We Keep Coding

Problems achieving required result of using the spread (...) operator with state object

I have a pimRegistration state initialization as shown in the chrome redux-devtools screen capture below. The nesting being referenced is pimRegistration (state.domain.patient):
I updated the patient.name object with the following spread operator statement:
store.update((state) => ({
...state,
...patientPath,
...{ [property]: value },
}));
...where property is the "name" property of the patient object with value. After the update, the following screenshot shows the new state:
Note that the original patient object (purple in the screenshot) is updated with the name object, duplicated and placed at the root of the state (yellow in screenshot).
I would like to overwrite the properties of the pimRegistration(state).domain.patient object, not to create a new patient object.
The state update is called as shown below.
store.update((state) => ({
...state,
...patientPath, // state.domain.patient
...{ [property]: value },
}));
I have tried my different combinations without achieving the desired result.
The complete update function is shown below.
update(property: string, path: string, value: any) {
const paths: string[] = path.split(".");
const pathReducer = (state: IRegistrationState, path_: string) => {
if (paths.length <= 0) {
return state.domain;
}
return state[path_];
};
const domainPath = state.domain;
let patientPath, nokPath, referrerPath;
if (path.includes("patient")) {
patientPath = paths.reduce(pathReducer, state);
}
if (path.includes("nok")) {
nokPath = paths.reduce(pathReducer, state);
}
if (path.includes("referrer")) {
referrerPath = paths.reduce(pathReducer, state);
}
store.update((state) => ({
...state,
...patientPath,
...{ [property]: value },
}));
}
The function above is invoked with the following statement in Angular 2.
if (this.path.includes("patient")) {
this._repo.update("name", "domain.patient", this.name);
}
Thanks

Deep updates to a store can be tricky. In your function you seem to be spreading the updates at the root rather than at the level you want the update at. This answer here outlines the usual practice to update the state. In short, something like
const newState = {
...state,
domain: {
...state.domain,
patient: {
...state.domain.patient,
[property]: value
}
}
}
Dynamically passing a path and updating this state can be… cumbersome. There are libraries that can help you do it such as immer, but you can possibly hack your way around with normal JS/TS.

Testing React Components setState overload which takes a function

I am trying to test a React component which uses one of the overloads for setState, but am unsure how to assert the call correctly. An example component would be:
class CounterComponent extends React.Component {
updateCounter() {
this.setState((state) => {
return {
counterValue: state.counterValue + 1
};
});
}
}
The assumption here is that this method will be called asyncronously, so cannot rely on the current state, outwith the call to setState (as it may change before setState executes). Can anyone suggest how you would assert this call? The following test fails as it is simply comparing the function names.
it("Should call setState with the expected parameters", () => {
const component = new CounterComponent();
component.setState = jest.fn(() => {});
component.state = { counterValue: 10 };
component.updateCounter();
const anonymous = (state) => {
return {
counterValue: state.counterValue + 1
};
};
//expect(component.setState).toHaveBeenCalledWith({ counterValue: 11 });
expect(component.setState).toHaveBeenCalledWith(anonymous);
});
Edit: Given yohai's response below, i will add some further context as I feel i may have over simplified the problem however i do not want to re-write the entire question for clarity.
In my actual component, the state value being edited is not a simple number, it is an array of objects with the structure:
{ isSaving: false, hasError: false, errorMessage: ''}
and a few other properties. When the user clicks save, an async action is fired for each item in the array, and then the corresponding entry is updated when that action returns or is rejected. As an example, the save method would look like this:
onSave() {
const { myItems } = this.state;
myItems.forEach(item => {
api.DoStuff(item)
.then(response => this.handleSuccess(response, item))
.catch(error => this.handleError(error, item));
});
}
The handle success and error methods just update the object and call replaceItem:
handleSuccess(response, item) {
const updated = Object.assign({}, item, { hasSaved: true });
this.replaceItem(updated);
}
handleError(error, item) {
const updated = Object.assign({}, item, { hasError: true });
this.replaceItem(updated);
}
And replaceItem then replaces the item in the array:
replaceItem(updatedItem) {
this.setState((state) => {
const { myItems } = state;
const working = [...myItems];
const itemToReplace = working.find(x => x.id == updatedItem.id);
if (itemToReplace) {
working.splice(working.indexOf(itemToReplace), 1, updatedItem);
};
return {
myItems: working
};
});
}
replaceItem is the method I am trying to test, and am trying to validate that it calls setState with the correct overload and a function which correctly updated the state.
My answer below details how I have solved this for myself,but comments and answers are welcome =)
#Vallerii: Testing the resulting state does seem a simpler way, however if i do, there is no way for the test to know that the method is not doing this:
replaceItem(updatedItem) {
const { myItems } = state;
const working = [...myItems];
const itemToReplace = working.find(x => x.id == updatedItem.id);
if (itemToReplace) {
working.splice(working.indexOf(itemToReplace), 1, updatedItem);
};
this.setState({ myItems: working });
}
When replaceItem does not use the correct overload for setState, this code fails when called repeatedly as (I assume) react is batching updates and the state this version uses is stale.

I think you should test something a little bit different and it will look somthing like this (I'm using enzyme):
import React from 'react'
import { mount } from 'enzyme'
import CounterComponent from './CounterComponent'
it("Should increase state by one", () => {
const component = mount(<CounterComponent />)
const counter = 10;
component.setState({ counter });
component.instance().updateCounter();
expect(component.state().counter).toEqual(counter + 1);
});

I have come up with a solution to this after some further thought. I am not sure it is the best solution, but given that the updateCounter method in the example above passes a function into the setState call, I can simply get a reference to that function, execute it with a known state and check the return value is correct.
The resulting test looks like this:
it("Should call setState with the expected parameters", () => {
let updateStateFunction = null;
const component = new CounterComponent();
component.setState = jest.fn((func) => { updateStateFunction = func;});
component.updateCounter();
const originalState = { counterValue: 10 };
const expectedState = { counterValue: 11};
expect(component.setState).toHaveBeenCalled();
expect(updateStateFunction(originalState)).toEqual(expectedState);
});

ReactJS - how do I update nested and "normal" state properties?

This is how my state looks like:
constructor(props, context) {
super(props, context);
this.state = {
show: false,
btnLabel: 'GO!',
car: {
owner: false,
manufacturer: false,
color: false
}
};
}
and this is how I modify state:
handleClickFetchPrice() {
this.setState({btnLabel: 'Fetching data...' });
console.log(this.state.fetchPriceBtn);
const url = 'some url';
axios.get(url)
.then(res => {
let car = [...this.state.car];
car.owner = res.data.owner;
car.manufacturer = res.data.manufacturer;
car.color = res.data.color;
this.setState({car});
})
}
The attribute car is updated, but fetchPriceBtn is not - the output of console.log(this.state.fetchPriceBtn); is still GO!.
What am I overlooking? Why the fetchPriceBtn is not updated?

React setState is an asynchronous process - you don't know exactly when it will be updated, you can only schedule the update.
To achieve your desired functionality, you can provide a callback into the setState method.
this.setState({ btnLabel: 'Fetching data...' }, () => console.log(this.state.fetchPriceBtn))
You can learn more following the documentation on the method.

#christopher is right, setState is an asynchronous process. But when second time call handleClickFetchPrice() function your btnLabel is value will be equal to Fetching data...

As answered in previous answers setState is asynchronous, so your console.log can't catch up the state change immediately. Again as suggested you can use callback function to track this change but if you use console.log just for debugging or want to see what changes in your state you can do this in your render function. And using a callback just for debug is not a nice way. Its purpose somehow different and if you check the official documentation, componentDidMount method is being suggested for such logic.
render() {
console.log( this.state.foo );
return (...)
}
If you do that you see two console.log output, one before state change and one after.
Also, your state operations might be enhanced. You car property is not an array, but you are converting it to an array and setting it? Is this what you intend:
axios.get(url)
.then(res => {
const { owner, manufacturer, color } = res.data;
this.setState( prevState => ( { car: { ...prevState.car, owner, manufacturer, color } } ) );
})
Here we are not mutating our state directly, instead we are using spread operator and setting the desired properties. For your example we are setting the whole property actually.
One last note, I think you want to do that something like that:
this.setState( { btnLabel: "fetching } );
axios.get(url)
.then(res => {
const { owner, manufacturer, color } = res.data;
this.setState( prevState => ( { car: { ...prevState.car, owner, manufacturer, color }, btnLabel: "go" } ) );
})
If your intention is somehow to do a status change/check this might no be a good logic as you have seen setState is not synchronous. Do this carefully.

React - updating an object array in the state with setState

I'm working on a table planner app where guests can be assigned to dinner tables.
I have created an object array in the state called tabledata, which will contain objects like so:
this.state = {
tabledata: [
{
name: "Top Table",
guests: ["guest1", "guest2", "guest3"]
},
{
name: "Table One",
guests: ["guest3", "guest4", "guest5"]
}
]
}
I am then creating a drag and drop interface where guests can move between tables. I have attempted to update the state like so:
updateTableList (tablename, guest) {
const selectedTableObj = this.state.tabledata.filter((tableObj) => tableObj.name === tablename);
const otherTableObjs = this.state.tabledata.filter((tableObj) => tableObj.name !== tablename);
selectedTableObj[0].guests.push(guest);
const updatedObjectArray = [...otherTableObjs, selectedTableObj];
this.setState({
tabledata: [...otherTableObjs, ...selectedTableObj]
});
}
This works but because I am removing selectedTableObj from the state and then adding it to the end of the array I'm getting some funky results on screen. The updated table always goes to the bottom of the page (as you'd expect).
How can I update the object without changing its position within the array?

Find the index of the table you want to update using Array.findIndex(). Create a new tabledata array. Use Array.slice() to get the items before and after the updated table, and spread them into the new tabledata array. Create a new table object using object spread, add the updated guests array, and add the table object between the previous items:
Code (not tested):
updateTableList(tablename, guest) {
this.setState((prevState) => {
const tableData = prevState.tabledata;
const selectedTableIndex = tableData.findIndex((tableObj) => tableObj.name === tablename);
const updatedTable = tableData[selectedTableIndex];
return {
tabledata: [
...prevState.tabledata.slice(0, selectedTableIndex),
{
...updatedTable,
guests: [...updatedTable.guests, guest]
},
...prevState.tabledata.slice(selectedTableIndex + 1)
]
};
});
}

selectedTableObj[0].guests.push(guest) directly mutates the state which is not encouraged in React.
Try this:
this.setState((prevState) => {
const newData = [...prevState.tabledata];
// if you pass in `index` as argument instead of `tablename` then this will not be needed
const index = prevState.tabledata.findIndex(table => tableObj.name === tablename);
newData[index] = {
...newData[index],
guests: newData[index].guests.concat([guest]),
};
return { tabledata: newData };
});
You also did not remove the guest from its previous table so you need to modify for that.

You can do it with a Array.reduce
let newState = this.state
// let newState = {...this.state} // in case you want everything immutable
newState.tableData = newState.tableData.reduce((acc, table) =>
if(table.name === tableName) {
return acc.concat({...table, guests: table.guests.concat(newGuest)})
} else {
return acc.concat(table)
}
)

How do you use `reselect` to memoize an array?

Suppose I have a redux store with this state structure:
{
items: {
"id1" : {
foo: "foo1",
bar: "bar1"
},
"id2": {
foo: "foo2",
bar: "bar2"
}
}
}
This store evolves by receiving full new values of items:
const reduceItems = function(items = {}, action) {
if (action.type === 'RECEIVE_ITEM') {
return {
...items,
[action.payload.id]: action.payload,
};
}
return items;
};
I want to display a Root view that renders a list of SubItem views, that only extract a part of the state.
For example the SubItem view only cares about the foos, and should get it:
function SubItem({ id, foo }) {
return <div key={id}>{foo}</div>
}
Since I only care about "subpart" of the states, that's what I want to pass to a "dumb" Root view:
const Root = function({ subitems }) {
// subitems[0] => { id: 'id1', foo: "foo1" }
// subitems[1] => { id; 'id2', foo : "foo2" }
const children = subitems.map(SubItem);
return <div>{children}</div>;
};
I can easily connect this component to subscribe to changes in the state:
function mapStatesToProps(state) {
return {
subitems: xxxSelectSubItems(state)
}
}
return connect(mapStatesToProps)(Root)
My fundamental problem is what happens when the part of the state that I don't care about (bar) changes.
Or even, when I receive a new value of an item, where neither foo nor bar has changed:
setInterval(() => {
store.dispatch({
type: 'RECEIVE_ITEM',
payload: {
id: 'id1',
foo: 'foo1',
bar: 'bar1',
},
});
}, 1000);
If I use the "naive" selector implementation:
// naive version
function toSubItem(id, item) {
const foo = item.foo;
return { id, foo };
}
function dumbSelectSubItems(state) {
const ids = Object.keys(state.items);
return ids.map(id => {
const item = state.items[id];
return toSubItem(id, item);
});
}
Then the list is a completely new object at every called, and my component gets rendered everytime, for nothing.
Of course, if I use a 'constant' selector, that always return the same list, since the connected component is pure, it is re-renderered (but that's just to illustrate connected components are pure):
// fully pure implementation
const SUBITEMS = [
{
id: 'id0',
foo: 'foo0',
},
];
function constSelectSubItems(state) {
return SUBITEMS;
}
Now this gets a bit tricky if I use an "almostConst" version where the List changes, but contains the same element.
const SUBITEM = {
id: 'id0',
foo: 'foo0',
};
function almostConstSelectSubItems(state) {
return [SUBITEM];
}
Now, predictably, since the list is different, even though the item inside is the same, the component gets rerendered every second.
This is where I though 'reselect' could help, but I'm wondering if I am not missing the point entirely. I can get reselect to behave using this:
const reselectSelectIds = (state, props) => Object.keys(state.items);
const reselectSelectItems = (state, props) => state.items;
const reselectSelectSubItems = createSelector([reSelectIds, reSelectItems], (ids, items) => {
return ids.map(id => toSubItem(id, items));
});
But then it behaves exactly like the naive version.
So:
is it pointless to try to memoize an array ?
can reselect handle this ?
should I change the organisation of the state ?
should I just implement shouldComponentUpdate on the Root, using a "deepEqual" test ?
should I give up on Root being a connected component, and make each LeafItems be connected components themselves ?
could immutable.js help ?
is it actually not an issue, because React is smart and will not repaint anything once the virtual-dom is computed ?
It's possible what I'm trying to do his meaningless, and hides an issue in my redux store, so feel free to state obvious errors.

You're definitely right about the new array references causing re-renders, and sort of on the right track with your selectors, but you do need to change your approach some.
Rather than having a selector that immediately returns Object.keys(state.item), you need to deal with the object itself:
const selectItems = state => state.items;
const selectSubItems = createSelector(
selectItems,
(items) => {
const ids = Object.keys(items);
return ids.map(id => toSubItem(id, items));
}
);
That way, the array will only get recalculated when the state.items object is replaced.
Beyond that, yes, you may also want to look at connecting your individual list item components so that each one looks up its own data by ID. See my blog post Practical Redux, Part 6: Connected Lists, Forms, and Performance for examples. I also have a bunch of related articles in the Redux Techniques#Selectors and Normalization and Performance#Redux Performance sections of my React/Redux links list.