Photo by Jay on Unsplash – Don’t get caught
Watch out when exposing a mutable data structure with React Hooks
When you spread an object instance of a class to expose methods, methods might not be copied over.
Suppose that you have a Trie class,
which you want to make it immutable by returning a new object using syntax spread.
Not a good idea! Explained later.
Printing out trie object instance returned from useTrie won’t show has and an empty method is printed.
Let’s see why and how to solve the issue.
🔬 Analysis
To understand the problem, let’s see how the class is transpiled using TypeScript compiler (the transpiled babel code does the same but verbose so using TypeScript compiler here).
has method was added to the prototype, not to an instance of Trie class.
So has is still available when you do const t = new Trie(); t.has(); // true.
Returning a new object using spread syntax didn’t copy has
because spread syntax only copies own & enumerable properties.
But prototypeis not enumerable so has is not copied over.
🧙♂️ Resolving the Issue
You can resolve the issue in two ways.
-
Bindingthe method explicitly to
this. - Using an arrow function expression.
1. Bind Explicitly
You can explicitly bind this to the method in the constructor.
, which is TypeScript-transpiled as
And printing the trie instance returned from useTrie will now show .has method.
has is still added to the prototype, which might not be what you want and it’s increasing the file size.
So this brings us to,
2. Using an arrow function expression
When you declare the has method using an arrow syntax, it’s transpiled by Transcript as shown below.
You can see that it’s same without has being assigned to the prototype.
And the console log will still show has as part of the trie instance returned from useTrieUsingArrow.
🤦♂️ Why? Why? Why?
I recently released a new package @cshooks/usetrie and Nick Taylor
nickytonline
nickytonline
https://www.iamdeveloper.com
generously provided an educational & thorough PR on how the code-base can be improved.
But not having a deep knowledge of TypeScript & Javascript, the following change caused an issue.
FYI – useTrie is implemented as shown below.
I was retro-fitting a mutable data structure and exposing it as a hook.
But it’s not a good way as you can see between Paul Gray & Dan Abramov‘s tweets.
@tannerlinsley @dan_abramov You have to make sure your class does not have methods that mutate it's internal state. Of course if your class has no internal state, it's just a bunch of static methods in disguise. So, I think it's a bad pattern :)21:17 PM - 13 Mar 2019
0
1
@PaulGrizzay @tannerlinsley I think it’s legit for it to be stateful if you don’t read that state or use it for rendering. More like imperative things: conditional logging, debouncing API requests, managing d3 or similar objects.21:41 PM - 13 Mar 2019
So be aware of the issue discussed above when you are extracting an imperative logic out of React.
🎉 Parting Words
I’ve paid handsomely for not following React way of doing things.
I hope you the gotcha & the workaround helped you understand what’s going on behind the scenes.
You can play around with the TypeScript transpiler on the Playground page
& the console log results in the Sandbox.
The post Spread syntax gotcha in JavaScript class methods appeared first on Sung's Technical Blog.
Top comments (2)
Thanks for the shoutout @dance2die . Happy I could help.
You're welcome & I could not have learned about this without your help 🙂