When updating my state inside a slice's reducer with the redux's toolkit, I ran into the problem of the circular reference, for example:
const aSlice = createSlice({
...
extraReducers: builder => {
...,
builder.addCase(addToState.fulfilled, (state, action) => {
state.data = {
...state.data,
...action.payload.data
};
});
...,
}
});
Thus resulting in ...state.data returning a proxy reference instead of the value which is one of the pitfalls mention, Redux Toolkit doc as well as in Immer.js pitfalls section.
I can think of some ways to hack this into working but, I was wondering if they were any best practice for this matter or any elegant way of making this work?
When using Immer and proxies, a useful pattern for "assign all" is to actually use Object.assign().
Typically, use of Object.assign() with Redux involves passing an empty object as the first parameter to make it an immutable update, like Object.assign({}, oldItem, newItem).
However, with Immer, you can do a truly mutating update to assign all incoming properties to the existing object. In this case, Object.assign(state.data, action.payload.data).
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.
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.
Lets say I have an application that displays issues for a given project. A user can open an issue, meaning they can see it on the screen, or close the issue, meaning it disappears. When I close the project, I want to also hide the issue visible to the user.
How can I avoid duplicating the business logic for mutating the state within the reducer? I can think of three options, and am wondering which is best, or what alternatives are available.
Idea one: Just repeat the code. I copy the CLOSE_PROJECT code into any method that needs it, like CLOSE_ISSUE.
const reducer = (state, action) => {
switch (action.type) {
case OPEN_PROJECT:
state.project = action.payload.project
case CLOSE_PROJECT:
state.project = null
state.issue = null
case CLOSE_ISSUE:
state.issue = null
}
}
Idea two: Move re-used code into helper functions. Pass the state into the helper function, get back the new state. (Note: I am using immer.js, but just picture this as psuedo code that doesn't actually mutate the state)
const closeProject = (state, action) => {
state.project = null
state
}
const closeIssue = (state, action) => {
state.project = null
state
}
const reducer = (state, action) => {
switch (action.type) {
case OPEN_PROJECT:
state.project = action.payload.project
case CLOSE_PROJECT:
state = closeProject(state)
state = closeIssue(state)
case CLOSE_ISSUE:
state.issue = null
}
}
Idea three: Handle the logic outside of the reducer. Have helper functions that co-ordinate multiple dispatch calls.
const closeProject = (dispatch) {
dispatch(closeProjectAction())
dispatch(closeIssueAction())
}
const ReactThing = (dispatch) => {
const handleCloseProjectClick = () => {
closeProject(dispatcher)
}
return (
<div onClick={ e => handleCloseProjectClick() }>Close</div>
)
}
I think idea three is the best. But it feels strange to have all these business logic functions just kind of floating around outside of Redux. Are there better alternatives?
All three options are entirely valid. To some extent, it's a question of how you want to model your logic, and how you want to abstract common functionality.
There's a couple sections of the Redux docs that mostly address your questions:
Redux FAQ: Where should my "business logic" live?
Structuring Reducers: Reusing Reducer Logic
I also discussed several aspects related to this in my post The Tao of Redux, Part 2: Practice and Philosophy.
Also, as a side note: I strongly recommend using our Redux Starter Kit package, which uses Immer internally for simplified reducer setup.
Is there any inconvenient at all if I design my reducers to, instead of reading only the partial state, had access to the full state tree?
So instead of writing this:
function reducer(state = {}, action) {
return {
a: doSomethingWithA(state.a, action),
b: processB(state.b, action),
c: c(state.c, action)
}
}
I destructure state inside doSomethingWithA, c or processB reducers, separately:
function reducer(state = {}, action) {
return {
a: doSomethingWithA(state, action), // calc next state based on a
b: processB(state, action), // calc next state based on b
c: c(state, action) // calc next state based on a, b and c
}
}
Would I'd be using more RAM? Is there any performance inconvenient? I understand that in javascript, a reference is always passed as parameter, that's why we should return a new object if we want to update the state or use Immutable.JS to enforce immutability, so... again, would it be of any inconvenient at all?
No, there's nothing wrong with that. Part of the reason for writing update logic as individual functions instead of separate Flux "stores" is that it gives you explicit control over chains of dependencies. If the logic for updating state.b depends on having state.a updated first, you can do that.
You may want to read through the Structuring Reducers section in the Redux docs, particularly the Beyond combineReducers topic. It discusses other various reducer structures besides the typical combineReducers approach. I also give some examples of this kind of structure in my blog post Practical Redux, Part 7: Form Change Handling, Data Editing, and Feature Reducers.
Looking at the real world example I see this setting up the api middleware:
export default store => next => action => {
const callAPI = action[CALL_API]
if (typeof callAPI === 'undefined') {
return next(action)
}
What exactly is happening here? I see that configureStore is importing whatever that is and passing it to applyMiddleware from redux, but what does this kind of statement mean in js?
I assume it's exporting an anonymous function that returns a function that returns a function? Just tried this:
var a = b => c => d => {
console.log('a:', a);
console.log('b:', b);
console.log('c:', c);
console.log('d:', d);
};
a(5)(6)(7);
// outputs b: 5, c: 6, and d: 7
Function Specialization
The arrow function notation simplifies currying in JavaScript.
Here it's just a way to do partial applications, and permits to bind arguments to the function at different times, by using Closures instead of Function.prototype.bind.
When you call applyMiddleware during Store creation, Redux will specialize your Middleware with the current Store it's been applied to.
Then it becomes a new specialized function, that only takes two arguments:
next => action
Where next is the next middleware that will be called on the Action. (Just like in Express, which popularized the concept, for request handling)
Timeline
The important thing here is that all these function specializations are done at different times.
store can be bound during Store creation.
next can be bound once it knows the Store it's been bound to, so also during Store creation, but could be updated later.
action is known only when you effectively dispatch an Action, which can happen any time.
The specialized middleware (the one which has been bound to the Store, and is already aware of the Next middleware function) will be reusable, and called for each new dispatched Action.
Functional Programming
These concepts (currying and partial application) come from the Functional Programming world.
Redux relies heavily on this paradigm, and the most important thing in Redux is the sidelining of Side-Effects (especially mutations).
Capturing directly the context of the function, or using a global Store via require, is a side-effect as your function will directly after its declaration be bound to this Store.
Instead Redux uses Currying to permit sort of Dependency Injection, and it results in a stateless function, that can be reused and specialized at runtime.
This way your Middleware is Loosely Coupled to the Store.
To understand this clearly you need to first know how middlewares work in redux. So first go through this
Now even after going through the documentation you are still confused, dont worry its a bit complicated, try reading it once again :).I understood this properly after 2-3 reads.
Now the one you mentioned in your question is a curried up ES6 syntax. If you try to convert this to vanilla javascript it would come to something like below
function (store) {
return function (next) {
return function (action) {
var callAPI = action[CALL_API];
if (typeof callAPI === 'undefined') {
return next(action);
}
};
};
};
So if you see its nothing but just chaining of functions.