I'm building a small Vue.js app that needs several different API calls. I'm using tmdb api and I want to have popular, upcoming and top rated movies sections in my app. All these use the same call, which is (for popular in this case):
https://api.themoviedb.org/3/movie/popular?api_key=api_key&language=en-US&page=1
(popular can be replaced with top_rated or upcoming)
I have created component for the above call and on my main page I'm passing static props to this component to get the data I want:
<Movies type="popular"/>
<Movies type="upcoming"/>
<Movies type="top_rated"/>
I accept props and then put it in the link in fetch in the component as this:
https://api.themoviedb.org/3/movie/${this.type}?api_key=api_key&language=en-US&page=1
Is this the right approach or should I just put all of the calls for popular, upcoming and top rated in Promise.all on my main page? Also I use these only on the main page and nowhere else in the app.
EDIT: I think that the main benefit of doing this in component is that I have to use only one for loop instead of 3. Still not sure if that's the right approach.
I think this is good approach. Each component is firing its own request and is rendered (updated) when that request is resolved independently of other instances of the component.
Using Promise.all doesn't make sense - is it important to have data from all 3 calls at the same time ? No...
You doing right :)
Related
<router-link> in my opinion takes more work to implement, since you can add $router.push to any element with an #click event.
What are the pros and cons of each approach? Is there any instance, where <router-link> can not be replaced by $router.push?
While router-link's handler does the same $router.push(), it also performs under the hood a handful of useful actions that you will have to implement by yourself to assure the navigation works as expected in every scenario. For example, it activates a "navigation guard" to check for the validity of the triggering event, catches any navigation errors, also, it is the implementation of active route detection and styling which may be a pain to implement in complex navigations (for ex. multilevel navigation menus) that is also simplified by the router-link implementation.
These are some of the pros that I could spot at a first glance at its source code. You can look at it for a more in depth comparison here
First of all is a tag like a tag in HTML so you can not use it inside your script tags. You can only use it inside tags. You have to give to attribute to router-link and you do not need to use click etc.
However, for bigger projects sometimes you need to redirect to another page after you submit a form, or anywhere you like to use redirection in your js. That's why there is $router.push, the $router object is vue-router object so you have all functions that vue-router serves you.
I am about to create a Vue.js project and i use the smart/dumb pattern for my ui components. In my dumb components I have already the input, buttons and etc..., but in my smart components I am curios if it is really necessary to create a component if i will use that only in one page. For example. login-form component, then i will use that only in login page. So, ⤵️
My first question, is it really necessary to create a component for that ?
Second question, and when will i gonna create a smart components?
Moving code to another components makes code of initial component more readable. Even if you are going to use that new components only once.
Usually smart components - are pages that fetch or simply share some data to its children.
I want to get access to this.$el in asyncData.
I use a database to store translations.
I want to get a list of translations that are used on the current page.
Then I will send a request to the server to receive them.
After that, I will merge it.
i18.mergeLocaleMessage( locale, message )
How to do it ?
You can access i18n with something like this, no need to access the template for this use case
asyncData ({ app }) {
console.log(app.i18n.t('Hello'))
}
Looking at the lifecycle of Nuxt, asyncData will happen before any template is generated at all, so it is impossible with asyncData.
And even if it was possible with some hacky trick, it would be a bit strange to have to look inside of your template to then have some logic for i18n fetching.
Why not getting a computed nested object and loop on this through your template, after you have fetched all of your required translations ?
Also, you're using asyncData + an API call each time ? So, for every page: you will stop the user, let him wait for the API call and then proceed ?
Latest point, if you are on your page and you hit F5, then asyncData hook will not be triggered. Just to let you know about this caveat.
Alternative solutions:
using the fetch() hook and display a loader until you have fetched all your translations, still better to not rely on the content of the template. This will work even on F5 and can produce a more smooth experience (by not blocking the navigation).
getting your i18n whole translations globally, at some point when your user's connection is idle. Rather than on per-page. Especially because you will need to handle the logic of not fetching some translations that you already have (if the user visits a page twice).
Trying to implement the layout of the picture below, I would like to ask about best practices regarding the architecture of the page layout. Is it better to have independent ViewComponents in every section of the page or partial views? Is it possible to have nested ViewComponents?
The idea is to reuse the sections in other positions in different pages. The concept is very similar to Web parts we used to have but now I try to implement something like this with Asp. Net Core.
Yes, it is possible to have nested View Components.
What is important to keep in mind:
You should keep your views structure under Components folder plain
You should keep your ViewComponent classes under ViewComponent folder plain
You should control infinite loops yourself when you nest component1 into component2 and at the same time component2 into component1
NOTE: most likely you will need your components to include edit/save/update functionalities. As far as I understand, View Components are supposed to be views only as they have only InvokeAsync and not something like UpdateAsync. So if you'd like to implement any kind of saving logic, you will need to take care of doing this yourself (e.g. via AJAX calls). It is possible (I have verified), but it requires to get familiar with Microsoft.jQuery.Unobtrusive.Ajax and handle responses on the client side in JavaScript (sometimes including things like replacing in JS the DOM element inner HTML with what you get from the server response). You will also need to decide where to put controller actions for view component update endpoints (could be a special Controller class for View Components).
It's easy to get a reference to navigator in the renderScene function, so calling navigator.push(newRoute) is simple when responding to an event that happens from within the JSX tree.
In my case, though, I want to call navigator.push(newRoute) from an external event. My app signs the user in with Google and fires an event when the sign-in is complete, and I want to navigate to a new route in that case.
How can I get a reference to the navigator? Is there any way to get it besides as a parameter to renderScene?
You can get the navigator through refs property: https://facebook.github.io/react/docs/more-about-refs.html. It's part of react (not specific to react native). It's not obvious from the react-native docs that there is a number of 'react' features that can be used in react-native, so i'd really advise to take a close look at react in general.
Note however, there is a good reason Facebook does not mention refs explicitly and loudly. Refs is really not a "go-to" way of accessing component. Your case might be of course different, but it's likely that the Google sign-up is not in-fact "external". It might actually be part of one of the components in the hierarchy tree above the navigator (in which case you can pass the state change down the tree).
Quoting from the summary of the "More about refs" document above:
If you have not programmed several apps with React, your first
inclination is usually going to be to try to use refs to "make things
happen" in your app. If this is the case, take a moment and think more
critically about where state should be owned in the component
hierarchy. Often, it becomes clear that the proper place to "own" that
state is at a higher level in the hierarchy. Placing the state there
often eliminates any desire to use refs to "make things happen" –
instead, the data flow will usually accomplish your goal.
Again - your case might be different and using refs might be perfectly justified, but if you are tempted (for example) to separate out all the Google-related stuff to separate object and if that makes the sign-up "external" - think twice. React really encourages putting all things related to a "component" logic in one place (the component) - even if that includes various technologies and external APIs.