Why should objects in Redux be immutable?
I know that some frameworks such as Angular2 will use onPush and can take advantage of immutability to compare states of views for faster rendering, but I am wondering if there are other reasons as Redux is framework agnostic and yet it mentions within its own docs to use immutability (regardless of the framework).
Appreciate any feedback.
Redux is a small library that represents state as (immutable) objects. And new states by passing the current state through pure functions to create an entirely new object/application states.
If your eyes-glazed over there don't worry. To sum up, Redux does not represent changes in your application's state by modifying objects ( as you would with object-oriented paradigms). Instead state changes are represented as the difference between the input object and the output object (var output = reducer(input)). If you mutate either input or output you invalidate the state.
To sum up another way, immutability is a requirement of Redux because Redux represents your application state as "frozen object snapshots". With these discrete snapshots, you can save your state, or reverse state, and generally have more "accounting" for all state changes.
State of your app is only changed by a category of pure functions called reducers. Reducers have 2 important properties:
They never mutate, returning newly built objects: This allows reasoning about input + output without side-effects
Their signature is always function name(state, action) {}, so it makes it easy to compose them:
Assume the state looks like this:
var theState = {
_2ndLevel: {
count: 0
}
}
We want to increment the count, so we make these reducers
const INCR_2ND_LEVEL_COUNT = 'incr2NdLevelCount';
function _2ndlevel (state, action) {
switch (action.type) {
case INCR_2ND_LEVEL_COUNT:
var newState = Objectd.assign({}, state);
newState.count++
return newState;
}
}
function topLevel (state, action) {
switch (action.type) {
case INCR_2ND_LEVEL_COUNT:
return Object.assign(
{},
{_2ndLevel: _2ndlevel(state._2ndlevel, action)}
);
}
}
Note the use of Object.assign({}, ...) to create an entirely new objects in each reducer:
Assuming we have wired up Redux to these reducers, then if we use Redux's event system to trigger a state change ...
dispatch({type: INCR_2ND_LEVEL_COUNT})
...Redux will call:
theNewState = topLevel(theState, action);
NOTE: action is from dispatch()
Now theNewState is an entirely new object.
Note: You can enforce immutability with a library (or new language features), or just be careful to not mutate anything :D
For a deeper look, I highly recommend you checkout this video by Dan Abramov (the creator). It should answer any lingering questions you have.
The following benefits of immutability are mentioned in Redux documentation:
Both Redux and React-Redux employ shallow equality checking. In particular:
Redux's combineReducers utility shallowly checks for reference changes caused by the reducers that it calls.
React-Redux's connect method generates components that shallowly check reference changes to the root state, and the return values from the mapStateToProps function to see if the wrapped components actually need to re-render. Such shallow checking requires immutability to function correctly.
Immutable data management ultimately makes data handling safer.
Time-travel debugging requires that reducers be pure functions with no side effects, so that you can correctly jump between different states.
The main reason Redux is using immutability is that it doesn't have to traverse an object tree to check for the changes in every key value. Instead, it will only check the object's reference is changed or not in order to update DOM on state change.
Greate article https://medium.cobeisfresh.com/how-redux-can-make-you-a-better-developer-30a094d5e3ec
Along with immutable data, pure functions are one of the core concepts
of functional programming
Based on the official docs :
There are several reasons why you must not mutate state in Redux:
It causes bugs, such as the UI not updating properly to show the latest values
It makes it harder to understand why and how the state has been updated
It makes it harder to write tests
It breaks the ability to use "time-travel debugging" correctly
It goes against the intended spirit and usage patterns for Redux
Reudx official docs
Related
I understand that React tutorials and documentation warn in no uncertain terms that state should not be directly mutated and that everything should go through setState.
I would like to understand why, exactly, I can't just directly change state and then (in the same function) call this.setState({}) just to trigger the render.
E.g.: The below code seems to work just fine:
const React = require('react');
const App = React.createClass({
getInitialState: function() {
return {
some: {
rather: {
deeply: {
embedded: {
stuff: 1,
},
},
},
},
},
};
updateCounter: function () {
this.state.some.rather.deeply.embedded.stuff++;
this.setState({}); // just to trigger the render ...
},
render: function() {
return (
<div>
Counter value: {this.state.some.rather.deeply.embedded.stuff}
<br></br>
<button onClick={this.updateCounter}>Increment</button>
</div>
);
},
});
export default App;
I am all for following conventions but I would like to enhance my further understanding of how ReactJS actually works and what can go wrong or is it sub-optimal with the above code.
The notes under the this.setState documentation basically identify two gotchas:
That if you mutate state directly and then subsequently call this.setState this may replace (overwrite?) the mutation you made. I don't see how this can happen in the above code.
That setState may mutate this.state effectively in an asynchronous / deferred way and so when accessing this.state right after calling this.setState you are not guaranteed to access the final mutated state. I get that, by this is not an issue if this.setState is the last call of the update function.
This answer is to provide enough information to not change/mutate the state directly in React.
React follows Unidirectional Data Flow. Meaning, the data flow inside react should and will be expected to be in a circular path.
React's Data flow without flux
To make React work like this, developers made React similar to functional programming. The rule of thumb of functional programming is immutability. Let me explain it loud and clear.
How does the unidirectional flow works?
states are a data store which contains the data of a component.
The view of a component renders based on the state.
When the view needs to change something on the screen, that value should be supplied from the store.
To make this happen, React provides setState() function which takes in an object of new states and does a compare and merge(similar to object.assign()) over the previous state and adds the new state to the state data store.
Whenever the data in the state store changes, react will trigger an re-render with the new state which the view consumes and shows it on the screen.
This cycle will continue throughout the component's lifetime.
If you see the above steps, it clearly shows a lot of things are happening behind when you change the state. So, when you mutate the state directly and call setState() with an empty object. The previous state will be polluted with your mutation. Due to which, the shallow compare and merge of two states will be disturbed or won't happen, because you'll have only one state now. This will disrupt all the React's Lifecycle Methods.
As a result, your app will behave abnormal or even crash. Most of the times, it won't affect your app because all the apps which we use for testing this are pretty small.
And another downside of mutation of Objects and Arrays in JavaScript is, when you assign an object or an array, you're just making a reference of that object or that array. When you mutate them, all the reference to that object or that array will be affected. React handles this in a intelligent way in the background and simply give us an API to make it work.
Most common errors done when handling states in React
// original state
this.state = {
a: [1,2,3,4,5]
}
// changing the state in react
// need to add '6' in the array
// bad approach
const b = this.state.a.push(6)
this.setState({
a: b
})
In the above example, this.state.a.push(6) will mutate the state directly. Assigning it to another variable and calling setState is same as what's shown below. As we mutated the state anyway, there's no point assigning it to another variable and calling setState with that variable.
// same as
this.state.a.push(6)
this.setState({})
Many people do this. This is so wrong. This breaks the beauty of React and is bad programming practice.
So, what's the best way to handle states in React? Let me explain.
When you need to change 'something' in the existing state, first get a copy of that 'something' from the current state.
// original state
this.state = {
a: [1,2,3,4,5]
}
// changing the state in react
// need to add '6' in the array
// create a copy of this.state.a
// you can use ES6's destructuring or loadash's _.clone()
const currentStateCopy = [...this.state.a]
Now, mutating currentStateCopy won't mutate the original state. Do operations over currentStateCopy and set it as the new state using setState().
currentStateCopy.push(6)
this.setState({
a: currentStateCopy
})
This is beautiful, right?
By doing this, all the references of this.state.a won't get affected until we use setState. This gives you control over your code and this'll help you write elegant test and make you confident about the performance of the code in production.
To answer your question,
Why can't I directly modify a component's state?
Well, you can. But, you need to face the following consequences.
When you scale, you'll be writing unmanageable code.
You'll lose control of state across components.
Instead of using React, you'll be writing custom codes over React.
Immutability is not a necessity because JavaScript is single threaded, but it's a good to follow practices which will help you in the long run.
PS. I've written about 10000 lines of mutable React JS code. If it breaks now, I don't know where to look into because all the values are mutated somewhere. When I realized this, I started writing immutable code. Trust me! That's the best thing you can do it to a product or an app.
The React docs for setState have this to say:
NEVER mutate this.state directly, as calling setState() afterwards may replace the mutation you made. Treat this.state as if it were immutable.
setState() does not immediately mutate this.state but creates a pending state transition. Accessing this.state after calling this method can potentially return the existing value.
There is no guarantee of synchronous operation of calls to setState and calls may be batched for performance gains.
setState() will always trigger a re-render unless conditional rendering logic is implemented in shouldComponentUpdate(). If mutable objects are being used and the logic cannot be implemented in shouldComponentUpdate(), calling setState() only when the new state differs from the previous state will avoid unnecessary re-renders.
Basically, if you modify this.state directly, you create a situation where those modifications might get overwritten.
Related to your extended questions 1) and 2), setState() is not immediate. It queues a state transition based on what it thinks is going on which may not include the direct changes to this.state. Since it's queued rather than applied immediately, it's entirely possible that something is modified in between such that your direct changes get overwritten.
If nothing else, you might be better off just considering that not directly modifying this.state can be seen as good practice. You may know personally that your code interacts with React in such a way that these over-writes or other issues can't happen but you're creating a situation where other developers or future updates can suddenly find themselves with weird or subtle issues.
the simplest answer to "
Why can't I directly modify a component's state:
is all about Updating phase.
when we update the state of a component all it's children are going to be rendered as well. or our entire component tree rendered.
but when i say our entire component tree is rendered that doesn’t mean that the entire DOM is updated.
when a component is rendered we basically get a react element, so that is updating our virtual dom.
React will then look at the virtual DOM, it also has a copy of the old virtual DOM, that is why we shouldn’t update the state directly, so we can have two different object references in memory, we have the old virtual DOM as well as the new virtual DOM.
then react will figure out what is changed and based on that it will update the real DOM accordingly .
hope it helps.
It surprises me that non of the current answers talk about pure/memo components (React.PureComponent or React.memo). These components only re-render when a change in one of the props is detected.
Say you mutate state directly and pass, not the value, but the over coupling object to the component below. This object still has the same reference as the previous object, meaning that pure/memo components won't re-render, even though you mutated one of the properties.
Since you don't always know what type of component you are working with when importing them from libraries, this is yet another reason to stick to the non-mutating rule.
Here is an example of this behaviour in action (using R.evolve to simplify creating a copy and updating nested content):
class App extends React.Component {
state = { some: { rather: { deeply: { nested: { stuff: 1 } } } } };
mutatingIncrement = () => {
this.state.some.rather.deeply.nested.stuff++;
this.setState({});
}
nonMutatingIncrement = () => {
this.setState(R.evolve(
{ some: { rather: { deeply: { nested: { stuff: n => n + 1 } } } } }
));
}
render() {
return (
<div>
Normal Component: <CounterDisplay {...this.state} />
<br />
Pure Component: <PureCounterDisplay {...this.state} />
<br />
<button onClick={this.mutatingIncrement}>mutating increment</button>
<button onClick={this.nonMutatingIncrement}>non-mutating increment</button>
</div>
);
}
}
const CounterDisplay = (props) => (
<React.Fragment>
Counter value: {props.some.rather.deeply.nested.stuff}
</React.Fragment>
);
const PureCounterDisplay = React.memo(CounterDisplay);
ReactDOM.render(<App />, document.querySelector("#root"));
<script src="https://unpkg.com/react#17/umd/react.production.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://unpkg.com/react-dom#17/umd/react-dom.production.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://unpkg.com/ramda#0/dist/ramda.min.js"></script>
<div id="root"></div>
To avoid every time to create a copy of this.state.element you can use update with $set or $push or many others from immutability-helper
e.g.:
import update from 'immutability-helper';
const newData = update(myData, {
x: {y: {z: {$set: 7}}},
a: {b: {$push: [9]}}
});
setState trigger re rendering of the components.when we want to update state again and again we must need to setState otherwise it doesn't work correctly.
My current understanding is based on this and this answers:
IF you do not use shouldComponentUpdate or any other lifecycle methods (like componentWillReceiveProps, componentWillUpdate, and componentDidUpdate) where you compare the old and new props/state
THEN
It is fine to mutate state and then call setState(), otherwise it is not fine.
I understand that React tutorials and documentation warn in no uncertain terms that state should not be directly mutated and that everything should go through setState.
I would like to understand why, exactly, I can't just directly change state and then (in the same function) call this.setState({}) just to trigger the render.
E.g.: The below code seems to work just fine:
const React = require('react');
const App = React.createClass({
getInitialState: function() {
return {
some: {
rather: {
deeply: {
embedded: {
stuff: 1,
},
},
},
},
},
};
updateCounter: function () {
this.state.some.rather.deeply.embedded.stuff++;
this.setState({}); // just to trigger the render ...
},
render: function() {
return (
<div>
Counter value: {this.state.some.rather.deeply.embedded.stuff}
<br></br>
<button onClick={this.updateCounter}>Increment</button>
</div>
);
},
});
export default App;
I am all for following conventions but I would like to enhance my further understanding of how ReactJS actually works and what can go wrong or is it sub-optimal with the above code.
The notes under the this.setState documentation basically identify two gotchas:
That if you mutate state directly and then subsequently call this.setState this may replace (overwrite?) the mutation you made. I don't see how this can happen in the above code.
That setState may mutate this.state effectively in an asynchronous / deferred way and so when accessing this.state right after calling this.setState you are not guaranteed to access the final mutated state. I get that, by this is not an issue if this.setState is the last call of the update function.
This answer is to provide enough information to not change/mutate the state directly in React.
React follows Unidirectional Data Flow. Meaning, the data flow inside react should and will be expected to be in a circular path.
React's Data flow without flux
To make React work like this, developers made React similar to functional programming. The rule of thumb of functional programming is immutability. Let me explain it loud and clear.
How does the unidirectional flow works?
states are a data store which contains the data of a component.
The view of a component renders based on the state.
When the view needs to change something on the screen, that value should be supplied from the store.
To make this happen, React provides setState() function which takes in an object of new states and does a compare and merge(similar to object.assign()) over the previous state and adds the new state to the state data store.
Whenever the data in the state store changes, react will trigger an re-render with the new state which the view consumes and shows it on the screen.
This cycle will continue throughout the component's lifetime.
If you see the above steps, it clearly shows a lot of things are happening behind when you change the state. So, when you mutate the state directly and call setState() with an empty object. The previous state will be polluted with your mutation. Due to which, the shallow compare and merge of two states will be disturbed or won't happen, because you'll have only one state now. This will disrupt all the React's Lifecycle Methods.
As a result, your app will behave abnormal or even crash. Most of the times, it won't affect your app because all the apps which we use for testing this are pretty small.
And another downside of mutation of Objects and Arrays in JavaScript is, when you assign an object or an array, you're just making a reference of that object or that array. When you mutate them, all the reference to that object or that array will be affected. React handles this in a intelligent way in the background and simply give us an API to make it work.
Most common errors done when handling states in React
// original state
this.state = {
a: [1,2,3,4,5]
}
// changing the state in react
// need to add '6' in the array
// bad approach
const b = this.state.a.push(6)
this.setState({
a: b
})
In the above example, this.state.a.push(6) will mutate the state directly. Assigning it to another variable and calling setState is same as what's shown below. As we mutated the state anyway, there's no point assigning it to another variable and calling setState with that variable.
// same as
this.state.a.push(6)
this.setState({})
Many people do this. This is so wrong. This breaks the beauty of React and is bad programming practice.
So, what's the best way to handle states in React? Let me explain.
When you need to change 'something' in the existing state, first get a copy of that 'something' from the current state.
// original state
this.state = {
a: [1,2,3,4,5]
}
// changing the state in react
// need to add '6' in the array
// create a copy of this.state.a
// you can use ES6's destructuring or loadash's _.clone()
const currentStateCopy = [...this.state.a]
Now, mutating currentStateCopy won't mutate the original state. Do operations over currentStateCopy and set it as the new state using setState().
currentStateCopy.push(6)
this.setState({
a: currentStateCopy
})
This is beautiful, right?
By doing this, all the references of this.state.a won't get affected until we use setState. This gives you control over your code and this'll help you write elegant test and make you confident about the performance of the code in production.
To answer your question,
Why can't I directly modify a component's state?
Well, you can. But, you need to face the following consequences.
When you scale, you'll be writing unmanageable code.
You'll lose control of state across components.
Instead of using React, you'll be writing custom codes over React.
Immutability is not a necessity because JavaScript is single threaded, but it's a good to follow practices which will help you in the long run.
PS. I've written about 10000 lines of mutable React JS code. If it breaks now, I don't know where to look into because all the values are mutated somewhere. When I realized this, I started writing immutable code. Trust me! That's the best thing you can do it to a product or an app.
The React docs for setState have this to say:
NEVER mutate this.state directly, as calling setState() afterwards may replace the mutation you made. Treat this.state as if it were immutable.
setState() does not immediately mutate this.state but creates a pending state transition. Accessing this.state after calling this method can potentially return the existing value.
There is no guarantee of synchronous operation of calls to setState and calls may be batched for performance gains.
setState() will always trigger a re-render unless conditional rendering logic is implemented in shouldComponentUpdate(). If mutable objects are being used and the logic cannot be implemented in shouldComponentUpdate(), calling setState() only when the new state differs from the previous state will avoid unnecessary re-renders.
Basically, if you modify this.state directly, you create a situation where those modifications might get overwritten.
Related to your extended questions 1) and 2), setState() is not immediate. It queues a state transition based on what it thinks is going on which may not include the direct changes to this.state. Since it's queued rather than applied immediately, it's entirely possible that something is modified in between such that your direct changes get overwritten.
If nothing else, you might be better off just considering that not directly modifying this.state can be seen as good practice. You may know personally that your code interacts with React in such a way that these over-writes or other issues can't happen but you're creating a situation where other developers or future updates can suddenly find themselves with weird or subtle issues.
the simplest answer to "
Why can't I directly modify a component's state:
is all about Updating phase.
when we update the state of a component all it's children are going to be rendered as well. or our entire component tree rendered.
but when i say our entire component tree is rendered that doesn’t mean that the entire DOM is updated.
when a component is rendered we basically get a react element, so that is updating our virtual dom.
React will then look at the virtual DOM, it also has a copy of the old virtual DOM, that is why we shouldn’t update the state directly, so we can have two different object references in memory, we have the old virtual DOM as well as the new virtual DOM.
then react will figure out what is changed and based on that it will update the real DOM accordingly .
hope it helps.
It surprises me that non of the current answers talk about pure/memo components (React.PureComponent or React.memo). These components only re-render when a change in one of the props is detected.
Say you mutate state directly and pass, not the value, but the over coupling object to the component below. This object still has the same reference as the previous object, meaning that pure/memo components won't re-render, even though you mutated one of the properties.
Since you don't always know what type of component you are working with when importing them from libraries, this is yet another reason to stick to the non-mutating rule.
Here is an example of this behaviour in action (using R.evolve to simplify creating a copy and updating nested content):
class App extends React.Component {
state = { some: { rather: { deeply: { nested: { stuff: 1 } } } } };
mutatingIncrement = () => {
this.state.some.rather.deeply.nested.stuff++;
this.setState({});
}
nonMutatingIncrement = () => {
this.setState(R.evolve(
{ some: { rather: { deeply: { nested: { stuff: n => n + 1 } } } } }
));
}
render() {
return (
<div>
Normal Component: <CounterDisplay {...this.state} />
<br />
Pure Component: <PureCounterDisplay {...this.state} />
<br />
<button onClick={this.mutatingIncrement}>mutating increment</button>
<button onClick={this.nonMutatingIncrement}>non-mutating increment</button>
</div>
);
}
}
const CounterDisplay = (props) => (
<React.Fragment>
Counter value: {props.some.rather.deeply.nested.stuff}
</React.Fragment>
);
const PureCounterDisplay = React.memo(CounterDisplay);
ReactDOM.render(<App />, document.querySelector("#root"));
<script src="https://unpkg.com/react#17/umd/react.production.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://unpkg.com/react-dom#17/umd/react-dom.production.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://unpkg.com/ramda#0/dist/ramda.min.js"></script>
<div id="root"></div>
To avoid every time to create a copy of this.state.element you can use update with $set or $push or many others from immutability-helper
e.g.:
import update from 'immutability-helper';
const newData = update(myData, {
x: {y: {z: {$set: 7}}},
a: {b: {$push: [9]}}
});
setState trigger re rendering of the components.when we want to update state again and again we must need to setState otherwise it doesn't work correctly.
My current understanding is based on this and this answers:
IF you do not use shouldComponentUpdate or any other lifecycle methods (like componentWillReceiveProps, componentWillUpdate, and componentDidUpdate) where you compare the old and new props/state
THEN
It is fine to mutate state and then call setState(), otherwise it is not fine.
I understand that React tutorials and documentation warn in no uncertain terms that state should not be directly mutated and that everything should go through setState.
I would like to understand why, exactly, I can't just directly change state and then (in the same function) call this.setState({}) just to trigger the render.
E.g.: The below code seems to work just fine:
const React = require('react');
const App = React.createClass({
getInitialState: function() {
return {
some: {
rather: {
deeply: {
embedded: {
stuff: 1,
},
},
},
},
},
};
updateCounter: function () {
this.state.some.rather.deeply.embedded.stuff++;
this.setState({}); // just to trigger the render ...
},
render: function() {
return (
<div>
Counter value: {this.state.some.rather.deeply.embedded.stuff}
<br></br>
<button onClick={this.updateCounter}>Increment</button>
</div>
);
},
});
export default App;
I am all for following conventions but I would like to enhance my further understanding of how ReactJS actually works and what can go wrong or is it sub-optimal with the above code.
The notes under the this.setState documentation basically identify two gotchas:
That if you mutate state directly and then subsequently call this.setState this may replace (overwrite?) the mutation you made. I don't see how this can happen in the above code.
That setState may mutate this.state effectively in an asynchronous / deferred way and so when accessing this.state right after calling this.setState you are not guaranteed to access the final mutated state. I get that, by this is not an issue if this.setState is the last call of the update function.
This answer is to provide enough information to not change/mutate the state directly in React.
React follows Unidirectional Data Flow. Meaning, the data flow inside react should and will be expected to be in a circular path.
React's Data flow without flux
To make React work like this, developers made React similar to functional programming. The rule of thumb of functional programming is immutability. Let me explain it loud and clear.
How does the unidirectional flow works?
states are a data store which contains the data of a component.
The view of a component renders based on the state.
When the view needs to change something on the screen, that value should be supplied from the store.
To make this happen, React provides setState() function which takes in an object of new states and does a compare and merge(similar to object.assign()) over the previous state and adds the new state to the state data store.
Whenever the data in the state store changes, react will trigger an re-render with the new state which the view consumes and shows it on the screen.
This cycle will continue throughout the component's lifetime.
If you see the above steps, it clearly shows a lot of things are happening behind when you change the state. So, when you mutate the state directly and call setState() with an empty object. The previous state will be polluted with your mutation. Due to which, the shallow compare and merge of two states will be disturbed or won't happen, because you'll have only one state now. This will disrupt all the React's Lifecycle Methods.
As a result, your app will behave abnormal or even crash. Most of the times, it won't affect your app because all the apps which we use for testing this are pretty small.
And another downside of mutation of Objects and Arrays in JavaScript is, when you assign an object or an array, you're just making a reference of that object or that array. When you mutate them, all the reference to that object or that array will be affected. React handles this in a intelligent way in the background and simply give us an API to make it work.
Most common errors done when handling states in React
// original state
this.state = {
a: [1,2,3,4,5]
}
// changing the state in react
// need to add '6' in the array
// bad approach
const b = this.state.a.push(6)
this.setState({
a: b
})
In the above example, this.state.a.push(6) will mutate the state directly. Assigning it to another variable and calling setState is same as what's shown below. As we mutated the state anyway, there's no point assigning it to another variable and calling setState with that variable.
// same as
this.state.a.push(6)
this.setState({})
Many people do this. This is so wrong. This breaks the beauty of React and is bad programming practice.
So, what's the best way to handle states in React? Let me explain.
When you need to change 'something' in the existing state, first get a copy of that 'something' from the current state.
// original state
this.state = {
a: [1,2,3,4,5]
}
// changing the state in react
// need to add '6' in the array
// create a copy of this.state.a
// you can use ES6's destructuring or loadash's _.clone()
const currentStateCopy = [...this.state.a]
Now, mutating currentStateCopy won't mutate the original state. Do operations over currentStateCopy and set it as the new state using setState().
currentStateCopy.push(6)
this.setState({
a: currentStateCopy
})
This is beautiful, right?
By doing this, all the references of this.state.a won't get affected until we use setState. This gives you control over your code and this'll help you write elegant test and make you confident about the performance of the code in production.
To answer your question,
Why can't I directly modify a component's state?
Well, you can. But, you need to face the following consequences.
When you scale, you'll be writing unmanageable code.
You'll lose control of state across components.
Instead of using React, you'll be writing custom codes over React.
Immutability is not a necessity because JavaScript is single threaded, but it's a good to follow practices which will help you in the long run.
PS. I've written about 10000 lines of mutable React JS code. If it breaks now, I don't know where to look into because all the values are mutated somewhere. When I realized this, I started writing immutable code. Trust me! That's the best thing you can do it to a product or an app.
The React docs for setState have this to say:
NEVER mutate this.state directly, as calling setState() afterwards may replace the mutation you made. Treat this.state as if it were immutable.
setState() does not immediately mutate this.state but creates a pending state transition. Accessing this.state after calling this method can potentially return the existing value.
There is no guarantee of synchronous operation of calls to setState and calls may be batched for performance gains.
setState() will always trigger a re-render unless conditional rendering logic is implemented in shouldComponentUpdate(). If mutable objects are being used and the logic cannot be implemented in shouldComponentUpdate(), calling setState() only when the new state differs from the previous state will avoid unnecessary re-renders.
Basically, if you modify this.state directly, you create a situation where those modifications might get overwritten.
Related to your extended questions 1) and 2), setState() is not immediate. It queues a state transition based on what it thinks is going on which may not include the direct changes to this.state. Since it's queued rather than applied immediately, it's entirely possible that something is modified in between such that your direct changes get overwritten.
If nothing else, you might be better off just considering that not directly modifying this.state can be seen as good practice. You may know personally that your code interacts with React in such a way that these over-writes or other issues can't happen but you're creating a situation where other developers or future updates can suddenly find themselves with weird or subtle issues.
the simplest answer to "
Why can't I directly modify a component's state:
is all about Updating phase.
when we update the state of a component all it's children are going to be rendered as well. or our entire component tree rendered.
but when i say our entire component tree is rendered that doesn’t mean that the entire DOM is updated.
when a component is rendered we basically get a react element, so that is updating our virtual dom.
React will then look at the virtual DOM, it also has a copy of the old virtual DOM, that is why we shouldn’t update the state directly, so we can have two different object references in memory, we have the old virtual DOM as well as the new virtual DOM.
then react will figure out what is changed and based on that it will update the real DOM accordingly .
hope it helps.
It surprises me that non of the current answers talk about pure/memo components (React.PureComponent or React.memo). These components only re-render when a change in one of the props is detected.
Say you mutate state directly and pass, not the value, but the over coupling object to the component below. This object still has the same reference as the previous object, meaning that pure/memo components won't re-render, even though you mutated one of the properties.
Since you don't always know what type of component you are working with when importing them from libraries, this is yet another reason to stick to the non-mutating rule.
Here is an example of this behaviour in action (using R.evolve to simplify creating a copy and updating nested content):
class App extends React.Component {
state = { some: { rather: { deeply: { nested: { stuff: 1 } } } } };
mutatingIncrement = () => {
this.state.some.rather.deeply.nested.stuff++;
this.setState({});
}
nonMutatingIncrement = () => {
this.setState(R.evolve(
{ some: { rather: { deeply: { nested: { stuff: n => n + 1 } } } } }
));
}
render() {
return (
<div>
Normal Component: <CounterDisplay {...this.state} />
<br />
Pure Component: <PureCounterDisplay {...this.state} />
<br />
<button onClick={this.mutatingIncrement}>mutating increment</button>
<button onClick={this.nonMutatingIncrement}>non-mutating increment</button>
</div>
);
}
}
const CounterDisplay = (props) => (
<React.Fragment>
Counter value: {props.some.rather.deeply.nested.stuff}
</React.Fragment>
);
const PureCounterDisplay = React.memo(CounterDisplay);
ReactDOM.render(<App />, document.querySelector("#root"));
<script src="https://unpkg.com/react#17/umd/react.production.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://unpkg.com/react-dom#17/umd/react-dom.production.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://unpkg.com/ramda#0/dist/ramda.min.js"></script>
<div id="root"></div>
To avoid every time to create a copy of this.state.element you can use update with $set or $push or many others from immutability-helper
e.g.:
import update from 'immutability-helper';
const newData = update(myData, {
x: {y: {z: {$set: 7}}},
a: {b: {$push: [9]}}
});
setState trigger re rendering of the components.when we want to update state again and again we must need to setState otherwise it doesn't work correctly.
My current understanding is based on this and this answers:
IF you do not use shouldComponentUpdate or any other lifecycle methods (like componentWillReceiveProps, componentWillUpdate, and componentDidUpdate) where you compare the old and new props/state
THEN
It is fine to mutate state and then call setState(), otherwise it is not fine.
I've implemented a fairly simple means to add undo to useReducer with the following:
export const stateMiddleware = reducerFunc => {
return function(state = { history: [] }, action) {
return {
history:
action.type === UNDO
? drop(state.history) // lodash drop
: [reducerFunc(state.history[0], action), ...state.history],
}
}
}
and
const [state, dispatch] = useReducer(stateMiddleware(reducer), { history: [initialState] })
The state variable consists of the entire history so present state will have to be extracted from the first element.
I'm wondering whether useReducer will accept an array for the state parameter (and also welcome to comments on my approach - it avoids using what seem to be hefty packages to do something similar)
If all you are really asking is if you can initialize useReducer hook state with a plain array, then yes, you can.
To give you some feedback on your general approach, I'll quote the Redux docs, as they provide many best practices about global state management. It makes switching easier, if you need a full blown store later on. I'll assume here that you want use the useReducer not just for one local component, but a more global state tree (thanks #DrewReese for the comment on this). If it's only about one component or so, your approach is perfectly fine!
Redux docs concerning basic state shape and wether an array is possible at the top level (Link):
A Redux state usually has a plain Javascript object as the top of the state tree. (It is certainly possible to have another type of data instead, such as a single number, an array, or a specialized data structure, but most libraries assume that the top-level value is a plain object.) The most common way to organize data within that top-level object is to further divide data into sub-trees, where each top-level key represents some "domain" or "slice" of related data.
So basically, its OK, but other libraries could be possibly opiniated and expect an object, as it is by far the most likely choice.
If you implement this shape, be sure that your requirement is to always need an undo action for your whole state. Because it comes with a cost (besides mentioned 3rd party lib compatibility):
adds one additional level of nesting directly at the top level
scalability and granularity (see next point)
What, if your app gets really huge and you have hundreds of reducers. Each time, your action is dispatched, there will be a new state object put in the history array, which could get messy.
What, if you don't want a global undo, but a very fine granular one (in one particular reducer, say for one particular form element in the UI). You would have to distinguish between a global undo and a specific undo then. What instead about just one "UNDO" action which can be handled in each interested reducer in its own manner?
If that still fits your requirements, give it a try !
Cheers
It is possible, but as ford04 pointed out it may not be a great idea for a variety of reasons.
The demo below shows it works to use a plain array as the state in useReducer.
const initialState = [];
function reducer(state, action) {
switch (action.type) {
case 'increment':
return [...state, state.length + 1];
case 'decrement':
return [...state.slice(0, -1)];
default:
throw new Error();
}
}
function Counter() {
const [state, dispatch] = React.useReducer(reducer, initialState);
return (
<React.Fragment>
<div>
State: {state.join()}
</div>
<button onClick={() => dispatch({type: 'increment'})}>+</button>
<button onClick={() => dispatch({type: 'decrement'})}>-</button>
</React.Fragment>
);
}
ReactDOM.render(<Counter />, document.getElementById('app'));
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/react/16.8.0/umd/react.production.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/react-dom/16.8.0/umd/react-dom.production.min.js"></script>
<div id="app"></div>
I understand that React tutorials and documentation warn in no uncertain terms that state should not be directly mutated and that everything should go through setState.
I would like to understand why, exactly, I can't just directly change state and then (in the same function) call this.setState({}) just to trigger the render.
E.g.: The below code seems to work just fine:
const React = require('react');
const App = React.createClass({
getInitialState: function() {
return {
some: {
rather: {
deeply: {
embedded: {
stuff: 1,
},
},
},
},
},
};
updateCounter: function () {
this.state.some.rather.deeply.embedded.stuff++;
this.setState({}); // just to trigger the render ...
},
render: function() {
return (
<div>
Counter value: {this.state.some.rather.deeply.embedded.stuff}
<br></br>
<button onClick={this.updateCounter}>Increment</button>
</div>
);
},
});
export default App;
I am all for following conventions but I would like to enhance my further understanding of how ReactJS actually works and what can go wrong or is it sub-optimal with the above code.
The notes under the this.setState documentation basically identify two gotchas:
That if you mutate state directly and then subsequently call this.setState this may replace (overwrite?) the mutation you made. I don't see how this can happen in the above code.
That setState may mutate this.state effectively in an asynchronous / deferred way and so when accessing this.state right after calling this.setState you are not guaranteed to access the final mutated state. I get that, by this is not an issue if this.setState is the last call of the update function.
This answer is to provide enough information to not change/mutate the state directly in React.
React follows Unidirectional Data Flow. Meaning, the data flow inside react should and will be expected to be in a circular path.
React's Data flow without flux
To make React work like this, developers made React similar to functional programming. The rule of thumb of functional programming is immutability. Let me explain it loud and clear.
How does the unidirectional flow works?
states are a data store which contains the data of a component.
The view of a component renders based on the state.
When the view needs to change something on the screen, that value should be supplied from the store.
To make this happen, React provides setState() function which takes in an object of new states and does a compare and merge(similar to object.assign()) over the previous state and adds the new state to the state data store.
Whenever the data in the state store changes, react will trigger an re-render with the new state which the view consumes and shows it on the screen.
This cycle will continue throughout the component's lifetime.
If you see the above steps, it clearly shows a lot of things are happening behind when you change the state. So, when you mutate the state directly and call setState() with an empty object. The previous state will be polluted with your mutation. Due to which, the shallow compare and merge of two states will be disturbed or won't happen, because you'll have only one state now. This will disrupt all the React's Lifecycle Methods.
As a result, your app will behave abnormal or even crash. Most of the times, it won't affect your app because all the apps which we use for testing this are pretty small.
And another downside of mutation of Objects and Arrays in JavaScript is, when you assign an object or an array, you're just making a reference of that object or that array. When you mutate them, all the reference to that object or that array will be affected. React handles this in a intelligent way in the background and simply give us an API to make it work.
Most common errors done when handling states in React
// original state
this.state = {
a: [1,2,3,4,5]
}
// changing the state in react
// need to add '6' in the array
// bad approach
const b = this.state.a.push(6)
this.setState({
a: b
})
In the above example, this.state.a.push(6) will mutate the state directly. Assigning it to another variable and calling setState is same as what's shown below. As we mutated the state anyway, there's no point assigning it to another variable and calling setState with that variable.
// same as
this.state.a.push(6)
this.setState({})
Many people do this. This is so wrong. This breaks the beauty of React and is bad programming practice.
So, what's the best way to handle states in React? Let me explain.
When you need to change 'something' in the existing state, first get a copy of that 'something' from the current state.
// original state
this.state = {
a: [1,2,3,4,5]
}
// changing the state in react
// need to add '6' in the array
// create a copy of this.state.a
// you can use ES6's destructuring or loadash's _.clone()
const currentStateCopy = [...this.state.a]
Now, mutating currentStateCopy won't mutate the original state. Do operations over currentStateCopy and set it as the new state using setState().
currentStateCopy.push(6)
this.setState({
a: currentStateCopy
})
This is beautiful, right?
By doing this, all the references of this.state.a won't get affected until we use setState. This gives you control over your code and this'll help you write elegant test and make you confident about the performance of the code in production.
To answer your question,
Why can't I directly modify a component's state?
Well, you can. But, you need to face the following consequences.
When you scale, you'll be writing unmanageable code.
You'll lose control of state across components.
Instead of using React, you'll be writing custom codes over React.
Immutability is not a necessity because JavaScript is single threaded, but it's a good to follow practices which will help you in the long run.
PS. I've written about 10000 lines of mutable React JS code. If it breaks now, I don't know where to look into because all the values are mutated somewhere. When I realized this, I started writing immutable code. Trust me! That's the best thing you can do it to a product or an app.
The React docs for setState have this to say:
NEVER mutate this.state directly, as calling setState() afterwards may replace the mutation you made. Treat this.state as if it were immutable.
setState() does not immediately mutate this.state but creates a pending state transition. Accessing this.state after calling this method can potentially return the existing value.
There is no guarantee of synchronous operation of calls to setState and calls may be batched for performance gains.
setState() will always trigger a re-render unless conditional rendering logic is implemented in shouldComponentUpdate(). If mutable objects are being used and the logic cannot be implemented in shouldComponentUpdate(), calling setState() only when the new state differs from the previous state will avoid unnecessary re-renders.
Basically, if you modify this.state directly, you create a situation where those modifications might get overwritten.
Related to your extended questions 1) and 2), setState() is not immediate. It queues a state transition based on what it thinks is going on which may not include the direct changes to this.state. Since it's queued rather than applied immediately, it's entirely possible that something is modified in between such that your direct changes get overwritten.
If nothing else, you might be better off just considering that not directly modifying this.state can be seen as good practice. You may know personally that your code interacts with React in such a way that these over-writes or other issues can't happen but you're creating a situation where other developers or future updates can suddenly find themselves with weird or subtle issues.
the simplest answer to "
Why can't I directly modify a component's state:
is all about Updating phase.
when we update the state of a component all it's children are going to be rendered as well. or our entire component tree rendered.
but when i say our entire component tree is rendered that doesn’t mean that the entire DOM is updated.
when a component is rendered we basically get a react element, so that is updating our virtual dom.
React will then look at the virtual DOM, it also has a copy of the old virtual DOM, that is why we shouldn’t update the state directly, so we can have two different object references in memory, we have the old virtual DOM as well as the new virtual DOM.
then react will figure out what is changed and based on that it will update the real DOM accordingly .
hope it helps.
It surprises me that non of the current answers talk about pure/memo components (React.PureComponent or React.memo). These components only re-render when a change in one of the props is detected.
Say you mutate state directly and pass, not the value, but the over coupling object to the component below. This object still has the same reference as the previous object, meaning that pure/memo components won't re-render, even though you mutated one of the properties.
Since you don't always know what type of component you are working with when importing them from libraries, this is yet another reason to stick to the non-mutating rule.
Here is an example of this behaviour in action (using R.evolve to simplify creating a copy and updating nested content):
class App extends React.Component {
state = { some: { rather: { deeply: { nested: { stuff: 1 } } } } };
mutatingIncrement = () => {
this.state.some.rather.deeply.nested.stuff++;
this.setState({});
}
nonMutatingIncrement = () => {
this.setState(R.evolve(
{ some: { rather: { deeply: { nested: { stuff: n => n + 1 } } } } }
));
}
render() {
return (
<div>
Normal Component: <CounterDisplay {...this.state} />
<br />
Pure Component: <PureCounterDisplay {...this.state} />
<br />
<button onClick={this.mutatingIncrement}>mutating increment</button>
<button onClick={this.nonMutatingIncrement}>non-mutating increment</button>
</div>
);
}
}
const CounterDisplay = (props) => (
<React.Fragment>
Counter value: {props.some.rather.deeply.nested.stuff}
</React.Fragment>
);
const PureCounterDisplay = React.memo(CounterDisplay);
ReactDOM.render(<App />, document.querySelector("#root"));
<script src="https://unpkg.com/react#17/umd/react.production.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://unpkg.com/react-dom#17/umd/react-dom.production.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://unpkg.com/ramda#0/dist/ramda.min.js"></script>
<div id="root"></div>
To avoid every time to create a copy of this.state.element you can use update with $set or $push or many others from immutability-helper
e.g.:
import update from 'immutability-helper';
const newData = update(myData, {
x: {y: {z: {$set: 7}}},
a: {b: {$push: [9]}}
});
setState trigger re rendering of the components.when we want to update state again and again we must need to setState otherwise it doesn't work correctly.
My current understanding is based on this and this answers:
IF you do not use shouldComponentUpdate or any other lifecycle methods (like componentWillReceiveProps, componentWillUpdate, and componentDidUpdate) where you compare the old and new props/state
THEN
It is fine to mutate state and then call setState(), otherwise it is not fine.