I've created some factory functions that give me simple (or more advanced) reducers. For example (simple one - base on action type set RequestState constant as a value):
export const reduceRequestState = (requestTypes: RequestActionTypes) =>
(state: RequestState = RequestState.None, action: Action): RequestState => {
switch (action.type) {
case requestTypes.start:
return RequestState.Waiting;
case requestTypes.success:
return RequestState.Success;
case requestTypes.error:
return RequestState.Error;
case requestTypes.reset:
return RequestState.None;
default:
return state;
}
};
Using those factory functions and combineReducers from redux I can compose them into fully functional reducer that handles most of my casual actions. That gives me readable code and prevents me from making silly mistakes.
Factories are good for common actions but when I need to add some custom behavior (for action type) which should modify some part of the store significantly I would like to write a custom part of the reducer that will handle that action for me.
The idea is to compose reducers in an iterate manner, so combineReducers but for an array. This way I could use my factories creating reducer and then combine it with my custom reducer that handles some specific actions. The combineReducers for an array would then call the first one, recognize that nothing has changed and call the second (custom) one to handle the action.
I was looking for some solution and found redux-actions but do not quite like the way it links actions and reducers making the semantics little different from what I'm used to. Maybe I do not get it, but eventually I like to see that my reducer is written as pure function.
I am looking for some hint that will show me the way.
Is there any library or project that uses any kind of higher order reducers and combines them in some way?
Are there any downsides regarding composing reducers like described above?
Yep, since reducers are just functions, there's an infinite number of ways you can organize the logic, and composing multiple functions together is very encouraged.
The "reducers in an array" idea you're looking for is https://github.com/acdlite/reduce-reducers. I use it frequently in my own app for exactly that kind of behavior - running a combineReducers-generated reducer first, then running reducers for more specific behavior in turn.
I've written a section for the Redux docs called Structuring Reducers, which covers a number of topics related to reducer logic. That includes useful patterns beyond the usual combineReducers approach.
I also have a list of many other reducer-related utilities as part of my Redux addons catalog.
Related
I have three different reducers doing different things but at the end they all change a property in the slice object being passed on which is common to all of them. The part that is common is where it unregisters an element by removing a property and a reference in an array.
I wonder what the best practice is to extract the repeated code into a separate method. I can extract it to a helper function but for that I'd like to create a copy of the slice instead of mutating it directly, I don't own the project so I don't have lodash available as of now, so that's another hurdle.
A second option would be to keep the repeated code which goes against the DRY principle. Third, I could also create a function within the same file that does the job, which is not much difference from doing it in a helper.
What is the best practice here? I really don't think that keeping the repeated code is a good idea, but I also don't want to create a function that mutates the slice within it However, I don't have lodash available now for a deep copy so I wonder what I could do here.
You can definitely extract helper methods that can be called in reducers.
Assuming you're using Redux Toolkit and createSlice, you can write those helper functions as "mutating" update logic, and as long as you call them inside of createSlice, it's safe to use them that way, such as:
function addSomeItem(state, item) {
state.items.push(item);
}
// later
createSlice({
name: "fruits",
initialState: {items: []},
reducers: {
fruitAdded(state, action) {
addSomeItem(state, action.payload);
}
}
})
In general, using a mutable object such as Map is strongly discouraged.
However, the magic of immer allows immutable objects to be manipulated as though they are mutable.
Specifically, immer supports immutable versions of Map using enableMapSet
In redux-toolkit createReducer and createSlice wrap state manipulation with immer's produce.
Collectively, I think these facts mean code like this should be safe:
import { createSlice } from '#reduxjs/toolkit'
export const testmapSlice = createSlice({
name: 'testMap',
// Using a Map() as redux state
initialState: new Map(),
reducers: {
add: (state, action) => {
state.set(action.payload.identity, action.payload)
},
},
})
However, when I use this in a React component, I get the polite error message A non-serializable value was detected in the state, in the path: `testMap`. Value: Map(1) {"A" => {…}} Take a look at the reducer(s) handling this action type: testMap/add..
Is there a way to safely use Map without getting this error message?
Define "safely" :)
In theory, you could put anything you want into the Redux store.
In practice, per that FAQ, non-serializable values are likely to cause things like the DevTools to break (which defeats much of the purpose of using Redux in the first place). Use of Maps and other mutable instances are also likely to cause portions of your UI to not re-render correctly, because React-Redux relies on reference checks to determine if data has changed. So, we specifically tell users that you should never put non-serializable values in the Redux state.
In this particular case, you should be able to use a plain JS object as a lookup table rather than a Map, and accomplish the same behavior.
As an absolute last resort, you can turn off the serialization checking for certain parts of the state, but we strongly discourage folks from doing that.
I think it is not safe to use Map() on the state because Redux is already designed to avoid the mutation at the level of Reducers, and when you use createSlice() it even takes care of it in the background. Your idea of a double security at the State level may appear to be another issue that you provoke. It might either provoke the UI not to update. or throw an error
(Ps: This is purely analogic. I have not tried it)
I'm working with Redux and my state is a normalized one with a lot of different models. Now I was wondering myself if it was better to have specific actions like:
{type: CHANGE_MODEL_NAME, modelId, name}
vs
{type: UPDATE_MODEL, modelId, {name}}
I did a bit of searching and I found this question:
Is it ok to create generic redux update action
Now what I'm wondering is that no one is adressing the fact that having specific action types allow for different reducers to 'react' to an action in a cleaner way.
IE: I have a model that is copied from another model like so:
{
name: 'foo',
originalModel: id_0
}
It then becomes easier to react to specific actions in my reducer of copied models if I only want to react to the name change action.
Is it wrong for 2 reducers to react to the same actions? Is that why nobody adressed this issue in the original question?
Having multiple slice reducers respond to the same actions is absolutely an intended use case for Redux. I covered that background in my post The Tao of Redux, Part 1 - Implementation and Intent.
As for your specific question: I think it's entirely valid to have an update action for normalized data that contains the item type name and the item ID. In fact, I demonstrated this exact approach in my post Practical Redux, Part 7: Form Change Handling, Data Editing, and Feature Reducers.
Overall, Redux itself doesn't care what specific action types you have and how generic they are. You are encouraged to define whatever actions are appropriate for your app, and what level of "abstraction" they represent. It's very reasonable to make them a bit more generic - for example, I'd prefer UPDATE_USER_ATTRIBUTES instead of SET_USER_FIRST_NAME and SET_USER_LAST_NAME, but ultimately it's up to you.
This is perfectly valid. This pattern even has a name. "Applying a change set"
Your message becomes the following:
{type: APPLY_CHANGSET, data: {id: idOfThingToApplyTo, propOne: '1', propTwo: '2'}}
Your reducers can then look like this:
const propOneReducer = (value = 'default', {type, {data: {propOne}}) => {
return type === APPLY_CHANGSET && propOne !== undefined ? propOne : value;
}
This makes it a lot easier to add new properties (attributes) to your objects in your store. Adding a reducer, and sending the data from your react views to the actionCreator. In simple cases, you might not even need to change the actionCreator.
In these simple cases you can even build a reducer creator, basically creating the reducer for you.
Pro's
Less actions in the system
Simple sweet actionCreators
Not Pro's
Actions don't describe exactly what is happening. It's also harder to parse exactly what happens to the store after a actionCreator is invoked. This because the reducers now take the shape of the data into account.
Slightly more complex reducers
I'm new to redux and looked at redux-actions or using switch statements in reducer, and though I'm not against using a switch statement, I'm wondering, isn't it easier to just use the call the action method?
Here's what I'm thinking
import actions from './actions'
const reducer = (state = {}, action) => {
if (actions[action.type]) return Object.assign({},
state, actions[action.type](action)
);
return state;
}
I've just tested this on my first reducer and action, and it works, but it seems quite obvious so I'm wondering why the switch type is the chosen way?
Switch statements are certainly the most common approach, but lookup tables are common as well. You can even use plain if/then conditions if you want. Ultimately, how you write your reducers is up to you.
FYI, this topic is covered in the Redux FAQ, in the FAQ: Reducers section. You might also want to read the new "Structuring Reducers" how-to section as well.
Some observations:
Don't refer to these external functions as "actions". They're not actions. They're actually reducers themselves.
Being reducers, you really ought to be passing the state object to them. Oftentimes, you'll want/need to utilise information contained in the current state, as well as information contained in the action object.
Otherwise, this seems like an appropriate approach.
I would like many different redux actions in my app to all trigger common functionality in a specific reducer. I would like to avoid having to either repeat some flag in every action creator (like doThing: true) that the reducer looks for. I also don't want to have to have the reducer just look for every individual action that falls into this category, since that also requires someone to remember to do this every time they add a new action, like adding the flag.
I was thinking of dispatching a second action every time one of these actions is going to be dispatched. This would not be hard to do, but I'd rather not have 2 actions dispatched every time one thing happens. It seems like it would pollute the state history.
Is there a common way of solving this problem?
For more context to my specific problem, the specific feature is related to the API client my app uses to talk to our API. On every successful response, we'd like to do something in a reducer to update the state, and on every failed response, we'd like to do something else.
There are many different success and failure actions (such as ITEM_FETCH_SUCCESS or WIDGET_UPDATE_FAILURE), and adding a flag to all of them would be hard to remember to do when new ones are added.
Since all api requests go through a single function, that function COULD dispatch generic REQUEST_SUCCESS and REQUEST_FAILURE actions. But this would mean every response from the server would dispatch 2 actions (REQUEST_SUCCESS and ITEM_FETCH_SUCCESS). This is obviously not ideal since it would mean many more actions in my state history.
Assuming the generic REQUEST_SUCCESS and REQUEST_FAILURE actions are updating their own specific portions of the state-tree then it is fine to dispatch them as distinct actions. Doing this does not necessarily imply the pollution of your state history but can simply be a better description of the app's intentions.
ITEM_FETCH_SUCCESS: Change state for item
REQUEST_SUCCESS: Change state for request
WIDGET_UPDATE_FAILURE: Change state for widget
REQUEST_FAILURE: Change state for request
You can see that whilst the actions are intimately related, they are not necessarily the same thing as they change different parts of the state tree.
Accepting this, the question is: How best to implement the action-pairs so that adding new actions does not mean remembering to add its corresponding REQUEST_* partner?
I would consider applying a simple redux middleware component. This could intercept the return from your api and dispatch the appropriate REQUEST_* action automatically.
Here is an example from some live code. This middleware intercepts a disconnect event raised by a websocket and automatically dispatches a custom action as a result. It at least shows the principle:
//Dispatch a disconnect action when the websocket disconnects
//This is the custom action provided by the middleware
import io from 'socket.io-client'
import { actions } from './action'
const websocket = ({ websocketUrl }) => store => {
const socket = io(websocketUrl)
socket.on('disconnect', () => store.dispatch(actions.disconnect()))
}
export default websocket
//Apply the custom middleware via the redux createStore function
//Also include the thunk middleware because it is useful
import { applyMiddleware } from 'redux'
import thunk from 'redux-thunk'
import websocket from './middleware'
function websocketize (opts) {
return createStore => (reducers, initial, enhancer) => {
const middleware = applyMiddleware(thunk, websocket(opts))
return createStore(reducers, initial, middleware)
}
}
export default websocketize
// Create the top-level redux store passing in the custom middleware enhancer
const opts = {websocketUrl: env.WEBSOCKET_URL}
const store = createStore(reducers, websocketize(opts))
This implementation keeps everything inside your reducers as opposed to having logic outside in an interception(middleware). Both ways are valid.
Try a sub-reducer pattern. I usually feel gross when I see it used(because it is usually used wrong), but your situation sounds perfect.
Extract duplicate functionality out of your reducers to one single
sub-reducer.
Then pass that reducer as a function to all others that need it.
Then pass the action and state onto the sub-reducer.
The sub-reducer does it's thing and returns that slice of state to
your parent reducer to allow you to do whatever you want with it
there (ie return it, mutate some more, some logic).
Also if you are tired of worrying about typing out "all the stuff" for async then I highly recommend you try out redux-crud.js
It also is possible and a simple way to do that would be to give every action to one reducer and let it do that common mutation, in a single case:
case actionOne
actionTwo
actionThree
actionFour: {
//do common stuff here
}
. But you said it is not duplicated, it is similar, which means your case becomes complicated by branching logic. I also don't recommend this. Keep cases simple so you can easily catch invalid mutations. This should be a super power of redux that it is easy to catch mutation errors. And for this reason and many others I don't recommend normalizing data in the front end.