I have some methods in a component:
created() {
return this.getConversation(this.$route.params.ConversationId).then(
respConversation => {
this.conversation = respConversation;
}
);
},
mounted() {
console.log(this.conversation);
return this.getConversationTranscripts(this.conversation.AudioId);
},
However, this.conversation prints as {__ob__: Observer} and doesn't have AudioId
Both this.getConversation and this.getConversationTranscripts return promises.
Returning Promises from Vue's lifecycle hooks doesn't do much. It certainly doesn't make them wait for the Promise to complete. The same would be true using async/await.
Internally the hooks are called using callHook, e.g. callHook(vm, 'mounted'). You can see the code for callHook at:
https://github.com/vuejs/vue/blob/b7c2d9366cf731a1551286b8ac712e6e0905070e/src/core/instance/lifecycle.js#L336
This calls out to invokeWithErrorHandling, which you can see at:
https://github.com/vuejs/vue/blob/b7c2d9366cf731a1551286b8ac712e6e0905070e/src/core/util/error.js#L36
While invokeWithErrorHandling does have some minimal support for handling any Promises that are returned, those Promises are ignored by callHook.
In the code shown in the question the created hook will be called followed by the mounted hook. The then on the getConversation Promise won't be called until later as that will be asynchronous.
So at the point mounted is called the value of this.conversation will still be its initial value, presumably an empty object. Vue's reactivity system will cause that to be shown as {__ob__: Observer} in the console.
If the component needs that data to be able to function then the parent will have to take responsibility for loading that data and delay creating the component until the data is available.
More likely the component will just need to cope with the data being missing when it's first rendered. It will then need to chain together the asynchronous calls using Promises:
created() {
this.getConversation(this.$route.params.ConversationId).then(
respConversation => {
this.conversation = respConversation;
this.getConversationTranscripts(this.conversation.AudioId);
}
);
}
Using async/await is maybe a little cleaner here:
async created() {
this.conversation = await this.getConversation(this.$route.params.ConversationId)
this.getConversationTranscripts(this.conversation.AudioId);
}
None of this will pause the component's lifecycle, so rendering will continue with this.conversation still set to its initial value and the template will have to be coded to deal with that.
I would add that using this.$route.params.ConversationId is not ideal. If possible this would be injected via a prop instead. You'll also need to be very careful when this value changes. If the value changing causes a new component to be created then no problem but if it just updates the existing component you could run into problems. The created and mounted hooks only run once, when the component is first created, so reusing the same component when the params change won't run them again.
Related
I'm having trouble understanding why an array is undefined in my Vue component. Here is the flow:
SelectCategories.vue component uses router to push to Quiz.vue component. Here I use props to pass on data to Quiz component. Here is how it is done:
else {
this.$router.push({
name: 'quiz',
params: {
items: selectedCategories
}
})
}
We move on to Quiz.vue component, where I do the following on the created life cycle hook:
async created() {
for (const item of this.items) {
var questions = await QuestionService.getQuestionsByCategory(item);
this.questions.push(questions);
console.log(this.questions);
}
}
The QuestionService reaches out to the database and gets some information, which is pushed into the questions array I have defined here:
export default {
name: 'quiz',
props: ['items'],
data: function() {
return {
questions: [],
error: '',
};
}
Finally, I try to access this data in the template using an h1:
<h1>{{questions[0][0].description}}</h1>
However, I end up with the following error:
TypeError: Cannot read property '0' of undefined
What I am seeing in the console is that:
{{questions[0][0].description}}
Is happening before I populate the questions array in the created life cycle hook. As you can see here:
It is my understanding that created is called before the template, but I might be wrong. What I want to accomplish is to have the functionality in created() have happen before the template is loaded, so the array gets populated first. Thank you for the help.
What I want to accomplish is to have the functionality in created() have happen before the template is loaded
.. this is not possible. Read more on JS asynchrony. await does not block the execution of whole app. created() hook just returns promise and is scheduled to continue when async call finishes.
Only way is to write your template in a way that the data are not present at first and will come later...
Making created async and using await inside it does not prevent the component from being created and mounted. It only prevents the execution of code placed in created after await, until the promise resolves.
Which means your component will render without the expected contents in questions (until questions get updated, after the call returns).
The solution is to prevent anything currently breaking inside your component from breaking by wrapping those blocks in if conditions (or v-if in <template>).
A common solution for this type of problem is to make the call from outside the component and condition its rendering (creation) based on the response. Typically you want to place data that's consumed by more than one component in a store (single source of truth) which can then be injected anywhere you need it.
For more complex stores you could use Vuex and for very simple ones (basic data sharing) you could use Vue.observable().
I am learning how redux works but its a lot of code to do simple things. For example, I want to load some data from the server before displaying. For editing reasons, I can't simply just use incoming props but I have to copy props data into the local state.
As far as I've learned, I have to send a Fetch_request action. If successful, a fetch_success action will update the store with new item. Then updated item will cause my component's render function to update.
In component
componentWillMount() {
this.props.FETCH_REQUEST(this.props.match.params.id);
}
...
In actions
export function FETCH_REQUEST(id) {
api.get(...)
.then(d => FETCH_SUCCESS(d))
.catch(e => FETCH_FAILURE(e));
}
...
In reducer
export function FETCH_REDUCER(state = {}, action ={}) {
switch (action.type) {
case 'FETCH_SUCCESS':
return { ...state, [action.payload.id]: ...action.payload }
...
}
Back in component
this.props.FETCH_REDUCER
// extra code for state, getting desired item from...
Instead, can I call a react-thunk function and pass some callback functions? The react-thunk can update the store and callbacks can change the component's local state.
In component
componentWillMount() {
this.props.FETCH_REQUEST(this.props.match.params.id, this.cbSuccess, this.cbFailure);
}
cbSuccess(data) {
// do something
}
cbFailure(error) {
// do something
}
...
In action
export function FETCH_REQUEST(id, cbSuccess, cbFailure) {
api.get(...)
.then(d => {
cbSuccess(d);
FETCH_SUCCESS(d);
}).catch(e => {
cbFailure(d);
FETCH_FAILURE(e);
});
}
...
Is this improper? Can I do the same thing with redux-observable?
UPDATE 1
I moved nearly everything to the redux store, even for edits (ie replaced this.setState with this.props.setState). It eases state management. However, every time any input's onChange fires, a new state is popping up. Can someone confirm whether this is okay? I'm worried about the app's memory management due to redux saving a ref to each state.
First of all, you should call your API in componentDidMount instead of componentWillMount. More on this at : what is right way to do API call in react js?
When you use a redux store, your components subscribe to state changes using the mapStateToProps function and they change state using the actions added a props through the mapDispatchToProps function (assuming you are using these functions in your connect call).
So you already are subscribing to state changes using your props. Using a callback would be similar to having the callback tell you of a change which your component already knows about because of a change in its props. And the change in props would trigger a re-render of the component to show the new state.
UPDATE:
The case you refer to, of an input field firing an onChange event at the change of every character, can cause a lot of updates to the store. As mentioned in my comments, you can use an api like _.debounce to throttle the updates to the store to reduce the number of state changes in such cases. More on handling this at Perform debounce in React.js.
The issue of memory management is a real issue in real world applications when using Redux. The way to reduce the effect of repeated updates to the state is to
Normalize the shape of state : http://redux.js.org/docs/recipes/reducers/NormalizingStateShape.html
Create memoized selectors using Reselect (https://github.com/reactjs/reselect)
Follow the advice provided in the articles regarding performance in Redux github pages (https://github.com/reactjs/redux/blob/master/docs/faq/Performance.md)
Also remember that although the whole state should be copied to prevent mutating, only the slice of state that changes needs to be updated. For example, if your state holds 10 objects and only one of them changes, you need to update the reference of the new object in the state, but the remaining 9 unchanged objects still point to the old references and the total number of objects in your memory is 11 and not 20 (excluding the encompassing state object.)
I may be missing something. I know setState is asynchronous in React, but I still seem to have this question.
Imagine following is a handler when user clicks any of the buttons on my app
1. ButtonHandler()
2. {
3. if(!this.state.flag)
4. {
5. alert("flag is false");
6. }
7. this.setState({flag:true});
8.
9. }
Now imagine user very quickly clicks first one button then second.
Imagine the first time the handler got called this.setState({flag:true}) was executed, but when second time the handler got called, the change to the state from the previous call has not been reflected yet -- and this.state.flag returned false.
Can such situation occur (even theoretically)? What are the ways to ensure I am reading most up to date state?
I know setState(function(prevState, props){..}) gives you access to previous state but what if I want to only read state like on line 3 and not set it?
As you rightly noted, for setting state based on previous state you want to use the function overload.
I know setState(function(prevState, props){..}) gives you access to previous state
So your example would look like this:
handleClick() {
this.setState(prevState => {
return {
flag: !prevState.flag
};
});
}
what if I want to only read state like on line 3 and not set it?
Let's get back to thinking why you want to do this.
If you want to perform a side effect (e.g. log to console or start an AJAX request) then the right place to do it is the componentDidUpdate lifecycle method. And it also gives you access to the previous state:
componentDidUpdate(prevState) {
if (!prevState.flag && this.state.flag) {
alert('flag has changed from false to true!');
}
if (prevState.flag && !this.state.flag) {
alert('flag has changed from true to false!');
}
}
This is the intended way to use React state. You let React manage the state and don't worry about when it gets set. If you want to set state based on previous state, pass a function to setState. If you want to perform side effects based on state changes, compare previous and current state in componentDidUpdate.
Of course, as a last resort, you can keep an instance variable independent of the state.
React's philosophy
The state and props should indicate things the components need for rendering. React's render being called whenever the state and props change.
Side Effects
In your case, you're causing a side effect based on user interaction which requires specific timing. In my opinion, once you step out of rendering - you probably want to reconsider state and props and stick to a regular instance property which is synchronous anyway.
Solving the real issue - Outside of React
Just change this.state.flag to this.flag everywhere, and update it with assignment rather than with setState. That way you
If you still have to use .state
You can get around this, uglily. I wrote code for this, but I'd rather not publish it here so people don't use it :)
First promisify.
Then use a utility for only caring about the last promise resolving in a function call. Here is an example library but the actual code is ~10LoC and simple anyway.
Now, a promisified setState with last called on it gives you the guarantee you're looking for.
Here is how using such code would look like:
explicitlyNotShown({x: 5}).then(() => {
// we are guaranteed that this call and any other setState calls are done here.
});
(Note: with MobX this isn't an issue since state updates are sync).
I'm working on react for last 1 year. The convention which we follow is make an API call in componentDidMount, fetch the data and setState after the data has come. This will ensure that the component has mounted and setting state will cause a re-render the component but I want to know why we can't setState in componentWillMount or constructor
The official documentation says that :
componentWillMount() is invoked immediately before mounting occurs. It
is called before render(), therefore setting state in this method will
not trigger a re-rendering. Avoid introducing any side-effects or
subscriptions in this method.
it says setting state in this method will not trigger a re-rendering, which I don't want while making an API call. If I'm able to get the data and able to set in the state (assuming API calls are really fast) in componentWillMount or in constructor and data is present in the first render, why would I want a re-render at all?
and if the API call is slow, then setState will be async and componentWillMount has already returned then I'll be able to setState and a re-render should occur.
As a whole, I'm pretty much confused why we shouldn't make API calls in constructor or componentWillMount. Can somebody really help me understand how react works in such case?
1. componentWillMount and re-rendering
Compare this two componentWillMount methods.
One causes additional re-render, one does not
componentWillMount () {
// This will not cause additional re-render
this.setState({ name: 'Andrej '});
}
componentWillMount () {
fetch('http://whatever/profile').then(() => {
// This in the other hand will cause additional rerender,
// since fetch is async and state is set after request completes.
this.setState({ name: 'Andrej '});
})
}
.
.
.
2. Where to invoke API calls?
componentWillMount () {
// Is triggered on server and on client as well.
// Server won't wait for completion though, nor will be able to trigger re-render
// for client.
fetch('...')
}
componentDidMount () {
// Is triggered on client, but never on server.
// This is a good place to invoke API calls.
fetch('...')
}
If you are rendering on server and your component does need data for rendering, you should fetch (and wait for completion) outside of component and pass data thru props and render component to string afterwards.
ComponentWillMount
Now that the props and state are set, we finally enter the realm of Life Cycle methods
That means React expects state to be available as render function will be called next and code can break if any mentioned state variable is missing which may occur in case of ajax.
Constructor
This is the place where you define.
So Calling an ajax will not update the values of any state as ajax is async and constructor will not wait for response. Ideally, you should use constructor to set default/initial values.
Ideally these functions should be pure function, only depending on parameters. Bringing ajax brings side effect to function.
Yes, functions depend on state and using this.setState can bring you such issues (You have set value in state but value is missing in state in next called function).
This makes code fragile. If your API is really fast, you can pass this value as an argument and in your component, check if this arg is available. If yes, initialise you state with it. If not, set it to default. Also, in success function of ajax, you can check for ref of this component. If it exist, component is rendered and you can call its state using setState or any setter(preferred) function.
Also remember, when you say API calls are really fast, your server and processing may be at optimum speed, but you can never be sure with network.
If you need just data only at first run and if you are ok with that. You can setState synchronously via calling a callback.
for eg:
componentWillMount(){
this.setState({
sessionId: sessionId,
}, () => {
if (this.state.hasMoreItems = true) {
this.loadItems() // do what you like here synchronously
}
});
}
I'm experiencing this weird issue where my react-redux store is updating, but is not updating within the function that calls the actions.
this.props.active is undefined, then I set it to an integer with this.props.actions.activeSet(activeProc), but it remains undefined and enters the next if condition.
I know my app is working because everything else works with this.props.active having the correct value.
Is this supposed to happen?
edit:
After doing some testing, it appears that the state remains the same inside the onClick function.
All calls to console.log(this.props) made within the onClick function show no change to the state, but adding setTimeout(() => {console.log(this.props)}, 1) at the end to test shows that the state is being updated.
Other parts of the app are working as intended, with state changes applied immediately.
But I still don't understand what is going on.
Component function code
() => {
console.log(this.props.active); // undefined
if (this.props.active === undefined && this.props.readyQueue.length > 0) {
let activeProc = this.props.readyQueue[0];
this.props.actions.readyPop();
this.props.actions.activeSet(activeProc); // set to an integer
this.props.actions.execStateSet("Running");
}
console.log(this.props.active); // still remains undefined
if (this.props.active === undefined) {
this.props.actions.execStateSet("Idle");
}
}
function mapStateToProps(state, props) {
return {
active: state.ProcessReducer.active,
};
}
Action code
export const activeSet = (procId) => {
return {
type: 'ACTIVE_SET',
procId
}
}
Reducer code
case 'ACTIVE_SET':
return Object.assign({}, state, {
active: action.procId
});
Your Redux state updates synchronously with the dispatch of your action. Your reducer has executed by the time the dispatch call returns.
However, React isn't Redux. Redux tells React-Redux's wrapper component that the state has changed. This also happens before dispatch returns.
React-Redux then tells React that the component needs to be rerendered by calling forceUpdate. React then waits until it feels it's a good time to take care of that. I haven't looked, but it probably uses setImmediate or equivalent but it's async. This allows React to batch updates and maybe there are other reasons.
In any case, the React-Redux wrapper component will get rendered by React when the time comes and it'll use your mapStateToProps to distill theprops out of the state and then passes them to React as props for your actual component. Then, when React feels it's an okay time, it calls your render method or function. It may do all kinds of things in before that, such as calling componentWillReceiveProps or rendering some other component that also needs rendering. In any case it's none of our business. React does its thing. But when your Render function is called, your props will now reflect the new state.
You shouldn't rely on new state in an onClick handler. The onClick should only call the bound action creator, which I guess is now more aptly called an action dispatcher. If something needs to be done with the new state, you should use Redux-Thunk middleware and create a thunked action creator. These have access to getState and if they don't perform any internal async stuff, then the entire action can actually be just as synchronous as a simple dispatch (not that you'd need that in a simple onClick handler).
Finally, React is very asynchronous in nature. Think of it as telling React what you want (component + props) and letting React take it from there. If React needs to know how to turn a component into DOM elements, it'll call your component's render function. How or when React does is thing is an implementation detail that doesn't concern us.