I'm developing an app using Vuejs and Vuex.
I've got a Vuex module called settings_operations. This module has the following action:
async changePassword ({ commit }, { password, id }) {
commit(CHANGE_PASSWORD_PROCESSING, { id })
const user = auth.currentUser
const [changePasswordError, changePasswordSuccess] = await to(user.updatePassword(password))
if (changePasswordError) {
commit(CHANGE_PASSWORD_ERROR, { id, error: changePasswordError })
} else {
commit(CHANGE_PASSWORD_SUCCESS, changePasswordSuccess)
}
}
Edit: the to() is https://github.com/scopsy/await-to-js
With the following mutations:
[CHANGE_PASSWORD_PROCESSING] (state, { id }) {
state.push({
id,
status: 'processing'
})
},
[CHANGE_PASSWORD_ERROR] (state, { id, error }) {
state.push({
id,
error,
status: 'error'
})
}
And then, in the component I want to use this state slice:
computed: {
...mapState({
settings_operations: state => state.settings_operations
})
},
watch: {
settings_operations: {
handler (newSettings, oldSettings) {
console.log(newSettings)
},
deep: false
}
}
The problem is that when the changePassword action results in an error, the watch doesn't stop in the PROCESSING step, it goes directly to the ERROR moment so the array will be filled with 2 objects. It literally jumps the "processing" watching step.
A funny thing that happens is that if I add a setTimeout just like this:
async changePassword ({ commit }, { password, id }) {
commit(CHANGE_PASSWORD_PROCESSING, { id })
setTimeout(async () => {
const user = auth.currentUser
const [changePasswordError, changePasswordSuccess] = await to(user.updatePassword(password))
if (changePasswordError) {
commit(CHANGE_PASSWORD_ERROR, { id, error: changePasswordError })
} else {
commit(CHANGE_PASSWORD_SUCCESS, changePasswordSuccess)
}
}, 500)
},
It works! The watch stops two times: the first tick displaying the array with the processing object and the second tick displaying the array with 2 objects; the processing one and the error one.
What am I missing here?
Edit:
I reproduced the problem here: https://codesandbox.io/s/m40jz26npp
This was the response given in Vue forums by a core team member:
Watchers are not run every time the underlying data changes. They are only run once on the next Tick if their watched data changed at least once.
your rejected Promise in the try block is only a microtask, it doesn’t
push execution to the next call stack (on which the watchers would be
run), so the error handling happens before the watchers are run.
additionally, when you mutat an object or array, the newValue and
oldValue in a deep watcher will be the same. See the docs:
Note: when mutating (rather than replacing) an Object or an Array, the old value will be the same as new value because they reference the
same Object/Array. Vue doesn’t keep a copy of the pre-mutate value.
and as a final sidenote, I’ve never seen anyone use an aray as the
root state of a module, I have no idea if that will work for vuex in
all possible circumstances. I certainly would not recommend doing
this.
Edit with a better and more complete answer from the same member:
Why watchers are asynchronous at all? Because in the vast majority of
use cases, watchers only need to react to the last synchrnous change
that was done. In most cases (in the context of a component), it would
be couterproductive to to react to every change since you would
re-trigger the same behaviour mutliple times even though in the end,
only the last state is the important one.
In other words: Running a watcher on each change by default would
probably lead to apps that burn a lot of CPU cycles doing useless
work. So watchers are implemented with an asynchronous queue that is
only flushed on nexTick. And we don’t allow duplicate watchers then
because the older instance of a watcher would apply to data that
doesn’t “exist” anymore in that state once the queue is flushed.
An important note would be that this only applies to synchronous
changes or those done within a microtask, i.e. in an immediatly
resolving or failing promise - it would, for example, not happen with
an ajax request.
Why are they implemented in a way that they are still not run after a
microtask (i.e. an immediatly resolved promise? That’s a bit more
coplicated to explain and requires a bit of history.
Originally, in Vue 2.0, Vue.nextTick was implemented as a microtask
itself, and the watcher queue is flushed on nextTick. That meant that
back then, a watcher watching a piece of data that was changed two
times, with a microtask (like a promise) in between, would indeed run
two times.
Then, around 2.4 I think, we discovered a problem with this
implementation and switched Vue.nextTick to a macroTask instead. under
this behaviour, both data chhanged would happen on the current call
stack’s microtaks queue, while the watcher queue would be flushed at
th beginning of the next call stack, wich means it will only run once.
We found a couple of new problems with this implementation that are
much more common than the original issue with microtasks, so we will
likely switch back to the microtask implementation in 2.6. Ugly, but
necessary.
So, this should do the trick for now:
await Vue.nextTick();
Related
I'm working on my first Vue 3 (and therefore vuex 4) app coming from a pretty solid Vue 2 background.
I have an component that is loading data via vuex actions, and then accessing the store via a returned value in setup()
setup() {
const store = useStore();
const fancy = computed(() => store.state.fancy);
return { fancy };
},
fancy here is a deeply nested object, which I think might be important.
I then want to run a function based on whenever than value changes, so I have set up a watch in my mounted() lifecycle hook
watch(
this.fancy,
(newValue) => {
for (const spreadsheet in newValue) {
console.log(Object.keys(newValue[spreadsheet].data))
setTimeout(()=>{
console.log(Object.keys(newValue[spreadsheet].data))
},500)
...
I tried using the new onMounted() hook in setup and watchEffect and store.watch instead, but I could not get watch/watchEffect to reliably trigger in the onMounted hook, and watchEffect never seemed to update based on my computed store value. If you have insight into this, that would be handy.
My real issue though is that my watcher gets called seemingly before the value is updated. For instance my code logs out [] for the first set of keys, and then a half second later a full array. If it was some kind of progressive filling in of the data, then I would have expected the watcher to be called again, with a new newValue. I have also tried. all the permutations of flush, deep, and immediate on my watcher to no avail. nextTick()s also did not work. I think this must be related to my lack of understanding in the new reactivity changes, but I'm unsure how to get around it and adding in a random delay in my app seems obviously wrong.
Thank you.
I have a Vuex store that manages an array (state.all), and I have a button that calls a Vuex action which performs an HTTP call and then appends the the data in the response to state.all by way of a mutation. However, the state never gets updated and the components never update.
In order prove that I was not crazy, I used two alert()s inside of the mutation to make sure I knew where I stood in the code. The alert()s were always fired with proper values.
Here is the truncated Vuex store (this is a module):
const state = {
all: []
}
// actions
const actions = {
...
runner ({ commit, rootState }, { did, tn }) {
HTTP.post(url, payload)
.then(function (response) {
commit('setNewConversations', response.data)
})
})
}
}
const mutations = {
...
setNewConversations(state, new_conv) {
for (let new_c_i in new_conv) {
let new_c = new_conv[new_c_i]
alert(new_c) // I always see this, and it has the correct value
if (!(new_c in state.all)) {
alert('I ALWAYS SEE THIS!') // testing
state.all.push(new_c)
}
}
}
...
}
When I go to test this, I see my two alert()s, the first with the value I expect and the second with "I ALWAYS SEE THIS!" but nothing happens to my v-for component and the state never updates, despite the state.all.push().
What is the next step to troubleshooting this issue? There are no errors in the JS console, and I cannot figure out any reason the state would not be updated.
Thank you!
One possible solution is instead of pushing to the current state value, store the previous value of state.all in a new array and push the new changes to that new array.
Once done, assign that new array to state.all like the following below.
setNewConversations(state, new_conv) {
const prevState = [...state.all];
for (let new_c_i in new_conv) {
let new_c = new_conv[new_c_i]
if (!(new_c in prevState)) {
prevState.push(new_c);
}
}
state.all = prevState;
}
Given that you said that removing the alert makes it work makes me wonder if you are just observing the value in the wrong place. I can't be sure from what you've given.
Remember that Javascript is single-threaded, and your mutation has to complete before any other Vue-injected reactivity code can run.
If you really wanted the value to be shown before the mutation is complete, you could probably call Vue.nextTick(() => alert(...)), but the better answer is to check for the updates somewhere else, such as in a computed that calls the getter for the state.all array.
(By the way, I find that using either console.log(...) or the vue-dev-tools is much faster than alert() for arbitrary debugging.)
I have an emit call within my Vue project to update search results, but the emit is being called at least 4 times, because the emit call is defined at various spots, so the data is sometimtes emitted with it and at other spots it is not.
I am using a global bus to perform an emit.
this.$root.bus.$emit('resetValuesInInfiniteLoader', filteredEntities);
this.$root.bus.$on('resetValuesInInfiniteLoader', function (filteredEntities) {});
I tried to name the emits calls differently, and also tried to use a different global vue bus but both options did not really work well.
Any idea how I can do this in an efficient manner so that the $emit is always only called once? How do I need to set it up to ensure that the emit is always only called once? I also tried using $once, which did not work, or tried to destroy the $emit. Can someone give me a small fiddle example or so maybe so I understand how to do this in the right way?
I have found this to be the case also and feel that there are some problems with using it in multiple locations. My understanding is that global event busses are not recommended in most applications as they can lead to a confusing tangle of events. The recommendation is that you use a state management solution like vuex.
But anyway, just a couple of points with your code above. I don't know how you created your bus but I have known to create it as such:
//main.js
const EventBus = new Vue()
Object.defineProperties(Vue.prototype, {
$bus: {
get: function () {
return EventBus
}
}
})
This creates it and makes it global. It can then be triggered in a component or components with:
<button #click="$bus.$emit('my-event')">click</button>
or
methods: {
triggerMyEvent () {
this.$bus.$emit('my-event', { ... pass some event data ... })
}
}
and listened to:
created () {
this.$bus.$on('my-event', ($event) => {
console.log('My event has been triggered', $event)
this.eventItem = 'Event has now been triggered'
//this.$bus.$off('my-event')
})
},
I have found that it works sometimes. I don't know why but it will work then it will trigger several events and I think it is because it isn't finalised or something. You may note I have commented out this.$bus.off which certainly stops it but it then doesn't work again. So I don't know what that's all about.
So there you go, a total non-answer, as in, Yes I've had that too, No I cant fix it.
I went with using vuex store, it seems a lot easier to communicate with any component within the application, has the advantage of global communication, yet does not have the caveat of sending multiple actions such as emit events
I'm using a xml parser react-native-xml2js in react native, but this "plugin" uses a specific function for parse the xml, I wasn't found a correct way to use "this" within the function, I've tried using bind() in the callback but doesn't work as expected when using bind it fills my variable moments later after executed, so I don't know how to use it, this is my code:
state = { artcicles: null }
componentDidMount() {
fetch('http://example.com/rss.xml')
.then((response) => response.text())
.then((response) => {
parseString(response, function (err, result) {
this.setState({
articles: JSON.stringify(result.rss.channel[0].item)
})
console.log('RAW: ' + result.rss.channel[0].item);
console.log('THIS: ' + this.state.articles);
}.bind(this));
});
}
When calling this.state.articles in render() at beginning shows null but a second later it fills the articles variable but at that moment the app shows the error when I'm trying to access to the variable.
Any ideas?
Thanks.
I can help you observe something. In React, setState is asynchronous, so the code on the following line after setState will be executed immediately after the setState call is placed in the event loop.
Your true issue is that those console.logs are working perfect, you aren't crazy. They are just being executed before setState has completed.
The secret trick here is that setState accepts a second parameter which is a callback that will be executed after the state is updated. You could place all your following logic inside that statement.
Here is a sampler pack:
this.setState({ dogs: 350 }, () => { console.log('The state has been updated.') })
The second parameter to setState() is an optional callback function that will be executed once setState is completed and the component is re-rendered. Generally we recommend using componentDidUpdate() for such logic instead.
Cite: https://reactjs.org/docs/react-component.html
In yours, it could look like this:
componentDidMount() {
fetch('http://example.com/rss.xml')
.then((response) => response.text())
.then((response) => parseString(response, (err, result) =>
this.setState({
articles: JSON.stringify(result.rss.channel[0].item),
}, () => {
console.log('RAW:', result.rss.channel[0].item)
console.log('THIS:', this.state.articles)
}));
);
}
Checkout the modification I did on the console.log. It too can accept multiple parameters.
A list of JavaScript objects to output. The string representations of each of these objects are appended together in the order listed and output. Please be warned that if you log objects in the latest versions of Chrome and Firefox what you get logged on the console is a reference to the object, which is not necessarily the 'value' of the object at the moment in time you call console.log(), but it is the value of the object at the moment you click it open.
Cite: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Console/log
I like that definition additionally because it speaks to the asynchronous nature of live references. One function by itself can be synchronous, but due to the callstack and function queue, you can load up an infinite number of functions into the queue and they will complete in a random order based on how long each one takes to complete because only one passes through the callstack at a time, on the main thread. Of course, it seems random order to us, but it's actually the mathematically exact fastest path through all those functions, assuming they are all deterministic.
Fast forward to the code in your question, setState doesn't care to stop surrounding code from executing unless you explicitly tell it to. That's what the callback is for, if you need to run some bonus code.
While we are talking about setState, I should mention also that you can pass a function to it. Imagine that the second parameter callback is your method of looking into the future after setState. The opposite of that is looking into the past, which is where the functional setState comes in handy by giving you closure around the previous unit of time. The previous state also happens to be the current state of whatever you are updating.
Here is a sampler pack for that:
this.setState((prevState) => {
// hello I like cats.gif
// we could run some fascinating code here
// as long as we return an object
console.log('rad')
return {
articles: [ ...prevState.articles, { new: 1, article: true }],
}
})
It gives you a safe window to guarantee state integrity through your update. I showed that example there as spreading an Array into a new Array and appending it with an object to demonstrate similar to a real scenario you might need to refer to the current state as part of your operations.
In a real scenario, you might sharpen that up to this, which capitalizes on implicit return of an Object literal (requires fat arrow syntax):
this.setState(prevState => ({
articles: [ ...prevState.articles, { new: 1, article: true }],
})
Hopefully that helps us see the climate of what is happening. In React, it is important to undergo a formal change management process, so every time you are getting or setting data, you need to be careful who is reading or writing data and from where, like which functions and which part of the program. React's way of taming JavaScript is to try to force data to always flow unidirectionally, immutably, and deterministic.
It makes things easier to reason about if everything is flowing one way. That only works if you require immutability and prefer a deterministic system. It means most functions are written declaratively, so they declare what the state looks like at the start of a function, do stuff, then declare what the state is at the end of the function.
React makes you think you are writing mostly pure JavaScript, but really it is managing your state using a first in, first out technique to avoid race conditions when perhaps thousands of components are trying to write to the state at the same time. While the user is in the browser rolling their face across the keyboard triggering all kinds of events, and we must not block the main thread or else suffer poor UX.
A formal change management process means there is probably an official pattern that you should use every time you get or set data. Luckily, the patterns are usually what you would do if you were writing pure JavaScript. Reactive programming and immutability help tame the wild asynchronous concurrency gods.
Sorry, we are digressing a bit, but I had to do it for science.
TLDR,
it's very important what you are doing before, during, and after this.setState(). It's a special function, a class method on the Component Class. I hope I have helped us understand a couple of its secrets today.
You were seeking to perform two operations in one setState call. Normally, you only do one which is to set the state :) Your intended usage is fine. We do nest one additional dimension, but it's fine because you are just performing one more operation. I wouldn't recommend it if you were doing a chain of functions in the callback.
Notice the React documentation that states,
Generally we recommend using componentDidUpdate() for such logic instead.
The reason it says that is componentDidUpdate() is listening for state changes, so you can run logic there that is listening for certain conditions and then acting. It saves you from having to care about performing a second operation after setState at the callsite.
Imagine you did this.state.hasFetchedStuff = true inside your componentDidMount() and then had something like this in componentDidUpdate():
componentDidUpdate() {
if (this.state.hasFetchedStuff) {
this.triggerSomething()
}
}
That can free your componentDidMount from having to care about anything after getting the data, which is perhaps good decoupling and a nice separation of concerns.
I converted this post into a Medium article as well and added much more detail: https://medium.com/#agm1984/reacts-setstate-is-a-special-function-and-it-helps-with-asynchronous-concurrency-669eddbe3dd1
In the render() method you can use an inline If:
{this.state.articles && (
// Display articles
)}
When articles stops being null the element right after && will appear and while it's null, no errors will be thrown.
Instead of using null for the initial value you can use an empty array []. That way your articles state variable is never in a consistent state. Also, you can avoid having a manual bind in your callback and use arrow functions instead which will keep the current scope. This way you'll have the correct closure to use this.state.
parseString(response, (err, result) => {
this.setState({
articles: JSON.stringify(result.rss.channel[0].item)
})
});
This answer to some tricky
componentDidMount() {
fetch('http://example.com/rss.xml')
.then((response) => response.text())
.then((response) => {
parseString(response, function (err, result) {
this.setState({
articles: JSON.stringify(result.rss.channel[0].item)
})
console.log('RAW: ' + result.rss.channel[0].item);
setTimeout(() => {
console.log('THIS: ' + this.state.articles);
}, 1000);
}.bind(this));
});
}
I have a component with a created method:
created() {
this.initMap();
}
The initMap is to initialize Google maps, depending on whether the URL segment corresponds to 'map' or not like so:
initMap() {
const pathname = location.pathname.replace(/\/+$/, '');
const segment = pathname.split('/').pop();
if (segment === 'map') this.showMap();
}
The above bit of code has a ShowMap method that performs a Vuex commit:
showMap() {
this.$store.commit('showMap');
}
This commit however never shows up in my Vue.js devtools(under Vuex).The components watching the Vuex store value that showMap is changing also never trigger.
If I do this however:
setTimeout(() => {
this.$store.commit('showMap');
, 100);
Everything works exactly as expected.
I tried this because the changes actually happen in my Vue.js devtools, because if I look under state I can see updated values.
The Vuex commit seems to fire too fast. Is there anything that can be done about this? Why is this happening in the first place?
I can even put a console.log() into the showMap commit and it works but it still does not get picked up in the devtools and without the setTimeout all of my watcher still don't properly trigger.
Since this was a while ago I am not 100% sure how I fixed this but I think it was by using $nextTick from Vue.js.
By waiting on nextTick you ensure that your call stack for DOM updates has been cleared. This prevents DOM updates that might rely on other parts of your DOM from firing too fast.
Obviously this is way more reliable than simply setting a setTimeout with a given number of let's say 100 milliseconds from my example because if your DOM does not update in time it might still pass this window.
If setTimeout fixed your issue I suggest trying $nextTick.
https://v2.vuejs.org/v2/api/#Vue-nextTick