What I want is the root reducer combine other reducers, and listen to extra actions. I've find the docs, but I can not get any information.
Here is some pseudo code.
const root1 = combineReducers({
reducer1,
reducer2,
reducer3,
reducer4
});
function root2(state = initState, action) {
switch (action.type) {
case LOAD_DATA:
return _.assign({}, initState, action.data);
default:
return state;
}
}
merge(root1, root2);
The only way I figure out is to drop combineReducers:
function root(state = initState, action) {
switch (action.type) {
case LOAD_DATA:
return _.assign({}, initState, action.data);
case ...: return ...;
case ...: return ...;
case ...: return ...;
default: return state;
}
}
Is there another way to implement this?
Yes, you can use combineReducers() with multiple reducers while also having an action that rebuilds your entire application state. Admittedly, that is a bit of a strange design decision and does not scale very well with more complex apps, but you obviously have a use-case. If you want to do something like that you have two choices.
Option 1: Divide up action
It is totally valid to listen for the same action type within multiple reducer functions. This is the most straightforward approach, although it involves more repetition. You would just break out each piece of state returned by your action into the individual reducer functions it applies to.
For instance, if this was your entire application state
{
foo: {},
bar: {}
}
And your action type that rebuilt the entire application state was LOAD_DATA, you could do this
function foo (state = {}, action) {
switch (action.type) {
case 'LOAD_DATA':
return {...state, action.result.foo}
}
}
function bar (state = {}, action) {
switch (action.type) {
case 'LOAD_DATA':
return {...state, action.result.bar}
}
}
const root = combineReducers({
foo,
bar
});
With that, both foo and bar in your state would always get rebuilt with the corresponding data coming from the same action.
Option 2: Build Custom combineReducers()
There is nothing stopping you from building your own version of combineReducers(). If you watch this video on building a combineReducers() function from scratch, you'll see that the logic in place is not that complicated. You would just have to listen for the specific action type and return the entire state from that action if it matched. Here's a version of that I built by looking at the current source for combineReducers() and then working the 2 util functions into that function
function combineReducers(reducers) {
var fn = (val) => typeof val === 'function';
var finalReducers = Object.keys(reducers).reduce((result, key) => {
if (fn(reducers[key])) {
result[key] = reducers[key]
}
return result
}, {});
return function combination(state = {}, action) {
if (action.type === 'LOAD_DATA') {
return completeStateReducer(action)
} else {
var hasChanged = false
var fn = (reducer, key) => {
var previousStateForKey = state[key]
var nextStateForKey = reducer(previousStateForKey, action)
if (typeof nextStateForKey === 'undefined') {
var errorMessage = getUndefinedStateErrorMessage(key, action)
throw new Error(errorMessage)
}
hasChanged = hasChanged || nextStateForKey !== previousStateForKey
return nextStateForKey
}
var finalState = Object.keys(finalReducers).reduce((result, key) => {
result[key] = fn(finalReducers[key], key)
return result
}, {})
return hasChanged ? finalState : state
}
}
}
function completeStateReducer(action) {
return action.result;
}
Outside of merging those util functions back in, the only thing I really added was the bit about listening for the LOAD_DATA action type and then calling completeStateReducer() when that happens instead of combining the other reducer functions. Of course, this assumes that your LOAD_DATA action actually returns your entire state, but even if it doesn't, this should point you in the right direction of building out your own solution.
First, combineReducers is merely a utility function that simplifies the common use case of "this reducer function should handle updates to this subset of data". It's not required.
Second, that looks like pretty much the exact use case for https://github.com/acdlite/reduce-reducers. There's an example here: https://github.com/reactjs/redux/issues/749#issuecomment-164327121
export default reduceReducers(
combineReducers({
router: routerReducer,
customers,
stats,
dates,
filters,
ui
}),
// cross-cutting concerns because here `state` is the whole state tree
(state, action) => {
switch (action.type) {
case 'SOME_ACTION':
const customers = state.customers;
const filters = state.filters;
// ... do stuff
}
}
);
Also, I give an example of using reduceReducers in the "Structuring Reducers" section of the Redux docs: http://redux.js.org/docs/recipes/reducers/BeyondCombineReducers.html .
Related
I have come across two kinds of reducer design for handling a large state within a single module.
The first approach is to have all the variables inside a single large state and have one reducer function.
const initialState = {
results: [],
pagination: {},
filters: [],
appliedFilters = [],
}
const reducer = (st = { ...initialState }, action) => {
const state = st;
switch (action.type) {
case 'SEARCH':{
return {
...state,
results: action.results,
pagination: action.pagination,
filters: action.filters,
appliedFilters: action.appliedFilters
},
case 'APPLY_FILTER':{
return {
...state,
results: action.results,
pagination: action.pagination,
filters: action.filters,
appliedFilters: action.appliedFilters
},
case 'PAGINATE':{
return {
...state,
results: action.results,
pagination: action.pagination,
}
}
The second approach is to have multiple reducers for the sub items in the data.
export function applications(state = [], { type, results}) {
switch (type) {
case SEARCH:
return results;
case INIT_RESULTS:
return [];
default:
return state;
}
}
export function pagination(state = null, { type, paginationData }) {
switch (type) {
case SEARCH:
return paginationData;
default:
return state;
}
}
export function filters(state = [], { type, filterData }) {
switch (type) {
case SEARCH:
return filterData;
case UPDATE_FILTERS:
return filterData;
default:
return state;
}
}
I think both have their own pros and cons. Considering scalability and modularization which one is a better pick?
Generally, both of these are very far off our official recommendations.
you should have a "slice" reducer for each sub-state (that rules out your first option
you should not treat reducers as "setting a value", but move the whole "calculating how to get the value" into the reducer and handle your action as just "describing an event that happened"
you should be using the official Redux Toolkit which we are recommending & teaching as the default way of writing Redux sinde 2019. Seriously, look at it. It is about 1/4 of the code. No more switch..case reducers or ACTION_TYPES.
Please give the Redux Style Guide a read and to learn modern Redux with Redux Toolkit, please follow the official Redux Tutorial
I have hashMap in my redux store, I want change isChecked value for children id: 2. Is it good to make it on state like this (operating on state)?
My hashMap
const childrens = {
1: { name: "Test", isChecked: false },
2: { name: "test2", isChecked: false }
};
Here is my reducer
export const childrensReducer = (state = childrens, action) => {
switch (action.type) {
case "SELECT_CHILDREN":
const id = 2;
state[id].isChecked = !state[id].isChecked;
return { ...state };
}
};
The problem is that you are mutating the state in the reducer with this line:
state[id].isChecked = !state[id].isChecked;
Why immutability is required by redux can be found in official docs:
https://redux.js.org/faq/immutable-data
One way to do is: ( I expect you send id through action.id )
case "SELECT_CHILDREN":
return {
...state,
[action.id]: {
...state[action.id],
isChecked: !state[action.id].isChecked
}
};
These kind of state operations are easier when an array is used for state.
It's not a good practice to mutate the state like you did.
There are different approaches of changing the state. Take a look at the below link to get some more information and examples.
https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/handling-state-in-react-four-immutable-approaches-to-consider-d1f5c00249d5/
Its not a good practise to mutate state, since react depends on immutability for a lot of its features.
Consider for example lifecycle methods or rerender after comparing state/props(PureComponents)
The problem with mutating state is that when these values are passed as props to children and you try to take some decision on them based on whether the state has updated, the previous props and the current props both will hold the same value and hence the comparisons may fail leading to buggy application
The correct way to update state is
case "SELECT_CHILDREN":
const id = 2;
return {
...state,
[id]: {
...state[id],
isChecked: !state[id].isChecked
}
};
Currently I have the below reducer switch statement. All it does is toggles the state of Sidebar, so first it shows then hides then shows. It's easy.
switch(action.type) {
case 'SIDEBAR_DISPLAY_TOGGLE':
return {
...state,
Sidebar : {
...state.Sidebar,
Display : !state.Sidebar.Display
}
}
default:
return state;
}
Now I have a input field like here
that people can type to search account. I am trying to set up Redux so when user types, it gets saved to the Redux global state and I can pull it from another component. I have this reducer code set up for it but I don't know how can I pull what user types into this reducer from that component?
function reducer(state = initialState, action) {
switch(action.type) {
case 'ACCOUNT_SEARCH':
return {
...state,
AccountNumberSearch : {
...state.AccountNumberSearch,
AccountNumber : ''
}
}
default:
return state;
}
}
}
An action is just an object with a string value named type. Any other properties on this object will also be passed, so you use this to pass the typed text.
If you're using a function to create your actions, something along the lines of:
export function accountNumberSearch(accountNumber) {
return { type: 'ACCOUNT_SEARCH', accountNumber };
}
Then in your reducer, you'll be able to assign the value in the state to action.accountNumber.
AccountNumberSearch : {
...state.AccountNumberSearch,
AccountNumber : action.accountNumber,
}
Then you can map your state to props as you normally would (as you did for the sidebar toggle).
Also, as an aside, you should look into modularising your reducers with combineReducers - Docs
This would be much easier than the way you're doing it.
EDIT: Handling the changes
First of all, you'd want to wire up your input field for the search box to an onChange listener. If you do this like onChange={this.onSearchChange} you can get the value from event in the function:
onSearchChange = event => {
this.props.AccountNumberSearch(event.target.value);
}
Then in mapDispatchToProps you'd send your action + the passed value to dispatch:
const mapDispatchToProps = dispatch => {
return {
AccountNumberSearch: AccountNumber => dispatch(importedActions.AccountNumberSearch(AccountNumber)),
}
}
Then, in the component you want to RECEIVE this value, you'd map the redux state to props, like:
const mapStateToProps = state => {
return {
AccountNumber: state.AccountNumberSearch.AccountNumber,
}
}
Then you can access that value in your render function by calling this.props.AccountNumber.
If you need to do something when this value changes, you can always listen on componentDidUpdate, and compare the value with the old one - if it changed, call whatever function that you need to do.
I have a (ngrx) store for an array of Speaker object and for the SelectedSpeaker. The reducer looks like:
export const speakers = (state: any = [], { type, payload }) => {
switch (type) {
case SpeakerActions.TOGGLEFAVORITE:
return state.map(speaker => {
return speaker.id === payload.id ? _.assign({}, speaker, {isFavorite: !speaker.isFavorite}) : speaker;
});
}
}
I left out the unimportant code. The reducer for currentSpeaker looks like:
export const selectedSpeaker = (state: any = [], { type, payload }) => {
switch (type) {
case SelectedSpeakerActions.SELECT:
return payload;
}
}
Now my question, if I dispatch a SpeakerActions.TOGGLEFAVORITE for a speaker and this happens to be the SelectedSpeaker, how do I update the SelectedSpeaker in this case? Note this all works as part of an Angular2 project, for what that worth.
Generally, Redux state should be fully normalized - you shouldn't have some state in two places, since it creates exactly the problem you are seeing.
Probably the best solution in your case is for selectedSpeaker just to contain the id of the selected speaker, not the speaker itself. e.g. something like
export const selectedSpeaker = (state: any = [], { type, payload }) => {
switch (type) {
case SelectedSpeakerActions.SELECT:
return payload.id;
}
}
Obviously, you'll need to lookup the selected speaker where you use it, using the ID. You might also find it easier to have an object (or Map) from id=>speaker in your speaker store, rather than a plain array.
So, I see on an error, redux-promise hands me back error: true, along with the payload, but that is once it hits the reducer... to me, decoupling the request AND error condition is a bit odd, and seems inappropriate. What is an effective way to also deal with error condition when using axios w/ reduc-promise (middleware).. here is the gist of what i have..
in action/
const request = axios(SOME_URL);
return {
type: GET_ME_STUFF,
payload: request
}
in reducer/
const startState = {
whatever: [],
error: false
}
case GET_ME_STUFF:
return {...state, startState, {stuff:action.payload.data, error: action.error? true : false}}
etc... then I can deal with the error.. so, my api call is now split into two seperate areas and that seems wrong.... there must be something I am missing here. I would think in the /actions I can pass in a callback that handles a new action etc.. or something, but not split it.
I've had to go through a similar situation. The challenge is that you likely won't be able to evaluate the results of the promise until it is at the reducer. You could handle your exceptions there but it's not the best pattern. From what I've read reducers are meant only to return appropriate pieces of state based on action.type and do nothing else.
So, enter an additional middleware, redux-thunk. Instead of returning an object, it returns a function, and it can coexist with promise.
It's explained quite well at http://danmaz74.me/2015/08/19/from-flux-to-redux-async-actions-the-easy-way/ [archived here]. Essentially, you can evaluate the promise here and dispatch through the other action creators before the promise result hits the reducers.
In your actions file, add additional action creators that would handle the success and error (and any other) states.
function getStuffSuccess(response) {
return {
type: GET_ME_STUFF_SUCCESS,
payload: response
}
}
function getStuffError(err) {
return {
type: GET_ME_STUFF_ERROR,
payload: err
}
}
export function getStuff() {
return function(dispatch) {
axios.get(SOME_URL)
.then((response) => {
dispatch(getStuffSuccess(response))
})
.catch((err) => {
dispatch(getStuffError(err))
})
}
}
return null
This is roughly to how you might translate your pseudocode to what is explained at the link. This handles evaluating the promise directly in your action creator and firing off the appropriate actions and payloads to your reducers which follows the convention of action -> reducer -> state -> component update cycle. I'm still pretty new to React/Redux myself but I hope this helps.
The accepted answer doesn't make use of redux-promise. Since the question is actually about handling errors using redux-promise I provide another answer.
In the reducer you should inspect the existence of the error attribute on the action object:
// This is the reducer
export default function(previousState = null, action) {
if (action.error) {
action.type = 'HANDLE_XHR_ERROR'; // change the type
}
switch(action.type) {
...
And change the type of the action, triggering a state change for an error handling component that you have set up for this.
You can read a bit more about it here on github.
It looks like you can catch the error where you make the dispatch, then make an separate error dispatch if it happens. It's a bit of a hack but it works.
store.dispatch (function (dispatch) {
dispatch ({
type:'FOO',
payload:axios.get(url)
})
.catch (function(err) {
dispatch ({
type:"FOO" + "_REJECTED",
payload:err
});
});
});
and in the reducer
const reducer = (state=initialState, action) => {
switch (action.type) {
case "FOO_PENDING": {
return {...state, fetching: true};
}
case "FOO_REJECTED": {
return {...state, fetching: false, error: action.payload};
}
case "FOO_FULFILLED": {
return {
...state,
fetching: false,
fetched: true,
data: action.payload,
};
}
}
return state;
};
Still using redux-promises you can do something like this which I think is an elegant way to deal with this problem.
First, set a property in the redux state that will hold any ajax errors that may occurred.
ajaxError: {},
Second, setup a reducer to handle ajax errors:
export default function ajaxErrorsReducer(state = initialState.ajaxError, action) {
if (action.error) {
const { response } = action.payload;
return {
status: response.status,
statusText: response.statusText,
message: response.data.message,
stack: response.data.stack,
};
}
return state;
}
Finally, create a very simple react component that will render errors if there are any (I am using the react-s-alert library to show nice alerts):
import React, { Component } from 'react';
import { connect } from 'react-redux';
import PropTypes from 'prop-types';
import Alert from 'react-s-alert';
class AjaxErrorsHandler extends Component {
constructor(props, context) {
super(props, context);
this.STATUS_GATE_WAY_TIMEOUT = 504;
this.STATUS_SERVICE_UNAVAILABLE = 503;
}
componentWillReceiveProps(nextProps) {
if (this.props.ajaxError !== nextProps.ajaxError) {
this.showErrors(nextProps.ajaxError);
}
}
showErrors(ajaxError) {
if (!ajaxError.status) {
return;
}
Alert.error(this.getErrorComponent(ajaxError), {
position: 'top-right',
effect: 'jelly',
timeout: 'none',
});
}
getErrorComponent(ajaxError) {
let customMessage;
if (
ajaxError.status === this.STATUS_GATE_WAY_TIMEOUT ||
ajaxError.status === this.STATUS_SERVICE_UNAVAILABLE
) {
customMessage = 'The server is unavailable. It will be restored very shortly';
}
return (
<div>
<h3>{ajaxError.statusText}</h3>
<h5>{customMessage ? customMessage : ajaxError.message}</h5>
</div>
);
}
render() {
return (
<div />
);
}
}
AjaxErrorsHandler.defaultProps = {
ajaxError: {},
};
AjaxErrorsHandler.propTypes = {
ajaxError: PropTypes.object.isRequired,
};
function mapStateToProps(reduxState) {
return {
ajaxError: reduxState.ajaxError,
};
}
export default connect(mapStateToProps, null)(AjaxErrorsHandler);
You can include this component in your App component.
This might not be the best approach but it works for me. I pass the 'this' of my component as var context. Then when i get response back i just execute the methods defined in my components context. In my component i have successHdl and errorHdl. From there i can trigger more redux actions as normal. I checked all the previous answers and seem too daunting for such a trivial task.
export function updateJob(payload, context){
const request = axios.put(UPDATE_SOMETHING, payload).then(function (response) {
context.successHdl(response);
})
.catch(function (error) {
context.errorHdl(error);
});;
return {
type: UPDATE_SOMETHING,
payload: payload,
}
}
Don't use redux-promise. It overcomplicates something that's actually super simple to do yourself.
Instead read the redux docs: http://redux.js.org/docs/advanced/AsyncActions.html
It'll give you a much better understanding of how to handle this kind of interactions and you'll learn how to write something (better than) redux-promise yourself.