I am a newbie to react-native, redux and saga and have run into a use case that I have not been able to find a solution for. I understand how to map state to properties and pass around the state between action, reducer and saga. This makes sense to me so far. This is where things seem to get dicey. I have a form that requires a variable number of form fields at any given time depending upon what is returned from the database.
As an example, let's say I have a structure like this:
{
name: ‘’,
vehicleMake: ‘’,
vehicleModel: ‘’,
carLotCity: ‘’,
carLotState: ‘’,
carLotZipCode: ‘’,
localPartsManufacturers: [{name: ‘’, address: ‘’, zipCode}]
}
Everything from name to carLotZipCode would only require one text field, however, the localPartsManufacturers array could represent any number of object that each would need their own set of text fields per each object. How would I account for this with redux as far as mapping the fields to the state and mapping the state to the properties? I am confused about how to begin with this scenario. I understand how to project mapping when the fields are fixed.
I would keep the data as it is coming from the backend. That way you'll avoid normalizing it. I think we just have to be smarter when rendering the fields. Here's what I'm suggesting:
function onTextFieldChange(name, index) {
// either name = `name`, `vehicleMake`, ...
// or
// name = `localPartsManufacturers` and `index` = 0
}
function createTextField(name, index) {
return <input
type='text'
name={ name }
onChange={ () => onTextFieldChange(name, index) } />;
}
function Form({ fields }) {
return (
<div>
{
Object.keys(fields).reduce((allFields, fieldName) => {
const field = fields[fieldName];
if (Array.isArray(field)) {
allFields = allFields.concat(field.map(createTextField));
} else {
allFields.push(createTextField(fieldName));
}
return allFields;
}, [])
}
</div>
);
}
Form receives all the data as you have it in the store. Then we check if the field is an array. If it is an array we loop over the fields inside and generate inputs same as the other properties createTextField. The tricky part here is how to update the data in the store. Notice that we are passing an index when the text field data is changed. In the reducer we have to write something like:
case FIELD_UPDATED:
const { name, index, value } = event.payload;
if (typeof index !== 'undefined') {
state[name][index] = value;
} else {
state[name] = value;
}
return state;
There is nothing preventing you from keeping a list, map, set or any other object in Redux.
The only thing remaining then, is how you map the state to your props, and how you use them. Instead of mapping a single element from the collection to a prop, you map the entire collection to a single prop, and then iterate over the collection in your render method.
In the action you can pass a new collection back, which is comprised of the form fields making up the parts list. Then, your reducer will replace the collection itself.
Or, upon changing an element in the part collection, you can send an action with its id, find it in the collection in the reducer and replace the element that was changed / add the new one / remove the deleted one.
Related
I have the following component to quickly configure stops on a delivery/pickup route and how many items are picked up and dropped
and this is the data model, note the 2 is the one next to 'a' on the previous image.
If a click the + or - button, in the first item, it behaves as expected,
But second item doesn't work as expected
I've already checke a couple of posts on object property update likes this ones
Is it possible to mutate properties from an arbitrarily nested child component in vue.js without having a chain of events in the entire hierarchy?
https://forum.vuejs.org/t/nested-props-mutations-hell-internet-need-clarification/99346
https://forum.vuejs.org/t/is-mutating-object-props-bad-practice/17448
among others, and came up with this code:
ADD_ITEM_TO_SELECTED_STOP(state, payload) {
let count = state.selectedStop.categories[payload.catIndex].items[payload.itemIndex].count;
const selectedCat = state.selectedStop.categories[payload.catIndex];
const currentItem = selectedCat.items[payload.itemIndex];
currentItem.count = count + 1;
selectedCat.items[payload.itemIndex] = currentItem;
Vue.set(state.selectedStop.categories, payload.catIndex, selectedCat);
},
and as the button event:
addToItem(item) {
this.$store.dispatch("addItemToSelectedStop", {
catIndex: item.catIndex,
itemIndex: item.itemIndex
})
},
And finally my computed property code:
items() {
let finalArray = [];
this.selectedStop.categories.forEach(
(cat, catIndex) => {
let selected = cat.items.filter((item) => item.count > 0 );
if (selected.length > 0) {
//here we add the catIndex and itemIndex to have it calling the rigth shit
selected = selected.map(val => {
let itemIndex = cat.items.findIndex( itemToFind => itemToFind.id === val.id);
return {
...val,
catIndex: catIndex,
itemIndex: itemIndex,
}})
finalArray = finalArray.concat(selected);
}
});
return finalArray;
}
What confuses me the most is that I have almost the same code in another component, and there it's working as expected, and although the model is changed, the computed property is only recalculated on the first item,
After reading this gist and taking a look again at the posts describing this kind of issue, I decided to give it a try and just make a copy of the whole stored object not just the property, update it, then set it back on vuex using Vue.set, and that did the trick, everything is now working as expected, this is my final store method.
ADD_ITEM_TO_SELECTED_STOP(state, payload) {
let selectedLocalStop = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(state.selectedStop));
let count = selectedLocalStop.categories[payload.catIndex].items[payload.itemIndex].count;
selectedLocalStop.categories[payload.catIndex].items[payload.itemIndex].count = count + 1;
Vue.set(state,"selectedStop", selectedLocalStop );
//Now we search for this step on the main list
const stepIndex = state.stops.findIndex(val => val.id === selectedLocalStop.id);
Vue.set(state.stops,stepIndex, selectedLocalStop );
},
I had to add the last bit after updating the whole object, because, originally, the array items were updated when the selected item was changed, I guess some sort of reference, but with the object creation, that relationship no longer works "automatic" so I need to update the array by hand
OK, say I have an initial state in our Redux store that looks like this:
const initialState = {
userReports: [],
activeReport: null,
}
userReports is a list of reports. activeReport is one of those reports (the one that is actively being worked with).
I want the active report to point to one in the array. In other words, if I modify the active report, it would modify one in the userReports array. This means, the two objects must point to the same memory space. That's easy to set up.
The alternative to this approach would be to copy one of the reports that is in the userReports array and set it as the active report (now it has a different memory address). The problem is now, when I edit the activeReport, I also have to search through the array of userReports, find the report that resembles the active report and modify it there too. This feels verbose.
Here is the question:
Would it be bad practice to have the activeReport point to a report in the array (same object). When I want to change the report I could do something like this (example is using redux thunk):
export const updateReport = (report) => async (dispatch, getState) => {
try {
const report = getState().reports.activeReport
// modify the active report here
report.title = "blah blah blah"
dispatch({ type: ACTIONS.UPDATE_REPORT, payload: report })
} catch (error) {
console.log(`ERROR: ${error.message}`)
}
}
And in my reducer:
case ACTIONS.UPDATE_REPORT:
return { ...state, activeReport: action.payload }
as you can see, after updating the report I still return a "new version" of that report and set it as active, but this approach also updates the report in the userReports array because they point to the same memory address.
I would say thats not ideal, do the reports have id's? If they do I would rather hold the userReports in an object with keys being the id's, then active report can just be an id and renamed to activeReportId so you can fetch the activeReport with userReports[activeReportId]
You also asked for reasons:
So firstly any screen that looks at userReports wont rerender because the reports aren't being reassigned.
Secondly if someone later wants to update those screens they will reassign userReports which could cause problems.
Thirdly its an unusual pattern which is a huge no no for redux. The point of redux is that it has a very obvious pattern so when you add things to it you don't have to think and can just make changes with confidence.
Your activeReport should not be pointing to an object in the userReports array, but rather it should be an id of the report, which the user is currently working on. Each of the report in the userReports will have a unique id field to identify the report - this would be helpful when rendering in react - this id field can be used as key.
Then your action creator/dispatcher will look like this:
export const updateReport = (updatedReport) => async (dispatch, getState) => {
dispatch({ type: ACTIONS.UPDATE_REPORT, payload: updatedReport });
}
You will call this on change in your component:
const onTitleChangeHandler = (e) => {
var newTitle = e.target.value;
// you will get the userReports and activeReport from props or by using some redux selector, also you will need to get dispatch and getState from redux
var activeReportObj = userReports.filter((r) => r.id === activeReport)[0];
updateReport({ title: newTitle, ...activeReportObj })(dispatch, getState);
}
Lastly, your reducer will be:
case ACTIONS.UPDATE_REPORT:
var newUserReports = state.userReports.map((r) => {
if (r.id === state.activeReport) {
return action.payload;
}
return r;
});
return { newUserReports, ...state };
I am learning Vue, and I have a list of todo items that has a checkbox that I am able to mark as complete. Everything in my application is working.
When I check the checkbox, I am adding items to the completedItems array. When unchecked, I am removing items. I am able to check the array length and it is also correct.
I have a button that I can click that will remove all items marked as complete from my list.
The overarching logic is working fine. The status of being marked as complete is working, and the actual record is getting deleted as expected.
However, I am unable to remove the item from the actual view. I am not sure what I am doing wrong -- incorrectly updating my completedItems array or something. The items that I delete will only disappear after a full page refresh.
Here is what I am doing:
<task v-for="item in list.items">...</task>
...
data() {
return {
completedItems: [],
}
},
props: ['list'],
...
axios.delete(...)
.then((response) => {
if (response.status === 204) {
this.completedItems = this.completedItems.filter(i => i !== item);
} else {
console.error('Error: could not remove item(s).', response);
}).catch((error) => {
alert(error);
});
Thank you for any suggestions!
EDIT
Here is how I am checking for a match now, and it is coming across correctly, the element in the array still isn't getting removed from the page.
this.completedItems = this.completedItems.filter(i => i.id !== item.data.id);
// i.id = 123
// item.data.id = 123
You should avoid manipulating props directly, since props are supplied by the parent component and can be changed without notice. I would do something like this:
data(){
return{
completedItems[],
localList: this.list
}
}
Then, manipulate and bind the localList array instead of the prop, this should give you what you are looking for.
While creating a Vue.js application I have become stuck at a weird problem. I want to be able to manipulate an input field (think increment and decrement buttons and erasing a zero value on focus, so the user doesn't have to) and up until a user writes to the input field, everything is fine. After that, however, further changes in the data are no longer represented in the input field.
As I was sure I could not be the only one with this particular problem, I searched extensively, but had no luck. What baffles me the most is that everything works until the field is written to, since I can not really imagine why this would remove the data binding.
The following code should show the same behavior. It is an input field component, which is initialized with a zero value. On focus the zero gets removed. This works, until a user manually writes to the field after which zero values will no longer be removed, even though the focus method fires, the if-condition is met and the data in the amount-variable is changed.
Vue.component('item', {
data: function () {
return {
amount: 0
}
},
render: function (createElement) {
var self = this;
return createElement('input', {
attrs: {
//bind data to field
value: self.amount,
type: 'number'
},
on: {
//update data on input
input: function (event) {
self.amount = event.target.value;
},
//remove a zero value on focus for user convenience
focus: function (event) {
if (self.amount == 0 || self.amount == "0") {
self.amount = '';
}
}
}
})
}
})
I think you need to use domProps instead of attrs to make it reactive. But I would suggest you use vue's template syntax or if you insist on using the render function I would also suggest you to use JSX.
I am new to Vue and working my way through it.
I have this method
itemClick() {
let item = this.name;
console.log( item );
store.commit( 'updateSelectedItems', item );
},
and this mutation
updateSelectedItems( items ) {
console.log( items );
store.state.selectedItems.splice( 0 );
store.state.selectedItems.push( items );
}
The method console.log outputs the name correctly (it's coming from props). However, from the updateSelectedItems mutation log it outputs this an object containing all of my states.
Thanks for the help.
That's because mutations are given the state as their first argument. The payload should then be put as a second parameter in the mutation's declaration (like so: updateSelectedItems(state, item)).
(See the docs for more details: https://vuex.vuejs.org/en/mutations.html)