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.
Related
I have a component that has complex rendering logic.
I try to carry out this logic to helper classes, for simplifying.
To do this, in the data section (for reactivity), I create class references as follows:
export default {
data: () => ({
state: new InitialState(this),
query: new QueryController(this)
})
}
As I understand it, at this point the context of this is not yet defined.
So, I have two questions.
1) Is there a way to pass the this component context in the data section (without lifecycle hooks)?
2) Is the approach with references to external classes of vuejs philosophy contrary?
Component instance is already available when data function runs, this is one of reasons why it has been forced to be a function.
Due to how lexical this works with arrow functions, it's incorrect to use them to access dynamic this. It should be:
data() {
return {
state: new InitialState(this),
query: new QueryController(this)
};
})
The problem with InitialState(this) is that the entire component instance is passed instead of relevant data, this breaks the principle of least privilege.
Despite Vue isn't focused on OOP, there's nothing wrong with using classes. One of possible pitfalls is that classes may not play well with Vue reactivity because it puts restrictions on the implementation. Another pitfall is that classes cannot be serialized to JSON and back without additional measures, this introduces limitations to how application state can be handled.
As I understand it, at this point the context of this is not yet defined.
Only because of the way you've written the code. The component instance does exist and is available. It is sometimes used to access the values of props for determining the initial values of data properties.
For example, here is an example from the documentation:
https://v2.vuejs.org/v2/guide/components-props.html#One-Way-Data-Flow
export default {
props: ['initialCounter'],
data: function () {
return {
counter: this.initialCounter
}
}
}
The reason why your code doesn't work is because you are using an arrow function. If you change it to the following then this will be available:
export default {
data () {
return {
state: new InitialState(this),
query: new QueryController(this)
}
}
}
See also the note here:
https://v2.vuejs.org/v2/api/#data
Note that if you use an arrow function with the data property, this won’t be the component’s instance, but you can still access the instance as the function’s first argument
As to your other question about whether using classes like this is contrary to Vue...
I don't think the use of classes like this is encouraged but they can be made to work so long as you understand the limitations. If you have a clear understanding of how Vue reactivity works, especially the rewriting of properties, then it is possible to write classes like this and for them to work fine. The key is to ensure that any properties you want to be reactive are exposed as properties of the object so Vue can rewrite them.
If you don't need reactivity on these objects then don't put them in data. You'd be better off just creating properties within the created hook instead so the reactivity system doesn't waste time trying to add reactivity to them. So long as they are properties of the instance they will still be accessible in your templates, there's nothing special about using data from that perspective.
I think computed is a better way to do what you want
export default {
computed:{
state(){
return new InitialState(this);
},
query(){
return new QueryController(this);
}
}
}
It's a kinda silly question but can I use useCallback and useMemo in React class (or equivalent solution)? Is it a good practice?
The workaround I found is to use a package named Memoizee: https://www.npmjs.com/package/memoizee. However, this is a 3rd package (is there any React built-in solution?)
Since my old component is React class, it will take a pretty amount of time to convert it to React Hooks
For useCallback it's pretty easy to get. With class properties syntax(to store value between renders) and arrow function expression(to bind this) you can do that:
onClick = (e) => { this.setState({ clicked: true }); }
...
render() {
...
<button onClick={this.onClick}
And sure, you can just do that in constructor, if don't want to include babel plugin to support class properties:
constructor() {
this.onClick = this.onClick.bind(this);
}
onClick(e) {
this.setState({ clicked: true });
}
As for useMemo you may utilize any existing package for that, say lodash's _.memoize.
Just to highlight: useMemo hook is rather for preserving referential equality (say, if some function returns an array or an object than calling that function on each render would provide referentially different result on each run). So as alternative to memoization you may just check if some dependencies have been changed in componentDidUpdate and once they did - calculate some new data and, say, write it to state or directly to this(say, if that's timed ID returned from setTimeouer)
Suppose we have a method inside a class like this
class Blog extends Component {
postClicked = (id) => {
this.setState({selectedPostId: id})
}
render () {
const newPosts = this.state.posts.map(el => {
return <Post key={el.id}
title={el.title}
author={el.author}
onClick={this.postClicked(el.id)}/>
})
return
//something
{post}
}
}
}
Now, What is the difference between calling the handler like this
onClick={this.postClicked(el.id)} and onClick={() => this.postClicked(el.id)}
Would appreciate if someone can tell me the difference in general
after Ecmascript 6 javascript was introduced with is arrow function link
here ()==>{//code} is a similar as a function() or anonymous function
tell me if you find out what you want
The first option, "this.postClicked(el.id)", will actually call the method, "this.postClicked", with the "el.id" argument, each time the component renders (probably not what's intended).
The second option, "() => this.postClicked(el.id)", will only call the method, "this.postClicked", with the "el.id" argument, when "Post" is clicked.
Overall, if you can find a way to put the "el.id" argument into an "id" or "name" prop on the component
<Post id={el.id} />
then you can do:
<Post
id={el.id}
onClick={this.postClicked}
/>
this.postClicked = (event) => {
const { id } = event.target;
...
}
This last option avoids the use of an unnamed function. If you use an unnamed function, it will cause unnecessary re-renders. React cannot tell that an unnamed function is the same when it's checking whether or not it should re-render, by considering if the props of a component have changed. It considers the unnamed functions to be a new prop each time it checks, causing an unnecessary re-render each time.
Overall, it won't break your app, but it slows down performance slightly if you do it enough. It comes up especially if you start using React Motion (you'll really notice a difference there). It's best to avoid unnamed functions if possible.
you can read this blog it wil clear the things https://medium.com/#machnicki/handle-events-in-react-with-arrow-functions-ede88184bbb
Differences are,
First method is a wrong implementation and it wont give the intended result, where as second one will work.
In the first method you are making a function call, in second one you are assigning a function's signature to onClick.
It is like the combination of below two statements.
var variableName = function(){//some content};
onClick={variableName}
It looks like you question has already been answered. Just a side note though: remember that when assigning your method with an arrow function
onClick={ () => this.method() }
a new anonymous function is created on every re-render. So if the method doesn't need any arguments, it's better to reference the method directly (without parentheses so it's not invoked).
onClick={ this.method }
The first will call the function every time render is done.
The second will do what you want - call it onClick.
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.
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.