I'm using office-ui-fabric-react library. Current version that I'm on is 7.17.0.
My list is super simple:
<DetailsList
columns={this.state.columns}
items={this.state.items}
compact={true}
selectionMode={SelectionMode.none}
enableUpdateAnimations={true}
/>
When I change the items in a separate method (marked async) and do this.setState({items: someNewItems}), the list doesn't get re-rendered. I'm curious is this a known issue, or is the DetailsList needs to be handled in a special way?
To clarify, after executing this.setState nothing changes, but if I resize the page, the new elements appear suddenly.
This is due to shallow comparison, in fact the solution is listed in the documentation here: https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/fabric#/controls/web/detailslist
From the docs:
My List is not re-rendering when I mutate its items! What should I do?
To determine if the List within DetailsList should re-render its
contents, the component performs a referential equality check within
its shouldComponentUpdate method. This is done to minimize the
performance overhead associating with re-rendering the virtualized
List pages, as recommended by the React documentation.
As a result of this implementation, the inner List will not determine
it should re-render if the array values are mutated. To avoid this
problem, we recommend re-creating the items array backing the
DetailsList by using a method such as Array.prototype.concat or
ES6 spread syntax shown below:
public appendItems(): void {
const { items } = this.state;
this.setState({
items: [...items, ...['Foo', 'Bar']]
})
}
public render(): JSX.Element {
const { items } = this.state;
return <DetailsList items={items} />;
}
By re-creating the items array without mutating the values, the inner
List will correctly determine its contents have changed and that it
should re-render the new values.
There is no issue with DetailsList. The table should update properly, as you indicated that when you resize the page the items show up but before that it doesn't. It's definitely because the render function isn't being called again.
Which means that when you do this.setState you are not updating the states of your present component. As Mirage, in the comments suggested try checking if you have the correct this and you are updating the correct component.
Related
I have a single page dashboard application. I've been playing around with setInterval which works quite well for just updating the data without reloading the page. I put the setInterval function within mounted(), not sure if it best belongs there but works okay.
However! This SPA has a ton of filters. You can search, you can select dropdowns, you can sort, on and on. Say the initial page load has 1000 rows and you use the search bar to narrow it down to one row/one result. Now setInterval runs and it will re render all 1000 rows. This is the method (defined in methods: {} section that initially loads the data and the method used in mounted() with setInterval):
getData: function (arg1, arg2) {
API.getSomeData(arg1, arg2).then(resp => {
getTicketData(resp.data);
this.$data.loading = false;
});
}
Is there a way to account for the filters when it comes to the setInterval piece?
Any and all insight is appreciated.
It sounds like you might be overwriting the same data property when you fetch data from the API and when you filter on it. If that's the case, you should use a computed property to display the filtered records to the user instead.
computed: {
tableRows() {
if (this.filters)
return this.filter()
return this.apiData
}
Where this.filter() will filter down this.apiData without overwriting its contents. Then you can iterate over tableRows in your template (e.g. v-for="row in tableRows") to display those to the user.
If you want to remove some of this logic from your Vue component, you might consider using a Vuex store to both fetch/update from your API and also to calculate the filters.
this.$store.dispatch('fetch_on_interval', { interval: 1000 })
this.$store.dispatch('set_filters', { ...filters })
this.$store.getters('table_data')
Your getter would check the filters and return whatever is relevant. Vuex getters can be used in computed properties too.
I have a quite decent background in android but now I am starting digging into react native and I am really confused with the ways to change the state of a component through hooks and set state function.
To the point, I have my main screen and I have many small components which change visibility. This is done by letting the user change some filter settings within dialogs. So the suggested way to do that is by having a hook in my main screen with a list that holds the values for the visibility of each component. But since I change the visibility of the components from inside the modals, every time I want to show a modal I will have to pass in a different function(for example setComponentEnable or setComponentDisabled) to set the state for each component. So my main screen will be polluted from all these small functions. Also I should not forget to mention that my modals are consisted from many smaller components and I will have to pass as deep as it goes the proper function to match the user action.
So my question is, is there a way to do this thing without polluting my main with all these small functions and make it possible for the main screen to update every time the user change the filters within the modals?
I already read about context but the docs say:
Context is designed to share data that can be considered “global” for a tree of React components, such as the current authenticated user, theme, or preferred language.
So I dont think that this should be a great case for context use.
What I am trying to do now is create a hook with a list
const [isibility, setVisibility] = useState([]);
create visibility handler functions
const setVisibilityEnable = () => {
...
}
and pass it into my modal.
<MyModal
visibilityHandler={setVisibilityEnable}/>
Is there a way to manipulate the state without passing all these callbacks to the modals? Or maybe is there anyone that can suggest a better and clean solution to avoid end up having a really huge main screen?
you can include all the settings in one object and pass that object to all the components. Then each component will then modify that object accordingly.
const defaultVisibility = {
childComponentOne: true,
childComponentTwo: true,
};
const [visibilityObject, setVisibilityObject] = useState(defaultVisibility);
pass both the function and the object into your child components:
<ChildComponentOne visibilityObject={visibilityObject} setVisibilityObject={setVisibilityObject} />
Then in your child component, you set the visibility like so:
setVisibilityObject({...visibilityObject, childComponentOne: false});
Why you don't just pass a property to your modal and check if changed in oncomponentdidchange method?
componentDidUpdate(prevProps) {
if (this.props.yourPoperty!== prevProps.yourPoperty) {
//do your visibility stuff
}
}
Alternatively you can do it with redux when you connect your components to the store.
In my react-native project, I have three checkboxes, I need to track the state of those checkboxes so I use an object with key-value (value is boolean) to represent the states of all three checkboxes and use useState hook to manage them. Here is my code:
import React, { useState, useEffect } from 'react';
...
const MyScreen = ({ navigation }) => {
// initially, all checkboxes are checked
const initialCheckBoxState = {
0: true,
1: true,
2: true,
};
const [checkBoxesState, setCheckBoxesState] = useState(initialCheckBoxState);
useEffect(() => {
return () => {
console.log('Screen did unmount');
};
}, [checkBoxesState]);
return (
<View>
...
<SectionList
sections={options}
renderItem={({ index, item }) => (
<CheckBox
onPress={() => {
const checkBoxesStateCopy = { ...checkBoxesState };
checkBoxesStateCopy[index] = !checkBoxesStateCopy[index];
setCheckBoxesState(checkBoxesStateCopy);
}}
/>
)}
/>
...
</View>
);
};
I omitted code that is not the concern of my problem. As you can see, for each item I draw one CheckBox component.
In practice, there are always three items (i.e. three check boxes to show). At the beginning I declared initialCheckBoxState, each key-pair represents the state of the checkbox of each. In the onPress callback of Checkbox I toggle each check box state & update the checkBoxesState by hook method setCheckBoxesState as a whole.
Everything works fine at runtime, my screen is re-rendered when toggling checkbox state, UI shows the status of checkboxes correctly. But issue comes when I navigate back to the previous screen and navigate back to this screen, all checkboxes states are back to the initial states.
So, why the checkboxes states are not reserved?
P.S. previous screen and MyScreen are under the same stack navigator. User press a button of previous screen to navigate to MyScreen. From MyScreen user can go to previous screen by pressing the "headerLeft" button
First lets answer the question:
why the checkboxes states are not reserved?
This component is handling its state completely independent, the state is created & handled inside and no values are passed-in from outside. what does it mean? this component has its initial state value inside of itself, it doesn't use any prop or anything else to initialize the state. everytime this component gets created, state is again initialized with that value. so that's the reason you lose all changes done to checkboxes, because when you leave this screen(component) , it gets unmounted(we'll talk about this in next question) and because all values are just handled inside, every data (containing checkboxes state) will be lost.
So now lets talk about this:
is react-native supposed to reserve the state when come back to the screen?
short answer is No. Every component is destroyed when unmounted including their state and data.
Now lets answer why
screens are still on the stack in memory, not destroyed?
Usually developers use a package like react-navigation or RNRF(which is built on top of react-navigation) for react navigation, most of times we don't care about how they handle this navigation logic, we just use the interface the provided us. each of these packages may have their own way to handle navigation. providing full answer to determine why exactly the screen in still in memory needs full code review and sure lots of debugging but i guess there are 2 possibilities. first as i said maybe the package you are using keeps the unmounted screens in memory at least for a while for some reason. the 2nd is a common react community issue which is Unmounted component still in memory which you can check at: https://github.com/facebook/react/issues/16138
And at last lets answer the question:
how do i keep checkboxes state even with navigating back and losing component containing their state?
This doesn't have just one way to that but simple and short answer is move your state out of the that component, e.g move it out to the parent component or a global variable.
to make it more clear lets explain like this: imagine screen A is always mounted, then you go in B and there you can see some checkboxes and you can modify the states. if the state is handled completely inside B, if you navigate back from screen B to A you lose all changes because B is now unmounted. so what you should do it to put checkboxes states in A screen then pass the values down to B. and when modifying the values, you modify A state. so when B gets unmounted all changes are persistant because you have them in A.
other approached exists as well, you can create a global singleton object named globalState. then put values needed to share between multiple screens there. if you prefer redux or mobx you can use them. one of their usages is when you have some data that you need to share between mutiple screens, these data are independent from where you are at and will persist.
This explanation is from official react-navigation documentation:
Consider a stack navigator with screens A and B. After navigating to
A, its componentDidMount is called. When pushing B, its
componentDidMount is also called, but A remains mounted on the stack
and its componentWillUnmount is therefore not called.
When going back from B to A, componentWillUnmount of B is called, but
componentDidMount of A is not because A remained mounted the whole
time.
https://reactnavigation.org/docs/navigation-lifecycle/#example-scenario
Your MyScreen screen is equivalent to screen B from the example, which means you can expect your screen to stay mounted if you navigate forward, but not backwards.
Its simple, just add a keyExtractor to your SectionList component, which would uniquely identify each checkbox, so that react knows which one to re-render on update.
You'll want to use AsyncStorage to persist data to the device. State variables will be cleared any time the component unmounts.
AsyncStorage docs:
https://react-native-community.github.io/asaync-storage/
import AsyncStorage from '#react-native-community/async-storage';
//You can only store string values so convert objects to strings:
const storeData = async (value) => {
try {
const jsonValue = JSON.stringify(value)
await AsyncStorage.setItem('#storage_Key', jsonValue)
} catch (e) {
// saving error
}
}
const getData = async () => {
try {
const jsonValue = await AsyncStorage.getItem('#storage_Key')
return jsonValue != null ? JSON.parse(jsonValue) : null;
} catch(e) {
// error reading value
}
}
UPDATE -
State is not being persisted due to the nature of React Component lifecycles. Specifically, when you navigate away from a screen the lifecycle method componentWillUnmount is called.
Here's an excerpt from the docs:
componentWillUnmount() is invoked immediately before a component is unmounted and destroyed. Perform any necessary cleanup in this method, such as invalidating timers, canceling network requests, or cleaning up any subscriptions that were created in componentDidMount().
...Once a component instance is unmounted, it will never be mounted again.
This means any values stored in state will be destroyed as well and upon navigating back to the screen ComponentDidMount will be called which is where you may want to assign persisted values back to state.
Two possible approaches aside from AsyncStorage that may work for some use cases to persist data across screens is using Context or a singleton.
I have problem understanding why THE SAME mutation fails to refresh data displayed in components (although it does change underlying vuex store data!) if it is called from one of the components, but it does refresh the data if called from another component?
I am updating Filter objects stored in store this way: state.report.filters[], where filters is array of Filter objects.
const state = {
report: {
filters: [], // array of Filter objects
...
}
}
My mutation looks for a filter in the array and substitutes the whole Filter object.
const mutations = {
setFilter: (state, newFilterValue) => {
let changedFilter = state.report.filters.find(filter => {
return filter.fieldName === newFilterValue.fieldName;
});
changedFilter = newFilterValue;
}
}
The mutation is called from a method of Filter class defined like this (separate module):
import { store } from './store';
export class Filter {
constructor ({
...
} = {}) {
this.operators = []; // Array of Operator objects
this.value = []; // Array of values - in this case Dates
};
updateOperator (operatorName) { // this mutation refreshes components when executed
this.operator[0] = new Operator(operatorName);
store.commit('setFilter', this); // whole object passed to the mutation
};
updateValue (newValue) { // this mutation changes store value, but fails to refresh components
this.value[0] = newValue; // newValue is a Date
store.commit('setFilter', this);
};
};
The app displays data in rows (each Filter has a separate row), each row contains cells, of which one contains components dedicated to Filter's value and Operator. These dedicated components receive as props callback functions which are methods of the Filter object. They execute the callback functions when a new value is entered passing the value to the Filter which then updates a relevant property and calls the mutation passing in both cases the whole Filter object as payload.
// TABLE CELL COMPONENT displaying filter value and operator
<template>
<td>
<operator-component
:iconName="proppedFilterObject.operator.iconName"
:callback="proppedFilterObject.updateOperator.bind(proppedFilterObject)"
></operator-component>
<value-component
:date="proppedFilterObject.value[0]"
:callback="proppedFilterObject.updateValue.bind(proppedFilterObject)"
></value-component>
</td>
</template>
<script>
export default {
props: ['proppedFilterObject'] // whole filter object
};
</script>
// OPERATOR COMPONENT
<template>
<div #click.stop="chooseOperator">
{{ iconName }} // some operator value display
</div>
</template>
<script>
export default {
methods: {
chooseOperator () {
const modal = new ChooseOperatorModal({
callback: this.callback // this displays another modal for receiving data. The modal calls the callback.
});
},
},
props: ['callback', 'iconName']
};
</script>
// VALUE COMPONENT
<template>
<date-picker v-model="computedDate"> // THIRD PARTY COMPONENT
</date-picker>
{{ date }} // additional display to verify if there's a problem within 'date-picker'
</template>
<script>
import DatePicker from 'vue2-datepicker'; // THIRD PARTY COMPONENT
export default {
components: { DatePicker },
computed: {
computedDate: {
get: function () {
return this.date;
},
set: function (newValue) {
this.callback(newValue);
}
}
},
props: ['callback', 'date']
};
</script>
So, if eg. I enter new operator value from Operator component, everything refreshes. When I enter a new value in the value component, the mutation is executed and store value changed, but displayed data are not refreshed. However, if afterwards I change an operator all the components will refresh and value will get displayed. Even if I change operator in a different Filter object(!). Ie:
a) Change in report.filters[0].value - display not refreshed, but...
b) then change report.filters[1].operator - both report.filters[1].operator AND PREVIOUSLY CHANGED report.filters[0].value get refreshed(?!).
What can be a reason of such behaviour? Where to look for the problem?
Some additional remarks:
1) I am using a third party component "vue2-date-picker" for date choice and display. However it does not seem to be responsible for the problem, as if I try to display the new value just in {{ }} notation it behaves the same way. I have used the date picker in other components and there it functions correctly as well.
2) In the code samples I left out most imports/exports and other seemingly irrelevant elements to keep the question reasonably short.
There are a lot of problems with the code and several of them are contributing to the problems you're seeing. A full, thorough answer that addresses all of these problems would be ridiculously long so instead I will skim through them without going into huge amounts of detail. You will need to do some further reading and experimentation to understand each of these topics properly.
Let's start with this line in the mutation:
changedFilter = newFilterValue;
This line assigns a new value to the local variable changedFilter. That's all. As it's the last line of the mutation the net result is that it doesn't really do anything.
Presumably your intent was to update the array state.report.filters, replacing the old entry with a new entry. However, just updating a local variable isn't going to do that.
At this point you may be wondering 'If that doesn't do anything, then why is the state in my store changing?'. I'll come to that in a moment but first let me prove to you that your existing code does nothing.
Try removing the code inside setFilter completely. Just leave an empty function. Then try clicking around in the UI just like you did before. You'll find that the store state updates just the same as it did before, even though you've removed the code to update the array.
The correct way to implement that mutation would be to use findIndex to find the relevant index and then use either Vue.set or the array's splice method to update the array accordingly. That will change the item in the array. However...
This brings us back to the earlier question. Why is the state updating if the mutation does nothing?
This is because you're using the same object in multiple places. The Filter object held in the array is the same object that your UI is editing. There are no copies being taken, there is just a single object. So when you change the properties of that object inside updateOperator or updateValue this will immediately be reflected inside the store. Calling the setFilter mutation is just asking the store to replace an object with itself.
There's nothing specific to Vue about this. This is just the standard behaviour of reference types in JavaScript. It is also common with many other programming languages that don't directly expose pointers. It can be useful to learn a little about how pointers work in other languages as it will give you a better initial mental model before attempting to understand how reference types behave in JavaScript. Understanding the difference between 'by value' and 'by reference' may also be a useful starting point.
The next topic to cover is reactivity, which very much is a Vue topic.
Specifically, there are certain changes that Vue can't detect. These are usually referred to as the reactivity caveats. You can find more about them in the official documentation:
https://v2.vuejs.org/v2/guide/reactivity.html#Change-Detection-Caveats
https://v2.vuejs.org/v2/guide/list.html#Caveats
There are at least two lines in your code that violate these rules:
this.operator[0] = new Operator(operatorName);
and
this.value[0] = newValue;
You can't set array entries directly by index. The array will update but it won't trigger any reactive dependencies within Vue. Instead you need to use either Vue.set or one of the array methods, e.g. push, pop, splice, etc.. In this example you could use splice.
e.g. Using Vue.set:
Vue.set(this.value, 0, newValue);
e.g. Using splice:
this.value.splice(0, 0, newValue);
Why does all of this matters?
Well Vue will only re-render a component if its reactive dependencies have changed. They are very similar to computed properties in that regard. Here's how it works...
Vue compiles the template down to a function. That function is referred to as the render function. When rendering a component Vue calls the render function and that function returns a description of how to render the component. Any reactive properties that are touched while that function is running will be recorded as dependencies. If, at some point in the future, the value of one of those reactive properties changes then Vue will rerun the render function to generate a new rendering of that component.
There are two key points to take out of this description:
If you fall foul of one of the reactivity caveats then Vue won't know the dependency has changed, so it won't re-render the component.
The render function runs as a whole. It doesn't just target a small chunk of the template, it always runs the whole thing.
So if you change a dependency in a non-reactive way (i.e. one of the caveats) it won't trigger a rendering update. But if you subsequently update a dependency properly, Vue will detect that and will rerun the render function. When it runs it will run the whole thing, so any new values will be picked up, even if they weren't detected when they changed.
It isn't immediately clear to me which rendering dependency is causing your component to re-render. However, it only needs one of them to change in a detectable manner. Any other changes will then get pulled in incidentally when the render function runs and reads their current values.
That covers why your code isn't working. However, I would also worry about your decision to introduce a Filter class. I understand how that may be appealing if you've come from some other OO environment but it isn't typically how Vue is used. It is possible to make it work but you will need a good understanding of both JavaScript reference types and the Vue reactivity system to avoid falling through the cracks. There is no reason why using a specific class to hold your data can't be made to work but in practice it usually ends up being less maintainable than not using such a class. A more typical Vue approach would be to use simple, anonymous objects/arrays to hold the data and then for the data owner (either a component or store module) to be responsible for making any mutations to that data. Events are used to pass changes up the component hierarchy rather than callback props.
Ultimately you will need to judge whether the Filter class is justified but it is probably not what future maintainers of your code will be expecting.
I have a FlatList in ReactNative which pulls a list of articles from an API. When the end of the list is reached on scrolling, a further page of articles is pulled from the API and appended to the articles list in a Redux reducer.
The FlatList is set up as:
render() {
return(
<FlatList data={this.props.articles.articles} // The initial articles list via Redux state
renderItem={this.renderArticleListItem} // Just renders the list item.
onEndReached={this.pageArticles.bind(this)} // Simply calls a Redux Action Creator/API
onEndReachedThreshold={0}
keyExtractor={item => item.id.toString()}/>
)};
The Redux 'articles' state object is mapped to the component using the React Redux connect function. The relevant reducer (some items removed for brevity) looks like:
/// Initial 'articles' state object
const INITIAL_STATE = {
articles: [],
loading: false,
error: '',
pageIndex: 0,
pageSize: 10
};
export default(state = INITIAL_STATE, action) => {
switch(action.type){
// The relevant part for returning articles from the API
case ARTICLES_SUCCESS:
return { ...state, loading: false, articles: state.articles.concat(action.payload.items),
pageIndex: action.payload.pageIndex, pageSize: action.payload.pageSize}
default:
return state;
}
}
The payload is a simple object - the articles are contained in the action.payload.items array, and there is additional paging information as well in the payload (not important to this problem).
Everything is fine with the API returning the correct data.
The problem is that when the end of the FlatList is reached on scrolling, the API is called, the new articles are pulled fine and appended to the this.props.articles state object and to the FlatList, BUT the FlatList jumps/scrolls back to the first item in the list.
I think the problem is probably with how I am returning the state in the Redux reducer but I'm not sure why.
Is using concat the correct way to return the new state with the new articles appended?
It might be too late to answer this but I experienced exact same problem having my data served from redux to the component and managed to fix the jumping effect by making my component a normal Component rather than PureComponent allowing me to use shouldComponentUpdate life-cycle hook method. This how the method should look like for you component:
shouldComponentUpdate(nextProps) {
if (this.props.articles === nextProps.articles) {
return false;
}
return true;
}
This method (if implemented) should return a boolean value indicating whether the component should update or not. What i did here was to prevent the component from re-rendering in case the contents of articles hasn't changed.
Hope this would be helpful for you or others who might have faced similar problem.
You need to add to listItem styles height and width. Freezing and jumping maybe because list tried to calculate sizes for all items even if they dont display.
And you can find answer in: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/issues/13727
Using FlatList as component and adding data as props re-renders whole content, so it scrolls to top. I recommend using it directly inside your page and changing its data using this.state, not props