Develop Reference

Converting React ES6 class to functional component - what to use for private methods?

I'm converting a React ES6 class-style component to a functional component. The one thing I'm slightly unsure of is how best to convert private class methods. As far as I can tell, I should convert them to functions within the functional component's function, as they need to be there to access the component's state. However, that presumably means that on each re-render, the function is going to get recreated:
Before
class Game extends React.Component {
handleClick(i) { if (this.state.foo) { ... } }
}
After
function Game {
function handleClick(i) { if (foo) { ... } }
}
Is this a problem performance-wise, and if so, is there any way to improve it?
Also, most guides I've read recommend assigning arrow functions to variables instead of just declaring functions, eg.
function Game {
const handleClick = (i) => { if (foo) { ... } }
}
Is this purely stylistic, or is there another reason to use assigned arrow functions over regular nested function definitions?

You can use functions defined with either the function keyword or the arrow function syntax. It does not really make a difference in this case. However, with the arrow syntax, functions do not get hoisted, and that may cause the linter to report a warning if you use a function before it is defined.
However, that presumably means that on each re-render, the function is
going to get recreated
You are correct, if you define functions either way, they will get recreated on every re-render. Whether that's a problem or not will depend on your use case.
If you use such a function inside a useEffect callback and add it to its dependency array, the effect will re-run on every re-render (which may not be what you want). If you pass such a function as a prop to any child component(s), that component(s) will also re-render.
You can wrap the functions in question with useCallback, and any child components that receive these as props with React.memo. However, you are now trading the cost of re-rendering components for the cost of storing and comparing props (React will be doing this, not you).
So really, this depends on your app. If the component in question has a large component tree below it, going with useCallback and React.memo might be worth it.

Function inside functional component in React hooks - Performance

Need suggestion on having function within a functional component in react Hooks.
As far as I researched, many are saying it is bad practice
because it creates nested/inner function every time we call re-render.
After doing some analysis,
I found we can use onClick={handleClick.bind(null, props)} on the element and place the function outside the functional component.
Example:
const HelloWorld = () => {
function handleClick = (event) => {
console.log(event.target.value);
}
return() {
<>
<input type="text" onChange={handleClick}/>
</>
}
}
Please advise if there is any alternative way.
Thanks in advance.

Don't worry about it
Don't worry about creating new functions on each render. Only in edge cases does that impede your performance.
Setting onClick handlers are not one of those, so just create a new function on each render.
However, when you need to make sure you use the same function every time, you can use useCallback
Why not use useCallback for onClick
Here is a reason why you shouldn't bother with useCallback for onClick handlers (and most other event handlers).
Consider the following code snippets, one without useCallback:
function Comp(props) {
return <button onClick={() => console.log("clicked", props.foo)}>Text</Button>
}
and one with useCallback:
function Comp(props) {
const onClick = useCallback(() => {
console.log("clicked", props.foo)
}, [props.foo])
return <button onClick={onClick}>Text</Button>
}
The only difference in the latter is that React doen's have
to change the onClick on your button if props.foo remains the same.
Changing the callback is a very cheap operation, and it's not at all
worth complicating your code for the theoretical performance improvement it gives.
Also, it's worth noting that a new function is still created on every render
even when you use useCallback, but useCallback will return the old one
as long as the dependencies passed as the second argument are unchanged.
Why ever use useCallback
The point of using useCallback is that if you compare two functions with reference
equality, fn === fn2 is true only if fn and fn2 point to the same function in memory.
It doesn't matter if the functions do the same.
Thus, if you have memoisation or otherwise only run code when the function changes,
it can be useful to use useCallback to use the same function again.
As an example, React hooks compare old and new dependencies, probably using Object.is.
Another example is React.PureComponent, which will only re-render when props or state have changed. This can be useful for components that use a lot of resources to render. Passing e.g. a new onClick to a PureComponent on each render will cause it to re-render every time.

many are saying it is bad practice because it creates nested/inner function every time we call re-render
No, inner functions / closures are so common, there is no problem with them. The engine can heavily optimize those.
The point here is that you pass the function as a prop to the child component. And as the function was "recreated", it does not equal the previous function passed, annd thus the child does rerender (and that's whats bad for performance).
You can resolve that with useCallback, which memoizes the function reference.

Interesting question, me and my coleagues had some worries about this, so I did a test.
I have created 1 Component with Hooks and 1 Component with Class, put some functions there and then render it 1000x times.
The Component with Class looks like this:
export class ComponentClass extends React.PureComponent {
click1 = () => {
return console.log("just a log");
};
render() {
return (
<>
<span onClick={this.click1}>1</span>
</>
);
}
}
The Component with Hooks looks like this:
export const ComponentHook = React.memo((props) => {
const click1 = () => {
return console.log("just a log");
};
return (
<>
<span onClick={click1}>1</span>
</>
);
});
I have added more click handlers to the components and then rendered them some 1000s times, the Class is faster as it does not define the functions each render, if you increase the number of functions defined, then the difference will be bigger:
Here it is a codesandbox so you can test the performance Class vs Hooks : https://codesandbox.io/s/hooks-vs-class-forked-erdpb

useCallback
You can use useCallback feature :
const HelloWorld = ({ dispatch }) => {
const handleClick = useCallback((event) => {
dispatch(() => {console.log(event.target.value)});
})
return() {
<>
<input type="name" onChange={handleClick}/>
</>
}
}
useCallback will return a memoized version of the callback that only
changes if one of the dependencies has changed. This is useful when
passing callbacks to optimized child components that rely on reference
equality to prevent unnecessary renders (e.g. shouldComponentUpdate).
For further details visit react documentation reference: React useCallback
Old Solution
First solution:
To pass the your handleClick function to your functional component.
const HelloWorld = (props) => {
return() {
<>
<input type="name" onChange={props.handleClick}/>
</>
}
}
Second solution:
To define your function outside of your functional component.

Inspired by #tibbus 's benchmark, I made this one that tests the perfomance using or not the useCallback hook. After several executions, it seams that the use of useCallback can be very important for high frequency rendering.
Execution 1
Execution 2
Execution 3
https://codesandbox.io/s/usecallback-vs-raw-definition-xke9v?file=/src/App.js

As per React Documentation (ending part),
The problem with latter syntax is that a different callback is created
each time the LoggingButton renders. In most cases, this is fine.
However, if this callback is passed as a prop to lower components,
those components might do an extra re-rendering. We generally
recommend binding in the constructor or using the class fields syntax,
to avoid this sort of performance problem.
Class field syntax:
class LoggingButton extends React.Component {
// This syntax ensures `this` is bound within handleClick.
// Warning: this is *experimental* syntax.
handleClick = () => {
console.log('this is:', this);
}
render() {
return (
<button onClick={this.handleClick}>
Click me
</button>
);
}
}
arrow function in the callback syntax:
class LoggingButton extends React.Component {
handleClick() {
console.log('this is:', this);
}
render() {
// This syntax ensures `this` is bound within handleClick
return (
<button onClick={() => this.handleClick()}>
Click me
</button>
);
}
}

I would honestly just use a class component in these cases. I'm aware of premature optimization, but creating a new function each time does just seem like extravagant wastefulness without much of a maintainability upside. tibbus has demonstrated the perf hit, and inline functions are arguably less readable than class methods. All you're losing out is the slick feeling of writing a functional component.

Just useCallback
Why would you need to define a function inside a component and not anywhere else? Because you either have to pass it to another child compononent, or you have to use it in an effect, memo, or another callback. For any of those cases if you dont wrap your function in useCallback you will be passing a new function and causing the component to rerender, the memo to re-run, the effect to re-run, or the callback to re-define.
You can never avoid the performance hit of redefining the function itself, but you can avoid the performance hit of performing any computation that has that function as a dependency to know if it has to run or not (be it a component or hook).
So... just wrap every function in your component in useCallback and forget about it, never seen a single in case in which this would cause any harm. If you can define the function outside the component, thats always better.

Class properties for react lifecycle methods

Can I write React lifecycle methods as class properties?
I've been using class properties for a while as I like the fact that I no longer have to manually bind my methods, but I'd like to keep some consistency across my components and I'm wondering if there is any drawback on writing the React lifecycle methods as class properties
import React, { Component } from 'react';
class MyComponent extends Component {
render = () => {
return (
<div>Foo Bar</div>
);
}
}
export default MyComponent;
For example, is the context of this class property affected compared to the context in an equivalent method. Given that the render method in the above code is written as an arrow function, this concern seems relevant.

In a way, the true answer depends on your build pipeline and what the resulting Javascript output looks like. There are two primary possibilities:
Input Code
Let's start by saying you are writing the following before going through any sort of pipeline transformations (babel, typescript, etc):
class Test {
test = () => { console.log('test'); };
}
Output as class member variable.
In one possible world, your pipeline will also be outputting the test function as a member variable for the output class. In this case the output might look something like:
function Test() {
this.test = function() { console.log('test'); };
}
This means that whenever you write new Test() the test function is going to be recreated every single time.
Output as class prototype function
In the other major possibility, your pipeline could be recognizing this as a function property and escape it from the class instance to the prototype. In this case the output might look something like:
function Test() {
}
Test.prototype = {
test: function() { console.log('test'); }
}
This means that no matter how many times you call new Test() there will still be only one creation of the test function around in memory.
Desired behavior
Hopefully it's clear that you want your end result to have the function end up on the prototype object rather than being recreated on each class instance.
However, while you would want the function to not end up as a property, that doesn't necessarily mean you couldn't write it that way in your own code. As long as your build chain is making the correct transformations, you can write it any way you prefer.
Although, looking at the default babel settings (which your babeljs tag leads me to believe you are using) it does not make this transformation for you. You can see this in action here. On the left I've created one class with the function as a property and one class with the function as a class method. On the right hand side, where babel shows it's output, you can see that the class with the function as a property still has it being an instance-level property, meaning it will be recreated each time that class's constructor is called.
I did find this babel plugin, which seems like it might add this transformation in, but I've not used it for myself so I'm not positive.

In my experience, the most reason for writing a method as a class property is when the method will be passed as a callback, and you need it to always be bound to the instance. React lifecycle methods will always be called as a method, so there's no reason to bind them (and you incur a tiny memory penalty when you do). Where this makes a difference is when you're passing a function to a component as a callback (e.g. onClick or onChange).
Take this example:
class BrokenFoo extends React.Component {
handleClick() {
alert(this.props.message);
}
render() {
return (
<button onClick={this.handleClick}>
Click me
</button>
)
}
}
The function represented by this.handleClick is not automatically bound to the component instance, so when the method tries to read the value of this.props it will throw a TypeError because this is not defined. Read this article if you're not familiar with this; the problem described in section 4.2 "Pitfall: extracting methods improperly" is essentially what's happening when you pass around a method without making sure it's bound correctly.
Here's the class, rewritten with the handler as a class property:
class HappyFoo extends React.Component {
handleClick = () => {
alert(this.props.message);
}
render() {
return (
<button onClick={this.handleClick}>
Click me
</button>
)
}
}
Effectively, you can think of the handleClick definition in the second example as placing this code into the component's constructor (which is just about exactly the way Babel does it):
this.handleClick = () => {
alert(this.props.message);
}
This achieves the same thing as calling bind on the function (as described in the linked article) but does it a little differently. Because this function is defined in the constructor, the value of this in this.props.message is bound to the containing instance. What this means is that the function is now independent of the calling context; you can pass it around and it won't break.
The rule of thumb that I follow: by default, write methods as methods. This attaches the method to the prototype and will usually behave the way you'd expect. However, if the method is ever written without parentheses (i.e. you're passing the value and not calling it), then you likely want to make it a class property.

JSX props should not use .bind() - how to avoid using bind?

I have a container that I need to change the UI form showing the form or showing a success page.
The container has a state.showSuccess and I need the MyFormModule to be able to call the container to change the state.
The below code works but I'm getting the following warning:
JSX props should not use .bind()
How can I get this to work without using .bind()?
...
const myPage = class extends React.Component {
state = { showSuccess: false };
showSuccess() {
this.setState({
showSuccess: true,
});
}
render() {
const { showSuccess } = this.state;
if (showSuccess) {...}
....
<MyFormModule showSuccess={this.showSuccess.bind(this)} />

You should first understand WHY this is a bad practice.
The main reason here, is that .bind is returning a new function reference.
This will happen on each render call, which may lead to a performance hit.
You got 2 options:
Use the constructor to bind your handlers (this will run only once).
constructor(props) {
super(props);
this.showSuccess = this.showSuccess.bind(this);
}
Or create your handlers with arrow functions so they will use the
lexical context for this, hence you won't need to bind them at
all (you will need a babel plugin):
showSuccess = () => {
this.setState({
showSuccess: true,
});
}
You should not use this pattern (as others suggested):
showSuccess={() => this.showSuccess()}
Because this will as well create a new function on each render.
So you may bypass the warning but you are still writing your code in a bad practice design.
From the ESLint docs:
A bind call or arrow function in a JSX prop will create a brand new
function on every single render. This is bad for performance, as it
will result in the garbage collector being invoked way more than is
necessary. It may also cause unnecessary re-renders if a brand new
function is passed as a prop to a component that uses reference
equality check on the prop to determine if it should update.

Use an arrow function when defining showSuccess
showSuccess = () => {
this.setState({
showSuccess: true,
});
}

Use an arrow function since they automatically inherit the this context of wherever they are defined.
showSuccess={() => this.showSuccess()}
Here is a link to the facebook documentation on this subject, which lists this method among others as a solution. Interestingly, they also list using .bind in the prop as one of the solutions, even though it produces a warning when actually used.
From that documentation, you'll note that this is a potential performance issue, since the function will be recreated on every render:
Note:
Using an arrow function in render creates a new function each time the
component renders, which may have performance implications (see
below).
But also from the same link:
Is it OK to use arrow functions in render methods? Generally speaking,
yes, it is OK, and it is often the easiest way to pass parameters to
callback functions.
If you do have performance issues, by all means, optimize!
So I would say if your component will be re-rendering very frequently, you should use one of the other solutions: bind in the constructor, or define the method with an arrow function in the first place. But if not, use whatever method seems cleanest to you.

How unperformant are anonymous functions in React component attributes?

You're not supposed to use anonymous functions in react attributes, e.g.
<a onClick=()=>doIt('myId')>Aaron</a>
I understand why this creates a performance problem for React's reconciliation because that anonymous function is recreated on every render pass and will thus always trigger a real DOM re-render of some kind. My question is, for a small component (i.e. not table where every row has a link) is this insignificant? I mean, React is smart enough just to replace the handler, not to re-render the DOM, right? so the cost is not that high?

I feel obliged to inform you that using an Anonymous function and Function.bind(this) in the render triggers a new render. This is because both
doIt.bind(this, 'myId') === doIt.bind(this, 'myId') // false
AND
() => doIt('myId') === () => doIt('myId') // false
are FALSE!
If you want to bind something to a function, use partial application with a method in the React class.
class myComponent extends Component {
doIt = (id) => () => {
// Do Something
}
render() {
<div>
<a onClick={this.doIt('myId')}>Aaron</a>
</div>
}
}

For:
small components: you are ok (almost no performance issues)
large components: the deeper you get the more try to avoid it
In React documentation about event handling, you can find:
In most cases, this is fine. However, if this callback is passed as a prop to lower components, those components might do an extra re-rendering. We generally recommend binding in the constructor or using the class fields syntax, to avoid this sort of performance problem.
Note: React is not handling callback props differently than other props. It always compares the old and new prop. Thus it re-renders when anonymous function is present because the anonymous function is always newly created.

Your JSX code sample should actually look like this:
<a onClick={ ()=>doIt('myId') }>Aaron</a>
Using an anonymous fat arrow function like this is perfectly valid. You are supposed to use anonymous functions in react attributes. That's okay.
Yes, it's not a best practice. If you want to solve the this context issue when using the ES6 class extends React.Component syntax I would advise you to bind the function in the class constructor.
No, for a 'small' component (i.e. not table where every row has a link) this is not a significant performance issue. You are safe.