Redux will execute all subscription callbacks every time an action is dispatched? - redux

Gee, I feel foolish about this, but I have read every part of: http://redux.js.org/ (done the egghead tutorials, and read 4 times the FAQ at: http://redux.js.org/docs/faq/ImmutableData.html
What I did was stub one of my reducers, to always return state, and that is the only reducer being called (checked with breakpoints). Even so, my subscribe event is being called every time the reducer returns state. What Do I not understand? (Action.SetServerStats is being called at a 1Hz rate, and the subscribe is also being called at a 1Hz Rate
BTW the Chrome Redux Extension says thats states are equal, and the React Extension for Chrome with Trace React Updates, is not showing any updates.
I will be glad to remove the question, when someone clues me in. But right now, what I see each each of the reducers being called at 1Hz, and all of them returning the slice of the store that they got (state).
So do I not understand subscribe, and that it returns every time even when the store tree does not get modified (and it is up to react-redux to do shallow compare to figure out what changed if any?)
create store & subscribe
let store = createStore(reducer, initialState, composeWithDevTools(applyMiddleware(thunk)))
store.subscribe(() => console.log("current store: ", JSON.stringify(store.getState(), null, 4)))
reducers.js
import A from './actionTypes'
import { combineReducers } from 'redux'
export const GLVersion = (state = '', action) => {
switch (action.type) {
case A.SetGLVersion:
return action.payload
default:
return state
}
}
export const ServerConfig = (state = {}, action) => {
switch (action.type) {
case A.SetServerConfig: {
let { ServerPort, UserID, PortNumber, WWWUrl, SourcePath, FMEPath } = action.payload
let p = { ServerPort, UserID, PortNumber, WWWUrl, SourcePath, FMEPath }
return p
}
default:
return state
}
}
export const ServerStats = (state = {}, action) => {
switch (action.type) {
case A.SetServerStats:
return state
// let { WatsonInstalled, WatsonRunning, FMERunning, JobsDirSize } = action.payload
// let s = { WatsonInstalled, WatsonRunning, FMERunning, JobsDirSize }
// return s
default:
return state
}
}
export default combineReducers({ GLVersion, ServerConfig, ServerStats })

Correct. Redux will execute all subscription callbacks every time an action is dispatched, even if the state is not updated in any way. It is up to the subscription callbacks to then do something meaningful, such as calling getState() and checking to see if some specific part of the state has changed.
React-Redux is an example of that. Each instance of a connected component class is a separate subscriber to the store. Every time an action is dispatched, all of the wrapper components generated by connect will first check to see if the root state value has changed, and if so, run the mapStateToProps functions they were given to see if the output of mapState has changed at all. If that mapState output changes, then the wrapper component will re-render your "real" component.
You might want to read my blog post Practical Redux, Part 6: Connected Lists, Forms, and Performance, which discusses several important aspects related to Redux performance. My new post Idiomatic Redux: The Tao of Redux, Part 1 - Implementation and Intent also goes into detail on how several parts of Redux actually work.

Related

Actions in multiple slices in Redux toolkit

The Redux toolkit docs mention using actions (or rather action types) in multiple reducers
First, Redux action types are not meant to be exclusive to a single slice. Conceptually, each slice reducer "owns" its own piece of the Redux state, but it should be able to listen to any action type and update its state appropriately. For example, many different slices might want to respond to a "user logged out" action by clearing data or resetting back to initial state values. Keep that in mind as you design your state shape and create your slices.
But, “keeping that in mind”, what is the best way to achieve this, given that the toolkit puts the slice name at the start of each action type? And that you export a function from that slice and you call that single function to dispatch the action? What am I missing? Does this have to be done in some way that doesn’t use createSlice?
It looks like this is what extraReducers is for:
One of the key concepts of Redux is that each slice reducer "owns" its slice of state, and that many slice reducers can independently respond to the same action type. extraReducers allows createSlice to respond to other action types besides the types it has generated.
It is a little strange that the action dispatcher should know which reducer the action belongs. I'm not sure the motivation of having reducers and extraReducers, but you can use extraReducers to allow several slices to respond to the same action.
I've found that using the extraReducers functionality when creating a slice with createSlice is the best way to do it.
In my case I've implemented this by creating a 'SliceFactory' class for each related feature. I've used it to do exactly what is in the example and reset relevant slices on user logout by listening for a LOGOUT_USER action.
Reference:
extraReducers: https://redux-toolkit.js.org/api/createSlice#extrareducer
Original article I used for the factory: https://robkendal.co.uk/blog/2020-01-27-react-redux-components-apis-and-handler-utilities-part-two
import { createSlice } from '#reduxjs/toolkit';
import { LOGOUT_USER } from '../redux/actions';
class CrudReducerFactory {
constructor(slice, state = null, initialState = {}) {
state = state || slice;
this.initialState = initialState;
const reducerResult = createSlice({
name: slice,
initialState: initialState[state],
reducers: this._generateReducers(),
extraReducers: (builder) => {
builder.addCase(LOGOUT_USER, (state, action) => {
return { ...this.initialState };
});
},
});
this.reducer = reducerResult.reducer;
this.actions = reducerResult.actions;
}
_generateReducers = () => {
return {
// Create One
requestCreateOne: (state, action) => {
state.isLoading = true;
},
requestCreateOneSuccess: (state, action) => {
state.isLoading = false;
state.one = action.payload;
},
requestCreateOneError: (state, action) => {
state.isLoading = false;
},
// ...snip...
};
};
}
export default CrudReducerFactory;
This is instantiated like so:
const factory = new CrudReducerFactory('users', 'users', { foo: 'bah', one: null, isLoading: false } );
The first argument is the name of the slice, the second is the slice of state and the third is the initial state.
You can then use factory.reducer and factory.actions to use accordingly.

Rewrite redux-orm reducer with redux-toolkit

Issue (tl;dr)
How can we create a custom redux-orm reducer with redux-toolkit's createSlice?
Is there a simpler, recommended, more elegant or just other solution than the attempt provided in this question?
Details
The example of a custom redux-orm reducer looks as follows (simplified):
function ormReducer(dbState, action) {
const session = orm.session(dbState);
const { Book } = session;
switch (action.type) {
case 'CREATE_BOOK':
Book.create(action.payload);
break;
case 'REMOVE_AUTHOR_FROM_BOOK':
Book.withId(action.payload.bookId).authors.remove(action.payload.authorId);
break;
case 'ASSIGN_PUBLISHER':
Book.withId(action.payload.bookId).publisherId = action.payload.publisherId;
break;
}
return session.state;
}
It's possible to simplify reducers with the createSlice function of redux-toolkit (based on the redux-toolkit usage-guide):
const ormSlice = createSlice({
name: 'orm',
initialState: [],
reducers: {
createBook(state, action) {},
removeAuthorFromBook(state, action) {},
assignPublisher(state, action) {}
}
})
const { actions, reducer } = ormSlice
export const { createBook, removeAuthorsFromBook, assignPublisher } = actions
export default reducer
However, at the beginning of redux-orm reducer we need to create a session
const session = orm.session(dbState);
then we do our redux-orm reducer magic, and at the end we need to return the state
return session.state;
So we miss something like beforeEachReducer and afterEachReducer methods in the createSlice to add this functionality.
Solution (attempt)
We created a withSession higher-order function that creates the session and returns the new state.
const withSession = reducer => (state, action) => {
const session = orm.session(state);
reducer(session, action);
return session.state;
}
We need to wrap every reducer logic in this withSession.
import { createSlice } from '#reduxjs/toolkit';
import orm from './models/orm'; // defined elsewhere
// also define or import withSession here
const ormSlice = createSlice({
name: 'orm',
initialState: orm.session().state, // we need to provide the initial state
reducers: {
createBook: withSession((session, action) => {
session.Book.create(action.payload);
}),
removeAuthorFromBook: withSession((session, action) => {
session.Book.withId(action.payload.bookId).authors.remove(action.payload.authorId);
}),
assignPublisher: withSession((session, action) => {
session.Book.withId(action.payload.bookId).publisherId = action.payload.publisherId;
}),
}
})
const { actions, reducer } = ormSlice
export const { createBook, removeAuthorsFromBook, assignPublisher } = actions
export default reducer
This is a fascinating question for me, because I created Redux Toolkit, and I wrote extensively about using Redux-ORM in my "Practical Redux" tutorial series.
Off the top of my head, I'd have to say your withSession() wrapper looks like the best approach for now.
At the same time, I'm not sure that using Redux-ORM and createSlice() together really gets you a lot of benefit. You're not making use of Immer's immutable update capabilities inside, since Redux-ORM is handling updates within the models. The only real benefit in this case is generating the action creators and action types.
You might be better off just calling createAction() separately, and using the original reducer form with the generated action types in the switch statement:
export const createBook = createAction("books/create");
export const removeAuthorFromBook = createAction("books/removeAuthor");
export const assignPublisher = createAction("books/assignPublisher");
export default function ormReducer(dbState, action) {
const session = orm.session(dbState);
const { Book } = session;
switch (action.type) {
case createBook.type:
Book.create(action.payload);
break;
case removeAuthorFromBook.type:
Book.withId(action.payload.bookId).authors.remove(action.payload.authorId);
break;
case assignPublisher.type:
Book.withId(action.payload.bookId).publisherId = action.payload.publisherId;
break;
}
return session.state;
}
I see what you're saying about adding some kind of "before/after" handlers, but that would add too much complexity. RTK is intended to handle the 80% use case, and the TS types for createSlice are already incredibly complicated. Adding any more complexity here would be bad.
I came across this question looking to combine the benefits of redux-toolkit
and redux-orm. I was able to come up with a solution I've been pretty happy
with so far. Here is what my redux-orm model looks like:
class Book extends Model {
static modelName = 'Book';
// Declare your related fields.
static fields = {
id: attr(), // non-relational field for any value; optional but highly recommended
name: attr(),
// foreign key field
publisherId: fk({
to: 'Publisher',
as: 'publisher',
relatedName: 'books',
}),
authors: many('Author', 'books'),
};
static slice = createSlice({
name: 'BookSlice',
// The "state" (Book) is coming from the redux-orm reducer, and so will
// never be undefined; therefore, `initialState` is not needed.
initialState: undefined,
reducers: {
createBook(Book, action) {
Book.create(action.payload);
},
removeAuthorFromBook(Book, action) {
Book.withId(action.payload.bookId).authors.remove(action.payload.authorId);
},
assignPublisher(Book, action) {
Book.withId(action.payload.bookId).publisherId = action.payload.publisherId;
}
}
});
toString() {
return `Book: ${this.name}`;
}
// Declare any static or instance methods you need.
}
export default Book;
export const { createBook, removeAuthorFromBook, assignPublisher } = Book.slice.actions;
The redux-toolkit slice is created as a static property on the class, and then
the model and its actions are exported in a manner similar to Ducks
(ORMDucks??).
The only other modification to make is to define a custom updater for
redux-orm's reducer:
const ormReducer = createReducer(orm, function (session, action) {
session.sessionBoundModels.forEach(modelClass => {
if (typeof modelClass.slice.reducer === 'function') {
modelClass.slice.reducer(modelClass, action, session);
}
});
});
See a more complete example here:
https://gist.github.com/JoshuaCWebDeveloper/25a302ec891acb6c4992fe137736160f
Some Notes
#markerikson makes a good point about some of the features of redux-toolkit
not being used since redux-orm is managing the state. For me, the two
greatest benefits of using this method are not having to wrangle a whole
bunch of action creators and not having to contend with awful switch
statements :D.
I am using the stage 3 class fields and static class features proposals. (See
https://babeljs.io/docs/en/babel-plugin-proposal-class-properties). To make
this ES6 compatible, you can easily refactor the model class to define its
static props using the current syntax (i.e. Book.modelName = 'Book';).
If you decide to mix models like the one above with models that don't define
a slice, then you'll need to tweak the logic in the createReducer updater
slightly.
For a real world example, see how I use the model in my project here:
https://github.com/vallerance/react-orcus/blob/70a389000b6cb4a00793b723a25cac52f6da519b/src/redux/models/OrcusApp.js.
This project is still in the early stages. The largest question in my mind is
how well this method will scale; however, I am optimistic that it will continue
to provide numerous benefits as my project matures.
Try using normalized-reducer. It's a higher-order-reducer that takes a schema describing the relationships, and returns a reducer, action, and selectors that write/read according to the relationships.
It also integrates easily with Normalizr and Redux Toolkit.

Allow reducer to have access to state

I have a reducer that maintains the currently visible item from a list of some sort, with a case for displaying the next and previous item:
export function currentIndex(state = null, action) {
switch (action.type) {
case types.INCREMENT:
return state + 1
case types.DECREMENT:
return state - 1;
}
}
I also have a random state which is initially false but when set to true I want the currentListItem reducer to be able to account for this and output a a random number instead.
Which is the most idiomatic way of doing this in redux?
The idiomatic solution is to transfer your reducer logic into a thunk using a middleware package such redux-thunk (or similar).
This allows you to treat special kinds of actions as functions which means you can extend a plain action with specific action-related logic. The example you give of needing to access the state to conditionally determine the action logic is an excellent use-case for redux-thunk.
Below is a example of how you might pull the logic out of your reducer into a thunk. You should note that, unlike reducers, thunks explicitly support fetching state and dispatching subsequent actions via the getState and dispatch functions.
Thunk Example
export const increment= () => {
return (dispatch, getState) => {
const state = getState()
const delta = (state.random) ? getRandomNumber() : 1
dispatch({
type: INCREMENT,
delta
})
}
}
export function currentIndex(state = null, action) {
switch (action.type) {
case types.INCREMENT:
return state + action.delta
}
}

Should I store function references in Redux store?

I'm trying to build keyboard shortcut support into my React/Redux app in an idiomatic React/Redux way. The way I am planning to do this is to have the following action creator and associated action:
registerShortcut(keyCode, actionCreatorFuncReference)
The reducer would then update a registeredShortcuts object in the redux store with a mapping of keyCodes to actionCreatorFuncReferences. Then my root component would listen for keyup and see if there is an associated keyCode registered and if so, then dispatch the mapped action via the action creator function reference.
However, this would be the first time I am storing function references in my Redux store. To date, I've only had objects with keys with vanilla values (strings, ints, etc).
The Redux docs says:
You should do your best to keep the state serializable. Don’t put anything inside it that you can’t easily turn into JSON.
Does this suggest it's a bad idea to store such function references in my Redux store? If so, what is a better way to accomplish what I'm trying to do in React/Redux?
An alternative approach is just to store the mapping of keyCodes and function references in the root react component itself, but that didn't feel very Redux-like since now the application state is not in the Redux store.
No, you should not store function references in the redux store. They are not serializable, and as you mentioned state should be serializable at all times. The most redux-friendly approach I can think of is just to keep the map of hotkeys to their actionCreatorFuncNames.
TL;DR: You don't. The store state must be serializable at all times (as Nathan answered).
The Redux way is via enhancers, or the Redux-Observable way via dependencies.
NL;PR: Based on the Redux docs example, what you want is to pass the reference in your action(1), ignore it your reducer(2) and use it in your enhancer(3):
//... in your action:
const data={val:1}, ref=()=>{};
const action = {type:'ACTION_WITH_REF', data, ref}; //(1)
//... in your reducer:
case 'ACTION_WITH_REF':
return {...state, data: action.data}; //(2)
//... and in your enhancer:
import { createStore, applyMiddleware } from 'redux';
import reducers from './reducers';
export const myRefStore= {};
 
function refHandler({ getState }) {
return next => action => {
switch(action.type){
// this can be done more elegantly with a redux-observable
case 'ACTION_WITH_REF':
myRefStore.aRef = action.ref; // (3)
break;
}
// be sure to maintain the chain of the store
const returnValue = next(action);
// otherwise, your midddeware will break the store
return returnValue;
};
} 
const store = createStore(
reducers,
initialState,
applyMiddleware(refHandler)
);
Note: As far as there are no side-effects in your enhancers, you are good to go. Be aware that you could have obtained the refs directly in the reducers, but such an approach keeps the reference at the reducer-level and misses the point of combineReducers(). With an enhancer, you keep them all in one place(myRefStore).
One final observation is that a redux store is not an any-data store but a state store, thus why we need to handle functions and other non-state related stuff in enhancers. You can leverage the enhancer backbone to Redux-Observable and inject myRefStore via dependencies.
I'm new to redux, but the way I see it, you could pass the key code and an action type.
Then a reducer could be listening for that action type and make changes accordingly.
Here is an example using the library Mousetrap:
// On your Container
function registerShortcut(element, dispatch, keyCode, actionType) {
Mousetrap(element).bind(keyCode, function(e) {
dispatch({
type: actionType,
payload: {
keyCode: keyCode,
event: e
}
});
});
});
mapDispatchToProps = function(dispatch) {
return {
onMount: function(element) {
registerShortcut(element, dispatch, ['command+f', 'ctrl+f'], 'OPEN_SEARCH');
},
onUnmount: function(element) {
Mousetrap(element).unbind(['command+f', 'ctrl+f']);
}
};
};
// On your Component
componentDidMount() {
onMount(ReactDOM.findDOMNode(this));
};
componentWillUnmount() {
onUnmount(ReactDOM.findDOMNode(this));
};
// On your reducer
function reducer(oldState, action)  {
if (action.type == 'OPEN_SEARCH') {
//... make changes ...//
return newState;
}
return oldState;
};
This way, keyboard shortcuts will dispatch an action. The reducer will make the changes necessary to the state. And finally, the application can re-render.

Redux - Is there any way to access store tree in reducer?

In my case, I have a store like:
{
aa: {...},
bb: cc // the result of computing with aa
}
I need to update aa and bb at the same time, but bb need to get the latest computation of aa.
Here is some code(React.js):
onClick(e) {
const { dispatch, aa, bb } = this.props;
dispatch(updateAa());
dispatch(updateBb(aa)); // can not get the latest computation of aa, it is the last computation..
}
So, is this mean that I need to get aa in bb's reducer?
And How can I do it?
Hope for helps!, Thanks!
don't use combineReducers.
Example
replace this code
export const a = combineReducers({
app,
posts,
intl,
products,
pos,
cats,
});
with
export default (state = {}, action) => {
return {
app: app(state.app, action, state),
posts: posts(state.posts, action, state),
intl: intl(state.intl, action, state),
products: products(state.products, action, state),
pos: pos(state.pos, action, state),
cats: cats(state.cats, action, state),
};
};
reducer would be like
const reducer = (state = initialState, action, root) => {....}
There are several possibilities, but it's tough to say which is best, given the vagueness of the code.
Ideally, your store should be normalized, meaning that each piece of data is only available in one place. Then you would calculate derived data after reading the store, such as when you use the selector pattern described in the guide to map the state of the store to what you might consider a materialized view that will be sent to your components as props. In this workflow, aa and bb would each be produced by selector functions, rather than stored in that store itself.
You could leave the reducer that updates aa and bb outside of combineReducers, so that it sees the whole state, rather than the state scoped down to aa and bb.
You could factor out your calculation code into a helper that could be called by updateAa and updateBb, and pass enough info in each action to make the calculation.
You could calculate the update before dispatching, so that the action contains the right value.
As David L. Walsh said, probably you should structure your reducers in a more logical way.
BUT If you still think you need it, you can use a thunk Middleware.
(https://github.com/gaearon/redux-thunk)
Redux Thunk middleware allows you to write action creators that return a function instead of an action.
Redux Thunk offers you a way to read the current state of the Redux store. In addition to dispatch, it also passes getState as the second argument to the function you return from your thunk action creator.
export function action() {
return function(dispatch, getState){
const state = getState()
dispatch({
type: "ACTION_WITH_SOME_PART_OF_STATE,
some_part_of_state: state.some_part
})
}
}
Ask yourself whether you've structured your reducers correctly. If a and b are not independent of one another, why are they separate reducers? I would try to merge them into a single reducer.
Based on Sheikh Abdul Wahid's answer, I had to do the following modification to make it work with history and connected-react-router:
Notice the () after the connectRouter(history)
import { connectRouter } from 'connected-react-router'
const createRootReducer = (history) => {
return (state = {}, action) => {
return {
...reducers,
router: connectRouter(history)(),
...rest of reducers
}
}
}
If this is a common use case for you, you can try writing your own function to combine reducers according to your needs, as recommended by the official Redux documentation:
Sharing data between slice reducers
Similarly, if sliceReducerA happens to need some data from sliceReducerB's slice of state in order to handle a particular action, or sliceReducerB happens to need the entire state as an argument, combineReducers does not handle that itself. This could be resolved by writing a custom function that knows to pass the needed data as an additional argument in those specific cases, such as:
function combinedReducer(state, action) {
switch (action.type) {
case 'A_TYPICAL_ACTION': {
return {
a: sliceReducerA(state.a, action),
b: sliceReducerB(state.b, action)
}
}
case 'SOME_SPECIAL_ACTION': {
return {
// specifically pass state.b as an additional argument
a: sliceReducerA(state.a, action, state.b),
b: sliceReducerB(state.b, action)
}
}
case 'ANOTHER_SPECIAL_ACTION': {
return {
a: sliceReducerA(state.a, action),
// specifically pass the entire state as an additional argument
b: sliceReducerB(state.b, action, state)
}
}
default:
return state
}
}
I highly recommend you to read this documentation page, where there are also other suggestions to share data between reducers, even using combineReducers for simple actions and other custom reducers for the special cases.
I hope these options help!
You can access the other reducer's data in actions and dispatch that data as a param.
actions.js
const actionFn = (param1) => {
return (dispatch, stateFn) => {
const { param2 } = stateFn().other.reducer;
dispatch({
type: ACTION,
param1,
param2,
});
};
};
reducer.js
case ACTION:
return reducerFn(state, data);
const reducerFn = (state, { param1, param2 }) => {
return {
...state,
someState: {
...state.riverhealth,
setParam1: param1
setParam2: param2,
},
};
};
Hope it helps!
If some reducer needs some data from another reducer, a simple solution is to merge them into a single reducer.
In my case, I need some data from another reducer and it is very difficult to manage them so I ended up merging them both.

Resources