Develop Reference

React - filtering items from an array in any order

I'm sorry that this question has been asked in a similar fashion. I've read through a lot of similar threads but just don't know enough to apply it to my little project. I'm very new to React so I would appreciate any help!
Getting to it, I'm making a pokemon game where someone can hit click buttons to filter down a JSON list of pokemon. They can go by type,weaknessess,etc.
But I'm a little confused in keeping a 'global array' if that's the right word. It may be something I don't understand with React's useState.
Here's my code
import React, { useState, useEffect } from "react";
import "./App.css";
import PokemonLibrary from "./data/PokemonList.json";
export default function App() {
const [pokemonData, setPokemonData] = React.useState(PokemonLibrary.pokemon);
const pokeListCopy = PokemonLibrary.pokemon;
const filterTypeOne = () => { //filter type
const myFilteredPoke = pokeListCopy.filter((pokeType) => {
return pokeType.type.includes("Grass");
});
console.log(myFilteredPoke); // shows array of objects of left over pokemon
setPokemonData(myFilteredPoke);
};
const filterWeakness = () => { //filter weakness
const myFilteredPoke = pokeListCopy.filter((pokeType) => {
return pokeType.weaknesses.includes("Ice");
});
setPokemonData(myFilteredPoke);
};
return (
<div className="App">
<h1>Pokemon Selector!</h1>
<div>
<button onClick={filterTypeOne}>Filter Grass</button>
<button onClick={filterWeakness}>Weak to Ice</button>
</div>
{pokemonData &&
pokemonData.map((poke) => (
<p key={poke.id}>
#{poke.num} | {poke.name} | {poke.type[0]} {poke.type[1]}
<img src={poke.img} alt="Pokemon Images"></img>
</p>
))}
</div>
);
}
My question is, how do I keep a consistent array for these two functions (and more) to pull the same data from? I'd like it to be able to be filtered in either order. But currently, these filter separate arrays. I've played with it a lot using normal JavaScript, but I can't quite figure this out.
I hope that was enough information. Please let me know if this didn't make sense! I'd appreciate any guidance. Thank you.

Problem
You are facing this problem because you try to set the state of the list in an "imperative" manner, but React is meant to be used more "declarative". That means, what you try here is like:
"if I click the button, change the list to contain the items that contain 'Grass'",
but how you should use React is:
"if I click the button, then the state of my component should be that the list only contains items with 'grass'"
That might sound like the same, but there is a subtle difference. React is good in changing a state dependent on some other state. You might say "but that's what I'm trying to do, changing the state of the list", but then you have tell the full story
"if I click the button, and the list is not filtered already, and maybe contains the items X, then change the list to contain the items that contain 'Grass', unless ..."
This becomes quite complicated, especially comparing contents of lists and components.
Solution
There are different solutions to your problem, but what you should do is basically something like:
set the component state to describe what you want
have other parts of your program (and React) take care to give you a the list dependent on this description
e.g.:
const [pokemonData, setPokemonData] = React.useState(PokemonLibrary.pokemon);
const [listState, setListState] = React.useState({ type: '', weekness: '' });
useEffect(() => {
let newList = pokemonData;
if( listState.type === 'Grass' ){
newList = newList.filter( ... );
}
if( listState.weekness === 'Ice' ){
newList = newList.filter( ... );
}
setPokemonData(newList);
}, listState );
return (
<div>
<button onClick={()=>{ setListState({ ...listState, type: 'Grass' }) }}>Filter Grass</button>
{ pokemonData.map( (poke) => ... ) }
</div>
);
(This code is not very elegant and would not even work, and should only illustrate the idea. From here on there are several ways how to implement the filtering mechanism)

React - sort array of child components with state

Currently I'm working on a react project, but I'm seeing some unexpected behavior when sorting an array of stateful child components.
If I have a parent component
export function Parent(){
const [children, setChildren] = useState([
{name:'Orange',value:2},
{name:'Apple',value:1},
{name:'Melon',value:3}
])
var count = 0
function handleSort() {
var newChildren=[...children]
newChildren.sort((a,b)=>{return a.value-b.value})
setChildren(newChildren)
}
return (
<div>
<button onClick={handleSort}>Sort</button>
{children.map((child) => {
count++
return(<ChildComp key={count} details={child}/>)
})}
</div>
)
}
And a child component
function ChildComp(props){
const[intCount,setIntCount] = useState(0)
function handleCount(){
setIntCount(intCount+1)
}
return (
<div>
<p>{props.details.name}</p>
<button onClick={handleCount}>{intCount}</button>
</div>
)
}
When the page first renders everything looks great, three divs render with a button showing the number of times it was clicked and the prop name as it was declared in the array. I've noticed that when I sort, it sorts the props being passed to the child components which then rerender, but the intCount state of the child component stays tied to the original location and is not sorted. is there any way to keep the state coupled with the array element through the sort while still maintaining state data at the child level, or is the only way to accomplish this to raise the state up to the parent component and pass a callback or dispatch to the child to update it?

The count is not is not sorted. It just got updated when you sorted.
Keys help React identify which items have changed, are added, or are
removed. Keys should be given to the elements inside the array to give
the elements a stable identity
Every time you sort, key stay the same, as you use count.
Try using value as key
export function Parent(){
// ....
return (
<div>
<button onClick={handleSort}>Sort</button>
{children.map(child => {
return <ChildComp key={child.value} details={child}/> // key is important
})}
</div>
)
}
More info: https://reactjs.org/docs/lists-and-keys.html#keys

Why is useState not triggering re-render?

I've initialized a state that is an array, and when I update it my component does not re-render. Here is a minimal proof-of-concept:
function App() {
const [numbers, setNumbers] = React.useState([0, 1, 2, 3]);
console.log("rendering...");
return (
<div className="App">
{numbers.map(number => (
<p>{number}</p>
))}
<input
type="text"
value={numbers[0].toString()}
onChange={newText => {
let old = numbers;
old[0] = 1;
setNumbers(old);
}}
/>
</div>
);
}
Based on this code, it seems that the input should contain the number 0 to start, and any time it is changed, the state should change too. After entering "02" in the input, the App component does not re-render. However, if I add a setTimeout in the onChange function which executes after 5 seconds, it shows that numbers has indeed been updated.
Any thoughts on why the component doesn't update?
Here is a CodeSandbox with the proof of concept.

You're calling setNumbers and passing it the array it already has. You've changed one of its values but it's still the same array, and I suspect React doesn't see any reason to re-render because state hasn't changed; the new array is the old array.
One easy way to avoid this is by spreading the array into a new array:
setNumbers([...old])

You need to copy numbers like so let old = [...numbers];
useState doesn't update the value only if it has changed so if it was 44 and it became 7 it will update. but how can it know if an array or object have changed. it's by reference so when you do let old = numbers you are just passing a reference and not creating a new one

Others have already given the technical solution. To anyone confused as to why this happens, is because setSomething() only re renders the component if and only if the previous and current state is different. Since arrays in javascript are reference types, if you edit an item of an array in js, it still doesn't change the reference to the original array. In js's eyes, these two arrays are the same, even though the original content inside those arrays are different. That's why setSomething() fails do detect the changes made to the old array.
Note that if you use class components and update the state using setState() then the component will always update regardless of whether the state has changed or not. So, you can change your functional component to a class component as a solution. Or follow the answers provided by others.

You can change state like this
const [state, setState] = ({})
setState({...state})
or if your state is Array you can change like this
const [state, setState] = ([])
setState([...state])

I was working on an array that had objects in it and I tried few of the above.
My useState is :
const [options, setOptions] = useState([
{ sno: "1", text: "" },
{ sno: "2", text: "" },
{ sno: "3", text: "" },
{ sno: "4", text: "" },
]);
Now I want to add more options with blank field on a click of a button I will use the following way to achieve my purpose:
<button
onClick={() => {
setOptions([...options, { sno: newArray.length + 1, text: "" }]);
}}
>
This solved my problem and I was able to re render the component and added an object to the array.

introduces an array of the component that is not the one of the hook. for instance:
const [numbers, setNumbers] = useState([0, 1, 2, 3]);
var numbersModify = []; //the value you want
and at the end:
setNumbers(numbersModify)
modify this numbersModify, when the hook refreshes it will return to 0 numbersModify and the hook will keep the state. Therefore, the problem of not seeing the changes will be eliminated.
:D

//define state using useState hook
const [numbers, setNumbers] = React.useState([0, 1, 2, 3]);
//copy existing numbers in temp
let tempNumbers = [...numbers];
// modify/add no
tempNumbers.push(4);
tempNumbers[0] = 10;
// set modified numbers
setNumbers(tempNumbers);

I dont have any proud of this but it works
anotherList = something
setSomething([])
setTimeout(()=>{ setSomething(anotherList)},0)

useState is a React hook which provides functionality of having State in a functional component.
Usually it informs React to re-render the component whenever there is change in useState variables.
{
let old = numbers;
old[0] = 1;
setNumbers(old);
}
In the above code since you are referring to the same variable it stores the reference not the value hence React doesn't know about the latest changes as the reference is same as previous.
To overcome use the below hack, which will not copy the reference instead it's a deep copy(copies the values)
{
let old = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(numbers));
old[0] = 1;
setNumbers(old);
}
Happy coding :)

Dynamically created custom form components in react

See this gist for the complete picture.
Basically I will have this form:
When you click the plus, another row should appear with a drop down for day and a time field.
I can create the code to add inputs to the form, however I'm having trouble with the individual components (selectTimeInput is a row) actually updating their values.
The onChange in the MultipleDayTimeInput is receiving the correct data, it is just the display that isn't updating. I extremely new to react so I don't know what is causing the display to not update....
I think it is because the SelectTimeInput render function isn't being called because the passed in props aren't being updated, but I'm not sure of the correct way to achieve that.
Thinking about it, does the setState need to be called in the onChange of the MultipleDayTimeInput and the input that changed needs to be removed from the this.state.inputs and readded in order to force the render to fire... this seems a little clunky to me...

When you update the display value of the inputs in state, you need to use this.setState to change the state data and cause a re-render with the new data. Using input.key = value is not the correct way.
Using State Correctly
There are three things you should know about
setState().
Do Not Modify State Directly
For example, this will not re-render a
component:
// Wrong
this.state.comment = 'Hello';
Instead, use setState():
// Correct
this.setState({comment: 'Hello'});
The only place where you
can assign this.state is the constructor.
read more from Facebook directly here
I would actually suggest a little bit of a restructure of your code though. It's not really encouraged to have components as part of your state values. I would suggest having your different inputs as data objects in your this.state.inputs, and loop through the data and build each of the displays that way in your render method. Like this:
suppose you have one input in your this.state.inputs (and suppose your inputs is an object for key access):
inputs = {
1: {
selectedTime: 0:00,
selectedValue: 2
}
}
in your render, do something like this:
render() {
let inputs = Object.keys(this.state.inputs).map((key) => {
let input = this.state.inputs[key]
return (<SelectTimeInput
key={key}
name={'option_' + key}
placeholder={this.props.placeholder}
options={this.props.options}
onChange={this.onChange.bind(this, key)}
timeValue={input.selectedTime}
selectValue={input.selectedValue}
/>)
)}
return (
<div>
<button className="button" onClick={this.onAddClick}><i className="fa fa-plus" /></button>
{ inputs }
</div>
);
}
Notice how we're binding the key on the onChange, so that we know which input to update. now, in your onChange function, you just set the correct input's value with setState:
onChange(event, key) {
this.setState({
inputs: Immutable.fromJS(this.state.inputs).setIn([`${key}`, 'selectedTime'], event.target.value).toJS()
// or
inputs: Object.assign(this.state.inputs, Object.assign(this.state.inputs[key], { timeValue: event.target.value }))
})
}
this isn't tested, but basically this Immutable statement is going to make a copy of this.state.inputs and set the selectedTime value inside of the object that matches the key, to the event.target.value. State is updated now, a re-render is triggered, and when you loop through the inputs again in the render, you'll use the new time value as the timeValue to your component.
again, with the Object.assign edit, it isn't tested, but learn more [here]. 2 Basically this statement is merging a new timeValue value in with the this.state.inputs[key] object, and then merging that new object in with the entire this.state.inputs object.
does this make sense?

I modified the onChange in the MultipleDayTimeInput:
onChange(event) {
const comparisonKey = event.target.name.substring(event.target.name.length - 1);
const input = this.getInputState(comparisonKey);
input.selected = event.target.value;
input.display = this.renderTimeInput(input);
let spliceIndex = -1;
for (let i = 0; i < this.state.inputs.length; i++) {
const matches = inputFilter(comparisonKey)(this.state.inputs[i]);
if (matches) {
spliceIndex = i;
break;
}
}
if (spliceIndex < 0) {
throw 'error updating inputs';
}
this.setState({
inputs: [...this.state.inputs].splice(spliceIndex, 1, input)
});
}
The key points are:
// re render the input
input.display = this.renderTimeInput(input);
// set the state by copying the inputs and interchanging the old input with the new input....
this.setState({
inputs: [...this.state.inputs].splice(spliceIndex, 1, input)
});
Having thought about it though, input is an object reference to the input in the this.state.inputs so actually [...this.states.inputs] would have been enough??

How to manage state without using Subject or imperative manipulation in a simple RxJS example?

I have been experimenting with RxJS for two weeks now, and although I love it in principle I just cannot seem to find and implement the correct pattern for managing state. All articles and questions appear to agree:
Subject should be avoided where possible in favor of just pushing state through via transformations;
.getValue() should be deprecated entirely; and
.do should perhaps be avoided except for DOM manipulation?
The problem with all such suggestions is that none of the literature appears to directly say what you should be using instead, besides "you'll learn the Rx way and stop using Subject".
But I cannot find a direct example anywhere that specifically indicates the correct way to perform both additions and removals to a single stream/object, as the consequence of multiple other stream inputs, in a stateless and functional manner.
Before I get pointed in the same directions again, problems with uncovered literature are:
The Introduction to Reactive Programming You've been missing: great starting text, but does not specifically address these questions.
The TODO example for RxJS comes with React and involves explicit manipulation of Subjects as proxies for React Stores.
http://blog.edanschwartz.com/2015/09/18/dead-simple-rxjs-todo-list/ : explicitly uses a state object for addition and removal of items.
My perhaps 10th rewrite of the standard TODO follows - My prior iterations covered include:
starting with a mutable 'items' array - bad as state is explicit and imperatively managed
using scan to concatenate new items to an addedItems$ stream, then branching another stream where the removed items were deleted - bad as the addedItems$ stream would grow indefinitely.
discovering BehaviorSubjectand using that - seemed bad since for each new updatedList$.next() emission, it requires the previous value to iterate, meaning that Subject.getValue() is essential.
trying to stream the result of the inputEnter$ addition events into filtered removal events - but then every new stream creates a new list, and then feeding that into the toggleItem$ and toggleAll$ streams means that each new stream is dependent on the previous, and so causing one of the 4 actions (add, remove, toggle item or toggle all) requires the whole chain to be unnecessarily run through again.
Now I have come full circle, where I am back to using both Subject (and just how is it supposed to be successively iterated upon in any way without using getValue()?) and do, as show below. Myself and my colleague agree this is the clearest way, yet it of course seems the least reactive and most imperative. Any clear suggestions on the correct way for this would be much appreciated!
import Rx from 'rxjs/Rx';
import h from 'virtual-dom/h';
import diff from 'virtual-dom/diff';
import patch from 'virtual-dom/patch';
const todoListContainer = document.querySelector('#todo-items-container');
const newTodoInput = document.querySelector('#new-todo');
const todoMain = document.querySelector('#main');
const todoFooter = document.querySelector('#footer');
const inputToggleAll = document.querySelector('#toggle-all');
const ENTER_KEY = 13;
// INTENTS
const inputEnter$ = Rx.Observable.fromEvent(newTodoInput, 'keyup')
.filter(event => event.keyCode === ENTER_KEY)
.map(event => event.target.value)
.filter(value => value.trim().length)
.map(value => {
return { label: value, completed: false };
});
const inputItemClick$ = Rx.Observable.fromEvent(todoListContainer, 'click');
const inputToggleAll$ = Rx.Observable.fromEvent(inputToggleAll, 'click')
.map(event => event.target.checked);
const inputToggleItem$ = inputItemClick$
.filter(event => event.target.classList.contains('toggle'))
.map((event) => {
return {
label: event.target.nextElementSibling.innerText.trim(),
completed: event.target.checked,
};
})
const inputDoubleClick$ = Rx.Observable.fromEvent(todoListContainer, 'dblclick')
.filter(event => event.target.tagName === 'LABEL')
.do((event) => {
event.target.parentElement.classList.toggle('editing');
})
.map(event => event.target.innerText.trim());
const inputClickDelete$ = inputItemClick$
.filter(event => event.target.classList.contains('destroy'))
.map((event) => {
return { label: event.target.previousElementSibling.innerText.trim(), completed: false };
});
const list$ = new Rx.BehaviorSubject([]);
// MODEL / OPERATIONS
const addItem$ = inputEnter$
.do((item) => {
inputToggleAll.checked = false;
list$.next(list$.getValue().concat(item));
});
const removeItem$ = inputClickDelete$
.do((removeItem) => {
list$.next(list$.getValue().filter(item => item.label !== removeItem.label));
});
const toggleAll$ = inputToggleAll$
.do((allComplete) => {
list$.next(toggleAllComplete(list$.getValue(), allComplete));
});
function toggleAllComplete(arr, allComplete) {
inputToggleAll.checked = allComplete;
return arr.map((item) =>
({ label: item.label, completed: allComplete }));
}
const toggleItem$ = inputToggleItem$
.do((toggleItem) => {
let allComplete = toggleItem.completed;
let noneComplete = !toggleItem.completed;
const list = list$.getValue().map(item => {
if (item.label === toggleItem.label) {
item.completed = toggleItem.completed;
}
if (allComplete && !item.completed) {
allComplete = false;
}
if (noneComplete && item.completed) {
noneComplete = false;
}
return item;
});
if (allComplete) {
list$.next(toggleAllComplete(list, true));
return;
}
if (noneComplete) {
list$.next(toggleAllComplete(list, false));
return;
}
list$.next(list);
});
// subscribe to all the events that cause the proxy list$ subject array to be updated
Rx.Observable.merge(addItem$, removeItem$, toggleAll$, toggleItem$).subscribe();
list$.subscribe((list) => {
// DOM side-effects based on list size
todoFooter.style.visibility = todoMain.style.visibility =
(list.length) ? 'visible' : 'hidden';
newTodoInput.value = '';
});
// RENDERING
const tree$ = list$
.map(newList => renderList(newList));
const patches$ = tree$
.bufferCount(2, 1)
.map(([oldTree, newTree]) => diff(oldTree, newTree));
const todoList$ = patches$.startWith(document.querySelector('#todo-list'))
.scan((rootNode, patches) => patch(rootNode, patches));
todoList$.subscribe();
function renderList(arr, allComplete) {
return h('ul#todo-list', arr.map(val =>
h('li', {
className: (val.completed) ? 'completed' : null,
}, [h('input', {
className: 'toggle',
type: 'checkbox',
checked: val.completed,
}), h('label', val.label),
h('button', { className: 'destroy' }),
])));
}
Edit
In relation to #user3743222 very helpful answer, I can see how representing state as an additional input can make a function pure and thus scan is the best way to represent a collection evolving over time, with a snapshot of its previous state up to that point as an additional function parameter.
However, this was already how I approached my second attempt, with addedItems$ being a scanned stream of inputs:
// this list will now grow infinitely, because nothing is ever removed from it at the same time as concatenation?
const listWithItemsAdded$ = inputEnter$
.startWith([])
.scan((list, addItem) => list.concat(addItem));
const listWithItemsAddedAndRemoved$ = inputClickDelete$.withLatestFrom(listWithItemsAdded$)
.scan((list, removeItem) => list.filter(item => item !== removeItem));
// Now I have to always work from the previous list, to get the incorporated amendments...
const listWithItemsAddedAndRemovedAndToggled$ = inputToggleItem$.withLatestFrom(listWithItemsAddedAndRemoved$)
.map((item, list) => {
if (item.checked === true) {
//etc
}
})
// ... and have the event triggering a bunch of previous inputs it may have nothing to do with.
// and so if I have 400 inputs it appears at this stage to still run all the previous functions every time -any- input
// changes, even if I just want to change one small part of state
const n$ = nminus1$.scan...
The obvious solution would be to just have items = [], and manipulate it directly, or const items = new BehaviorSubject([]) - but then the only way to iterate on it appears to be using getValue to expose the previous state, which Andre Stalz (CycleJS) has commented on in the RxJS issues as something that shouldn't really be exposed (but again, if not, then how is it usable?).
I guess I just had an idea that with streams, you weren't supposed to use Subjects or represent anything via a state 'meatball', and in the first answer I'm not sure how this doesn't introduce mass chained streams which are orphaned/grow infinitely/have to build on each other in exact sequence.

I think you already found a good example with : http://jsbin.com/redeko/edit?js,output.
You take issue with the fact that this implementation
explicitly uses a state object for addition and removal of items.
However, thas is exactly the good practice you are looking for. If you rename that state object viewModel for example, it might be more apparent to you.
So what is state?
There will be other definitions but I like to think of state as follows:
given f an impure function, i.e. output = f(input), such that you can have different outputs for the same input, the state associated to that function (when it exists) is the extra variable such that f(input) = output = g(input, state) holds and g is a pure function.
So if the function here is to match an object representing a user input, to an array of todo, and if I click add on a todo list with already have 2 todos, the output will be 3 todos. If I do the same (same input) on a todo list with only one todo, the output will be 2 todos. So same input, different outputs.
The state here that allows to transform that function into a pure function is the current value of the todo array. So my input becomes an add click, AND the current todo array, passed through a function g which give a new todo array with a new todo list. That function g is pure. So f is implemented in a stateless way by making its previously hidden state explicit in g.
And that fits well with functional programming which revolves around composing pure functions.
Rxjs operators
scan
So when it comes to state management, with RxJS or else, a good practice is to make state explicit to manipulate it.
If you turn the output = g(input, state) into a stream, you get On+1 = g(In+1, Sn) and that's exactly what the scan operator does.
expand
Another operator which generalizes scan is expand, but so far I had very little use of that operator. scan generally does the trick.
Sorry for the long and mathy answer. It took me a while to get around those concepts and that's the way I made them understandable for me. Hopefully it works for you too.