We Keep Coding

How does the splice work in Function Component(hooks) in React? [duplicate]

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.

React setState() not setting state on certain items

I'm new to React and have some pretty simple code that is acting strange (I think).
The main app fetches a list of blog posts from a server, then passes them through props to a child component which spits the list out. By default, I'm trying to make the posts only show a preview like a title, and each post will have a state attached to it so I can keep track of which ones are fully shown or previewed.
I have the states set up like this:
const [posts, setPosts] = useState([])
const [postFullView, setPostFullView] = useState([])
The list initially is rendered as an empty list so nothing gets returned. When the data fetch finishes, it re-renders with all the posts.
I use useEffect for this in the child component:
useEffect(() => {
console.log('render') //Just to verify this got called
setPosts(props.posts) //Logs empty array 3 lines down,
//setPosts([4,5,6]) //Works fine, gets logged as [4,5,6]
console.log(props.posts) //Logs an array of 32 objects - so props is clearly not empty
console.log(posts) //Logs empty array as if setPosts did nothing, but logs [4,5,6] if I comment out setPosts(props.post) and use setPosts([4,5,6])
setPostFullView(posts.map(post => {return {id: post.id, view: false}}))
console.log(postFullView) //Will be empty since posts is empty
}, [props])
Hopefully, I explained clearly what I'm confused about - I can setState using a hard-coded array, but passing in props.posts does not do anything, even though it has content.

There is nothing wrong about your code, and the reason console.log(posts) spits empty array, it because setPosts(props.posts) is async call and not executed immediately, but tells react it should render again with new value for state.
Sometimes, like in your hardcoded array case, the code will work "fine", but it not guaranteed, for sure in production when code executed faster

yea its nothing wrong because the setState api is async did not show the changes in log but code is work properly and also if you need to check your state you can use React developer Tools extension for browser too see the state status
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/react-developer-tools/fmkadmapgofadopljbjfkapdkoienihi?hl=en

Actually, your first issue is about understanding the state changing and the re-rendering on ReactJS. why you do not use the first initial state in the first render just like below:
const YourComponent = ({ posts: initialPosts }) => {
const [posts, setPosts] = useState(initialPosts);
Also, there is no need to have the first line you can use it exactly on the second line initializing, like this:
const YourComponent = ({ posts: initialPosts }) => {
const [postFullView, setPostFullView] = useState(
({ id }) => ({ id, view: false }) // es6 arrow function with using restructuring assignment and returning the object
);
After all, when you are using a useEffect or other hooks APIs, please add the specific internal state or prop name to dependencies, no put all the props in the array of dependencies, it caused bad costs and make your project slow to run.

Getting primitive values from mobx observable in reactjs

I have a observable store that is being based via props to components that need it.
Console logging from components does show store as expected, but only if I stick to the whole store. Once I start chaining into it I get undefined.
Base store
export let TutorStore = observable({
Tutor: {},
Queue: [],
QLength: null
});
Component logging
checkBtn = () => {
console.log(this.props.tutorStore);
};
Result TutorStore in Console as expected
All the correct tutorStore objects are there, with the right data, as expected.
But if I try to chain into a object there are no values attached to it, not behaving as expected.
checkBtn = () => {
console.log(this.props.tutorStore.Tutor);
};
Result TutorStore.Tutor no values
I've tried messing around with mobx's toJS method, but it seems unreliable at best.
Considering just assigning the appropriate object to components state, but that defeats the purpose of having a store.
The data is there, so how do I access it?

Can't undertsand why single array inside state is not working

I'm learning react and redux and can't seem to understand why a simple array in my state is not functioning right but if I add just another variable which is not even being used then every thing works fine. This is my store:
const store = createStore(
reducer,
{items:[],
a:100
}
This is the mapping:
const mapStateToProps = (state) => {
return {
list:state.items,
a:state.a
};
};
This is what my reducer return:
return {a:state.a-1000,
items:state.items}
The variable 'a' is not being used but for some reason if I remove it from the above code blocks then the application does not function correctly. In the reducer's return statement even if I change state.a-1000 with state.a it stops functioning correctly. I can't seem to understand what is happening. The state works fine when there is just a variable in it that is not an array but when there is just an array inside the state for some reason it is requiring another variable.

redux state needs to be immutable. items:state.items mutates the state which wont be picked up by redux.
try {...state, items} (where items is the new list) or try using Immutable.JS
further info here - https://redux.js.org/faq/immutable-data

Gatsby: Context update causes infinite render loop

I am trying to update context once a Gatsby page loads.
The way I did it, the context is provided to all pages, and once the page loads the context is updated (done with useEffect to ensure it only happens when the component mounts).
Unfortunately, this causes an infinite render loop (perhaps not in Firefox, but at least in Chrome).
Why does this happen? I mean, the context update means all the components below the provider are re-rendered, but the useEffect should only run once, and thats when the component mounts.
Here is the code: https://codesandbox.io/s/6l3337447n
The infinite loop happens when you go to page two (link at bottom of page one).
What is the solution here, if I want to update the context whenever a page loads?

The correct answer for this issue is not to pass an empty dependency array to useEffect but to wrap your context's mergeData in a useCallback hook. I'm unable to edit your code but you may also need to add dependencies to your useCallback like in my example below
import React, { useState, useCallback } from "react"
const defaultContextValue = {
data: {
// set initial data shape here
menuOpen: false,
},
mergeData: () => {},
}
const Context = React.createContext(defaultContextValue)
const { Provider } = Context
function ContextProviderComponent({ children }) {
const [data, setData] = useState({
...defaultContextValue,
mergeData, // shorthand method name
})
const mergeData = useCallback((newData) {
setData(oldData => ({
...oldData,
data: {
...oldData.data,
...newData,
},
}))
}, [setData])
return <Provider value={data}>{children}</Provider>
}
export { Context as default, ContextProviderComponent }
The selected answer is incorrect because the react docs explicitly say not to omit dependencies that are used within the effect which the current selected answer is suggesting.
If you use es-lint with the eslint-plugin-react-hooks it will tell you this is incorrect.
Note
If you use this optimization, make sure the array includes all values
from the component scope (such as props and state) that change over
time and that are used by the effect. Otherwise, your code will
reference stale values from previous renders. Learn more about how to
deal with functions and what to do when the array changes too often.
https://reactjs.org/docs/hooks-effect.html
Is it safe to omit functions from the list of dependencies? Generally
speaking, no. It’s difficult to remember which props or state are used
by functions outside of the effect. This is why usually you’ll want to
declare functions needed by an effect inside of it. Then it’s easy to
see what values from the component scope that effect depends on:
https://reactjs.org/docs/hooks-faq.html#is-it-safe-to-omit-functions-from-the-list-of-dependencies

By default, useEffect runs every render. In your example, useEffect updates the context every render, thus trigger an infinite loop.
There's this bit in the React doc:
If you want to run an effect and clean it up only once (on mount and unmount), you can pass an empty array ([]) as a second argument. This tells React that your effect doesn’t depend on any values from props or state, so it never needs to re-run. This isn’t handled as a special case — it follows directly from how the dependencies array always works.
So applies to your example:
useEffect(() => {
console.log("CONTEXT DATA WHEN PAGE 2 LOADS:", data)
mergeData({
location,
})
- }, [location, mergeData, data])
+ }, [])
This way, useEffect only runs on first mount. I think you can also leave location in there, it will also prevent the infinite loop since useEffect doesn't depend on the value from context.