We Keep Coding

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

I understand that React tutorials and documentation warn in no uncertain terms that state should not be directly mutated and that everything should go through setState.
I would like to understand why, exactly, I can't just directly change state and then (in the same function) call this.setState({}) just to trigger the render.
E.g.: The below code seems to work just fine:
const React = require('react');
const App = React.createClass({
getInitialState: function() {
return {
some: {
rather: {
deeply: {
embedded: {
stuff: 1,
},
},
},
},
},
};
updateCounter: function () {
this.state.some.rather.deeply.embedded.stuff++;
this.setState({}); // just to trigger the render ...
},
render: function() {
return (
<div>
Counter value: {this.state.some.rather.deeply.embedded.stuff}
<br></br>
<button onClick={this.updateCounter}>Increment</button>
</div>
);
},
});
export default App;
I am all for following conventions but I would like to enhance my further understanding of how ReactJS actually works and what can go wrong or is it sub-optimal with the above code.
The notes under the this.setState documentation basically identify two gotchas:
That if you mutate state directly and then subsequently call this.setState this may replace (overwrite?) the mutation you made. I don't see how this can happen in the above code.
That setState may mutate this.state effectively in an asynchronous / deferred way and so when accessing this.state right after calling this.setState you are not guaranteed to access the final mutated state. I get that, by this is not an issue if this.setState is the last call of the update function.

This answer is to provide enough information to not change/mutate the state directly in React.
React follows Unidirectional Data Flow. Meaning, the data flow inside react should and will be expected to be in a circular path.
React's Data flow without flux
To make React work like this, developers made React similar to functional programming. The rule of thumb of functional programming is immutability. Let me explain it loud and clear.
How does the unidirectional flow works?
states are a data store which contains the data of a component.
The view of a component renders based on the state.
When the view needs to change something on the screen, that value should be supplied from the store.
To make this happen, React provides setState() function which takes in an object of new states and does a compare and merge(similar to object.assign()) over the previous state and adds the new state to the state data store.
Whenever the data in the state store changes, react will trigger an re-render with the new state which the view consumes and shows it on the screen.
This cycle will continue throughout the component's lifetime.
If you see the above steps, it clearly shows a lot of things are happening behind when you change the state. So, when you mutate the state directly and call setState() with an empty object. The previous state will be polluted with your mutation. Due to which, the shallow compare and merge of two states will be disturbed or won't happen, because you'll have only one state now. This will disrupt all the React's Lifecycle Methods.
As a result, your app will behave abnormal or even crash. Most of the times, it won't affect your app because all the apps which we use for testing this are pretty small.
And another downside of mutation of Objects and Arrays in JavaScript is, when you assign an object or an array, you're just making a reference of that object or that array. When you mutate them, all the reference to that object or that array will be affected. React handles this in a intelligent way in the background and simply give us an API to make it work.
Most common errors done when handling states in React
// original state
this.state = {
a: [1,2,3,4,5]
}
// changing the state in react
// need to add '6' in the array
// bad approach
const b = this.state.a.push(6)
this.setState({
a: b
})
In the above example, this.state.a.push(6) will mutate the state directly. Assigning it to another variable and calling setState is same as what's shown below. As we mutated the state anyway, there's no point assigning it to another variable and calling setState with that variable.
// same as
this.state.a.push(6)
this.setState({})
Many people do this. This is so wrong. This breaks the beauty of React and is bad programming practice.
So, what's the best way to handle states in React? Let me explain.
When you need to change 'something' in the existing state, first get a copy of that 'something' from the current state.
// original state
this.state = {
a: [1,2,3,4,5]
}
// changing the state in react
// need to add '6' in the array
// create a copy of this.state.a
// you can use ES6's destructuring or loadash's _.clone()
const currentStateCopy = [...this.state.a]
Now, mutating currentStateCopy won't mutate the original state. Do operations over currentStateCopy and set it as the new state using setState().
currentStateCopy.push(6)
this.setState({
a: currentStateCopy
})
This is beautiful, right?
By doing this, all the references of this.state.a won't get affected until we use setState. This gives you control over your code and this'll help you write elegant test and make you confident about the performance of the code in production.
To answer your question,
Why can't I directly modify a component's state?
Well, you can. But, you need to face the following consequences.
When you scale, you'll be writing unmanageable code.
You'll lose control of state across components.
Instead of using React, you'll be writing custom codes over React.
Immutability is not a necessity because JavaScript is single threaded, but it's a good to follow practices which will help you in the long run.
PS. I've written about 10000 lines of mutable React JS code. If it breaks now, I don't know where to look into because all the values are mutated somewhere. When I realized this, I started writing immutable code. Trust me! That's the best thing you can do it to a product or an app.

The React docs for setState have this to say:
NEVER mutate this.state directly, as calling setState() afterwards may replace the mutation you made. Treat this.state as if it were immutable.
setState() does not immediately mutate this.state but creates a pending state transition. Accessing this.state after calling this method can potentially return the existing value.
There is no guarantee of synchronous operation of calls to setState and calls may be batched for performance gains.
setState() will always trigger a re-render unless conditional rendering logic is implemented in shouldComponentUpdate(). If mutable objects are being used and the logic cannot be implemented in shouldComponentUpdate(), calling setState() only when the new state differs from the previous state will avoid unnecessary re-renders.
Basically, if you modify this.state directly, you create a situation where those modifications might get overwritten.
Related to your extended questions 1) and 2), setState() is not immediate. It queues a state transition based on what it thinks is going on which may not include the direct changes to this.state. Since it's queued rather than applied immediately, it's entirely possible that something is modified in between such that your direct changes get overwritten.
If nothing else, you might be better off just considering that not directly modifying this.state can be seen as good practice. You may know personally that your code interacts with React in such a way that these over-writes or other issues can't happen but you're creating a situation where other developers or future updates can suddenly find themselves with weird or subtle issues.

the simplest answer to "
Why can't I directly modify a component's state:
is all about Updating phase.
when we update the state of a component all it's children are going to be rendered as well. or our entire component tree rendered.
but when i say our entire component tree is rendered that doesn’t mean that the entire DOM is updated.
when a component is rendered we basically get a react element, so that is updating our virtual dom.
React will then look at the virtual DOM, it also has a copy of the old virtual DOM, that is why we shouldn’t update the state directly, so we can have two different object references in memory, we have the old virtual DOM as well as the new virtual DOM.
then react will figure out what is changed and based on that it will update the real DOM accordingly .
hope it helps.

It surprises me that non of the current answers talk about pure/memo components (React.PureComponent or React.memo). These components only re-render when a change in one of the props is detected.
Say you mutate state directly and pass, not the value, but the over coupling object to the component below. This object still has the same reference as the previous object, meaning that pure/memo components won't re-render, even though you mutated one of the properties.
Since you don't always know what type of component you are working with when importing them from libraries, this is yet another reason to stick to the non-mutating rule.
Here is an example of this behaviour in action (using R.evolve to simplify creating a copy and updating nested content):
class App extends React.Component {
state = { some: { rather: { deeply: { nested: { stuff: 1 } } } } };
mutatingIncrement = () => {
this.state.some.rather.deeply.nested.stuff++;
this.setState({});
}
nonMutatingIncrement = () => {
this.setState(R.evolve(
{ some: { rather: { deeply: { nested: { stuff: n => n + 1 } } } } }
));
}
render() {
return (
<div>
Normal Component: <CounterDisplay {...this.state} />
<br />
Pure Component: <PureCounterDisplay {...this.state} />
<br />
<button onClick={this.mutatingIncrement}>mutating increment</button>
<button onClick={this.nonMutatingIncrement}>non-mutating increment</button>
</div>
);
}
}
const CounterDisplay = (props) => (
<React.Fragment>
Counter value: {props.some.rather.deeply.nested.stuff}
</React.Fragment>
);
const PureCounterDisplay = React.memo(CounterDisplay);
ReactDOM.render(<App />, document.querySelector("#root"));
<script src="https://unpkg.com/react#17/umd/react.production.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://unpkg.com/react-dom#17/umd/react-dom.production.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://unpkg.com/ramda#0/dist/ramda.min.js"></script>
<div id="root"></div>

To avoid every time to create a copy of this.state.element you can use update with $set or $push or many others from immutability-helper
e.g.:
import update from 'immutability-helper';
const newData = update(myData, {
x: {y: {z: {$set: 7}}},
a: {b: {$push: [9]}}
});

setState trigger re rendering of the components.when we want to update state again and again we must need to setState otherwise it doesn't work correctly.

My current understanding is based on this and this answers:
IF you do not use shouldComponentUpdate or any other lifecycle methods (like componentWillReceiveProps, componentWillUpdate, and componentDidUpdate) where you compare the old and new props/state
THEN
It is fine to mutate state and then call setState(), otherwise it is not fine.

Is it bad to use complex objects in react state?

I am writing an application with React, it has some data stored in a component's state.
I initially chose to wrap the data in a function, this function would encapsulate all the actions that one could do on the data.
To keep this question generic, I will show my examples as a todo. My real-world use-case is more complex.
function Todo(todo = EmptyTodo) {
// helper function to easily create immutable methods below
function merge(update) {
return Todo(Object.assign({}, todo, update))
}
return {
getComplete() {
return todo.complete
},
getText() {
return todo.text
},
toggleComplete() {
return merge({ complete: !todo.complete })
},
setText(text) {
return merge({ text })
}
}
}
This example falls short a bit. A better example might ideally be more than just getters and setters. It would probably contain something closer to business logic.
Moving on, now I used the Todo in a react component like this:
class TodoRow extends React.Component {
state = {
todo: Todo()
}
handleToggleComplete = () => this.setState(state => ({
todo: state.todo.toggleComplete()
}))
handleTextChange = e => {
const text = e.target.value
this.setState(state => ({
todo: state.todo.setText(text)
}))
}
render() {
return <div>
<input
type="checkbox"
onChange={this.handleToggleComplete}
value={this.state.todo.getComplete()}
/>
<input
type="text"
onChange={this.handleTextChange}
value={this.state.todo.getText()}
/>
{this.state.todo.getText()}
</div>
}
}
Please forgive the contrived and simplistic example. The point is that the state is no longer a simple key-value store. It has a complex object that attempts to hide the primitive data and encapsulate the business logic (I know there is no business logic in the above example, just imagine it with me).
I do not need to serialize this state. No time travel or restoring state in localstorage.
Can anyone help me understand why this could be a bad practice?
Pros I can think of-
If a todo wants to be used elsewhere, the data logic can be reused.
todo object can enforce/implement immutability in one place.
The separation between display and data operations.
Can implement polymorphic behavior with the Todo object now (ReadOnlyTodo that can't be toggled or
edited, CompleteOnly todo that can be completed but text can't be
edited) without modifying the React component.
Cons I can think of-
Cannot serialize the state as JSON (easily fixed with a Todo.toJSON() method).
Doesn't follow normal pattern where setState operates on a key/value pair.
Calling todo.setText() might be confusing since it doesn't update state.
Codepens: Key/Value Store Complex object

It may not be a good idea because your implementation of immutability is simply, recreating a new object completely with your changes. Also, you are making a shallow copy, and in real-life applications you will realize that nested objects are a common practice, especially in JSON.
Libraries such as Immutable.js create internal hash tables for their data structures that only recreate changed nodes instead of recreating the whole object while abstracting this logic to allow efficient immutability.
As an example, let's say you have an immutable object with 200 properties. For every update in every property, a new object with these 200 properties needs to be recreated. Note that depending on your application, a simple type on an input could recreate the complete object.
// ❗️ Merge would need to reassign all 200 properties for every change.
// ❗️ Plus, it won't work for nested properties as it is a shallow copy:
function merge(update) {
return Todo(Object.assign({}, todo, update))
}
Instead, Immutable.js would, as an example, create a Hash Map with 20 nodes, each node containing 10 properties. If you update one property, only one node is dumped and recreated while the other are kept.
Also, consider that if any child components depend on this said state, their renders will probably be triggered as there is no memoization. That is why libraries such as reselect for Redux exist.
Note: immer.js is a newcomer immutability library that many devs are vouching for, but I can't say much about how it works internally as I don't know it that well.

React and Redux architecture issues

Before reading:
This isnt a matter of non working code but a question on architecture. Also i am not currently using the ReactRedux library as im first trying to understand how the parts work on their own in this test app. Its as short as i could cut it but unfortunately still lengthy, please bear with me
Short Intro
I've got an array of Bottle models. Using pseudocode,a bottle is defined like so:
class Bottle{
//members
filledLiters
filledLitersCapacity
otherMember1
otherMember2
//functions
toPostableObject(){
//removes functions by running JSON.
var cloneObj = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(this));
//removes all members we dont want to post
delete cloneObj["otherMember1"];
}
//other functions
}
I've also got a React component that displays all Bottle items.The component needs to store the previous state of all Bottle items as well ( its for animating, disregard this ).
Redux usage
There are complex operations i need to perform on some of the Bottle items using a helper class like so:
var updated_bottles = BottleHandler.performOperationsOnBottles(bottleIds)
mainStore.dispatch({type:"UPDATED_BOTTLES",updated_bottles:updated_bottles})
I dont want to update the store for every operation as i would like the store to be updated all together at the end in one go. Therefore my BottleReducer looks something like this :
var nextState = Object.assign({}, currentState);
nextState.bottles = action.updated_bottles
Where action.updated_bottles is the final state of bottles after having performed the operations.
The issue
Even though everything works, im suspicious that this is the "wrong mindset" for approaching my architecture. One of the reasons is that to avoid keeping the reference to the bottle objects and mutating the state as im performing the operations, i have to do this ugly thing:
var bottlesCloneArray = mainStore.getState().
bottleReducer.bottles.map(
a => {
var l = Object.assign({}, a);
Object.setPrototypeOf( l, Character.prototype );
return l
}
);
This is because i need a cloned array of objects that still retain their original functions ( meaning they're actual instance clones of the class )
If you can point out the flaw/flaws in my logic i'd be grateful.
P.S: The reason i need to keep "deep clones" of the class instances is so that i can keep the previous state of bottles in my React component for the reason of animating between the two states when an update in render happens.

When dealing with redux architecture it can be extremely useful to keep serialisation and immutability at the forefront of every decision, this can be difficult at first especially when you are very used to OOP
As the store's state is just a JS object it can be tempting to use it to keep track of JS instances of more complex model classes, but instead should be treated more like a DB, where you can serialise a representation of your model to and from it in an immutable manner.
Storing the data representations of your bottles in its most primitive form makes things like persistance to localStorage and rehydration of the store possible for more advanced applications that can then allow server side rendering and maybe offline use, but more importantly it makes it much more predictable and obvious what is happening and changing in your application.
Most redux apps i've seen (mine included) go down the functional route of doing away with model classes altogether and simply performing operations in the reducers directly upon the data - potentially using helpers along the way. A downside to this is that it makes for large complex reducers that lack some context.
However there is a middle ground that is perfectly reasonable if you prefer to have such helpers encapsulated into a Bottle class, but you need to think in terms of a case class, which can be created from and serialised back to the data form, and acts immutably if operated upon
Lets look at how this might work for your Bottle (typescript annotated to help show whats happening)
Bottle case class
interface IBottle {
name: string,
filledLitres: number
capacity: number
}
class Bottle implements IBottle {
// deserialisable
static fromJSON(json: IBottle): Bottle {
return new Bottle(json.name, json.filledLitres, json.capacity)
}
constructor(public readonly name: string,
public readonly filledLitres: number,
public readonly capacity: number) {}
// can still encapuslate computed properties so that is not needed to be done done manually in the views
get nameAndSize() {
return `${this.name}: ${this.capacity} Litres`
}
// note that operations are immutable, they return a new instance with the new state
fill(litres: number): Bottle {
return new Bottle(this.name, Math.min(this.filledLitres + litres, this.capacity), this.capacity)
}
drink(litres: number): Bottle {
return new Bottle(this.name, Math.max(this.filledLitres - litres, 0), this.capacity)
}
// serialisable
toJSON(): IBottle {
return {
name: this.name,
filledLitres: this.filledLitres,
capacity: this.capacity
}
}
// instances can be considered equal if properties are the same, as all are immutable
equals(bottle: Bottle): boolean {
return bottle.name === this.name &&
bottle.filledLitres === this.filledLitres &&
bottle.capacity === this.capacity
}
// cloning is easy as it is immutable
copy(): Bottle {
return new Bottle(this.name, this.filledLitres, this.capacity)
}
}
Store state
Notice it contains an array of the data representation rather than the class instance
interface IBottleStore {
bottles: Array<IBottle>
}
Bottles selector
Here we use a selector to extract data from the store and perform transformation into class instances that you can pass to your React component as a prop.
If using a lib like reselect this result will be memoized, so your instance references will remain the same until their underlying data in the store has changed.
This is important for optimising React using PureComponent, which only compares props by reference.
const bottlesSelector = (state: IBottleStore): Array<Bottle> => state.bottles.map(v => Bottle.fromJSON(v))
Bottles reducer
In your reducers you can use the Bottle class as a helper to perform operations, rather than doing everything right here in the reducer directly on the data itself
interface IDrinkAction {
type: 'drink'
name: string
litres: number
}
const bottlesReducer = (state: Array<IBottle>, action: IDrinkAction): Array<IBottle> => {
switch(action.type) {
case 'drink':
// immutably create an array of class instances from current state
return state.map(v => Bottle.fromJSON(v))
// find the correct bottle and drink from it (drink returns a new instance of Bottle so is immutable)
.map((b: Bottle): Bottle => b.name === action.name ? b.drink(action.litres) : b)
// serialise back to date form to put back in the store
.map((b: Bottle): IBottle => b.toJSON())
default:
return state
}
}
While this drink/fill example is fairly simplistic, and could be just as easily done in as many lines directly on the data in the reducer, it illustrate's that using case class's to represent the data in more real world terms can still be done, and can make it easier to understand and keep code more organised than having a giant reducer and manually computing properties in views, and as a bonus the Bottle class is also easily testable.
By acting immutably throughout, if designed correctly your React class's previous state will continue to hold a reference to your previous bottles (in their own previous state), so there is no need to somehow track that yourself for doing animations etc

If Bottle class is a react component (or inside a react component) I think you could play with componentWillUpdate(nextProps, nextState) so you can check the previous state (do not unmount your component of course).
https://reactjs.org/docs/react-component.html#componentwillupdate
Deep cloning your class doesn't seem a good idea to me.
Edit:
"I've also got a React component that displays all Bottle items."
That's where you should keep and look for your previous state. Keep all your bottle in a bottles store. And get it in your components when you need to display bottles.
Inside componentWillUpdate you can check you this.state (which is your state just before being updated, ie your previous state) and nextState passed as a parameter which is the current state
Edit2:
why would you keep an complete class in your state ? Just keep data in state. I mean just keep an object that will be updated by your reducer. If you need to have some utils functions (parser...) do not keep them in your state, treat your data in reducers before updating your state or keep your utils/parser functions in some utils file
Also your state should stay immutable. So it means you reducer should return a copy of the updated state anyway.

I've got an array of Bottle models.
I think It makes more sense to have a model of BottleCollection.
Or maybe you have one Bottle model and multiple usages of it?
class Bottle{
//members
filledLiters
filledLitersCapacity
otherMember1
otherMember2
//functions
toPostableObject(){}
}
Hm, it looks like your model represents multiple things:
a cache of persistent data (retrieved via AJAX?)
data object (dumb fields)
a temporary state for user input (data to be POSTed?)
I wouldn't call it a model. It's 3 things: API wrapper/cache, data and pending changes.
I would call it REST API wrapper, data object and application state.
There are complex operations i need to perform on some of the Bottle items using a helper class like so:
var updated_bottles =
BottleHandler.performOperationsOnBottles(bottleIds)
It looks to be the domain logic. I wouldn't place the core logic of the application under the name "helper class". I would call it "the model" or "business rules".
mainStore.dispatch({type:"UPDATED_BOTTLES", updated_bottles:updated_bottles})
That looks to be a change in application state. But I don't see the reason for it. I.e. who requested this change and why?
I dont want to update the store for every operation as i would like the store to be updated all together at the end in one go.
That's a good reasoning.
So you'll have a single action type:
mainStore.dispatch({type:"UPDATED_DATA", { updated_bottles })
However, in this case you might need to clean up old state like this:
mainStore.dispatch({type:"UPDATED_DATA", { updated_bottles: null })
The reason i need to keep "deep clones" of the class instances is so that i can keep the previous state of bottles
I think the reason is that you keep REST API cache and pending changes in a single object. If you keep cache and pending changes in separate objects you don't need clones.
Another thing to note is that your state should be a plain JavaScript object, not an instance of a class. There's no reason to keep references to functions (instance methods) in a state if you know which type of data your state contains. You can just use temporary class instances:
const newBottlesState = new BottleCollection(state.bottlesCache, state.bottlesUserChanges).performOperationsOnBottles()

Why do you need 'Actions' as data in redux?

Redux documentations says I should make actions and action creators, like this:
function addTodo(filter) {
return {
type: SET_VISIBILITY_FILTER,
filter
}
}
Then write reducers, like this:
function todoApp(state = initialState, action) {
switch (action.type) {
case SET_VISIBILITY_FILTER:
return Object.assign({}, state, {
visibilityFilter: action.filter
});
}
}
I then invoke the action using dispatch:
store.dispatch(addTodo("Ask question on stackoverflow"));
It seems there's a one-one correspondence between actions and reducers; the sole purpose of the action is to select a reducer and provide input data for that reducer.
Why don't we skip the middle man and identify actions with reducers and action creators with functions producing reducers? Then dispatch would take a single argument, a reducer/action of type State => State:
// Action/reducer. (Parametrised state transformer, really.)
const addTodo = text => state => {
return Object.assign({}, state, {
visibilityFilter: action.filter
});
}
// Dispatch takes as a argument the action/reducer
store.dispatch(addTodo("Ask question on stackoverflow"));
You'd lose the ability to serialise actions, but otherwise, it seems you'd get rid of boilerplate action creators and express more clearly the connection between actions and reducers. If you're in Typescript, you also get typechecking of the data in actions, which is difficult to express otherwise.
So what reasons for having actions as data am I missing?

The main purpose of action in Redux is to reduce the state.
Reduce method will be called on array of actions (thats why it called a reducer). Example:
import reducer from './reducer';
const actions = [
{type: 'INIT'},
{type: 'SOME_ACTION', params: {...}},
{type: 'RECEIVE_DATA', data: [...]},
{type: 'SOME_ANOTHER_ACTION', params: {...}},
{type: 'RECEIVE_DATA', data: [...]},
...
];
const finalState = actions.reduce(reducer, undefined);
Action creators is a function that can create actions. It is not necessary that action creator will create only one action.
Actually, if your reducer is able to receive functions instead of objects - your actions will be functions and it will do the main purpose, but you can loose some benefits of Redux functional abilities.
In that case the reducer will be implemented like this:
function reducer(state, action) {
return action(state);
}
The reasons why you may create actions as {type: 'ACTION_NAME'} format:
Redux DevTools expects this format.
You need to store sequence of actions.
Reducer makes state transformations on worker.
Everybody in Redux ecosystem use this format. It's a kind of convention.
Hot reloading abilities (your stored functions will not be reloaded).
You need to send actions as is on server.
Debugging benefits - to see the stack of actions with actions names.
Writing unit tests for reducer: assert.equal(finalState, expectedState).
More declarative code - action name and parameters are about "what to do" and not about "how to do" (but addTodo('Ask question') is declarative too).
Note about coupling between action creators and state changes
Just compare two notations:
First:
function someActionCreator() {
return {
type: "ADD_TODO",
text: "Ask question on stackoverflow"
}; // returns object
}
Second:
function someActionCreator() {
return addTodo("Ask question on stackoverflow"); // returns function
}
"In both cases we see that code is declarative and action creator is decoupled from state change. You can still reuse addTodo or dispatch two addTodo's or use middleware or dispatch compose(addTodo('One'), addTodo('Two')). The main difference is that we created Object and Function and place in code where state changes.

There is NOT a one-to-one mapping between actions and reducers. Per Dan Abramov's comments at https://github.com/Pitzcarraldo/reduxible/issues/8 :
It reinforces a very common misconception about Redux: namely that action creators and reducers are one-to-one mapping.
This is only true in trivial examples, but it is extremely limiting in real applications. Beginners exposed to this pattern couple reducers and action creators, and fail to realize they're meant to be many-to-many and decoupled.
Many reducers may handle one action. One reducer may handle many actions. Putting them together negates many benefits of how Flux and Redux application scale. This leads to code bloat and unnecessary coupling. You lose the flexibility of reacting to the same action from different places, and your action creators start to act like “setters”, coupled to a specific state shape, thus coupling the components to it as well.
As for actions and the "type" parameter, the other answers are right. That's deliberately how Redux was designed, and that was intended to give the benefits of serialization for debugging purposes.

Good question.
Separating actions from state changes is really a Flux pattern, rather than a specifically Redux thing. (Though I will answer the question with reference to Redux.) It's an example of loose coupling.
In a simple app, tight coupling between actions and state changes might be fine. But in a larger app, this could be a headache. For instance, your addTodo action might trigger changes in several parts of the state. Splitting actions from state changes - the latter performed in reducers - allows you to write smaller functions, which are easier to reason about and more testable.
Additionally, decoupling your actions and state changes allows your reducer logic to be more reusable. e.g. Action X might trigger state changes A and B, whilst action Y only triggers state change A.
Furthermore, this decoupling gives rise to a Redux feature called middleware. Middleware listens to action dispatches. It doesn't change the state of the app, but it can read the current state and the next state, as well as the action information. Middleware is useful for functionality extraneous from the core application logic, e.g. logging and tracking (dev tools were mentioned in a previous answer).
[UPDATE] But why have actions as objects?
If it were simply a matter of functions calling other functions, that decoupling would be much less explicit. Indeed it may even get lost; since most actions only enact one state change, developers might tire of a single function calling a single function and do away with the separation entirely.
The other thing is the Flux data flow model. One-way data flow is very important to the Flux/React paradigm. A typical Redux/React goes something like this: Store state -> Higher order React components -> Lower order React components -> DOM. The action is the aberration in the model; it's the backwards arrow transmitting data from the view to the store. It makes sense to make the action something as loud and emphatic as possible. Not a mere function call, but a dispatched object. It's as if your app were announcing Hey! Something important happened here!

At what nesting level should components read entities from Stores in Flux?

I'm rewriting my app to use Flux and I have an issue with retrieving data from Stores. I have a lot of components, and they nest a lot. Some of them are large (Article), some are small and simple (UserAvatar, UserLink).
I've been struggling with where in component hierarchy I should read data from Stores.
I tried two extreme approaches, neither of which I quite liked:
All entity components read their own data
Each component that needs some data from Store receives just entity ID and retrieves entity on its own.
For example, Article is passed articleId, UserAvatar and UserLink are passed userId.
This approach has several significant downsides (discussed under code sample).
var Article = React.createClass({
mixins: [createStoreMixin(ArticleStore)],
propTypes: {
articleId: PropTypes.number.isRequired
},
getStateFromStores() {
return {
article: ArticleStore.get(this.props.articleId);
}
},
render() {
var article = this.state.article,
userId = article.userId;
return (
<div>
<UserLink userId={userId}>
<UserAvatar userId={userId} />
</UserLink>
<h1>{article.title}</h1>
<p>{article.text}</p>
<p>Read more by <UserLink userId={userId} />.</p>
</div>
)
}
});
var UserAvatar = React.createClass({
mixins: [createStoreMixin(UserStore)],
propTypes: {
userId: PropTypes.number.isRequired
},
getStateFromStores() {
return {
user: UserStore.get(this.props.userId);
}
},
render() {
var user = this.state.user;
return (
<img src={user.thumbnailUrl} />
)
}
});
var UserLink = React.createClass({
mixins: [createStoreMixin(UserStore)],
propTypes: {
userId: PropTypes.number.isRequired
},
getStateFromStores() {
return {
user: UserStore.get(this.props.userId);
}
},
render() {
var user = this.state.user;
return (
<Link to='user' params={{ userId: this.props.userId }}>
{this.props.children || user.name}
</Link>
)
}
});
Downsides of this approach:
It's frustrating to have 100s components potentially subscribing to Stores;
It's hard to keep track of how data is updated and in what order because each component retrieves its data independently;
Even though you might already have an entity in state, you are forced to pass its ID to children, who will retrieve it again (or else break the consistency).
All data is read once at the top level and passed down to components
When I was tired of tracking down bugs, I tried to put all data retrieving at the top level. This, however, proved impossible because for some entities I have several levels of nesting.
For example:
A Category contains UserAvatars of people who contribute to that category;
An Article may have several Categorys.
Therefore if I wanted to retrieve all data from Stores at the level of an Article, I would need to:
Retrieve article from ArticleStore;
Retrieve all article's categories from CategoryStore;
Separately retrieve each category's contributors from UserStore;
Somehow pass all that data down to components.
Even more frustratingly, whenever I need a deeply nested entity, I would need to add code to each level of nesting to additionally pass it down.
Summing Up
Both approaches seem flawed. How do I solve this problem most elegantly?
My objectives:
Stores shouldn't have an insane number of subscribers. It's stupid for each UserLink to listen to UserStore if parent components already do that.
If parent component has retrieved some object from store (e.g. user), I don't want any nested components to have to fetch it again. I should be able to pass it via props.
I shouldn't have to fetch all entities (including relationships) at the top level because it would complicate adding or removing relationships. I don't want to introduce new props at all nesting levels each time a nested entity gets a new relationship (e.g. category gets a curator).

Most people start out by listening to the relevant stores in a controller-view component near the top of the hierarchy.
Later, when it seems like a lot of irrelevant props are getting passed down through the hierarchy to some deeply nested component, some people will decided it's a good idea to let a deeper component listen for changes in the stores. This offers a better encapsulation of the problem domain that this deeper branch of the component tree is about. There are good arguments to be made for doing this judiciously.
However, I prefer to always listen at the top and simply pass down all the data. I will sometimes even take the entire state of the store and pass it down through the hierarchy as a single object, and I will do this for multiple stores. So I would have a prop for the ArticleStore's state, and another for the UserStore's state, etc. I find that avoiding deeply nested controller-views maintains a singular entry point for the data, and unifies the data flow. Otherwise, I have multiple sources of data, and this can become difficult to debug.
Type checking is more difficult with this strategy, but you can set up a "shape", or type template, for the large-object-as-prop with React's PropTypes. See:
https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/src/core/ReactPropTypes.js#L76-L91
http://facebook.github.io/react/docs/reusable-components.html#prop-validation
Note that you may want to put the logic of associating data between stores in the stores themselves. So your ArticleStore might waitFor() the UserStore, and include the relevant Users with every Article record it provides through getArticles(). Doing this in your views sounds like pushing logic into the view layer, which is a practice you should avoid whenever possible.
You might also be tempted to use transferPropsTo(), and many people like doing this, but I prefer to keep everything explicit for readability and thus maintainability.
FWIW, my understanding is that David Nolen takes a similar approach with his Om framework (which is somewhat Flux-compatible) with a single entry point of data on the root node -- the equivalent in Flux would be to only have one controller-view listening to all stores. This is made efficient by using shouldComponentUpdate() and immutable data structures that can be compared by reference, with ===. For immutable data structures, checkout David's mori or Facebook's immutable-js. My limited knowledge of Om primarily comes from The Future of JavaScript MVC Frameworks

The approach at which I arrived is having each components receive its data (not IDs) as a prop. If some nested component needs a related entity, it's up to the parent component to retrieve it.
In our example, Article should have an article prop which is an object (presumably retrieved by ArticleList or ArticlePage).
Because Article also wants to render UserLink and UserAvatar for article's author, it will subscribe to UserStore and keep author: UserStore.get(article.authorId) in its state. It will then render UserLink and UserAvatar with this this.state.author. If they wish to pass it down further, they can. No child components will need to retrieve this user again.
To reiterate:
No component ever receives ID as a prop; all components receive their respective objects.
If child components needs an entity, it's parent's responsibility to retrieve it and pass as a prop.
This solves my problem quite nicely. Code example rewritten to use this approach:
var Article = React.createClass({
mixins: [createStoreMixin(UserStore)],
propTypes: {
article: PropTypes.object.isRequired
},
getStateFromStores() {
return {
author: UserStore.get(this.props.article.authorId);
}
},
render() {
var article = this.props.article,
author = this.state.author;
return (
<div>
<UserLink user={author}>
<UserAvatar user={author} />
</UserLink>
<h1>{article.title}</h1>
<p>{article.text}</p>
<p>Read more by <UserLink user={author} />.</p>
</div>
)
}
});
var UserAvatar = React.createClass({
propTypes: {
user: PropTypes.object.isRequired
},
render() {
var user = this.props.user;
return (
<img src={user.thumbnailUrl} />
)
}
});
var UserLink = React.createClass({
propTypes: {
user: PropTypes.object.isRequired
},
render() {
var user = this.props.user;
return (
<Link to='user' params={{ userId: this.props.user.id }}>
{this.props.children || user.name}
</Link>
)
}
});
This keeps innermost components stupid but doesn't force us to complicate the hell out of top level components.

My solution is much simpler. Every component that has its own state is allowed to talk and listen to stores. These are very controller-like components. Deeper nested components that don't maintain state but just render stuff aren't allowed. They only receive props for pure rendering, very view-like.
This way everything flows from stateful components into stateless components. Keeping the statefuls count low.
In your case, Article would be stateful and therefore talks to the stores and UserLink etc. would only render so it would receive article.user as prop.

The problems described in your 2 philosophies are common to any single page application.
They are discussed briefly in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrgHurBjQbg and Relay ( https://facebook.github.io/relay ) was developed by Facebook to overcome the tradeoff that you describe.
Relay's approach is very data centric. It is an answer to the question "How do I get just the needed data for each components in this view in one query to the server?" And at the same time Relay makes sure that you have little coupling across the code when a component used in multiple views.
If Relay is not an option, "All entity components read their own data" seems a better approach to me for the situation you describe.
I think the misconception in Flux is what a store is. The concept of store exist no to be the place where a model or a collection of objects are kept. Stores are temporary places where your application put the data before the view is rendered. The real reason they exist is to solve the problem of dependencies across the data that goes in different stores.
What Flux is not specifying is how a store relate to the concept of models and collection of objects (a la Backbone).
In that sense some people are actually making a flux store a place where to put collection of objects of a specific type that is not flush for the whole time the user keeps the browser open but, as I understand flux, that is not what a store is supposed to be.
The solution is to have another layer where you where the entities necessary to render your view (and potentially more) are stored and kept updated. If you this layer that abstract models and collections, it is not a problem if you the subcomponents have to query again to get their own data.