We Keep Coding

How can I correctly use the React context API in a class based component? [duplicate]

In this example, I have this react class:
class MyDiv extends React.component
constructor(){
this.state={sampleState:'hello world'}
}
render(){
return <div>{this.state.sampleState}
}
}
The question is if I can add React hooks to this. I understand that React-Hooks is alternative to React Class style. But if I wish to slowly migrate into React hooks, can I add useful hooks into Classes?

High order components are how we have been doing this type of thing until hooks came along. You can write a simple high order component wrapper for your hook.
function withMyHook(Component) {
return function WrappedComponent(props) {
const myHookValue = useMyHook();
return <Component {...props} myHookValue={myHookValue} />;
}
}
While this isn't truly using a hook directly from a class component, this will at least allow you to use the logic of your hook from a class component, without refactoring.
class MyComponent extends React.Component {
render(){
const myHookValue = this.props.myHookValue;
return <div>{myHookValue}</div>;
}
}
export default withMyHook(MyComponent);

Class components don't support hooks -
According to the Hooks-FAQ:
You can’t use Hooks inside of a class component, but you can definitely mix classes and function components with Hooks in a single tree. Whether a component is a class or a function that uses Hooks is an implementation detail of that component. In the longer term, we expect Hooks to be the primary way people write React components.

As other answers already explain, hooks API was designed to provide function components with functionality that currently is available only in class components. Hooks aren't supposed to used in class components.
Class components can be written to make easier a migration to function components.
With a single state:
class MyDiv extends Component {
state = {sampleState: 'hello world'};
render(){
const { state } = this;
const setState = state => this.setState(state);
return <div onClick={() => setState({sampleState: 1})}>{state.sampleState}</div>;
}
}
is converted to
const MyDiv = () => {
const [state, setState] = useState({sampleState: 'hello world'});
return <div onClick={() => setState({sampleState: 1})}>{state.sampleState}</div>;
}
Notice that useState state setter doesn't merge state properties automatically, this should be covered with setState(prevState => ({ ...prevState, foo: 1 }));
With multiple states:
class MyDiv extends Component {
state = {sampleState: 'hello world'};
render(){
const { sampleState } = this.state;
const setSampleState = sampleState => this.setState({ sampleState });
return <div onClick={() => setSampleState(1)}>{sampleState}</div>;
}
}
is converted to
const MyDiv = () => {
const [sampleState, setSampleState] = useState('hello world');
return <div onClick={() => setSampleState(1)}>{sampleState}</div>;
}

Complementing Joel Cox's good answer
Render Props also enable the usage of Hooks inside class components, if more flexibility is needed:
class MyDiv extends React.Component {
render() {
return (
<HookWrapper
// pass state/props from inside of MyDiv to Hook
someProp={42}
// process Hook return value
render={hookValue => <div>Hello World! {hookValue}</div>}
/>
);
}
}
function HookWrapper({ someProp, render }) {
const hookValue = useCustomHook(someProp);
return render(hookValue);
}
For side effect Hooks without return value:
function HookWrapper({ someProp }) {
useCustomHook(someProp);
return null;
}
// ... usage
<HookWrapper someProp={42} />
Source: React Training

you can achieve this by generic High order components
HOC
import React from 'react';
const withHook = (Component, useHook, hookName = 'hookvalue') => {
return function WrappedComponent(props) {
const hookValue = useHook();
return <Component {...props} {...{[hookName]: hookValue}} />;
};
};
export default withHook;
Usage
class MyComponent extends React.Component {
render(){
const myUseHookValue = this.props.myUseHookValue;
return <div>{myUseHookValue}</div>;
}
}
export default withHook(MyComponent, useHook, 'myUseHookValue');

Hooks are not meant to be used for classes but rather functions. If you wish to use hooks, you can start by writing new code as functional components with hooks
According to React FAQs
You can’t use Hooks inside of a class component, but you can
definitely mix classes and function components with Hooks in a single
tree. Whether a component is a class or a function that uses Hooks is
an implementation detail of that component. In the longer term, we
expect Hooks to be the primary way people write React components.
const MyDiv = () => {
const [sampleState, setState] = useState('hello world');
render(){
return <div>{sampleState}</div>
}
}

You can use the react-universal-hooks library. It lets you use the "useXXX" functions within the render function of class-components.
It's worked great for me so far. The only issue is that since it doesn't use the official hooks, the values don't show react-devtools.
To get around this, I created an equivalent by wrapping the hooks, and having them store their data (using object-mutation to prevent re-renders) on component.state.hookValues. (you can access the component by auto-wrapping the component render functions, to run set currentCompBeingRendered = this)
For more info on this issue (and details on the workaround), see here: https://github.com/salvoravida/react-universal-hooks/issues/7

Stateful components or containers or class-based components ever support the functions of React Hooks, so we don't need to React Hooks in Stateful components just in stateless components.
Some additional informations
What are React Hooks?
So what are hooks? Well hooks are a new way or offer us a new way of writing our components.
Thus far, of course we have functional and class-based components, right? Functional components receive props and you return some JSX code that should be rendered to the screen.
They are great for presentation, so for rendering the UI part, not so much about the business logic and they are typically focused on one or a few purposes per component.
Class-based components on the other hand also will receive props but they also have this internal state. Therefore class-based components are the components which actually hold the majority of our business logic, so with business logic, I mean things like we make an HTTP request and we need to handle the response and to change the internal state of the app or maybe even without HTTP. A user fills out the form and we want to show this somewhere on the screen, we need state for this, we need class-based components for this and therefore we also typically use class based components to orchestrate our other components and pass our state down as props to functional components for example.
Now one problem we have with this separation, with all the benefits it adds but one problem we have is that converting from one component form to the other is annoying. It's not really difficult but it is annoying.
If you ever found yourself in a situation where you needed to convert a functional component into a class-based one, it's a lot of typing and a lot of typing of always the same things, so it's annoying.
A bigger problem in quotation marks is that lifecycle hooks can be hard to use right.
Obviously, it's not hard to add componentDidMount and execute some code in there but knowing which lifecycle hook to use, when and how to use it correctly, that can be challenging especially in more complex applications and anyways, wouldn't it be nice if we had one way of creating components and that super component could then handle both state and side effects like HTTP requests and also render the user interface?
Well, this is exactly what hooks are all about. Hooks give us a new way of creating functional components and that is important.

React Hooks let you use react features and lifecycle without writing a class.
It's like the equivalent version of the class component with much smaller and readable form factor. You should migrate to React hooks because it's fun to write it.
But you can't write react hooks inside a class component, as it's introduced for functional component.
This can be easily converted to :
class MyDiv extends React.component
constructor(){
this.state={sampleState:'hello world'}
}
render(){
return <div>{this.state.sampleState}
}
}
const MyDiv = () => {
const [sampleState, setSampleState] = useState('hello world');
return <div>{sampleState}</div>
}

It won't be possible with your existing class components. You'll have to convert your class component into a functional component and then do something on the lines of -
function MyDiv() {
const [sampleState, setSampleState] = useState('hello world');
return (
<div>{sampleState}</div>
)
}

For me React.createRef() was helpful.
ex.:
constructor(props) {
super(props);
this.myRef = React.createRef();
}
...
<FunctionComponent ref={this.myRef} />
Origin post here.

I've made a library for this. React Hookable Component.
Usage is very simple. Replace extends Component or extends PureComponent with extends HookableComponent or extends HookablePureComponent. You can then use hooks in the render() method.
import { HookableComponent } from 'react-hookable-component';
// 👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇
class ComponentThatUsesHook extends HookableComponent<Props, State> {
render() {
// 👇👇👇👇👇👇
const value = useSomeHook();
return <span>The value is {value}</span>;
}
}

if you didn't need to change your class component then create another functional component and do hook stuff and import it to class component

Doesn't work anymore in modern React Versions. Took me forever, but finally resulted going back to go ol' callbacks. Only thing that worked for me, all other's threw the know React Hook Call (outside functional component) error.
Non-React or React Context:
class WhateverClass {
private xyzHook: (XyzHookContextI) | undefined
public setHookAccessor (xyzHook: XyzHookContextI): void {
this.xyzHook = xyzHook
}
executeHook (): void {
const hookResult = this.xyzHook?.specificHookFunction()
...
}
}
export const Whatever = new WhateverClass() // singleton
Your hook (or your wrapper for an external Hook)
export interface XyzHookContextI {
specificHookFunction: () => Promise<string>
}
const XyzHookContext = createContext<XyzHookContextI>(undefined as any)
export function useXyzHook (): XyzHookContextI {
return useContext(XyzHookContextI)
}
export function XyzHook (props: PropsWithChildren<{}>): JSX.Element | null {
async function specificHookFunction (): Promise<void> {
...
}
const context: XyzHookContextI = {
specificHookFunction
}
// and here comes the magic in wiring that hook up with the non function component context via callback
Whatever.setHookAccessor(context)
return (
< XyzHookContext.Provider value={context}>
{props.children}
</XyzHookContext.Provider>
)
}
Voila, now you can use ANY react code (via hook) from any other context (class components, vanilla-js, …)!
(…hope I didn't make to many name change mistakes :P)

Yes, but not directly.
Try react-iifc, more details in its readme.
https://github.com/EnixCoda/react-iifc

Try with-component-hooks:
https://github.com/bplok20010/with-component-hooks
import withComponentHooks from 'with-component-hooks';
class MyComponent extends React.Component {
render(){
const props = this.props;
const [counter, set] = React.useState(0);
//TODO...
}
}
export default withComponentHooks(MyComponent)
2.Try react-iifc： https://github.com/EnixCoda/react-iifc

What's the purpose of using classes in React?

I mostly see JavaScript use classes as a constructor as following:
class Rectangle {
constructor(height, width) {
this.height = height;
this.width = width;
}
// Getter
get area() {
return this.calcArea();
}
// Method
calcArea() {
return this.height * this.width;
}
}
What's the reason React uses classes without using the contructor() function, such as following? I don't see classes being used to create instances.
class App extends Component {
render() {
return (
<div className="app-content">
</div>
)
}
}

Right now you should use classes in React if you need to use "advanced" component lifecycle methods like shouldComponentUpdate() or such.
Previously class components were used to handle local state in them. Right now we have Hooks API which allows to use state in a more elegant way and without need of class components.
If you want more details, you can read the article by Dan Abramov: How Are Function Components Different from Classes?.
Regardless your example, you're right, this code:
class App extends Component {
render() {
return (
<div className="app-content">
</div>
)
}
}
can be written as:
function App() {
return <div className="app-content"></div>
}

What's the reason React uses classes without using the contructor() function
From the JavaScript class doc:
If you do not specify a constructor method, a default constructor is used.
So a constructor exists for every class whether a constructor method is specified or not.
I don't see classes being used to create instances.
React components implemented as classes get instantiated by React as part of the rendering process.
Specifically, in the new React Fiber creating an instance of a React class component happens on this line of the source code.
But yes, #vicondin is right that the simple component from the question can be implemented as a function component, that class components used to be the only way to maintain state, implement lifecycle methods, etc., and that the new Hooks makes it possible to...
use state and other React features without writing a class.

In React, state is used in a React class component. There you can set initial state in the constructor of the class, but also access and update it with this.state and this.setState, because you have access to the class instance by using the this object.
If you use class in React component, even without using constructor() you can set initial state like below:
class App extends Component {
state = {
hello: 'Hello'
};
onClickHello = value => {
this.setState({ hello: 'Why did you clicked?' });
};
render() {
return (
<div className="app-content" onClick={this.onClickHello}>
{this.state.hello}
</div>
)
}
}
Another advantage is you can make use of all the React lifecycle methods
Update: After React16, you can use the lifecycle events even in function components using react hooks

Also biggest reason is the handling of state and lifecycle(componendDidMount ..etc) , class can do everything functions can , but at the cost of readability and statelessness . But in the most cases I rarely use classes only if I need a complex parent component with lifecycle

I can't understand why components with 'connect()' are stateful in react

My question is just same as the title.
Let's say I wrote the following code.
class TODOList extends Component {
render() {
const {todos, onClick} = this.props;
return (
<ul>
{todos.map(todo =>
<Todo
key={todo.id}
onClick={onClick}
{...todo}
/>
)}
</ul>
);
}
}
const mapStateToProps = (state) => {
return {
todos: state.todos
}
}
const mapDispatchToProps = (dispatch) => {
return {
onClick(data){
dispatch(complete(data))
}
}
}
export default connect(mapStateToProps,mapDispatchToProps)(TODOList);
Now, after the last line, this code will export the TODOList component with the state as props. It's not that it contains state, but just received state and will have them as 'props', just like the method name 'mapStateToProps' explains.
In the medium post(https://medium.com/#dan_abramov/smart-and-dumb-components-7ca2f9a7c7d0) written by Dan Abramov, container component handles data as state, and presentational property do as props. Isn't it a presentational component that deals with data as props? I'm stuck with the idea that the right container should be one like below.
class CommentList extends React.Component {
this.state = { comments: [] };
componentDidMount() {
fetchSomeComments(comments =>
this.setState({ comments: comments }));
}
render() {
return (
<ul>
{this.state.comments.map(c => (
<li>{c.body}—{c.author}</li>
))}
</ul>
);
}
}
I'm not sure why react-redux named the API 'mapStateToProps', when I tried to make 'stateful'(not handling data by property) container component

First of all these guidelines are not part of the bible
you should write code that is easy to reason about for YOU and your TEAM.
I think you are missing something, A redux Container is different than a react Container.
I mean, connect will create the container for you, it doesn't mean the wraped component is a Container.
Basically you can export both versions from the same file, the Container (connected version) and the presentation version (the none connected one).
Another thing that usually throw people off, is the name of the function and argument of mapStateToProps.
I prefer the name mapStoreToProps as in
map the redux store to the component's props.
the name state can be confusing when we are in the context of react.
Edit
As a followup to your comment:
I totally didn't know these two are actually different. Could you please tell me about more details
They are different in the way that connect is creating a "Container" for you.
connect is a High Order Component that creates the Container Component for us with all the subscription logic + functions to pass portions of the store and action-creators to its children as props (mapStateToProps & mapDispatchToProps).
A "normal" Container is usually refers to a component that you write by hand, its often doesn't deal with how things should look but instead deal with certain logic of the app.
As for the other comments like
The connect HoC of react-redux just injects the properties you can request into your component. It returns a new component that is wrapped around your component so that it can update your component whenever the state you're interested in the redux store is modified
As i mentioned above, this is partially true. It's not just injecting the properties into our component, its subscribing to the store, grabbing it from the Provider (via context) and its doing all these with optimizations in mind, so we won't have to do it by ourselves.
I'm not sure how mapStateToProps can confuse someone. We are talking about a state management library
I've seen some devs that misunderstood this because react has a state and redux has a store (at least that's how it was called in most of the tutorials and documentations).
this can be confusing to some people that are new to either react or redux.
Edit 2
It was a bit confusing due to the sentence 'it doesn't mean the wraped component is a Container.' Why is the wrapped component not a container? Isn't a component created by connect also a container?
I mean that the wrapped component that you wrote doesn't have to be a Container.
You can connect a "Presentation" component:
const Link = ({ active, children, onClick }) => {
if (active) {
return <span>{children}</span>
}
return (
<a
href=""
onClick={e => {
e.preventDefault()
onClick()
}}
>
{children}
</a>
)
}
// ...
export default connect(mapState, mapDispatch)(Link)

mapStateToProps will be called when store data changes. It will pass the returned object as new props for the component. This will not affect the component's state. If you'd like to set a new state after the component got its new props you need to use another lifecycle method: static getDerivedStateFromProps (in earlier versions of react componentWillRecieveProps). The object returned by static getDerivedStateFromProps will be your new state.
https://reactjs.org/docs/state-and-lifecycle.html#adding-lifecycle-methods-to-a-class
connect() will connect your component to the redux store. Withouth the connect function (of course) your mapStateToProps will not work.
I'm not sure why react-redux named the API 'mapStateToProps'
We are talking about the store's state :)

The high level purpose is to seamlessly integrate Redux's state management into the React application. Redux revolves around the store where all the state exists. There is no way to directly modify the store except through reducers whom receive actions from action creators and for that to happen we need for an action to be dispatched from the action creator.
The connect() function directly connects our components to the Redux store by taking the state in the Redux store and mapping it into a prop.
This is power of Redux and its why we use it.
Lets say you are building a component called LaundryList and you want it to render a laundry list. After you have wired up the Provider in your "parent" component, I put it in quotes because technically Provider is a component so it becomes the parent.
You can then import the connect() function from react-redux, pass it mapStateToProps in order to get that laundry list from the Redux store into your LaundryList component.
Now that you have your list of linens inside of the LaundryList component you can start to focus on building a list of elements out of them like so:
class LaundryList extends Component {
render() {
console.log(this.props.linens);
return <div>LaundryList</div>;
}
}
That contains the list of linens object and for every list of linens inside of there we are going to return some jsx that is going to represent that linen on my list.
Back inside my laundry list component I will add a helper method inside the laundry list component called render list like so:
class LaundryList extends Component {
renderList() {
}
render() {
return <div>LaundryList</div>;
}
}
So this purpose of this helper method is to take the list of linens, map over them and return a big blob of jsx like so:
class LaundryList extends Component {
renderList() {
return this.props.linens.map((linen) => {
return (
);
});
}
render() {
return <div>LaundryList</div>;
}
}

State management in React component when the business logic is outside of the component

there! The App component is a container for three different components:
Map renders a map with visual marks on it representing addresses the user has provide.
List component contains all added addresses as list items.
Input allows a user to add a new address (in my terms that is called LocationPoint).
Right now, the App keeps locations array in state with all those addresses (LocationPoints) and passes that array into all child components.
Manipulations with LocationPoints (add/move/update/deleteLocationPoint) are taken out to separate function as they are quite generic and may be reused somewhere else later.
But because those functions do not know about state existence I have to create some kind of "provider" functions that calls those actions (addLocationPoint, deleteLocationPoint, etc). E.g. addLocationPoint func has to be called inside App.addLocationPoint.
The following example should explain what I was talking about better. Note: snippet doesn't work as it's not a real implementation.
// Adds a new location point
const addLocactionPoint = (locations: array, address: string) => {
// ...
return updatedLocations;
}
class App extends React.Component {
constructor() {
this.state = {
locations: [],
}
// bind addLocPoint, etc.
}
addLocPoint(address) {
this.setState(state => {
addLocactionPoint(state.locations, address);
});
}
// ...
render() {
return (
<Input onSubmit={ this.addLocPoint } />
<List
onDrag={ this.moveLocPoint }
onDelete={ this.deleteLocPoint }
/>
<Map data={ this.state.locations } />
);
}
}
Can my approach be considered as a good practice? Or there are other ways to reduce amount of logic in App component and to avoid creating those "providers" without using state management libs (MobX, Redux, etc). Maybe the case I consider is a right time to introduce a Redux or MobX?
I'll be really grateful for advice or recommendations or links to explore on this question.

It's already good enough, this is how global state is usually maintained in vanilla React with no state management libraries. Context API may additionally be used to pass the state to nested components.
The thing that can be changed is that functions that update the state can actually be extracted and used as setState higher-order updater functions:
const addLocationPoint = (address) => ({ location }) => {
// ...
return updatedLocations;
}
class App extends React.Component {
...
addLocPoint(address) {
this.setState(addLocationPoint(address));
}
...
A similar idea is used in Redux action creators.
In order for state updaters to provide real improvements, they have to be moved to another module. In this case they can be tested separately from a component that uses them and mocked with jest.mock in a component that uses them.

Understanding React-Redux and mapStateToProps()

I'm trying to understand the connect method of react-redux, and the functions it takes as parameters. In particular mapStateToProps().
The way I understand it, the return value of mapStateToProps will be an object derived from state (as it lives in the store), whose keys will be passed to your target component (the component connect is applied to) as props.
This means that the state as consumed by your target component can have a wildly different structure from the state as it is stored on your store.
Q: Is this OK?
Q: Is this expected?
Q: Is this an anti-pattern?

Yes, it is correct. Its just a helper function to have a simpler way to access your state properties
Imagine you have a posts key in your App state.posts
state.posts //
/*
{
currentPostId: "",
isFetching: false,
allPosts: {}
}
*/
And component Posts
By default connect()(Posts) will make all state props available for the connected Component
const Posts = ({posts}) => (
<div>
{/* access posts.isFetching, access posts.allPosts */}
</div>
)
Now when you map the state.posts to your component it gets a bit nicer
const Posts = ({isFetching, allPosts}) => (
<div>
{/* access isFetching, allPosts directly */}
</div>
)
connect(
state => state.posts
)(Posts)
mapDispatchToProps
normally you have to write dispatch(anActionCreator())
with bindActionCreators you can do it also more easily like
connect(
state => state.posts,
dispatch => bindActionCreators({fetchPosts, deletePost}, dispatch)
)(Posts)
Now you can use it in your Component
const Posts = ({isFetching, allPosts, fetchPosts, deletePost }) => (
<div>
<button onClick={() => fetchPosts()} />Fetch posts</button>
{/* access isFetching, allPosts directly */}
</div>
)
Update on actionCreators..
An example of an actionCreator: deletePost
const deletePostAction = (id) => ({
action: 'DELETE_POST',
payload: { id },
})
So, bindActionCreators will just take your actions, wrap them into dispatch call. (I didn't read the source code of redux, but the implementation might look something like this:
const bindActionCreators = (actions, dispatch) => {
return Object.keys(actions).reduce(actionsMap, actionNameInProps => {
actionsMap[actionNameInProps] = (...args) => dispatch(actions[actionNameInProps].call(null, ...args))
return actionsMap;
}, {})
}

Q: Is this ok?
A: yes
Q: Is this expected?
Yes, this is expected (if you are using react-redux).
Q: Is this an anti-pattern?
A: No, this is not an anti-pattern.
It's called "connecting" your component or "making it smart". It's by design.
It allows you to decouple your component from your state an additional time which increases the modularity of your code. It also allows you to simplify your component state as a subset of your application state which, in fact, helps you comply with the Redux pattern.
Think about it this way: a store is supposed to contain the entire state of your application.
For large applications, this could contain dozens of properties nested many layers deep.
You don't want to haul all that around on each call (expensive).
Without mapStateToProps or some analog thereof, you would be tempted to carve up your state another way to improve performance/simplify.

You got the first part right:
Yes mapStateToProps has the Store state as an argument/param (provided by react-redux::connect) and its used to link the component with certain part of the store state.
By linking I mean the object returned by mapStateToProps will be provided at construction time as props and any subsequent change will be available through componentWillReceiveProps.
If you know the Observer design pattern it's exactly that or small variation of it.
An example would help make things clearer:
import React, {
Component,
} from 'react-native';
class ItemsContainer extends Component {
constructor(props) {
super(props);
this.state = {
items: props.items, //provided by connect#mapStateToProps
filteredItems: this.filterItems(props.items, props.filters),
};
}
componentWillReceiveProps(nextProps) {
this.setState({
filteredItems: this.filterItems(this.state.items, nextProps.filters),
});
}
filterItems = (items, filters) => { /* return filtered list */ }
render() {
return (
<View>
// display the filtered items
</View>
);
}
}
module.exports = connect(
//mapStateToProps,
(state) => ({
items: state.App.Items.List,
filters: state.App.Items.Filters,
//the State.App & state.App.Items.List/Filters are reducers used as an example.
})
// mapDispatchToProps, that's another subject
)(ItemsContainer);
There can be another react component called itemsFilters that handle the display and persisting the filter state into Redux Store state, the Demo component is "listening" or "subscribed" to Redux Store state filters so whenever filters store state changes (with the help of filtersComponent) react-redux detect that there was a change and notify or "publish" all the listening/subscribed components by sending the changes to their componentWillReceiveProps which in this example will trigger a refilter of the items and refresh the display due to the fact that react state has changed.
Let me know if the example is confusing or not clear enough to provide a better explanation.
As for: This means that the state as consumed by your target component can have a wildly different structure from the state as it is stored on your store.
I didn't get the question, but just know that the react state (this.setState) is totally different from the Redux Store state!
The react state is used to handle the redraw and behavior of the react component. The react state is contained to the component exclusively.
The Redux Store state is a combination of Redux reducers states, each is responsible of managing a small portion app logic. Those reducers attributes can be accessed with the help of react-redux::connect#mapStateToProps by any component! Which make the Redux store state accessible app wide while component state is exclusive to itself.

This react & redux example is based off Mohamed Mellouki's example.
But validates using prettify and linting rules. Note that we define our props
and dispatch methods using PropTypes so that our compiler doesn't scream at us.
This example also included some lines of code that had been missing in Mohamed's
example. To use connect you will need to import it from react-redux. This
example also binds the method filterItems this will prevent scope problems in
the component. This source code has been auto formatted using JavaScript Prettify.
import React, { Component } from 'react-native';
import { connect } from 'react-redux';
import PropTypes from 'prop-types';
class ItemsContainer extends Component {
constructor(props) {
super(props);
const { items, filters } = props;
this.state = {
items,
filteredItems: filterItems(items, filters),
};
this.filterItems = this.filterItems.bind(this);
}
componentWillReceiveProps(nextProps) {
const { itmes } = this.state;
const { filters } = nextProps;
this.setState({ filteredItems: filterItems(items, filters) });
}
filterItems = (items, filters) => {
/* return filtered list */
};
render() {
return <View>/*display the filtered items */</View>;
}
}
/*
define dispatch methods in propTypes so that they are validated.
*/
ItemsContainer.propTypes = {
items: PropTypes.array.isRequired,
filters: PropTypes.array.isRequired,
onMyAction: PropTypes.func.isRequired,
};
/*
map state to props
*/
const mapStateToProps = state => ({
items: state.App.Items.List,
filters: state.App.Items.Filters,
});
/*
connect dispatch to props so that you can call the methods from the active props scope.
The defined method `onMyAction` can be called in the scope of the componets props.
*/
const mapDispatchToProps = dispatch => ({
onMyAction: value => {
dispatch(() => console.log(`${value}`));
},
});
/* clean way of setting up the connect. */
export default connect(mapStateToProps, mapDispatchToProps)(ItemsContainer);
This example code is a good template for a starting place for your component.

React-Redux connect is used to update store for every actions.
import { connect } from 'react-redux';
const AppContainer = connect(
mapStateToProps,
mapDispatchToProps
)(App);
export default AppContainer;
It's very simply and clearly explained in this blog.
You can clone github project or copy paste the code from that blog to understand the Redux connect.

It's a simple concept. Redux creates a ubiquitous state object (a store) from the actions in the reducers. Like a React component, this state doesn't have to be explicitly coded anywhere, but it helps developers to see a default state object in the reducer file to visualise what is happening. You import the reducer in the component to access the file. Then mapStateToProps selects only the key/value pairs in the store that its component needs. Think of it like Redux creating a global version of a React component's
this.state = ({
cats = [],
dogs = []
})
It is impossible to change the structure of the state by using mapStateToProps(). What you are doing is choosing only the store's key/value pairs that the component needs and passing in the values (from a list of key/values in the store) to the props (local keys) in your component. You do this one value at a time in a list. No structure changes can occur in the process.
P.S. The store is local state. Reducers usually also pass state along to the database with Action Creators getting into the mix, but understand this simple concept first for this specific posting.
P.P.S. It is good practice to separate the reducers into separate files for each one and only import the reducer that the component needs.

Here's an outline/boilerplate for describing the behavior of mapStateToProps:
(This is a vastly simplified implementation of what a Redux container does.)
class MyComponentContainer extends Component {
mapStateToProps(state) {
// this function is specific to this particular container
return state.foo.bar;
}
render() {
// This is how you get the current state from Redux,
// and would be identical, no mater what mapStateToProps does
const { state } = this.context.store.getState();
const props = this.mapStateToProps(state);
return <MyComponent {...this.props} {...props} />;
}
}
and next
function buildReduxContainer(ChildComponentClass, mapStateToProps) {
return class Container extends Component {
render() {
const { state } = this.context.store.getState();
const props = mapStateToProps(state);
return <ChildComponentClass {...this.props} {...props} />;
}
}
}

Yes, you can do this. You can also even process the state and return the object.
function mapStateToProps(state){
let completed = someFunction (state);
return {
completed : completed,
}
}
This would be useful if you want to shift the logic related to state from render function to outside of it.

I would like to re-structure the statement that you mentioned which is:
This means that the state as consumed by your target component can
have a wildly different structure from the state as it is stored on
your store
You can say that the state consumed by your target component has a small portion of the state that is stored on the redux store. In other words, the state consumed by your component would be the sub-set of the state of the redux store.
As far as understanding the connect() method is concerned, it's fairly simple! connect() method has the power to add new props to your component and even override existing props. It is through this connect method that we can access the state of the redux store as well which is thrown to us by the Provider. A combination of which works in your favor and you get to add the state of your redux store to the props of your component.
Above is some theory and I would suggest you look at this video once to understand the syntax better.

import React from 'react';
import {connect} from 'react-redux';
import Userlist from './Userlist';
class Userdetails extends React.Component{
render(){
return(
<div>
<p>Name : <span>{this.props.user.name}</span></p>
<p>ID : <span>{this.props.user.id}</span></p>
<p>Working : <span>{this.props.user.Working}</span></p>
<p>Age : <span>{this.props.user.age}</span></p>
</div>
);
}
}
function mapStateToProps(state){
return {
user:state.activeUser
}
}
export default connect(mapStateToProps, null)(Userdetails);