We Keep Coding

Unwanted state changes in a class component with React

Long story short, I have a class component that constructs a poll. Before sending the data to the server I need to transform it a little so it fits the API request. I created a transformData method on my class component that transforms the data derived from the state. As a side effect it sets the data in separate this.state.data property so I can attach it with the API request. The problem is that the method mutates the other properties of the state.
transformData = () => {
const { title, sections } = this.state
const transformedSections = sections.map(section => {
delete section.isOpen
const transformedQuestions = section.questions.map(question => {
question.label = question.question
question.type = toUpper(question.type)
delete question.question
return question
})
section.questions = {
create: transformedQuestions,
}
return section
})
this.setState({
data: {
title,
sections: { create: transformedSections },
},
})
}
So I get this:
state: {
data: {...} //our transformed data
sections: {...} //transformed as well!!
}
instead of getting this:
state: {
data: {...} //our transformed data
sections: {...} //same before calling the method
I re-wrote the method with different approach — basically replaced all Array.map with Array.forEach and it worked as expected.
transformData = () => {
const { title, sections } = this.state
const transformedSections = []
sections.forEach(section => {
const transformedQuestions = []
section.questions.forEach(question => {
transformedQuestions.push({
label: question.question,
type: toUpper(question.type),
max: question.max,
min: question.min,
instruction: question.instruction,
isRequired: question.isRequired,
placeholder: question.placeholder,
})
})
transformedSections.push({
title: section.title,
questions: { create: transformedQuestions },
})
})
this.setState({
data: {
title,
sections: { create: transformedSections },
},
})
Can anyone explain what's going on here? How can I accidentally mutate a state property without explicitly calling this.setState on the aforementioned property? The thing is that the originally written method mutates the state even if I return the data object without calling this.setState whatsoever. Like so:
//This still mutates the state
return {
data: {
title,
sections: { create: transformedSections },
}
}
//without this!
//this.setState({
// data: {
// title,
// sections: { create: transformedSections },
// },
// })
Thanks!

javascript behave like this way,
its called variable referencing.
it works like pointer variable in C.
if your console those variable such as console.log(var1 == var2) it will show true cuz both references from same memory location
if you want to prevent mutate original variable then you have to create another brand new variable to mutate
like this way :
const { title, sections } = this.state
// create new variable following old one (spreading es6 way)
const tempSections = [...sections]
...
also
sections.forEach(section => {
const transformedQuestions = []
const tempQuestions = [...section.questions]
tempQuestions.forEach(question => {
...
always have to create a brand new variable of object/array/... to prevent auto mutation
for further info here

Issue here is of Shallow Copying :
console.log("---- before map -----" , this.state);
const { title, sections } = this.state
// sections is another object, and via map you are mutating inner objects
// beacuse of the shallow Copying
const transformedSections = sections.map(section => {
// any change on section object will direct mutate state
delete section.isOpen //<--- Here you are mutating state
return section
})
// state is muate already
console.log("---- After map -----" , this.state);
You can run the below code snippet and check both console.log, and check for "isOpen": true
Hope this will clear all your doubts :
const { useState , useEffect } = React;
class App extends React.Component {
state = {
title : "questions" ,
sections : [{
isOpen : true ,
questions : ["que1" , "que2" , "que3"]
}]
}
transfromData = () => {
console.log("---- before map -----" , this.state);
const { title, sections } = this.state
// sections is another object, and via map you are mutating inner objects
// beacuse of the shallow Copying
const transformedSections = sections.map(section => {
// any change on section object will direct mutate state
delete section.isOpen //<--- Here you are mutating state
return section
})
console.log("---- After map -----" , this.state);
}
render() {
return (
<div>
<button onClick={this.transfromData}>transfromData</button>
</div>
);
}
}
ReactDOM.render(<App />, document.getElementById('react-root'));
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/react/16.8.4/umd/react.production.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/react-dom/16.8.4/umd/react-dom.production.min.js"></script>
<div id="react-root"></div>

You should never update the state without using the setState method. It is asyncronous, and if you don't set it properly you never know what might happen - and that's what you're seeing in the first part of your answer. See the docs
By doing
section.questions = {
create: transformedQuestions,
}
you are improperly altering the state, so you'll see this.state.sections transformed as well, because each element inside this.state.sections has now an attribute questions that contains create with the value transformedQuestions

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);
});

How is React updating his state?

I have a question concerning React and how state must be updated.
Let's say we have a class Players containing in its state an array of objects called players. We want to update one player in this array. I would have done it this way:
class Players extends Component {
state = {
players: []
}
updatePlayer = id => {
const players = this.state.players.map(player => {
player.updated = player.id === id ? true:false;
return player
});
this.setState({players: players});
}
}
But my coworker just did it this way, and it's also working:
updatePlayer = id => {
const playerObj = this.state.players.find(item => {
return item.id === id
})
if (playerObj) {
playerObj.updated = true
this.setState({ playerObj })
}
}
React's function setState update the players array without telling explicitly to do it. So, I have two questions:
Is it using a reference from the find function, and using it to update the players arrays ?
Is one of those ways recommended ?
Thank you all for your explanations !

The difference is that second snippet misuses setState to trigger an update because it uses playerObj dummy property. This could be achieved with forceUpdate.
Neither of these ways are correct. Immutable state is promoted in React as a convention. Mutating existing state may result in incorrect behaviour in components that expect a state to be immutable. They mutate existing player object, and new player.update value will be used everywhere where this object is used, even if this is undesirable.
An idiomatic way to do this is to use immutable objects in state:
updatePlayer = id => {
this.setState(({ players }) => ({
players: players.map(player => ({
...player,
updated: player.id === id
}));
});
}
Notice that setState is asynchronous, updater function has to be used to avoid possible race conditions.

Yes, all it's using a reference. All javascript objects are references so whenever you do a find you get a reference to the object, so mutating it will update it.
const players = this.state.players.map(player => {
return { ...player, updated: player.id === id };
});
this.setState({players: players});
As for the recommended way, you should stick with yours where you explicitly update the state variable that you care about.

Both of them are not correct, because you are mutating state.
The best way is a create a deep copy of this array ( just clone ) and after that make some changes with this cloned array
You can also use lodash _.cloneDeep();
For example
class Example extends React.Component {
state = {
players: [
{id: 0, name: 'John'};
]
};
updatePlayer = id => {
const { players } = this.state;
const clonePlayers = players.map(a => ({...a}));
const player = clonePlayers.find(playerId => playerId === id);
player.name = 'Jack';
this.setState(() => ({
players: clonePlayers
}));
}
render() {
return (
<div>some</div>
);
}
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/react/16.6.3/umd/react.production.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/react-dom/16.6.3/umd/react-dom.production.min.js"></script>

well, basically they are not the same, your coworkers code is working just because he is using an old reference of the object. so, lets take a look:
updatePlayer = id => {
const players = this.state.players.map(player => {
player.updated = player.id === id ? true:false;
return player
});
this.setState({players: players});
}
on your function, you are creating a new array using your old array, which is the correct way of doing this.
updatePlayer = id => {
const playerObj = this.state.players.find(item => {
return item.id === id
})
if (playerObj) {
playerObj.updated = true
this.setState({ playerObj })
}
}
here your friend is editing the reference of the object that he got using find and then saving a playerObj which is nothing more than the reference of a player from the array that you wanted to edit. after this you should notice that the new state will be something like
this.state = {
players: [p1, p2 ,p3, p4], // each p is a player.
//notice that playerObj is now a reference to some of the P on the players array
playerObj: {
...playerstuff,
updated: true
}
}
hope it helps :)

React class component methods: is my code imperative?

I'm new to react and as well to the terms of functional, imperative, declarative. And I get to know that pure function is easy to test. I am self taught to program with Javascript. So far, it is working but my goal is to learn to write clean and maintainable code.
my question is the method addProductToSaleList below is bad and untestable because it is imperative? and how can I do it differently.
class SaleComponent extends React.Component {
addProductToSaleList = (values, dispatch, props) => {
//filter product from productList
const productFound = props.productList.filter(product => {
if (values.productCode === product.code.toString()) {
return product
}
return undefined
})[0]
if (productFound) {
// filter sale list to check if there is already product in the list.
const detailFound = props.saleItem.details.filter(detail => {
if (productFound.name === detail.product) {
return detail
}
return undefined
})[0]
// if it is exist just increment the qty
if (detailFound) {
const { sub_total, ...rest } = detailFound
props.dispatcher('UPDATE_SALEDETAIL_ASYNC', {
...rest,
qty: parseInt(detailFound.qty, 10) + 1
})
// if it is not exist add new one
} else {
props.dispatcher('ADD_SALEDETAIL_ASYNC', {
product: productFound.id,
price: productFound.price,
qty: 1
})
}
} else {
alert('The product code you add is not exist in product list');
}
}
render() {
// Render saleList
}
}

I belive this question should go to Code Review, but I will give it a shot. Part of the code can be improved
const productFound = props.productList.filter(product => {
if (values.productCode === product.code.toString()) {
return product
}
return undefined
})[0]
First, filter function receives a callback and for each item that callback will be executed. If the callback returns a value interpreted as true, it will return the item in the new array the function will build. Otherwise, it will skip that item. Assuming you're trying to find one item in the code, you could use the function find which will return you that element directly (no need for [0]), or undefined if that item is not found. So your code could be rewrite to
const productFound = props.productList.find(product => values.productCode === product.code.toString());
Note: No IE support.
Then, if the value was not found, you could just alert and do an early return. (You might also want to handle errors differently, with a better format than plain alert).
The code would look like
if (!productFound) {
alert('The product code you add is not exist in product list');
return;
}
// rest of the function
in order to find details, you can use find method as well
const detailFound = props.saleItem.details.find(detail => productFound.name === detail.product);
and then just call the rest of the code
// if it is exist just increment the qty
if (detailFound) {
const { sub_total, ...rest } = detailFound
props.dispatcher('UPDATE_SALEDETAIL_ASYNC', {
...rest,
qty: parseInt(detailFound.qty, 10) + 1
})
// if it is not exist add new one
} else {
props.dispatcher('ADD_SALEDETAIL_ASYNC', {
product: productFound.id,
price: productFound.price,
qty: 1
})
}
Another improvement:
You're receiving a dispatch function as a parameter, but you're not using it. So you could remove it from function's declaration
(values, props) => { ... }
And you could split the last part into two different functions, something like
const getAction = details => `${detailFound ? 'UPDATE' : 'ADD'}_SALEDETAIL_ASYNC`;
const getObject = (details, productFound) => {
if (!details) {
return {
product: productFound.id,
price: productFound.price,
qty: 1
};
}
const { sub_total, ...rest } = detailFound;
return {
...rest,
qty: parseInt(detailFound.qty, 10) + 1
};
}
and then just call
props.dispatcher(getAction(details), getObject(details, productFound));
The end result would look like
addProductToSaleList = (values, props) => {
//filter product from productList
const productFound = props.productList.find(product => values.productCode === product.code.toString());
if (!productFound) {
alert('The product code you add is not exist in product list');
return;
}
// filter sale list to check if there is already product in the list.
const detailFound = props.saleItem.details.find(detail => productFound.name === detail.product);
const getAction = details => `${details ? 'UPDATE' : 'ADD'}_SALEDETAIL_ASYNC`;
const getObject = (details, productFound) => {
if (!details) {
return {
product: productFound.id,
price: productFound.price,
qty: 1
};
}
const { sub_total, ...rest } = details;
return {
...rest,
qty: parseInt(details.qty, 10) + 1
};
}
props.dispatcher(getAction(details), getObject(details, productFound));
}
my question is the method addProductToSaleList below is bad and
untestable because it is imperative
Well your code is testable, there are no external dependencies. So you could pass mocked values and props and add unit tests to that. That means, passing a fake values and props (they are just plain js object) and make assertions over that.
For instance:
You could mock dispatcher function and given the fake values in productList and saleItem.details you could see if dispatcher is called with the proper values. You should test different combinations of that
Mock alert function (Again, I would use another UI approach) and verify it is called, and that no other code is called (asserting that your fake dispatcher is not called). Something like this:
let actionToAssert;
let objectToAssert;
let values = { productCode: 'somecode' };
let props = {
productList: // your item listm with id and price, name, etc,
saleItem: {
details: // your details array here
}
dispatcher: (action, newObject) => {
actionToAssert = action;
objectToAssert = newObject;
}
}
addProductToSaleList(values, props); // make here assertions over actionToAssert and objectToAssert

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.