I am very new to React. On going through the React tutorial, I understand the need to lift the state to the parent component which ensures that the children components can stay in sync and can feed off the major chunk of data residing in the state of the parent. But then , with changing data, won't the setState in the parent fire off the re-rendering of all the children components, decreasing UI performance ? Without using flux or redux, which is the best way to position the state in a react application ?
When you change a component's state, it triggers a re-render for that component.
The re-render will create a new set of virtual elements (returned from the render function), which React uses to represent the new state of the DOM. However, unless there are differences between the virtual DOM and the real DOM, nothing will be changed.
The fact that React's virtual elements are simply lightweight object representations of actual HTML elements makes it fast enough that in most cases, you don't even need to think about the performance cost of calling render for child components.
If, however, you do find yourself with a child component that has a particularly expensive render function—you can prevent it from always re-rendering by implementing shouldComponentUpdate. This allows you to specify with fine grained control, which changes in props or state will actually trigger a component to update.
The other approach is to build a custom state management solution which explicitly ties your components together.
let state = { count: 0 };
let listenForState = null;
function ComponentA() {
let onClick = () => {
state.count += 1;
if (listenForState) listenForState(state);
};
return <button onClick={onClick}>+</button>;
}
class ComponentB extends React.Component {
constructor() {
super();
this.state = state;
}
componentWillMount() {
listenForState(state => this.setState(state));
}
render() {
return <span>{this.state.count}</span>;
}
}
However this quite quickly gets out of hand, and there aren't many situations where it would be better than just lifting state up to a shared parent.
If you find that your state driven child components are nested too deeply in the stateful parent, then it's time to look at Redux instead.
Yes, your mostly right. But you dont need to pass the state of the component to the children, you r passing only props, its not actually the same, because changing of props doesnt need to rerender your component.
There is amazing method in the component lifecycle, called shouldComponentUpdate, default its return true if only shallow equality of states objects are false (if refs are different - thats why mutate of state will not rerender component). And you can also implement this method by yourself, comparing your props to check if you need an update or not. There is a scheme how would it work.
And also, react will not rerender element if the virtual DOM was not changed. So this way you can rerender component if only his props is changed, but if you need to change props of its children - you must rerender current.
Basicly, because of these there is an advice to pull the state of application from top to the leafs component (which returns most of html). You can read about optimization more here.
And must to say :
Your code must become a spaghetti
If you will have a lot of components, which have a lot of events, based on state, so if you need some complex architecture, use Redux or some other global state manager.
If you are looking only for a State Management library, check Duix (https://www.npmjs.com/package/duix).
Redux solves a lot of problems (adding complexity). If you only want to improve the State Management, just take a look at Duix.
PS.: I created that library
Related
I understand that React tutorials and documentation warn in no uncertain terms that state should not be directly mutated and that everything should go through setState.
I would like to understand why, exactly, I can't just directly change state and then (in the same function) call this.setState({}) just to trigger the render.
E.g.: The below code seems to work just fine:
const React = require('react');
const App = React.createClass({
getInitialState: function() {
return {
some: {
rather: {
deeply: {
embedded: {
stuff: 1,
},
},
},
},
},
};
updateCounter: function () {
this.state.some.rather.deeply.embedded.stuff++;
this.setState({}); // just to trigger the render ...
},
render: function() {
return (
<div>
Counter value: {this.state.some.rather.deeply.embedded.stuff}
<br></br>
<button onClick={this.updateCounter}>Increment</button>
</div>
);
},
});
export default App;
I am all for following conventions but I would like to enhance my further understanding of how ReactJS actually works and what can go wrong or is it sub-optimal with the above code.
The notes under the this.setState documentation basically identify two gotchas:
That if you mutate state directly and then subsequently call this.setState this may replace (overwrite?) the mutation you made. I don't see how this can happen in the above code.
That setState may mutate this.state effectively in an asynchronous / deferred way and so when accessing this.state right after calling this.setState you are not guaranteed to access the final mutated state. I get that, by this is not an issue if this.setState is the last call of the update function.
This answer is to provide enough information to not change/mutate the state directly in React.
React follows Unidirectional Data Flow. Meaning, the data flow inside react should and will be expected to be in a circular path.
React's Data flow without flux
To make React work like this, developers made React similar to functional programming. The rule of thumb of functional programming is immutability. Let me explain it loud and clear.
How does the unidirectional flow works?
states are a data store which contains the data of a component.
The view of a component renders based on the state.
When the view needs to change something on the screen, that value should be supplied from the store.
To make this happen, React provides setState() function which takes in an object of new states and does a compare and merge(similar to object.assign()) over the previous state and adds the new state to the state data store.
Whenever the data in the state store changes, react will trigger an re-render with the new state which the view consumes and shows it on the screen.
This cycle will continue throughout the component's lifetime.
If you see the above steps, it clearly shows a lot of things are happening behind when you change the state. So, when you mutate the state directly and call setState() with an empty object. The previous state will be polluted with your mutation. Due to which, the shallow compare and merge of two states will be disturbed or won't happen, because you'll have only one state now. This will disrupt all the React's Lifecycle Methods.
As a result, your app will behave abnormal or even crash. Most of the times, it won't affect your app because all the apps which we use for testing this are pretty small.
And another downside of mutation of Objects and Arrays in JavaScript is, when you assign an object or an array, you're just making a reference of that object or that array. When you mutate them, all the reference to that object or that array will be affected. React handles this in a intelligent way in the background and simply give us an API to make it work.
Most common errors done when handling states in React
// original state
this.state = {
a: [1,2,3,4,5]
}
// changing the state in react
// need to add '6' in the array
// bad approach
const b = this.state.a.push(6)
this.setState({
a: b
})
In the above example, this.state.a.push(6) will mutate the state directly. Assigning it to another variable and calling setState is same as what's shown below. As we mutated the state anyway, there's no point assigning it to another variable and calling setState with that variable.
// same as
this.state.a.push(6)
this.setState({})
Many people do this. This is so wrong. This breaks the beauty of React and is bad programming practice.
So, what's the best way to handle states in React? Let me explain.
When you need to change 'something' in the existing state, first get a copy of that 'something' from the current state.
// original state
this.state = {
a: [1,2,3,4,5]
}
// changing the state in react
// need to add '6' in the array
// create a copy of this.state.a
// you can use ES6's destructuring or loadash's _.clone()
const currentStateCopy = [...this.state.a]
Now, mutating currentStateCopy won't mutate the original state. Do operations over currentStateCopy and set it as the new state using setState().
currentStateCopy.push(6)
this.setState({
a: currentStateCopy
})
This is beautiful, right?
By doing this, all the references of this.state.a won't get affected until we use setState. This gives you control over your code and this'll help you write elegant test and make you confident about the performance of the code in production.
To answer your question,
Why can't I directly modify a component's state?
Well, you can. But, you need to face the following consequences.
When you scale, you'll be writing unmanageable code.
You'll lose control of state across components.
Instead of using React, you'll be writing custom codes over React.
Immutability is not a necessity because JavaScript is single threaded, but it's a good to follow practices which will help you in the long run.
PS. I've written about 10000 lines of mutable React JS code. If it breaks now, I don't know where to look into because all the values are mutated somewhere. When I realized this, I started writing immutable code. Trust me! That's the best thing you can do it to a product or an app.
The React docs for setState have this to say:
NEVER mutate this.state directly, as calling setState() afterwards may replace the mutation you made. Treat this.state as if it were immutable.
setState() does not immediately mutate this.state but creates a pending state transition. Accessing this.state after calling this method can potentially return the existing value.
There is no guarantee of synchronous operation of calls to setState and calls may be batched for performance gains.
setState() will always trigger a re-render unless conditional rendering logic is implemented in shouldComponentUpdate(). If mutable objects are being used and the logic cannot be implemented in shouldComponentUpdate(), calling setState() only when the new state differs from the previous state will avoid unnecessary re-renders.
Basically, if you modify this.state directly, you create a situation where those modifications might get overwritten.
Related to your extended questions 1) and 2), setState() is not immediate. It queues a state transition based on what it thinks is going on which may not include the direct changes to this.state. Since it's queued rather than applied immediately, it's entirely possible that something is modified in between such that your direct changes get overwritten.
If nothing else, you might be better off just considering that not directly modifying this.state can be seen as good practice. You may know personally that your code interacts with React in such a way that these over-writes or other issues can't happen but you're creating a situation where other developers or future updates can suddenly find themselves with weird or subtle issues.
the simplest answer to "
Why can't I directly modify a component's state:
is all about Updating phase.
when we update the state of a component all it's children are going to be rendered as well. or our entire component tree rendered.
but when i say our entire component tree is rendered that doesn’t mean that the entire DOM is updated.
when a component is rendered we basically get a react element, so that is updating our virtual dom.
React will then look at the virtual DOM, it also has a copy of the old virtual DOM, that is why we shouldn’t update the state directly, so we can have two different object references in memory, we have the old virtual DOM as well as the new virtual DOM.
then react will figure out what is changed and based on that it will update the real DOM accordingly .
hope it helps.
It surprises me that non of the current answers talk about pure/memo components (React.PureComponent or React.memo). These components only re-render when a change in one of the props is detected.
Say you mutate state directly and pass, not the value, but the over coupling object to the component below. This object still has the same reference as the previous object, meaning that pure/memo components won't re-render, even though you mutated one of the properties.
Since you don't always know what type of component you are working with when importing them from libraries, this is yet another reason to stick to the non-mutating rule.
Here is an example of this behaviour in action (using R.evolve to simplify creating a copy and updating nested content):
class App extends React.Component {
state = { some: { rather: { deeply: { nested: { stuff: 1 } } } } };
mutatingIncrement = () => {
this.state.some.rather.deeply.nested.stuff++;
this.setState({});
}
nonMutatingIncrement = () => {
this.setState(R.evolve(
{ some: { rather: { deeply: { nested: { stuff: n => n + 1 } } } } }
));
}
render() {
return (
<div>
Normal Component: <CounterDisplay {...this.state} />
<br />
Pure Component: <PureCounterDisplay {...this.state} />
<br />
<button onClick={this.mutatingIncrement}>mutating increment</button>
<button onClick={this.nonMutatingIncrement}>non-mutating increment</button>
</div>
);
}
}
const CounterDisplay = (props) => (
<React.Fragment>
Counter value: {props.some.rather.deeply.nested.stuff}
</React.Fragment>
);
const PureCounterDisplay = React.memo(CounterDisplay);
ReactDOM.render(<App />, document.querySelector("#root"));
<script src="https://unpkg.com/react#17/umd/react.production.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://unpkg.com/react-dom#17/umd/react-dom.production.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://unpkg.com/ramda#0/dist/ramda.min.js"></script>
<div id="root"></div>
To avoid every time to create a copy of this.state.element you can use update with $set or $push or many others from immutability-helper
e.g.:
import update from 'immutability-helper';
const newData = update(myData, {
x: {y: {z: {$set: 7}}},
a: {b: {$push: [9]}}
});
setState trigger re rendering of the components.when we want to update state again and again we must need to setState otherwise it doesn't work correctly.
My current understanding is based on this and this answers:
IF you do not use shouldComponentUpdate or any other lifecycle methods (like componentWillReceiveProps, componentWillUpdate, and componentDidUpdate) where you compare the old and new props/state
THEN
It is fine to mutate state and then call setState(), otherwise it is not fine.
i am setting the language name in my local storage , when it changes from a dropdown in topbar , i want the whole current view to be re-rendered and words translated to the selected language. my layout is like this
render(){
return (
<MainContainer>
<TopBar/>
<SideBar/>
<RouteInsideSwitch/>
</MainContainer>
)
}
in render of components ,the words to be translated basically calls a function that returns the correct word based on the local storage language name.
i change the language and i set the state in maincontainer for selected langauge and set it in local storage. however i dont want to move that state from Maincontainer to all my components. also dont want to store it in redux because then all the possible containers have to listen to it and then pass it to their children as props.
what currently happens is that saving state in mainContainer without passing it to any children , the children does re-render but only the immediate ones , if there are more children in those children and so on , it does not re-render because i m not passing the state throughout the chain.
open to any suggestion based on different pattern for language changing. but my question is that is there any way to re-render the current open view (all components in dom).
If your concern is that you have a number of "possible containers" which all need to handle the state change, perhaps consider creating a higher order component that includes the common language rendering logic (your RouteInsideSwitch leads me to believe this may the issue). In that way, you can avoid duplicating that logic across a ton of "possible" components that all require the functionality of dynamic language rendering and will avoid the need to dial a bunch of components into a redux store, assuming they are in the same hierarchy.
const DynamicLanguageComp = RenderComponent => {
return class extends Component {
constructor(props) {
super(props)
//additional state setup if needed
}
changeLangFunc = () => { /* handle change */ }
render() {
return <RenderComponent handleLanguageChange={this.changeLangFunc} {...this.props} {...this.state} />
}
}
}
If you would like to avoid a re-render on certain intermediate components that may be receiving props by way of state change you can implement the lifecycle method shouldComponentUpdate(), which by default returns true. You can make a comparison of nextProps to your current props, and return false if a re-render is undesired despite new props.
right now im have tree component like this
<UserOrderApproval>
<Table>
<TableRow>
<ComponentList />
</ChildrenProps1>
</Parent>
</UserOrderApproval>
im take props from redux in UserOrderApproval component, and passing that props to every children component. The problem, when children component make some change in redux, the state from UserOrderApproval component will change & make all children component re render & make component life cycle run again. How to do prevent this?
How best practice to passing props from parent to nested children like this?
Many Thanks
As KuchBhi said, you'll need to use the shouldComponentUpdate lifecycle method.
shouldComponentUpdate is called any time when new props or state are passed to the component and by default returns true (might only return true for updated props, not 100% sure). The method accepts two parameters: nextProps and nextState. You can then compare these to this.props and this.state to decide whether you should update or not.
The default/typical implementation of this method is something along the lines of this (pseudo):
shouldComponentUpdate(nextProps, nextState) {
//Really it's a deeper equality check, not just the props/state object
return this.props !== nextProps || this.state !== nextState;
}
What you can do as an alternative is build this out a bit more with cases where false is returned. Here is an example from one of my projects where I only want to rerender when two specific props are different:
shouldComponentUpdate(nextProps) {
const minUpdated = this.props.min !== nextProps.min;
const maxUpdated = this.props.max !== nextProps.max;
return minUpdated || maxUpdated;
}
The component also has the props such as scale, align, width, etc. but I don't want to update when I receive those as new props so I don't check to see if they're not equal.
You could essentially just return false in this method and never update after the initial load, but I would avoid that as it defeats the purpose of react.
edit: As varoons said, this is likely a great scenario for you to use the new context API and I highly recommend looking into it, but it is useful to know about component lifecycle methods as well.
Use shouldComponentUpdate(), pure components, or connect redux to only the child components that need them.
https://reactjs.org/docs/react-component.html#shouldcomponentupdate
https://reactjs.org/docs/react-api.html#reactpurecomponent
This is a good scenario to use React's context api as this seems like a prop drilling case - You are passing data down to components that do not use it.
You could make UserOrderApproval(assuming it is the parent connected to the global state/redux) the context provider and ComponentList the consumer. This way only the components handling/using the data will re-render.
https://reactjs.org/docs/context.html
https://scotch.io/tutorials/get-to-know-reacts-new-context-api
I am studying the principles of react.
According to some reviews, some people says is better to keep your component stateless, what does it mean?
But other people says, that if you need to update your component, then you should learn how to set your state to the proper state.
I saw this.props / this.setProps and this.state / this.setState and I am confuse with that.
Something I am trying to figure is, how can I update a component by itself and not from a parent component? should I use props or state in this case?
I already read some docs about props and state, what I don't have clear, is: when to use one or another ?
Props vs. state comes down to "who owns this data?"
If data is managed by one component, but another component needs access to that data, you'd pass the data from the one component to the other component via props.
If a component manages the data itself, it should use state and setState to manage it.
So the answer to
how can I update a component by itself and not from a parent component? should I use props or state in this case?
is to use state.
Props should be considered immutable and should never be changed via mutation. setProps is only useful on a top-level component and generally should not be used at all. If a component passes another component a property, and the first component wants the second to be able to change it, it should also pass it a function property that the second component can call to ask the first component to update its state. For example:
var ComponentA = React.createClass({
getInitialState: function() {
return { count: 0 };
},
render: function() {
return <Clicker count={this.state.count} incrementCount={this.increment} />;
},
increment: function() {
this.setState({count: this.state.count + 1});
}
});
// Notice that Clicker is stateless! It's only job is to
// (1) render its `count` prop, and (2) call its
// `incrementCount` prop when the button is clicked.
var Clicker = React.createClass({
render: function() {
// clicker knows nothing about *how* to update the count
// only that it got passed a function that will do it for it
return (
<div>
Count: {this.props.count}
<button onClick={this.props.incrementCount}>+1</button>
</div>
);
}
});
(Working example: https://jsbin.com/rakate/edit?html,js,output)
For and object-oriented programming analogy, think of a class/object: state would be the properties you put on the class; the class is free to update those as it sees fit. Props would be like arguments to methods; you should never mutate arguments passed to you.
Keeping a component "stateless" means that it doesn't have any state, and all its rendering is based on its props. Of course, there has to be state somewhere or else your app won't do anything! So this guideline is basically saying to keep as many components as possible stateless, and only manage the state in as few top-level components as possible.
Keeping components stateless makes them easier to understand, reuse, and test.
See A brief interlude: props vs state in the React docs for more information.
Use state when you know the variable value is going to affect the view. This is particularly critical in react, because whenever the state variable changes there is a rerender(though this is optimized with the virtual DOM, you should minimize it if you can), but not when a prop is changed (You can force this, but not really needed).
You can use props for holding all other variables, which you think can be passed into the component during the component creation.
If you have want to make a multi-select dropdown called MyDropdown for example
state = {
show: true,
selected:[],
suggestions:this.props.suggestionArr.filter((i)=>{
return this.state.suggestions.indexOf(i)<0;
})
}
props={
eventNamespace:'mydropdown',
prefix : 'm_',
suggestionArr:[],
onItemSelect:aCallbackFn
}
As you can see, the objects in the state variable are going to affect the view some way or the other.
The objects in the props are mostly objects which should remain the same throughout the component life cycle. So these objects can be callback functions, strings used to namespace events or other holders.
So if you do want to update the component by itself, you need to have to look into how componentWillRecieveProps ,componentWillUpdate, componentDidUpdate and componentShouldUpdate works. More or less, this depends on the requirement and you can use these lifecycle methods to ensure that the rendering is within the component and not in the parent.
Does React re-render all components and sub components every time setState() is called?
If so, why? I thought the idea was that React only rendered as little as needed - when state changed.
In the following simple example, both classes render again when the text is clicked, despite the fact that the state doesn't change on subsequent clicks, as the onClick handler always sets the state to the same value:
this.setState({'test':'me'});
I would've expected that renders would only happen if state data had changed.
Here's the code of the example, as a JS Fiddle, and embedded snippet:
var TimeInChild = React.createClass({
render: function() {
var t = new Date().getTime();
return (
<p>Time in child:{t}</p>
);
}
});
var Main = React.createClass({
onTest: function() {
this.setState({'test':'me'});
},
render: function() {
var currentTime = new Date().getTime();
return (
<div onClick={this.onTest}>
<p>Time in main:{currentTime}</p>
<p>Click me to update time</p>
<TimeInChild/>
</div>
);
}
});
ReactDOM.render(<Main/>, document.body);
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/react/15.0.0/react.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/react/15.0.0/react-dom.min.js"></script>
Does React re-render all components and sub-components every time setState is called?
By default - yes.
There is a method boolean shouldComponentUpdate(object nextProps, object nextState), each component has this method and it's responsible to determine "should component update (run render function)?" every time you change state or pass new props from parent component.
You can write your own implementation of shouldComponentUpdate method for your component, but default implementation always returns true - meaning always re-run render function.
Quote from official docs http://facebook.github.io/react/docs/component-specs.html#updating-shouldcomponentupdate
By default, shouldComponentUpdate always returns true to prevent
subtle bugs when the state is mutated in place, but if you are careful to
always treat the state as immutable and to read-only from props and state
in render() then you can override shouldComponentUpdate with an
implementation that compares the old props and state to their
replacements.
Next part of your question:
If so, why? I thought the idea was that React only rendered as little as needed - when the state changed.
There are two steps of what we may call "render":
Virtual DOM renders: when render method is called it returns a new virtual dom structure of the component. As I mentioned before, this render method is called always when you call setState(), because shouldComponentUpdate always returns true by default. So, by default, there is no optimization here in React.
Native DOM renders: React changes real DOM nodes in your browser only if they were changed in the Virtual DOM and as little as needed - this is that great React's feature which optimizes real DOM mutation and makes React fast.
No, React doesn't render everything when the state changes.
Whenever a component is dirty (its state changed), that component and its children are re-rendered. This, to some extent, is to re-render as little as possible. The only time when render isn't called is when some branch is moved to another root, where theoretically we don't need to re-render anything. In your example, TimeInChild is a child component of Main, so it also gets re-rendered when the state of Main changes.
React doesn't compare state data. When setState is called, it marks the component as dirty (which means it needs to be re-rendered). The important thing to note is that although render method of the component is called, the real DOM is only updated if the output is different from the current DOM tree (a.k.a diffing between the Virtual DOM tree and document's DOM tree). In your example, even though the state data hasn't changed, the time of last change did, making Virtual DOM different from the document's DOM, hence why the HTML is updated.
Yes. It calls the render() method every time we call setState only except when shouldComponentUpdate returns false.
Even though it's stated in many of the other answers here, the component should either:
implement shouldComponentUpdate to render only when state or properties change
switch to extending a PureComponent, which already implements a shouldComponentUpdate method internally for shallow comparisons.
Here's an example that uses shouldComponentUpdate, which works only for this simple use case and demonstration purposes. When this is used, the component no longer re-renders itself on each click, and is rendered when first displayed, and after it's been clicked once.
var TimeInChild = React.createClass({
render: function() {
var t = new Date().getTime();
return (
<p>Time in child:{t}</p>
);
}
});
var Main = React.createClass({
onTest: function() {
this.setState({'test':'me'});
},
shouldComponentUpdate: function(nextProps, nextState) {
if (this.state == null)
return true;
if (this.state.test == nextState.test)
return false;
return true;
},
render: function() {
var currentTime = new Date().getTime();
return (
<div onClick={this.onTest}>
<p>Time in main:{currentTime}</p>
<p>Click me to update time</p>
<TimeInChild/>
</div>
);
}
});
ReactDOM.render(<Main/>, document.body);
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/react/15.0.0/react.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/react/15.0.0/react-dom.min.js"></script>
It seems that the accepted answers are no longer the case when using React hooks (with primitive values, see comments on this answer for details). You can see in this code sandbox that the class component is rerendered when the state is set to the same value, while in the function component, setting the state to the same value doesn't cause a rerender.
https://codesandbox.io/s/still-wave-wouk2?file=/src/App.js
React 18 and beyond
Starting from React 18 all state updates are automatically batched. In this way, React groups multiple state updates into a single re-render for better performance.
So when you update your state, React always try to batch these updates in a group update, causing fewer render than setState calls. The behaviour is the same when using hooks.
You can read the very long explanation in the Automatic batching for React 18 announcement.
React 17 and below
In React 17 and below, only updates inside React event handlers are batched. Updates triggered from promises, setTimeout, native event handlers, or other events are not batched in React by default.
Another reason for "lost update" can be the next:
If the static getDerivedStateFromProps is defined then it is rerun in every update process according to official documentation https://reactjs.org/docs/react-component.html#updating.
so if that state value comes from props at the beginning it is overwrite in every update.
If it is the problem then U can avoid setting the state during update, you should check the state parameter value like this
static getDerivedStateFromProps(props: TimeCorrectionProps, state: TimeCorrectionState): TimeCorrectionState {
return state ? state : {disable: false, timeCorrection: props.timeCorrection};
}
Another solution is add a initialized property to state, and set it up in the first time (if the state is initialized to non null value.)
Not All Components.
the state in component looks like the source of the waterfall of state of the whole APP.
So the change happens from where the setState called. The tree of renders then get called from there. If you've used pure component, the render will be skipped.
Regardless of the well explained answers here, there may be other reasons why you don't see the change you expect post changing the props or state:
Watch out for any event.preventDefault(); in the code where you want to re-render by a state \ props change, as it will cancel any cancelable event following this statement.
You could use setState() only after comparing the current state value and the new one and they are different.