I am beginner in Redux and I want to use it for asynchronous logic. Redux style quide recommends to use redux-thunk for it, but it seems I don't need it if I use redux in following way:
class Actions {
constructor(dispatch) {
this.dispatch = dispatch;
}
someSyncAction1(data) {
this.dispatch({
type: SOME_SYNC_ACTION1,
payload: data,
})
}
someSyncAction2(data) {
this.dispatch({
type: SOME_SYNC_ACTION2,
payload: data,
})
}
async someAsyncAction(data1, data2) {
this.someSyncAction1(data1);
await somethingAsync();
this.someSyncAction2(data2);
}
}
// then in my react component:
function MyComponent() {
const dispatch = useDispatch();
const actions = new Actions(dispatch);
//...
return <div onClick={() => actions.someAsyncAction(1, 2)}></div>;
}
It seems to be a simple way but I worry whether it can lead to errors. Please help me to understand what is wrong with it.
This is not very different from the useActions hook referred to in the Hooks documentation - at least for the synchronous stuff.
In the async stuff, you are losing functionality though: Thunks can at any given time access the current state by calling getState.
Also, and this is probably more important: thunks are not only recommended, they are a pattern almost every redux developer knows. So they look at your code and can immediately go to work. Your pattern on the other hand is not established, so it will lead to conflicts if someone other will ever take over your code - without any real benefit.
Related
I am reading this page getting into react-redux https://redux.js.org/introduction/getting-started
I am very confused looking at the Basic Example which has 12 lines of code(excluding usage, imports, and comments)
Then I read this line on the "Redux Toolkit Example" which below the code states "Redux Toolkit allows us to write shorter logic that's easier to read, while still following the same Redux behavior and data flow." However, this example is 19 lines of code(excluding usage, imports, and comments)
The usage in both examples is 3 lines of code. Could someone explain this to me?
Perhaps when it scales, the redux toolkit example does save more code? Honestly, I find the Basic Example MUCH easier to read and maintain. NOTE: I am a complete newb which leads me to believe the basic example may be better as we ramp up and hire developers. This allows them to ramp up more quickly(but I am only a single data point amongst newbs)
thanks,
Dean
You're right about the lines of code in the example. Perhaps that simple counter example doesn't do justice to how much code Redux Toolkit can save because they aren't adding all the "bells and whistles" in their non-toolkit version.
This section is called "getting started with Redux" rather than "migrating to Redux Toolkit" so I suspect they don't want to overwhelm the user by introducing best practices like action creator functions which aren't strictly necessary. But you're not seeing the "write less code" benefit because most of the code that you can remove with the Toolkit is coming from things that weren't in the example in first place.
Action Creators
One of the main benefits of the createSlice function is that it automatically creates the action name constants and action creator functions to go along with each case in the reducer.
This example is just dispatching raw actions directly with string names store.dispatch({ type: 'counter/incremented' }). Most devs would not do this because of how fragile and inflexible it is.
An alternate version of the non-toolkit example, what you would see in most code, looks more like this:
// action name constants
const INCREMENTED = 'counter/incremented';
const DECREMENTED = 'counter/decremented';
// action creator functions
// usually most take some arguments
const incremented = () => ({
type: INCREMENTED,
})
const decremented = () => ({
type: DECREMENTED,
})
// reducer function
function counterReducer(state = { value: 0 }, action) {
switch (action.type) {
case INCREMENTED:
return { value: state.value + 1 }
case DECREMENTED:
return { value: state.value - 1 }
default:
return state
}
}
If you want to include typescript types it gets even worse.
Immutability
The reducer itself could get really lengthy if you are trying to do immutable updates on deeply nested data.
Here's an example copied from those docs on how to safely update the property state.first.second[someId].fourth
Without Toolkit
function updateVeryNestedField(state, action) {
return {
...state,
first: {
...state.first,
second: {
...state.first.second,
[action.someId]: {
...state.first.second[action.someId],
fourth: action.someValue
}
}
}
}
}
With Toolkit:
const reducer = createReducer(initialState, {
UPDATE_ITEM: (state, action) => {
state.first.second[action.someId].fourth = action.someValue
}
})
configureStore
The Toolkit configureStore actually does save a step vs the Redux createStore function when you are combining more than one reducer. But again this example fails to show it. Instead the Toolkit version is longer because we set a reducer property rather than just passing the reducer.
A typical Redux app uses the combineReducers utility to combine multiple reducers as properties on an object:
import {createStore, combineReducers} from "redux";
const rootReducer = combineReducers({
counter: counterReducer,
other: otherReducer
});
const vanillaStore = createStore(rootReducer);
With the Toolkit you can just pass your reducers map directly without calling combineReducers.
import {configureStore} from "#reduxjs/toolkit";
const toolkitStore = configureStore({
reducer: {
counter: counterReducer,
other: otherReducer
}
});
Which is roughly the same amount of code. But it also includes some default middleware which would be extra lines in the non-toolkit example.
I've always struggled to get my head around Redux-thunk, as it really don't understand what great purpose it serves. For example, here's a random Redux-Thunk example I found from a website:
export const addTodo = ({ title, userId }) => {
return dispatch => {
dispatch(addTodoStarted());
axios
.post(ENDPOINT, {
title,
userId,
completed: false
})
.then(res => {
setTimeout(() => {
dispatch(addTodoSuccess(res.data));
}, 2500);
})
.catch(err => {
dispatch(addTodoFailure(err.message));
});
};
};
It's seemingly simple, addTodo is a function that takes in the title and userId and returns a function with dispatch as a parameter, which then uses dispatch once and then again for the response of the HTTP request. Because in this case Redux-Thunk is being used, you would just do dispatch(addTodo(x,x));
Why would I not just do something like this though?
function addTodo(dispatch, title,userId){
dispatch(addTodoStarted());
axios
.post(ENDPOINT, {
title,
userId,
completed: false
})
.then(res => {
setTimeout(() => {
dispatch(addTodoSuccess(res.data));
}, 2500);
})
.catch(err => {
dispatch(addTodoFailure(err.message));
});
}
Then from anywhere, I can just call addTodo(dispatch, x, x);
Why would I use the Redux-Thunk example over my own?
Here are few points through which i will try to explain why should go with redux-thunk.
Its middle ware so it will make dispatch and state object available in every action you define without touching you component code.
When you pass dispatch function which is either from props or from mapDispatchToProps(react-redux) which creates closure. This closure keeps memory consumed till asyc operation finished.
When ever you want to dispatch any action, after completing or in async operation you need to pass dispatch function and in this case you need to modify two files like your component and actions.
If something is already available and tested with lot effort and community support why not use it.
your code will be more readable and modular.
Worst case for both approach, say after completing project, need to change thunk approach, you can easily mock thunk middle ware with your custom middle ware code and resolve it but in case of passing dispatch function it will refactoring all code and search and replace and find way to manage it.
In the Redux Style Guide, it is strongly recommended to Put as Much Logic as Possible in Reducers:
Wherever possible, try to put as much of the logic for calculating a
new state into the appropriate reducer, rather than in the code that
prepares and dispatches the action (like a click handler).
What I'm not sure of is, if thunks are also considered to be "the code" of some sort. Besides, we've also been (mis?)using thunks to grab data from other slices of state.
Hypothetically simplified code snippet of such thunk:
const addX = x => (dispatch, getState) => {
const { data, view } = getState();
const { y } = view; // <-- here accessing data from `view` state.
const yy = doSomeLogicWith(y);
const z = doSomeMoreLogicWith(yy);
dispatch({ type: 'data/xAdded', payload: { x, z } });
};
Is this actually considered to be an anti-pattern in Redux? If so, what are the cons of doing this?
Yes, a thunk would qualify as "the code that dispatches the action" for this case. So, what the rule is recommending here is that if possible, the action would just contain y, and the function calls to doSomeLogicWith(y) and doSomeMoreLogicWith(yy) would ideally exist within the reducer instead.
Having said that, it's totally fine for a thunk to extract pieces of data from the state and include that in the action, and it's not wrong for a thunk to do some pre-processing of data before dispatching the action.
The style guide rule is just saying that, given a choice between running a particular piece of logic in a reducer or outside a reducer, prefer to do it in the reducer if at all possible.
React, redux, redux-saga
I dispatch an action, say CREATE_REQUESTED to the store.
Redux-saga runs, and makes the async call to the server.
After the saga completes, i.e. blocks for the next CREATE_REQUESTED I want to execute additional code, from the container/component from which the first CREATE_REQUESTED was initiated.
// pseudo code
class Cmp extends React.component {
onCreateClick(id) {
const record = {id, name: 'alabala'}
// I am missing the .then() part
this.props.dispatch({type: 'CREATE_REQUESTED', record}).then(created => {
console.log(created)
}
}
}
Is there a way to do that? How?
If not, how am I supposed to design this task?
One approach could be to pass (resolve, reject) options along with the action, and make the saga call them on succcess/failure. Seems OK.
https://github.com/yelouafi/redux-saga/issues/161
Let's pretend I have a long-running function working on computing my new state.
Meanwhile another action comes in and changes the state while the first one did not finish and is working on stuff.
If I am imagining things correctly there is no actions queue and the state might be resolved in some unpredictable manner.
Should I be worried about this at all?
I don't mean real threads, just a concept for the lack of better wording. Actions are asynchronous and state keys are being accessed by reference.
I was concerned about the same thing so I just did some digging. It looks like two threads concurrently calling dispatch() (if it were possible) could raise an exception. But it shouldn't be possible and that error message points to a particular, different cause. The "actions queue" is in the browser's own event loop. That event loop runs async/interaction callbacks (from which we call dispatch()) one-at-a-time.
That's the responsibility of your own action creators and your own reducers, and heavily related to how you structure your actions and reducers conceptually. The Redux FAQ question on structuring "business logic" is very relevant here:Redux FAQ
Thunk action creators have access to getState, so it's very common to have a thunk check the current state and only dispatch under certain conditions, such as this example:
// An example of conditional dispatching based on state
const MAX_TODOS = 5;
function addTodosIfAllowed(todoText) {
return (dispatch, getState) => {
const state = getState();
if(state.todos.length < MAX_TODOS) {
dispatch({type : "ADD_TODO", text : todoText});
}
}
}
Your reducer can also have sanity checks as well:
function todosReducer(state, action) {
switch(action.type) {
case "ADD_TODO": {
if(state.todos.length >= state.maxTodos) {
return state;
}
return {
...state,
todos : state.todos.concat(action.newTodo)
}
}
default : return state;
}
}
Personally, I don't like to have my reducers just blindly merge in whatever data's in the action, unless it's very small (like, say, the name of the currently selected tab or something). I prefer to have a reasonable amount of logic in my action creator to set up the action, a minimal-ish amount of data included in the action itself, and a sufficiently smart reducer to do the work based on that action.