Redux with Immutable JS - redux

Question

When using immutablejs with Redux, we will get a regular javascript object back from combineReducers, meaning it won't be an immutable data structure even if everything within it is. Doesn't this mean that using immutablejs will be in vain since a whole new state object will be created on every action anyhow?
Example:
const firstReducer = (state = Immutable.Map({greeting : 'Hey!'})) => {
return state
}
const secondReducer = (state = Immutable.Map({foo : 'bar'})) => {
return state
}
const rootReducer = combineReducers({
firstReducer, secondReducer
})

Answer 1

a whole new state object will be created on every action
Yes but the slices of that state that are assigned by combineReducers are not recreated. It's sort of analogous to doing this:
const person = { name: 'Rob' };
const prevState = { person };
const nextState = { person };
I created a new state object (nextState), but its person key is still set to the same exact object as was prevState's person key. There is only one instance of the string 'Rob' in memory.
The problem is when I mutate the person object, I'm changing it for multiple states:
const person = { name: 'Rob' };
const prevState = { person };
person.name = 'Dan'; // mutation
const nextState = { person };
console.log(prevState.person.name); // 'Dan'
Coming back to Redux, once all reducers have been called for the first time, they will have initialized their slices of the application's state, and your application's entire overall state would basically be equal to this:
{
firstReducer: Immutable.Map({greeting : 'Hey!'}),
secondReducer: Immutable.Map({foo : 'bar'}),
}
Note that this is a normal object. It has properties that hold Immutable objects.
When an action is dispatched and goes through each reducer, the way you've got it, the reducer simply returns the existing Immutable object back again, it doesn't create a new one. Then the new state is set to an object with a property firstReducer simply pointing back to the same Immutable object that the previous state was pointing to.
Now, what if we didn't use Immutable for firstReducer:
const firstReducer = (state = {greeting : 'Hey!'}) => {
return state
}
Same idea, that object that is used as the default for state when the reducer is first called is just passed from the previous state to the next state. There is only ever one object in memory that has the key greeting and value Hey!. There are many state objects, but they simply have a key firstReducer that points to the same object.
This is why we need to make sure we don't accidentally mutate it, but rather replace it when we change anything about it. You can accomplish this without Immutable of course by just being careful, but using Immutable makes it more foolproof. Without Immutable, it's possible to screw up and do this:
const firstReducer = (state = {greeting : 'Hey!'}, action) => {
switch (action.type) {
case 'CAPITALIZE_GREETING': {
const capitalized = state.greeting.toUpperCase();
state.greeting = capitalized; // BAD!!!
return state;
}
default: {
return state;
}
}
}
The proper way would be to create a new state slice:
const firstReducer = (state = {greeting : 'Hey!'}, action) => {
switch (action.type) {
case 'CAPITALIZE_GREETING': {
const capitalized = state.greeting.toUpperCase();
const nextState = Object.assign({}, state, {
greeting: capitalized,
};
return nextState;
}
default: {
return state;
}
}
}
The other benefit Immutable gives us is that if our reducer's slice of the state happened to have a lot of other data besides just greeting, Immutable can potentially do some optimizations under the hood so that it doesn't have to recreate every piece of data if all we did was change a single value, and yet still ensure immutability at the same time. That's useful because it can help cut down on the amount of stuff being put in memory every time an action is dispatched.

Answer 2

combineReducers() that comes with Redux indeed gives you a plain root object.
This isn’t a problem per se—you can mix plain objects with Immutable objects as long as you don’t mutate them. So you can live with this just fine.
You may also use an alternative combineReducers() that returns an Immutable Map instead. This is completely up to you and doesn’t make any big difference except that it lets you use Immutable everywhere.
Don’t forget that combineReducers() is actually easy to implement on your own.
Doesn't this mean that using immutablejs will be in vain since a whole new state object will be created on every action anyhow?
I’m not sure what you mean by “in vain”. Immutable doesn’t magically prevent objects from being created. When you set() in an Immutable Map, you still create a new object, just (in some cases) more efficiently. This doesn’t make a difference for the case when you have two keys in it anyway.
So not using Immutable here doesn’t really have any downsides besides your app being slightly less consistent in its choice of data structures.