I have a side effect that detects the browser language and dispatches a browserLanguageSupported action if it is a language that my application can handle.
Now I have following reducer function that only updates the states preferredLanguage property in case it is not defined already. This is important because there are other actions that update this state property and I do not want a late browserLanguageSupported action to overwrite such a state update.
export interface State {
preferredLanguage: AppLanguage | undefined;
rehydrationComplete: boolean;
}
export const initialState: State = {
preferredLanguage: undefined,
rehydrationComplete: false
};
export const reducer = createReducer(
initialState,
on(LanguageActions.browserLanguageSupported, (state, {browserLanguage}) => {
if (!state.preferredLanguage) {
return {...state, preferredLanguage: browserLanguage};
}
return state;
})
);
Now for my question: Is it good practice to have such a condition in a reducer operator? The function itself is still pure. But I am not sure if it is good design or if I should solve it differently, lets say by adding state slice selection in the side effect that dispatches this action.
Btw. the reason I am not setting it directly in the initial state is because I get the browser language from an angular service and I am not sure if it is even possible to set initial feature state from service injection?
Best regards,
Pascal
I would to this the same way, so you get a đź‘Ť from me.
Adding a slice of the state into the effect just adds needless complexity.
The reducer contains the state, and it's OK to add logic to see if state needs to be updated or not.
Also, let's say you need to add this logic into another action/effect.
Having it in the reducer makes it easier to reuse if it's needed. Otherwise you end up with duplicate logic.
As long as the rejection (or mutation) of the data is irrelevant to the chain of actions & effects, this is absolutely valid.
However, it's worth noting that if the action in question triggers an effect which triggers an action, the triggered action will not know whether the data was rejected (or mutated) without checking the state—which is exactly what this pattern is attempting to avoid.
So, if you wanted to be able react to that rejection (or mutation), you would want to handle this in the effect. But, if you would proceed in exactly the same manner regardless of the result, then it belongs reducer.
Related
We have a dillema.
Certain data arrives through a template to our initial index.html page.
We put it on the window and the want to place it in the store.
Right now, we have something like this (psuedoish):
class App ... {
componentDidMount() {
this.props.setLoggedInUser(this.props.user);
// setLoggedInUser is a dispatch prop
}
}
<App user={window.user} />
option two is to just use initial state:
createStore(reducer, { user: window.user }, ...)
We had a lengthy discussion and can't agree if initialState is an anti-pattern or not.
Which is the correct way to implement this type of data loading?
I think initialState is not intended for such use. I would probably initialize it in reducer:
userReducer(state=window.user, action) ...
But that is under assumption that window.user is constant. If it is floating kind of thing, than I would probably go dispatch way, but not in componentDidMount, but in piece of code immediately following createStore
Using initialState when creating the store from bootstrapped data is the preferred way according to the documentation (see #2).
When bootstrapping data this way, you never get in a state where you're waiting for the store to apply the dispatched action. Another bonus is that you don't dispatch an action that isn't in relation to something happening in the UI.
I'm new to redux and looked at redux-actions or using switch statements in reducer, and though I'm not against using a switch statement, I'm wondering, isn't it easier to just use the call the action method?
Here's what I'm thinking
import actions from './actions'
const reducer = (state = {}, action) => {
if (actions[action.type]) return Object.assign({},
state, actions[action.type](action)
);
return state;
}
I've just tested this on my first reducer and action, and it works, but it seems quite obvious so I'm wondering why the switch type is the chosen way?
Switch statements are certainly the most common approach, but lookup tables are common as well. You can even use plain if/then conditions if you want. Ultimately, how you write your reducers is up to you.
FYI, this topic is covered in the Redux FAQ, in the FAQ: Reducers section. You might also want to read the new "Structuring Reducers" how-to section as well.
Some observations:
Don't refer to these external functions as "actions". They're not actions. They're actually reducers themselves.
Being reducers, you really ought to be passing the state object to them. Oftentimes, you'll want/need to utilise information contained in the current state, as well as information contained in the action object.
Otherwise, this seems like an appropriate approach.
I am building an mobile app using Ngrx and Angular2. I would like to clear the Store when user logout from my application? Can anyone know how to do this?
You should have an clear action in each of your reducer, which will clean respective properties in the store. Dispatch clear actions in each of the reducer manually when you call logout. I am not sure right now if its there an option to clean the entire store in one go.
Alternative:
A more cleaner and faster approach would be. Whenever you call an action via store.dispatch it calls all your reducers with that action.type. Say your action type name is CLEAR, put this action in each of your reducer to clear the respective property of the store. And call store.dispatch with action.type = 'CLEAR' ONCE, it will clear all the properties of the store.
If it confuses let me know, I will try to explain with code.
The solution is to write the root reducer.
It's similar to this:
export function reducer(state: any, action: any): ActionReducer<any> {
if (action.type === 'CLEAR STATE') {
state = undefined;
}
return appReducer(state, action);
}
Check this: How to reset the state of a Redux store?
My guess as to a way to do this would be to have a component that has the store registered on it. Put it in a router-outlet or a structural directive that could force a destroy and init on the component when the value changes.
Since the store is registered as a provider for the component (unless I'm mistaken) and should be tied to it, it should be destroyed when the component is destroyed and a new one created with a new component. Just a thought. I haven't had time to test it.
Don't register the provider in a parent component though. I believe the injectables work through a hierarchy.
I am trying to update the reducer state using :
store.dispatch(NameOftheReducer(data)).
It calls the Action creator but it does not update the reducer state. I dont want to create any React component from where i want to dispatch the state change. Is there any way to do so..Thanks in advance
Lets assume the store is stored stored somewhere global
then you can just
store.dispatch({
type: "SOME_ACTION",
value: "value"
})
if you have some actionCreator like:
function someAction(value) {
return {
type: "SOME_ACTION",
value: value
}
}
And and now you can use it with dispatch:
store.dispatch(someAction("some value"))
Did I missed something?
I think you misunderstood how component and redux state relates.
redux state change are done through actions regardless of which component is actually 'using' this state.
As long as you have an action creator defined somewhere, and you reducer handle the corresponding action.type, then you can use this action creator in whichever component.
There is no benefit of using store directly. store is stored in context, and it is generally considered bad practice using context. The nice thing about redux is that it takes care of this by giving you Provider and connect.
Except when initializing the app, you should always use mapDispatchToProps when you want to use action creators in your component.
Given a use case like the one in this question:
Best way to update related state fields with split reducers?
What is the best practice for dealing with actions in reducers that depend on state outside of their own state? The author of the question above ended up just passing the entire state tree as a third argument to every reducer. This seems heavy-handed and risky. The Redux FAQ lists the following potential solutions:
If a reducer needs to know data from another slice of state, the state tree shape may need to be reorganized so that a single reducer is handling more of the data.
You may need to write some custom functions for handling some of these actions. This may require replacing combineReducers with your own top-level reducer function.
You can also use a utility such as reduce-reducers to run combineReducers to handle most actions, but also run a more specialized reducer for specific actions that cross state slices.
Async action creators such as redux-thunk have access to the entire state through getState(). An action creator can retrieve additional data from the state and put it in an action, so that each reducer has enough information to update its own state slice.
In my use case, I have an action "continue" that determines what page a user is allowed to go to in a multiple-form / multi-step process, and since this depends on pretty much the entire app state, I can't handle it in any of my child reducers. For now, I've pulled the store into the action creator. I use the current state of the store to calculate an action object that fires to my "page" reducer, which changes the active page. I will probably install redux-thunk and use getState() in this action creator, but I'm not committed to this approach yet.
I guess this isn't too bad of a solution since there is only one action (so far) that must be handled this way. I'm just wondering if there is a better solution, or if there is a way to re-structure my state and reducers to make it easier, or if what I'm doing is within best practices for Redux. If there are any similar examples out there, that would be helpful also.
To give some more context, my state tree currently looks like this:
{
order: order.result,
items: order.entities.items,
activePage: {
id: 'fulfillment'
// page info
},
pagesById: { // all the possible pages
fulfillment: {
id: 'fulfillment'
// page info
}
}
}
The active page is the page / section in which the user must enter data in order to proceed to the next page). Determining the active page almost always depends on the items state and sometimes depends on order state. The end result is an app where the user fills out a few forms in succession, hitting continue once the form is valid. On continue the app determines the next page needed and displays it, and so on.
EDIT: We've tried the approach of implementing a "global" reducer in combination with child reducers.
The implementation is like this...
const global = (currentState = initialState, action) => {
switch (action.type) {
default:
return currentState
}
}
const subReducers = combineReducers({
order,
meta
})
export default function (currentState = initialState, action) {
var nextState = global(currentState, action)
return subReducers(nextState, action)
}
The global reducer is first run on the whole app state, then the result of that is fed to the child reducers. I like the fact that I'm no longer putting a bunch of logic in action creators just to read different parts of state.
I believe this is in alignment with the principles of redux since every action still hits every reducer, and the order in which reducers are called is always the same. Any thoughts on this implementation?
EDIT: We are now using router libraries to handle the page state, so activePage and pagesById are gone.
If state.activePage depends of state.order and state.items, you may subscribe to the store and in case of modifications on "order" or "items" then dispatch a "checkPage" action which can set another active page if necessary. One way should to connect on a "top component" order and items, listen their values and change active page/redirect
Not easy to understand your concern, I hope my message will help. Good luck