I'm using Redux Toolkit, though I don't think that makes a difference.
I've set up a snackbar that reads from store.data.message, and I write the message by setting a value and then clearing the message after a timeout. This happens in a helper function, showMessage.
I call showMessage from my thunks:
export const showMessage = (dispatch: any, message: string) => {
dispatch(setMessage(message))
setTimeout(() => dispatch(clearMessage()), 3000)
}
export const fetchDataState = (): AppThunk => async dispatch => {
const state = await getSystemState()
showMessage(dispatch, 'Fetched system state.')
dispatch(getStateSucceeded(state))
}
I simply want to know if there is a way to write these without having to pass dispatch in every time I call showMessage.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I imagine I can't write it like a thunk because redux-thunk is middleware that calls the thunks in its own way, and I'm not calling them that way.
Yes, you can write it as a thunk like this:
export const showMessage = (message: string) => (dispatch: AppDispatch) => {
dispatch(setMessage(message))
setTimeout(() => dispatch(clearMessage()), 3000)
}
// call it:
dispatch(showMessage("Hi!"))
Related
being rather new to react.js + redux, I'm facing the following conundrum:
I have multiple files, which need to update the store in exactly the same way, based on the stores current state. Currently I simply copy-paste the same code (along with the needed mapStateToProps), which goes again DRY.
Similar to something like the below, where getData is an Ajax call living in the actions file and props.timeAttribute is coming from mapStateToProps:
props.getData(props.timeAttribute).then((newState) => {
console.log(newState)
})
Would a function like that go in the actions file? Can the current state be read from within that actions file? Or does one normally create some sort of helperFile.js in which a function like that lives and is being called from other files?
Thanks!
If your file is executing the same action, then yes, you would put the action creator in a separate file and export it. In theory, you can put state in an action by passing the state as a parameter, but the philosophy behind an action is that it announces to your application that SOMETHING HAPPENED (as denoted by the type property on the return value of the action function). The reducer function responsible for handling that type subsequently updates the state.
You can access the current state of the store inside of an action creator like this:
export const testAction = (someParam) => {
return (dispatch, getState) => {
const {
someState,
} = getState(); //getState gets the entire state of your application
//do something with someState and then run the dispatch function like this:
dispatch(() => {type: ACTION_TYPE, payload: updatedState})
}
I like this approach because it encapsulates all the logic for accessing state inside of the one function that will need to access it.
DO NOT modify the state inside of the action creator though! This should be read only. The state of your application should only be updated through your reducer functions.
Yes, it is recommended to maintain a separate file for your actions.
Below is an example of how i use an action to fetch information and dispatch an action.
export const fetchComments = () => (dispatch) => {
console.log("Fetch Comment invoked");
/*you can use your Ajax getData call instead of fetch.
Can also add parameters if you need */
return fetch(baseUrl + 'comments')
.then(response => {
if (response.ok){
return response;
}
else {
var error = new Error('Error ' + response.status + ': ' + response.statusText);
error.response = response;
throw error;
}
},
error => {
var errmess = new Error(error.message);
throw errmess;
})
.then(response => response.json())
.then(comments => dispatch(addComments(comments)))
.catch(error => dispatch(commentsFailed(error.message)));
}
/* Maintain a separate file called ActionTypes.js where you can store all the ActionTypes as Strings. */
export const addComments = (comments) => ({
type : ActionTypes.ADD_COMMENTS,
payload : comments
});
export const comments = (errMess) => ({
type : ActionTypes.COMMENTS_FAILED,
payload : errMess
});
Once, you receive dispatch an action, you need an reducer to capture the action and make changes to your store.
Note that this reducer must be a pure function.
export const comments = (state = { errMess: null, comments:[]}, action) => {
console.log("inside comments");
switch (action.type) {
case ActionTypes.ADD_COMMENTS:
return {...state, errMess: null, comments: action.payload};
case ActionTypes.COMMENTS_FAILED:
return {...state, errMess: action.payload};
default:
return state;
}
};
Don't forget to combine the reducers in the configureStore().
const store = createStore(
combineReducers({
comments
}),
applyMiddleware(thunk,logger)
);
In your components where you use the Actions, use
const mapDispatchToProps = dispatch => ({
fetchComments : () => dispatch(fetchComments()),
})
Note to export the component as
export default connect(mapStateToProps,mapDispatchToProps)(Component);
I need to dispatch some actions in some order using redux-observable however, it takes just last action to dispatch. Please see example:
export const fetchClientsEpic = (action$, { dispatch }) =>
action$
.ofType(fetchClients)
.mapTo(fetchClientsPending(true))
.mergeMap(() => {
return ajax
.getJSON('some/get/clients/api')
.map((clients: IClient[]) => {
return fetchClientsSuccess(
map(clients, (client, index) => ({
key: index,
...client,
})),
);
});
});
fetchClientsSuccess is dispatched with clients but fetchClientsPending not, I totally do not get it why. I could use dispatch because I get it in params, but I feel it is not good solution(?). It should be done in the stream I guess. I am starting with RxJs and redux-observable. Is it possible to do?
Operators are chains of Observables where the input of one stream is the output of another. So when you use mapTo you're mapping one action to the other. But then your mergeMap maps that Pending action and maps it to that other inner Observable that does the ajax and such, effectively throwing the Pending action away. So think of RxJS as a series of pipes where data flows through (a stream)
While there is no silver bullet, in this particular case what you want to achieve can be done by using startWith at the end of your inner Observable
export const fetchClientsEpic = (action$, { dispatch }) =>
action$
.ofType(fetchClients)
.mergeMap(() => {
return ajax
.getJSON('some/get/clients/api')
.map((clients: IClient[]) => {
return fetchClientsSuccess(
map(clients, (client, index) => ({
key: index,
...client,
})),
);
})
.startWith(fetchClientsPending(true)); // <------- like so
});
This is in fact the same thing as using concat with of(action) first, just shorthand.
export const fetchClientsEpic = (action$, { dispatch }) =>
action$
.ofType(fetchClients)
.mergeMap(() => {
return Observable.concat(
Observable.of(fetchClientsPending(true)),
ajax
.getJSON('some/get/clients/api')
.map((clients: IClient[]) => {
return fetchClientsSuccess(
map(clients, (client, index) => ({
key: index,
...client,
})),
);
})
);
});
That said, I would recommend against synchronously dispatching another action to set the state that fetching is pending and instead rely on the original fetchClients action itself for the same effect. It should be assumed by your reducers that if such an action is seen, that some how the fetching still start regardless. This saves you the boilerplate and helps a bit on micro-perf since you don't need to run through the reducers, epics, and rerender twice.
There's no rules though, so if you feel strongly about this, go for it :)
New to Jest and Redux and I'm having trouble with testing functions that are dispatching to the store but don't yield a return value. I'm trying to follow the example from the Redux website does this
return store.dispatch(actions.fetchTodos()).then(() => {
// return of async actions
expect(store.getActions()).toEqual(expectedActions)
})
however I have several "fetchtodos" functions that don't return anything which causes the error TypeError:
Cannot read property 'then' of undefined due to returning undefined
I'm wondering what I can do to test that my mock store is correctly updating. Is there a way to dispatch the function, wait for it to finish and then compare the mock store with expected results?
Thanks
Edit: We're using typescript
action from tsx
export function selectTopic(topic: Topic | undefined): (dispatch: Redux.Dispatch<TopicState>) => void {
return (dispatch: Redux.Dispatch<TopicState>): void => {
dispatch({
type: SELECT_Topic,
payload: topic,
});
dispatch(reset(topic));
};
}
test.tsx
const middlewares = [thunk];
const mockStore = configureMockStore(middlewares);
describe('Select Topic action', () => {
it('should create an action to select .', () => {
const topic: Topic = mockdata.example[0];
const expectedAction = {
type: actions.SELECT_TOPIC,
payload: topic,
};
const store = mockStore(mockdata.defaultState);
return store.dispatch(actions.selectTopic(topic)).then(() => {
expect(store.getState()).toEqual(expectedAction);
});
});
});
The action is what I'm given to test(and there are many other functions similar to it. I'm getting that undefined error when running the test code, as the function isn't returning anything.
In Redux, the store's dispatch method is synchronous unless you attach middleware that changes that behavior, ie: returns a promise.
So this is likely a redux configuration problem. Be sure you are setting up your test store with the same middleware that allows you to use the promise pattern in production.
And as always, be sure to mock any network requests to avoid making api calls in test.
I'm new to unittesting Redux with Jest.
I have the following Action:
export const stepDone = (step) => (dispatch) => {
dispatch({type: STEP_DONE, payload: step});
}
How can I test this function?
Something like this should work:
//Mock the dispatch function with jest's built in mocking functions
const mockDispatch = jest.fn();
//Call the action
stepDone(999)(mockDispatch)
//Check it was called with the correct argument
expect(mockDispatch).toHaveBeenCalledWith({type: STEP_DONE, payload: 999})
The magic of Redux is that when you're testing actions and reducers you're generally just testing pure Javascript so it's not particularly complicated.
I'm using redux-thunk and I also want to dispatch some actions with timeout. Because of some reasons (i want all timeouts in an object, i want to able to cancel them, doesnt really matter now) I want to have custom 'timeout middleware' and 'action enchancer'
enchancer just emits special type of action:
const addTimeoutToAction = (delay, action) => ({
type: 'TIMEOUT'
, delay
, action
})
middleware just catches it and should dispatch action after timeout ends
({dispatch, getState}) => next => action => {
if (action && action.type === 'TIMEOUT') {
setTimeout(() => {
dispatch(action.action);
}, action.delay)
}
next(action);
}
So my expectation is that dispatch function in the middleware will send action back to the middleware chain, where it will start to go through all again.
My example code works with plain action, however thunked action is not. please help me understand how to reroute delayed action back to middleware chain.
Example code:
http://codepen.io/Fen1kz/pen/zKadmL?editors=0010
You code should look like this
const action3 = () => (dispatch, getState) => {
dispatch({
type: 'action3'
});
}
Whenever you use thunk middleware, you MUST call dispatch to dispatch actions, you cannot return an object.
Here is the corrected codepen: http://codepen.io/anon/pen/pEKWRK?editors=0010
Hope this helps.