For example we have reducer photos, which handles array of photos via actions ADD_PHOTO and REMOVE_PHOTO. And if we have arrays users and posts, they both have field for array of photos.
So, in order to avoid code duplicates I'm going to do the following:
Create reducer user = combineReducers(..., photos, ...)
Create actionCreator updateUser
const updateUser = (id, subAction) => ({
type: UPDATE_USER,
payload: {
id,
subAction
}
})
Create reducer users (Here I'm using Immutable.js)
function users(state = List(), action) {
switch (action.type) {
//...
case UPDATE_USER:
const { id, subAction } = action.payload
const index = state.findIndex(user => user.id == id)
return state.updateIn(
[index, 'photos'],
state => photos(state, subAction)
)
break
//...
default:
return state
}
}
And then I'm going to use all of it like this:
dispatch(updateUser(id, addPhoto(url)))
Is this a correct solution of my problem?
Why not simply dispatch both in the place where this is initiated by the user?
dispatch(updateUser(id));
dispatch(addPhoto(url));
I haven't come across this pattern you're applying before. It seems a bit unusual that one reducer is responsible for reducing state of another. Creates a dependency between them that doesn't feel very pure. I'm not even sure one reducer should be able to/can see the state of another.
So no idea about "correct", but I'd say it's not ideal to do it your way. I'd try dispatching both sequentially or maybe in a sort of meta-action that takes care of nested updates and dispatches actions to multiple reducers.
Related
Say I have a music store app where the user searches for guitars. On initial page load, I fetch a few varieties of guitars to display: (acoustic, electric, and bass). Pages of guitar results are returned together from a single API call but will never be displayed together. Therefore, they must be filtered at some point. To view different categories of guitars, the user will toggle the category they view from a react component.
There seems to be two major ways I can approach this problem with immutable and redux.
In Strategy 1, I filter the data on category when it arrives, and store it separately in the redux store. When I want to retrieve the data, I specify the category in the selector.
In Strategy 2, all API data that comes in is stored in an aggregate List "all". When I want to retrieve a particular category of guitars, I used a selector to filter and display from the aggregated data.
STRATEGY 1:
// REDUCER
export const GuitarReducer = (state, action) => {
const { payload, type } = state;
switch (type) {
case "acoustic": {
let existing = // GET EXISTING
return state.set("acoustic",
existing.concat(payload.filter(result => (result.category === "acoustic")))
)
}
case "electric": {
let existing = // GET EXISTING
return state.set("electric",
existing.concat(payload.filter(result => (result.category === "electric")))
)
}
case "bass": {
let existing = // GET EXISTING
return state.set("bass",
existing.concat(payload.filter(result => (result.category === "bass")))
)
}
}
}
// SELECTOR
export const selectCategory = createSelector(
[getCategory, getGuitarReducer],
(category, guitarReducer) => {
return GuitarReducer.get(category);
}
);
STRATEGY 2:
// REDUCER
export const GuitarReducer = (state, action) => {
const { payload, type } = state;
...
let existing = // GET EXISTING
...
return state.set("all",
existing.concat(payload)
)
}
// SELECTOR
export const selectCategory = createSelector(
[selectAllGuitars],
(category, guitars) => {
return guitars.filter(guitar => (guitar.category = category));
}
);
Will one pattern give better performance than another? What pattern better follows best practices for redux?
I have heard that it is best to prefer selectors for computing derived data, and that memoization will cache the results to use when another action is performed on the data such as toggling between tabs. Because of this, it is not clear to me which strategy to prefer.
I think selectors mainly focused of not re-computing derived data in your components (and the benefit of reusing it across other components).
Both in your example are good practices, so I would reframe it as follows. Do you want your datastore to look like in choice one or choice two (original API response). Do you want it to lazily load (choice two), or load categories for all guitars.
Choice 1
Pros
Stores in datastore in format more useful to your application.
Choice two recomputes on category change, choice one is computed at start and most likely more performant.
Cons
No access to original API response.
Performs filtering and categorizing on API request instead of lazily (Honestly not a big problem).
Choice 2
Pros
Stores in datastore original API response.
Lazily computes the required guitar category.
Cons
Performs computation again on category change. (Note reselect only has a cache size of 1).
Memoizing also takes additional memory.
What is a better way to create reducers with handleActions in redux-actions:
1. Create reducers for each CRUD operations (like add data, delete data) and combine it. How set initialState in this case?
2. Set actions in one reducer (fetchDeleteDataRequest, fetchDeleteDataSuccess, fetchAddDataRequest, fetchAddDataSuccess by example)?
You can have sperate reducers and or common reducers to add or delete data that is up to you. If you are considering separate actions for add and delete you will need to keep the data consistent. But having a common function to deal with the CRUD operations is ideal since this will reduce the amount of code that you have to use but you will need a way to distinguish them as well (maybe bypassing some variable ADD or DELETE). let's consider and list of items that you will be adding or deleting. This list can be an empty array in the beginning (initialState) and pass it as props to your component.
Actions
export const addDeleteItem = data => dispatch => {
// you can perform REST calls here
dispatch({
type: ADD_REMOVE_DATA,
payload: data
});
};
Reducers
let initialState = {
items:[]
}
export default (state = initialState, action) => {
switch (action.type) {
case ADD_REMOVE_DATA:
if(action.payload.event === 'ADD'){
return {...state,items:[...state.items,action.payload.item]}
}else if(action.payload.event === 'DELETE'){
return {...state,items:state.items.filter(item=>item.id !== action.payload.item.id)}
}else if (action.payload.event === 'UPDATE'){
//handle your update code
}
}
}
This is just an example you can follow something like this to avoid code duplication.
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.
I have two reducer files that handle the two areas of state in my module...
export interface MyState {
people: PeopleState;
pets: PetState;
}
export const reducers: ActionReducerMap<MyState> = {
people: peopleReducer,
pets: petsReducer
};
This works fine. However, I have some actions that need to update both areas of the state. I'd like to handle this by having a reducer file that deals with things at the MyState level and can update people and pets. I'd like to keep both the existing reducers that handle this at the lower levels.
I can't see how to register the top level reducer. The way the code is now, any reducer added to the ActionReducerMap must be added as a property inside MyState rather than handling MyState as a whole.
Anyone got any ideas?
Thanks
Nick
I guess that the only solution here is to use metaReducer, check this article: https://netbasal.com/implementing-a-meta-reducer-in-ngrx-store-4379d7e1020a
Description: metaReducer is a kind of reducer that stays above other reducers. It should have it's own actions, can have it's own effects. You can use it in such way:
export function metaReducer( reducer ) {
return function reduce( state: ParentState, action: MetaReducerAction ) {
switch(action.type)
case PARENT_ACTION:
return {
...state,
people: peopleReducer(state.people, new DoSthWithPeople()),
pets: petsReducer(state.pets, new DoSthWithPets())
}
default:
return reducer(state, action);
}
}
Where:
interface ParentState {
pets: PetsState,
people: PeopleState
}
type MetaReducerAction = ParentAction <-- this has type PARENT_ACTION
So the workflow is straight forward. In a place that you want a action to update both people and pets states, you need to dispatch PARENT_ACTION, then the actions DoSthWith... are going to be triggered on both slices of state. If you dispatch different action (the action of type that is not handled by the metaReducer, so sth different to PARENT_ACTION) then it will allow other reducers to handle the action (check whats in default section).
The last part is configuration, it should look like this:
StoreModule.forFeature(compose(metaReducer, combineReducers)(reducers))
Where reducers is just:
const reducers = {
pets: petsReducer,
people: peopleReducer
}
Edit: formatting
In this example I'm using an action named ADD_TODO
import { createStore, combineReducers } from 'redux';
function todos(state, action) {
state = state || [];
switch (action.type) {
case 'ADD_TODO':
return state.concat([ action.text ]);
default:
return state;
}
}
function counter(state, action){
state = state || 0;
switch (action.type){
case 'INCREMENT':
return state+1;
case 'DECREMENT':
return state-1;
case 'ADD_TODO':
return state+100;
default:
return state;
}
}
var app = combineReducers({
todos: todos,
counter: counter
});
var store = createStore(app);
store.dispatch({ type: 'ADD_TODO': text: 'buy eggs' });
This cause both the "todos" and "counter" reducers to trigger.
Should I make all reducers have unique actions unless I actually intended it?
How can we implement this with multiple reducers that almost do the same thing? Multiple counters for example can have "INCREMENT" and a "DECREMENT" actions.
Should name spacing actions solve it?
eg: "POINT_INCREMENT", "POINT_DECREMENT".
There's nothing inherently wrong with having different reducers respond to the same action -- for example, if you refresh the entire state at once. But yeah, if you have two counters that correspond to different things, you probably want to come up with a naming scheme to differentiate. But I would think the action names probably should have some noun to indicate what they apply to.
This cause both the "todos" and "counter" reducers to trigger. Should I make all reducers have unique actions unless I actually intended it?
Yes, probably they should have different unique actions.
From your example it becomes not really clear what you actually intend.
Should the counter count the amount of todo's ?
In that case it can actually be sensible that a "ADD_ITEM" action would both update the counter and also add a todo item. In that case please refer to the answer of acjay
How can we implement this with multiple reducers that almost do the same thing? Multiple counters for example can have "INCREMENT" and a "DECREMENT" actions.
When displaying a list of counters in the same app, each counter can be assigned a unique identifier (id).
An action should pass along the id of the counter.
export const toggleTodo = id => ({
type: 'INCREMENT',
id
})
The reducer should then check by id which counter to update.
See this example of a todo list in the official redux docs.
https://redux.js.org/basics/example
Redux actions are in a way globals. There are different strategies to workaround this problem on a larger scale.
https://kickstarter.engineering/namespacing-actions-for-redux-d9b55a88b1b1