironically to pass the scope dependencies in as props.
The cleanest I was able to come up with was something like this, but there HAS to be a better way to do this in FUNCTIONAL components.
const boilerPlateComp = ({sharedScope, props}) => {
let {stateDep1, stateDep2, stateDep3, etc} = sharedScope
return (<div props>{stateDependent3}</div>)
}
const ComponentMajor = (props) => {
[state, setState]
classes = useStyles()
let sharedScope = {state, setState, classes, etc}
//image a whole bunch of other state.
return(
<boilerPlateComp props sharedScope={sharedScope}/>
<boilerPlateComp props sharedScope={sharedScope}/>
<boilerPlateComp props sharedScope={sharedScope}/>)
}
My Question Is:
What is the standard design pattern for this common use case? Is this a scenario where a class component would make more sense?
I tried playing around with memoizing the components declared WITHIN ComponentMajor but didn't seem to work.
Is there a clean way to use javascript apply to pass the scope onto the component instances?
Your second option is the correct one. Fundamentally in React, when you need some state to live above a component, that state has to be "passed-down" to the child component (this is sometimes called "prop drilling", especially if it has to be passed through other components). In other words, you do need that sharedScope prop:
<boilerPlateComp props sharedScope={sharedScope}/>
However, you could use a map to not have to repeat lines like that:
{someArray.map(() => <boilerPlateComp props sharedScope={sharedScope}/>}
And if you really didn't want to pass props you could use Context instead ... although using it to avoid a single component's worth of "prop drilling" would be more of an anti-pattern.
Related
From what I understand you use useCallback to prevent rerendering so I've been using it in every function and my spider senses are telling me it already sounds bad.
But the story doesn't ends there, since I've been using it everywhere I'm now passing dependencies to all my child components that they shouldn't need to worry about like in the following example :
EDIT // SANDBOX: https://codesandbox.io/s/bold-noether-0wdnp?file=/src/App.js
Parent component (needs colorButtons and currentColor)
const ColorPicker = ({onChange}) => {
const [currentColor, setCurrentColor] = useState({r: 255, g:0, b: 0})
const [colorButtons, setColorButtons] = useState({0: null})
const handleColorButtons = useCallback((isToggled, id) => {
/* code that uses colorButtons and currentColor */
}, [colorButtons, currentColor])
return <div className="color-picker">
<RgbColorPicker color={currentColor} onChange={setCurrentColor} />
<div className="color-buttons">
{
Object.entries(colorButtons).map(button => <ColorButton
//...
currentColor={currentColor}
onClick={handleColorButtons}
colorButtons={colorButtons}
/>)
}
</div>
</div>
}
1st child (needs style and currentColor but gets colorButtons for free from its parent)
const ColorButton = ({currentColor, onClick, id, colorButtons}) => {
const [style, setStyle] = useState({})
const handleClick = useCallback((isToggled) => {
/* code that uses setStyle and currentColor */
}, [style, currentColor, colorButtons])
return <ToggleButton
//...
onClick={handleClick}
style={style}
dependency1={style}
dependency2={currentColor}
dependency3={colorButtons}
>
</ToggleButton>
}
2nd child (only needs its own variables but gets the whole package)
const ToggleButton = ({children, className, onClick, style, data, id, onRef, ...dependencies}) => {
const [isToggled, setIsToggled] = useState(false)
const [buttonStyle, setButtonStyle] = useState(style)
const handleClick = useCallback(() => {
/* code that uses isToggled, data, id and setButtonStyle */
}, [isToggled, data, id, ...Object.values(dependencies)])
return <button
className={className || "toggle-button"}
onClick={handleClick}
style={buttonStyle || {}}
ref={onRef}
>
{children}
</button>
}
Am I doing an anti-pattern and if so, what is it and how to fix it ? Thanks for helping !
React hook useCallback
useCallback is a hook that can be used in functional React components. A functional component is a function that returns a React component and that runs on every render, which means that everything defined in its body get new referential identities every time. An exception to this can be accomplished with React hooks which may be used inside functional components to interconnect different renders and maintain state. This means that if you save a reference to a regular function defined in a functional component using a ref, and then compare it to the same function in a later render, they will not be the same (the function changes referential identity between renderings):
// Render 1
...
const fnInBody = () => {}
const fn = useRef(null)
console.log(fn.current === fnInBody) // false since fn.current is null
fn.current = fnInBody
...
// Render 2
...
const fnInBody = () => {}
const fn = useRef(null)
console.log(fn.current === fnInBody) // false due to different identity
fn.current = fnInBody
...
As per the docs, useCallback returns "a memoized version of the callback that only changes if one of the dependencies has changed" which is useful "when passing callbacks to optimized child components that rely on reference equality to prevent unnecessary renders".
To sum up, useCallback will return a function that maintains its referential identity (e.g. is memoized) as long as the dependencies don't change. The returned function contains a closure with the used dependencies and must thus be updated once the dependencies change.
This results in this updated version of the previous example
// Render 1
...
const fnInBody = useCallback(() => {}, [])
const fn = useRef(null)
console.log(fn.current === fnInBody) // false since fn.current is null
fn.current = fnInBody
...
// Render 2
...
const fnInBody = useCallback(() => {}, [])
const fn = useRef(null)
console.log(fn.current === fnInBody) // true
fn.current = fnInBody
...
Your use case
Keeping the above description in mind, let's have a look at your use of useCallback.
Case 1: ColorPicker
const handleColorButtons = useCallback((isToggled, id) => {
/* code that uses colorButtons and currentColor */
}, [colorButtons, currentColor])
This function will get a new identity every time colorButtons or currentColor changes. ColorPicker itself rerenders either when one of these two are set or when its prop onChange changes. Both handleColorButtons and the children should be updated when currentColor or colorButtons change. The only time the children benefit from the use of useCallback is when only onChange changes. Given that ColorButton is a lightweight component, and that ColorPicker rerenders mostly due to changes to currentColor and colorButtons, the use of useCallback here seems redundant.
Case 2: ColorButton
const handleClick = useCallback((isToggled) => {
/* code that uses setStyle and currentColor */
}, [style, currentColor, colorButtons])
This is a situation similar to the first case. ColorButton rerenders when currentColor, onClick, id or colorButtons change and the children rerender when handleClick, style, colorButtons or currentColor change. With useCallback in place, the props id and onClick may change without rerendering the children (according to the above visible code at least), all other rerenders of ColorButton will lead to its children rerendering. Again, the child ToggleButton is lightweight and id or onClick are not likely to change more often than any other prop so the use of useCallback seems redundant here as well.
Case 3: ToggleButton
const handleClick = useCallback(() => {
/* code that uses isToggled, data, id and setButtonStyle */
}, [isToggled, data, id, ...Object.values(dependencies)])
This case is elaborate with a lot of dependencies but from what I see, one way or the other, most of the component props will lead to a "new version" of handleClick and with the children being lightweight components, the argument to use useCallback seems weak.
So when should I use useCallback?
As the docs say, use it in the very specific cases when you need a function to have referential equality between renders ...
You have a component with a subset of children that are expensive to rerender and that should rerender much less often than the parent component but rerender due to a function prop changing identity whenever the parent rerenders. To me, this use case also signals bad design and I would attempt to divide the parent component into smaller components but what do I know, maybe this is not always possible.
You have a function in the body of the functional component which is used in another hook (listed as a dependency) which is triggered every time due to the function changing identity whenever the component rerenders. Typically, you can omit such a function from the dependency array by ignoring the lint rule even if this is not by the book. Other suggestions are to place such a function outside the body of the component or inside the hook that uses it, but there might be scenarios where none of this works out as intended.
Good to know connected to this is ...
A function living outside a functional component will always have referential equality between renders.
The setters returned by useState will always have referential equality between renders.
I said in the comments that you can use useCallback when there is function doing expensive calculations in a component that rerenders often but I was a bit off there. Let's say you have a function that does heavy calculations based on some prop that changes less often than a component rerenders. Then you COULD use useCallback and run a function inside it that returns a function with a closure with some computed value
const fn = useCallback(
(
() => {
const a = ... // heavy calculation based on prop c
const b = ... // heavy calculation based on prop c
return () => { console.log(a + b) }
}
)()
, [c])
...
/* fn is used for something, either as a prop OR for something else */
This would effectively avoid calculating a and b every time the component rerenders without c changing, but the more straightforward way to do this would be to instead
const a = useMemo(() => /* calculate and return a */, [c])
const b = useMemo(() => /* calculate and return b */, [c])
const fn = () => console.log(a + b)
so here the use of useCallback just complicates things in a bad way.
Conclusion
It's good to understand more complicated concepts in programming and to be able to use them, but part of the virtue is also to know when to use them. Adding code, and especially code that involves complicated concepts, comes at the price of reduced readability and code that is harder to debug with a lot of different mechanisms that interplay. Therefore, make sure you understand the hooks, but always try to not use them if you can. Especially useCallback, useMemo and React.memo (not a hook but a similar optimization) should, in my opinion, only be introduced when they are absolutely needed. useRef has its very own use cases but should also not be introduced when you can solve your problem without it.
Good work on the sandbox! Always makes it easier to reason about code. I took the liberty of forking your sandbox and refactoring it a bit: sandbox link. You can study the changes yourself if you want. Here is a summary:
It's good that you know and use useRef and useCallback but I was able to remove all the uses, making the code much easier to understand (not only by removing these uses but by also removing the contexts where they are used).
Try to work with React to simplify things. I know this is not a hands-on suggestion but the more you get into React, the more you will realize that you can do things co-operating with React, or you can do things your own way. Both will work but the latter will result in more headache for you and everybody else.
Try to isolate the scope of a component; only delegate data that is necessary to child components and constantly question where you keep your state. Earlier you had click handlers in all three components and the flow was so complicated I didn't even bother to fully understand it. In my version, there is just one click handler in ColorPicker that is being delegated down. The buttons don't have to know what happens when you click them as long as the click handler takes care of that. Closures and the ability to pass functions as arguments are strong advantages of React and Javascript.
Keys are important in React and it's good to see that you use them. Typically, the key should correspond to something that uniquely identifies a specific item. Good to use here would be ${r}_${g}_${b} but then we would only be able to have one sample of each color in the button array. This is a natural limitation but if we don't want it, the only way to assign keys is to assign a unique identifier, which you did. I prefer using Date.now() but some would probably advise against it for some reason. You could use a global variable outside the functional component too if you don't want to use a ref.
Try to do things the functional (immutable) way, and not the "old" Javascript way. For example, when adding to an array, use [...oldArray, newValue] and when assigning to an object, use {...oldObject, newKey: newValue }.
There are more things to say but I think it's better for you to study the refactored version and you can let me know if you wonder about anything.
I was referring to the below link (section : HOCs for Functional Components)
https://rossbulat.medium.com/how-to-use-react-higher-order-components-c0be6821eb6c
In the example, below is the code for the HOC;
//functional HOC with useState hook
import React, { useState } from 'react';
function withCountState(Wrapped) {
return function (props) {
const [count, setCount] = useState(0);
props['count'] = count;
props['setCount'] = setCount;
return <Wrapped {...props} />;
}
}
Also, the Wrapped component code is as below;
const Wrapped = (props) => {
const {count, setCount} = props;
return(
<div>
<h1>Counter Functional Component</h1>
<p>You clicked {count} times</p>
<button onClick={() => setCount(count + 1)}>
Increment count
</button>
</div>);
};
For applying HOC to , we use
const EnhancedWrapped = withCountState(Wrapped);
Now I have 2 questions;
For consuming this component, do we just say <EnhancedWrapped> may be in our App.js or do we need anything else?
What benefit do we really get out of creating this HOC?
Viet has answered your questions. HOC is a way to make your components re-usable through composition. You can have other components which get wrapped by the HOC and now they would have access to the count and setCount functionality.
Depending upon what you are trying to accomplish, it's also a good idea to consider the pitfalls of HOC and consider alternate patterns such as :
Render Props: React Docs on Render Props
Using Custom Hooks over HOC Article on custom hooks
When using React Hooks, I'd personally prefer making custom hooks over using HOCs. And depending upon the use case, you may want to check out if React Context would make sense if multiple components are going to need a shared state.
For consuming this component, do we just say may be in our App.js or do we need anything else? Yes, just use HOC like any other JSX component.
What benefit do we really get out of creating this HOC? You can make it reusable. Let's say you want another component with different content inside, like , you could just create a new component by const AnotherEnhancedWrapped = withCountState(AnotherWrapped);
<Comp1 />
<div>
<Comp1 />
<Comp2 />
</div>
I am new to React. I want to pass data from Comp2 to its sibling Comp1 only. I know using a parent component to pass props but in this case I have to rewrite Comp1 to get state from its parent, which will affect all the Comp1. How can I make only chosen Comp1 receive the data and don't bother the else?
There is not a straightforward solution to this, but you do have a couple of options:
Option 1
The most direct way would be as you described - having Comp2 pass data up to its parent using an event listener, then having the parent pass it back down to Comp1. This can be an optional prop being passed to Comp1, so it doesn't matter that your outer Comp1 won't receive that prop.
For example:
import React from 'react';
const Comp1 = ({data='Default Value'}) => (
<p>{data}</p>
)
const Comp2 = ({onData}) => (
<button onClick={e => onData(Math.random())}>Change Value</button>
)
export default function App() {
let [data, setData] = React.useState(null);
return (
<div>
<Comp1/>
<div>
<Comp1 data={data}/>
<Comp2 onData={setData}/>
</div>
</div>
);
}
This is probably your best option, and by the sound of things, it might be good to find a way to refactor your app so that this option becomes more viable. There's usually a way to change your app structure to make this work better.
If you really want siblings to have a more direct line of communication with each other, you could give Comp1 a ref of Comp2, but I wouldn't encourage this.
Option 2
Another option would be to use contexts. This gives anyone the power to communicate with anyone who uses the same context. There is a lot of power in this feature. Some people set up a Redux-like system using contexts and reducers to let any part of the application (or larger component they put the context provider in) communicate with any other part. See this article for more information on using contexts to manage application state.
import React from 'react';
let context = React.createContext()
const Comp1 = () => {
let ctx = React.useContext(context) || {};
return <p>{ctx.data || 'Default Value'}</p>
}
const Comp2 = () => {
let ctx = React.useContext(context);
return <button onClick={e => ctx.setData(Math.random())}>Change Value</button>
}
export default function App() {
let [data, setData] = React.useState();
return (
<div>
<Comp1/>
<div>
<context.Provider value={{data, setData}}>
<Comp1/>
<Comp2/>
</context.Provider>
</div>
</div>
);
}
Option 3
For completeness, A third option would be using something like Redux to help share state. Only use this option if you are already using Redux, or if you really want/need it and understand what you're getting into. Redux is not for every project, everyone does not need it.
Side Note
I realize you said you were new to React. For brevity and for other Googlers, I used a lot of React hooks in my examples (The functions like React.useState, React.useContext, etc). These can take a little bit to understand, and I don't expect you to learn how to use them just to solve your problem. In fact, if you're new to React, I would strongly encourage you to just go with option 1 using the class syntax you've learned how to use already. As you get some more practice and start feeling the limits of the first option, then you can start trying the other things out.
In react, data always moves from top to down, so there is no true way to pass information sibling to sibling without going through some higher structure. You could use context, but again, its provider has to wrap around both sibling components, meaning it has to be implemented in the parent component(App). It is also intended for passing data between deeply nested sibling components to avoid passing props multiple levels deep. In your case where props only have to be passed one level deep, it is best to just store state in the parent component(App).
Here is what context would look like for your App (its more trouble than its worth at this point):
https://codesandbox.io/s/objective-hellman-sdm55?file=/src/App.js
For this use case I would suggest using the useState hook in the parent component and passing down a value & function to the specific child components.
pseudo code:
<Parent>
const [value, setValue] = useState();
<Comp1 onClick={setvalue} />
<Comp2 value={value} />
</Parent>
In my opinion, for your use case, Redux and the Context API are a bit overkill.
You can research about state and props.
References: https://flaviocopes.com/react-state-vs-props
I have a question to improve my comprehension of react hooks. Its said that if one passes the set state functions or hooks to the children its bad practice. So one should just pass a handler function to the child which is located in the parent and then uses the set state functions in there. As I came across this after developing many working parts of an application I would like to know why this has to be avoided as it worked fine for me.
I hope you guys understand my issue without code examples, if I need to clarify I would ofc provide some snippets.
Thanks in advance!
It isn't bad practice to pass a state setter function to a child, this is totally acceptable. In fact, I would argue that doing this:
const MyComponent = () => {
const [state, setState] = useState();
return <Child onStateChange={setState} />
}
const Child = React.memo(() => {...});
is better than
const MyComponent = () => {
const [state, setState] = useState();
return <Child onStateChange={(value) => setState(value)} />
}
const Child = React.memo(() => {...});
because in the first example the Child component is not rerendered whenever MyComponent renders. In the second example whenever MyComponent renders, it is re-creating the custom state setter function, which forces the Child component to unnecessarily render. To avoid this, you would need to wrap your custom setter function in React.useCallback to prevent unnecessary rerenders, which is just another arbitrary layer of hooks.
I'm trying to learn React from scratch and having a deep knowledge of concepts !
Today I was searching about HOC, Render Props and the differences between the two. I've checked render times for both. I wrote a console.log('rendered') into render to check render times in browser console.
HOC: When I used HOC to write an usable component, I saw after each changes on props I've render for HOC and component that used HOC.
Render Prop: In this case I've changed the props, but only wrapper component has rendered. because with render props we load only one component and inject codes to use that component feature !
So, Is it a benefit to use Render Props instead HOC components? Or HOC components are usable and powerful yet?
Thanks
HOC, Render Props and now hooks all serve to the same purpose: Share stateful logic between components. There is actually no way to tell which one is better or worst. All depends on your use case.
High Order Components are composable. It's easy to nest them
const withProps = (Component) => connect(mapState, mapDispatch)(<Component foo='bar' />)
Children as a function is a bad pattern for composability, nesting looks a lot like a callback hell cause they need to be executed inside an jsx block
const Component = () =>{
return(
<Consumer>
{
props =>(
<ThemeConsumer>
{
theme => <Child {...props} {...theme} />
}
</ThemeConsumer>
)
}
</Consumer>
)
}
On the other hand, render props it's easy to set up, have less boilerplate and in most cases are easier to reason about.
Hooks bring the best of both worlds
hooks are composable, can be easily nested, and are simple to reason about cause after all they're just plain old functions
const useConfig = () =>{
const customProps = useCustomProps()
const theme = useContext(ThemeContext)
return [customProps, theme]
}
const Component = () =>{
const [props, theme] = useConfig()
}
But again: There is no such thing as the best pattern. It's just a matter of where are you going to use it.