Develop Reference

Redux - approach to modifying state with actions

Hello i'm trying to create some kind of lottery and i'm wondering which approach of modifying state by actions payload should be used.
Let's say i have state
type initialCartState = {
productsFromPreviousSession: Product[]
selectedProduct: Product
balance: number,
productsInCart: Product[]
}
and our reducer looks like
const reducers = {
addProduct(state, action) => {
state.products.push(state.action.payload.product)
},
addProductsFromPreviousSession(state, action) => {
state.products.push(...state.productsFromPreviousSession)
},
}
And i noticed i used completely two different approaches with these two types cuz in my component it looks like
const component = () => {
const selectedProduct = useSelector(state => state.cart.selectedProduct);
const availableBalance = useSelector(state => state.cart.balance - sum(state.cart.products, 'price'));
const dispatch = useDispatch()
const sumOfProductsFromPreviousSession = useSelector(state => sum(state.cart.products,'price'))
return (
<div>
<div onClick={() => {
if((balance - selectedProduct.price) > 0) {
dispatch(cartActions.addProduct(selectedProduct))
}
}}/>
<div onClick={() => {
if((balance - sumOfProductsFromPreviousSession) > 0) {
dispatch(cartActions. addProductsFromPreviousSession())
}
}}/>
</div>
)
}
There are two different types of handling actions, in addProduct i used selector and pass value in action payload. In Add products from previous session we rely on state inside reducer (Also have middleware for purpose of saving in localStorage, but there i used store.getState()). Which kind of approach is correct ?
Also how it will change when we move balance to another reducer, and then we will not have access to that i cartReducer?
I saw there are bunch of examples on counter when increment and decrement rely on current reducerState and there are actions without payload, but there is no validation which is used in my example.
Thanks in advance !

Both approaches can be used. Basically, if you need to show state data in UI or other parts of processes, you should read with selector. This way, changes inside the store can be reflected in the components reactively.
In your case, you are just updating the state value with currently available data from the state. So, you can dispatch action without payload.
In your example, even though you pass the payload from onClick event, you are still reading the value from the state itself.

Filter in react query not working properly on first attempt

I am trying to get only females from an array using a filter, but on the first attempt react query returns the whole array, after that it is working fine. Any idea what property I have to add or remove, so this side effect disappears.
Here is my code:
import React, { useState } from "react";
import { useQuery } from "react-query";
import getPersonsInfo from "../api/personCalls";
export default function Persons() {
const [persons, setPersons] = useState([]);
const { data: personData, status } = useQuery("personsData", getPersonsInfo, {
onSuccess: (data) => {
setPersons(data.data);
},
onError: (error) => {
console.log(error);
}
});
const getFemaleOnlyHandler = () => {
const result = personData.data.filter(
(person) => person.gender === "female"
);
setPersons(result);
};
return (
<>
<button onClick={getFemaleOnlyHandler}>Female only</button>
{status === "loading" ? (
<div>Loading ... </div>
) : (
<div>
{persons.map((person) => (
<div>
<p>{person.name}</p>
<p>{person.lastName}</p>
<p>{person.address}</p>
<p>{person.gender}</p>
<p>{person.country}</p>
<p>{person.city}</p>
</div>
))}
</div>
)}
</>
);
}
I added the full code in code sandbox: https://codesandbox.io/s/relaxed-drake-4juxg

I think you are making the mistake of copying data from react-query into local state. The idea is that react-query is the state manager, so the data returned by react-query is really all you need.
What you are experiencing in the codesandbox is probably just refetchOnWindowFocus. So you focus the window and click the button, react-query will do a background update and overwrite your local state. This is a direct result of the "copy" I just mentioned.
What you want to do is really just store the user selection, and calculate everything else on the fly, something like this:
const [femalesOnly, setFemalesOnly] = React.useState(false)
const { data: personData, status } = useQuery("personsData", getPersonsInfo, {
onError: (error) => {
console.log(error);
}
});
const getFemaleOnlyHandler = () => {
setFemalesOnly(true)
};
const persons = femalesOnly ? personData.data.filter(person => person.gender === "female") : personData.data
you can then display whatever you have in persons, which will always be up-to-date, even if a background update yields more persons. If the computation (the filtering) is expensive, you can also use useMemo to memoize it (compute it only when personData or femalesOnly changes - but this is likely a premature optimization.

I'm not totally familiar with react-query however the problem is likely that it is re-fetching (async!) everytime the component updates. Since setPersons() triggers an update (ie. sets state) it'll update the new persons state to be the filtered female list and then trigger a fetch of all persons again which comes back and sets the persons state back to the full list (ie. see what happens when you click the female filter button and then just leave it).
There is a more idiomatic way to achieve this in React which is to keep a "single source of truth" (ie. all the persons) and dynamically filter that based on some local ui state.
For example see below where data becomes the source of truth, and persons is a computed value out of that source of truth. This has the benefit that if your original data changes you don't have to manually (read: imperatively) update it to also be females only. This is the "unidirectional data flow" and "reactivity" people always talk about and, honestly, it's what makes React, React.
const { data = { data: [] }, status } = useQuery(
"personsData",
getPersonsInfo,
{
onSuccess: (data) => {},
onError: (error) => {
console.log(error);
}
}
);
const [doFilterFemale, setFilterFemale] = useState(false);
const persons = doFilterFemale
? data.data.filter((person) => person.gender === "female")
: data.data;
https://codesandbox.io/s/vigorous-nobel-9n117?file=/src/Persons/persons.jsx
This is ofc assuming you are always just loading from a json file. In a real application setting, given a backend you control, I would always recommend implementing filtering, sorting and pagination on the server side otherwise you are forced to over-fetch on the client.

Local storage in react todo list

I created to do list using react, but I want it to be local storage - so when the user refresh the page it still saved the items and will present them.
I read I need to use localStorage but I'm not sure where and how, attach the app.js and TodoItem component
class App extends Component {
state = {
items: [],
id: uuidv4(),
item: "",
editItem: false
};
handleChange = e => {
...
};
handleSubmit = e => {
e.preventDefault();
const newItem = {
id: this.state.id,
title: this.state.item
};
const updatedItems = [...this.state.items, newItem];
this.setState({
items: updatedItems,
item: "",
id: uuidv4(),
editItem: false
});
};
...
render() {
return (
<TodoInput
item={this.state.item}
handleChange={this.handleChange}
handleSubmit={this.handleSubmit}
editItem={this.state.editItem}
/>
<TodoList
items={this.state.items}
clearList={this.clearList}
handleDelete={this.handleDelete}
handleEdit={this.handleEdit}
/>
);
}
}
export default class TodoItem extends Component {
state = {
avatarURL: '',
}
componentDidMount() {
imgGen().then(avatarURL => this.setState({ avatarURL }));
}
render() {
const { title, handleDelete, handleEdit } = this.props;
const { avatarURL } = this.state;
return (
<h6>{title}</h6>
<span className="mx-2 text-success" onClick={handleEdit}>
</span>
<span className="mx-2 text-danger" onClick={handleDelete}>
</span>
);
}
}

You can do it like this, mind the comments
class App extends Component {
state = {
// load items while initializing
items: window.localStorage.getItem('items') ? JSON.parse(window.localStorage.getItem('items')) : [],
id: uuidv4(),
item: "",
editItem: false
};
handleChange = e => {
// ...
};
handleSubmit = e => {
e.preventDefault();
const newItem = {
id: this.state.id,
title: this.state.item
};
const updatedItems = [...this.state.items, newItem];
// Save items while changing
window.localStorage.setItem('items', JSON.stringify(updatedItems));
this.setState({
items: updatedItems,
item: "",
id: uuidv4(),
editItem: false
});
};
// ...
render() {
return (
<>
<TodoInput
item={this.state.item}
handleChange={this.handleChange}
handleSubmit={this.handleSubmit}
editItem={this.state.editItem}
/>
<TodoList
items={this.state.items}
clearList={this.clearList}
handleDelete={this.handleDelete}
handleEdit={this.handleEdit}
/>
</>
);
}
}

Here's some simple logic you can use in your componentDidMount() method of your App.
const localStorageList = localStorage.getItem('todo-list')
if (!localStorageList) {return null} else {this.setState({items: localStorageList})
To add to the localStorage please look at this question
and this resource

Let me help you with this, using the least no. of codes. I have written a clear explanation of the steps, for you all to better understand, please bear with me , it is definitely with the time to read.
Also, note this solution is perfectly crafted for functional components. However I have mentioned how to do it in class components, you have to tweak some things if you are using class components. Like you can not use hooks in class-based components, but access this instance, so it will be fine, either ways
Please give it a full read, if you are having a tough time understanding the functionality, I have tried to break down the process in layman. The explanation is long, the lines of code is just under 10. happy to help
Persisting states of the todo app, upon page refresh, is pretty simple.
We can use State management libraries for it, or local storage as well.
Here, we will just go with the most simple one - using local storage.
Before we jump to the code, let us build the functionality visually.
So, after the user enters things in the todo space, we want few things to happen:
We want to store the list of items (which will essentially be an array) in the local storage. (We can skip the JSON.parse, here, since the array that will be saved, will be string, bcz user enters string in the todo-app, generally, however, it's not a bad idea to parse the userinputs).
useEffect(()=>{
window.localStorage.setItems("key" , value)
}, [dependency])
After you do this, make sure you check the dev-tools => application => localStorage => to see if the key and values are being stored. You shall be able to see them.
However, you will notice, that upon refresh, the localStorage values stay, but the data in the UI are lost. Not surprising.
This is the last and important step.
What we want upon page reload? Let us break it down :
We want to check if there is any data that is there in the localStorage. If there is: we will change the state of the app, based on the previous user inputs.
If there is no data in the LocalStorage, we will just pass an empty array.
Using hooks, in the functional component is actually What I prefer, class components require many boiler plates, so, the code...
import {useState} from 'react';/for functional components
//for class components you can just init the state , in the constructor(props) and
change it using the this.setState method
//to getItems from localStorage to render in the UI
useEffect(()=>{
const storedData = localStorage,getItems("keys" , value)
storedData ? setValue(value) : [];
},[])
[] : because we want it to render on every reload, once.
smake sure to initiliaze the state using useState;
const [value , setValue] = useState("")
//to setItems in localStorage
useEffect(()=>{
window.localStorage.setItems("key" , value)
}, [dependency])
useEffect is essentially a hook for functional components which is similar to componentDidMount in-class components.
If using class components, instead of using the useState, hook, use this.setState.

You could format your todolist into a JSON string and store it using :
localStorage.setItem("todolist", "your_JSON_string_here");
However, web Local Storage have storage limitations which will cause issues if the data stored are getting larger in time.
More info at here
Perhaps you could consider IndexedDB (if you are storing huge data) INFO

How to set initial state value for useState Hook in jest and enzyme?

I know this question is already asked here: How to set initial state for useState Hook in jest and enzyme?
const [state, setState] = useState([]);
And I totally agree with Jimmy's Answer to mock the useState function from test file but I have some extended version of this question, "What if I have multiple useState statements into the hooks, How can I test them and assign the respective custom values to them?"
I have some JSX rendering with the condition of hook's state values and depending on the values of that state the JSX is rendering.
How Can I test those JSX by getting them into the wrapper of my test case code?

Upon the answer you linked, you can return different values for each call of a mock function:
let myMock = jest.fn();
myMock
.mockReturnValueOnce(10)
.mockReturnValueOnce('x')
.mockReturnValue(true);
In my opinion this is still brittle. You may modify the component and add another state later, and you would get confusing results.
Another way to test a React component is to test it like a user would by clicking things and setting values on inputs. This would fire the event handlers of the component, and React would update the state just as in real configuration. You may not be able to do shallow rendering though, or you may need to mock the child components.
If you prefer shallow rendering, maybe read initial state values from props like this:
function FooComponent({initialStateValue}) {
const [state, setState] = useState(initialStateValue ?? []);
}

If you don't really need to test state but the effects state has on children, you should (as some comments mention) just then test the side effect and treat the state as an opaque implementation detail. This will work if your are not using shallow rendering or not doing some kind of async initialization like fetching data in an effect or something otherwise it could require more work.
If you cant do the above, you might consider removing state completely out of the component and make it completely functional. That way any state you need, you can just inject it into the component. You could wrap all of the hooks into a 'controller' type hook that encapsulates the behavior of a component or domain. Here is an example of how you might do that with a <Todos />. This code is 0% tested, its just written to show a concept.
const useTodos = (state = {}) => {
const [todos, setTodos] = useState(state.todos);
const id = useRef(Date.now());
const addTodo = useCallback((task) => {
setTodos((current) => [...current, { id: id.current++, completed: false, task }]);
}, []);
const removeTodo = useCallback((id) => {
setTodos((current) => current.filter((t) => t.id !== id));
}, []);
const completeTodo = useCallback((id) => {
setTodos((current) => current.map((t) => {
let next = t;
if (t.id === id) {
next = { ...t, completed: true };
}
return next;
}))
}, []);
return { todos, addTodo, removeTodo, completeTodo };
};
const Todos = (props) => {
const { todos, onAdd, onRemove, onComplete } = props;
const onSubmit = (e) => {
e.preventDefault();
onAdd({ task: e.currentTarget.elements['todo'].value });
}
return (
<div classname="todos">
<ul className="todos-list">
{todos.map((todo) => (
<Todo key={todo.id} onRemove={onRemove} onComplete={onComplete} />
)}
</ul>
<form className="todos-form" onSubmit={onSubmit}>
<input name="todo" />
<button>Add</button>
</form>
</div>
);
};
So now the parent component injects <Todos /> with todos and callbacks. This is useful for testing, SSR, ect. Your component can just take a list of todos and some handlers, and more importantly you can trivially test both. For <Todos /> you can pass mocks and known state and for useTodos you would just call the methods and make sure the state reflects what is expected.
You might be thinking This moves the problem up a level and it does, but you can now test the component/logic and increase test coverage. The glue layer would require minimal if any testing around this component, unless you really wanted to make sure props are passed into the component.

Use local state for forms when data is in redux

Use React for ephemeral state that doesn’t matter to the app globally
and doesn’t mutate in complex ways. For example, a toggle in some UI
element, a form input state. Use Redux for state that matters globally
or is mutated in complex ways. For example, cached users, or a post
draft.
My redux state is only representative of what has been saved to my backend database.
For my use case there is no need for any other part of the application to know about a record in an adding/editing state..
However, all my communication with my API is done through redux-thunks. I have found, getting data from redux into local state for editing is tricky.
The pattern I was trying to use:
const Container = () => {
// use redux thunk to fetch from API
useEffect(() => {
dispatch(fetchThing(id));
}, [dispatch, id]);
// get from redux store
const reduxThing = useSelector(getThing);
const save = thing => {
dispatch(saveThing(thing));
};
return (
{!fetching &&
<ThingForm
defaults={reduxThing}
submit={save}
/>}
);
};
const ThingForm = ({defaults, submit}) => {
const [values, setValues] = useState({ propA: '', propB: '', ...defaults});
const handleChange = { /*standard handleChange code here*/ };
return (
<form onSubmit={() => submit(values)}>
<input type="text" name="propA" value={values.propA} onChange={handleChange} />
<input type="text" name="propB" value={values.propB} onChange={handleChange} />
</form>
);
};
How I understand it, ThingForm is unmounted/mounted based upon "fetching." However, it is a race condition whether or not the defaults get populated. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.
So obviously this isn't a great pattern.
Is there an established pattern for moving data into local state from redux for editing in a form?
Or should I just put my form data into redux? (I don't know if this would be any easier).
EDIT: I think this is essentially what I am fighting: https://reactjs.org/blog/2018/06/07/you-probably-dont-need-derived-state.html
But no recommendation really clearly fits. I am strictly using hooks. I could overwrite with useEffect on prop change, but seems kind of messy.

EDIT:
const Container = () => {
// use redux thunk to fetch from API
useEffect(() => {
dispatch(fetchThing(id));
}, [dispatch, id]);
// get from redux store
const reduxThing = useSelector(getThing);
const save = thing => {
dispatch(saveThing(thing));
};
return (
{!fetching &&
<ThingForm
defaults={reduxThing}
submit={save}
/>}
);
};
const ThingForm = ({defaults, submit}) => {
const [values, setValues] = useState({ propA: '', propB: '', ...defaults});
const handleChange = { /*standard handleChange code here*/ };
useEffect(() => {
setValues({...values, ...defaults})
}, [defaults]);
const submitValues = (e) => {
e.preventDefault();
submit(values)
}
return (
<form onSubmit={submitValues}>
<input type="text" name="propA" value={values.propA} onChange={handleChange} />
<input type="text" name="propB" value={values.propB} onChange={handleChange} />
</form>
);
};
What you are doing is the right way, there's no reason why you should put the form data in the redux store. Like you said, "there is no need for any other part of the application to know about a record in an adding/editing state"
And that's correct.
The only problem you have is here:
{!fetching &&
<ThingForm
defaults={reduxThing}
submit={save}
/>}
Assuming fetching is true on every dispatch:
Instead of trying to hide the component (unmounting essentially), you should maybe use a spinner that overlays the page?
I don't know the rest of your code to comment on a better approach.
You also don't have to add dispatch to the dependency array
useEffect(() => {
dispatch(fetchThing(id));
}, [id]);
From the react docs:
React guarantees that dispatch function identity is stable and won’t change on re-renders. This is why it’s safe to omit from the useEffect or useCallback dependency list.