Skip to content

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

@astoilkov
Last active September 22, 2024 14:45
Show Gist options
  • Save astoilkov/013c513e33fe95fa8846348038d8fe42 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Save astoilkov/013c513e33fe95fa8846348038d8fe42 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Async Operations with useReducer Hook

Async Operations with useReducer Hook

9 March, 2019

We were discussing with @erusev what we can do with async operation when using useReducer() in our application. Our app is simple and we don't want to use a state management library. All our requirements are satisfied with using one root useReducer(). The problem we are facing and don't know how to solve is async operations.

In a discussion with Dan Abramov he recommends Solution 3 but points out that things are fresh with hooks and there could be better ways of handling the problem.

Problem

Doing asynchronous operations in a useReducer reducer is not possible. We have thought of three possible solutions and can't figure which one is better or if there is an even better solution.

We are searching for a solution where a single action will be used multiple times in multiple places all over the application.

Solution 1

Just manually call the async function and after it completes call the dispatch.

Pros

  • No additional abstraction
  • Doesn't introduce additional learning curve because it uses already existing ideas

Cons

  • Now calling dispatch({ type: 'DELETE_FILE' }) have an invisible dependency/requirement. If you don't execute the required code before the dispatch call you are calling for a strange bug that can be missed depending on the app architecture
  • For larger async operations we need to extract the code in a global place
function App() {
  const [state, dispatch] = useReducer((state, action) => {
    switch (action.type) {
      case 'DELETE_FILE':
        let index = state.files.indexOf(action.file);

        return {
          ...state,

          files: [...state.files.slice(0, index), ...state.file.slice(index + 1)]
        };
    }
  }, {
    files: ['a', 'b', 'c'],
  });

  return (
    <DispatchContext.Provider value={dispatchMiddleware(dispatch)}>
      <Component files={state.files} />
    </DispatchContext.Provider>
  );
}

function Component({ files }) {
  const dispatch = useContext(DispatchContext);
  
  function deleteFile(file) {
    unlink(file, () => {
      dispatch({ type: 'DELETE_FILE', file: file });      
    });
  }

  return (
    <>
      {files.map(file =>
        <button onClick={() => deleteFile(file)}>Delete File</button>
      )}
    </>
  );
}

Solution 2

Use useEffect() hook to delete the file.

Pros

  • The only location where a side effect like writing to a file or fetching data can be is in a useEffect() hook. This improves the cognitive load of understanding the code.

Cons

  • An additional state property
  • State property which may not be used in the UI. Not sure if that is a problem. Maybe state properties that are not part of the UI are normal.
  • If while deleting the file we don't want to show a UI indication the code goes through the component twice which is a small inefficiency and a confusion when you imagine it. Goes through the component logic just to execute a useEffect() call.
function App() {
  const [state, dispatch] = useReducer((state, action) => {
    switch (action.type) {
      case 'REQUEST_DELETE_FILE':
        return {
          ...state,

          deleteFile: action.file
        };
      case 'DELETE_FILE':
        const index = state.files.indexOf(action.file);

        return {
          ...state,

          files: [...state.files.slice(0, index), ...state.file.slice(index + 1)]
        };
    }
  }, {
    deleteFile: null,
    files: ['a', 'b', 'c'],
  });

  useEffect(() => {
    if (!state.deleteFile) {
      return;
    }

    unlink(state.deleteFile, () => {
      dispatch({ type: 'DELETE_FILE', file: state.deleteFile });
    });
  }, [state.deleteFile]);

  return (
    <DispatchContext.Provider value={dispatchMiddleware(dispatch)}>
      <Component files={state.files} />
    </DispatchContext.Provider>
  );
}

function Component({ files }) {
  const dispatch = useContext(DispatchContext);

  return (
    <>
      {files.map(file =>
        <button onClick={dispatch({ type: 'REQUEST_DELETE_FILE', file: file })}>Delete File</button>
      )}
    </>
  );
}

Solution 3

Use a middleware for dispatch which performs the async operation and then calls the actual dispatch.

Pros

  • Doesn't have the disadvantages of Solution 1 and Solution 2

Cons

  • A more complicated architecture. Two places where actions are handled.
function dispatchMiddleware(dispatch) {
  return (action) => {
    switch (action.type) {
      case 'DELETE_FILE':
        unlink(action.file, () => dispatch(action));
        break;

      default:
        return dispatch(action);
    }
  };
}

function App() {
  const [state, dispatch] = useReducer((state, action) => {
    switch (action.type) {
      case 'DELETE_FILE':
        let index = state.files.indexOf(action.file);

        return {
          ...state,

          files: [...state.files.slice(0, index), ...state.file.slice(index + 1)]
        };
    }
  }, {
    files: ['a', 'b', 'c']
  });

  return (
    <DispatchContext.Provider value={dispatchMiddleware(dispatch)}>
      <Component files={state.files} />
    </DispatchContext.Provider>
  );
}

function Component({ files }) {
  const dispatch = useContext(DispatchContext);

  return (
    <>
      {files.map(file =>
        <button onClick={dispatch({ type: 'DELETE_FILE', file: file })}>Delete File</button>
      )}
    </>
  );
}

Conclusion

While discussing we raised two questions we are not sure the answers to. They can help us in deciding the right pattern:

  • Is it normal to do side effects like writing a file or fetching data in an event handler or it should be only in useEffect()?
  • Is it normal to have properties in the state object which are not used in the view at all?
@Athou
Copy link

Athou commented May 11, 2019

Hey,

I've been playing with React for a week now, to replace the existing UI of CommaFeed (https://github.com/Athou/commafeed), currently written in angularjs 1.x. I encounterd the same issues as described here, and I've come to the same conclusions as you.
I think the issue rise from the fact that there's nothing similar to redux-thunk in React hooks.

I've started experimenting with https://github.com/nathanbuchar/react-hook-thunk-reducer and the result looks quite clean to me, but I don't have a lot of experience with React yet. Do you mind giving your opinion on https://github.com/Athou/commafeed-ui/blob/1821601b56ef4fbc6effc069709279371e03bc99/src/app/AppReducer.ts ?
The idea is that my action creator can create both plain old state changing actions and function actions (thunk), and the custom dispatch can handle both. From the perspective of the components dispatching the action, there's no difference, it always looks like dispatch(ActionCreator.createSomeAction())
What do you think?

Thanks!

@jtomaszewski
Copy link

jtomaszewski commented Jun 14, 2019

As a side note, similar implementation to solution no 2, but without useReducer hook:

  • increment a setState value every time an async action should be called (with 0 as initial value)
  • define a useEffect dependant (only!) on that value, and do the effect (unless the value is 0)

Example:

  /**
   * Once set to a number,
   * the token will be refetched on next rerender.
   * If token should be fetched again, call `requestNewToken()`.
   */
  const [fetchTokenOnNextRender, setFetchTokenOnNextRender] = useState<number>(
    0,
  );
  const requestNewToken = useCallback(() => {
    setFetchTokenOnNextRender(v => v + 1);
  }, []);

  useEffect(() => {
    if (!fetchTokenOnNextRender) {
      return;
    }
    // fetch the token ...
  }, [fetchTokenOnNextRender]);

Possibly it could be refactored into a generic use hook to which you can pass also arguments.

Like:

const { dispatch: requestNewToken } = useAsyncAction((tokenId, userData) => {
  // do sth
});

// and then trigger the action with
requestNewToken(123, { userId: 456 });

@dfmartin
Copy link

Is your solution 3 similar to an action creator? Something that I've been playing around with:

Rather than type out a long code snippet here is a code sandbox I threw together. The main part is in the character/actions.ts file - I've marked it.

@heyimalex
Copy link

@jtomaszewski I've been using this pattern for a minute to great effect, but I think it's only the right thing to do when the underlying action is state-driven vs user action driven, GET vs POST. Those side-effect-y / imperative / mutative actions are finnicky, and I'm not sure what guarantees react makes about executing them. I really wish the team gave more guidance here, but I think "do the side effect in the actual handler" is the safest bet.

@Athou
Copy link

Athou commented Jun 18, 2019

I solved this issue by moving to redux (now that it supports hooks https://react-redux.js.org/api/hooks) and redux-thunk.

@jtomaszewski
Copy link

jtomaszewski commented Jun 27, 2019

Related to this, I wrote a hook that lets you call async action in your component whenever you want, and make it cancel whenever action is triggered again or when the component is dismounted.

Example usage:

const [fetchArticles, cancelFetchArticles] = useCancellableAction(params => {
  const { response, abort } = fetchArticles(params);
  response.then(setArticles);
  return () => abort();
});

const handleRefresh = () => {
 fetchArticles({ page: 1 });
}

const handleClear = () => {
 setArticles([]);
 cancelFetchArticles();
}

Source:

/**
 * Use this hook in case you want to be able to call an async action,
 * that should be cancelled once this component dismounts,
 * OR when the action is triggered again in the meantime.
 *
 * NOTE `onAction` can't be dependant on any variables that are changed while this component is alive
 * TODO allow to pass deps of onAction function
 */
function useCancellableAction(
  onAction: () => void | (() => void | undefined),
): [() => void, () => void];
function useCancellableAction<A1>(
  onAction: (arg1: A1) => void | (() => void | undefined),
): [(arg1: A1) => void, () => void];
function useCancellableAction<A1, A2>(
  onAction: (arg1: A1, arg2: A2) => void | (() => void | undefined),
): [(arg1: A1, arg2: A2) => void, () => void];
function useCancellableAction<A1, A2, A3>(
  onAction: (arg1: A1, arg2: A2, arg3: A3) => void | (() => void | undefined),
) {
  const [nextCall, setNextCall] = useState<{
    args: [A1, A2, A3];
  }>();

  useEffect(
    () => {
      if (nextCall === undefined) {
        return undefined;
      }

      return onAction(...nextCall.args);
    },
    [nextCall],
  );

  const dispatch = useCallback((...args: [A1, A2, A3]) => {
    setNextCall({ args });
  }, []);

  const cancel = useCallback(() => {
    setNextCall(undefined);
  }, []);

  return [dispatch, cancel];
}

@staeke
Copy link

staeke commented Jul 6, 2019

I'd like to complicate matters a little by proposing a number of different solutions.

Preface

I renamed DispatchContext to MyContext below since there isn't always dispatching involved. And Component to MyComponent or DispatchComponent. And I let the context provide a tuple [state, somethingThatCanChangeState] and MyComponent consume the state through the context. That's just details, but I often find providing the context state is needed, rather than just props propagation. To that end I also wanted to avoid superfluous updates, and do "proper" memoing. Another point is whether to fire events (or call handlers) named e.g. deleteFile or DELETE_FILE vs deleteFileButtonClicked or DELETE_FILE_BUTTON_CLICKED. I don't think it's a big deal of this, although I know that Redux Saga does. In any event it's an orthogonal issue to all solutions below the way I see it.

Now, I have a helper hook (I use Typescript to better visualize api):

useAsync

Much like @jtomaszewski suggested (this is just slightly different version) which encapsulates the state changes around any async operation. I can provide a gist if desired. I believe being able to compose different hooks that encapsulate some intricacies around state change is one of the core benefits of React Hooks.

function useAsync<T>(provider:() => Promise<T>): [{data:T, isPending:boolean, error:any}, {run:Function, reset:Function}]

Solution 4

Use useAsync hook. Deliver an API, but have it memoed with the state.

Pros

  • allows writing normal async functions
  • composability of async operations
  • works along the philosophy of React hooks

Cons

  • requires context handlers to be mocked in testing consumers
  • doesn't guarantee immutability of actions object (harder to downstream useMemo)
function AsyncHookAndMemoed() {
  const [files, setFiles] = useState(['a', 'b', 'c'])
  const [unlinkOp, unlinkFn] = useAsync(pUnlink)

  const ctxValue = useMemo(() => {
    async function deleteFile(file) {
      await unlinkFn.run(file)
      // Beware of concurrent modifications to `files`
      setFiles(files => files.filter(f => f !== file))
    }

    return [
      { files, unlinkOp }, //State
      { deleteFile } //Actions
    ]
  }, [files, unlinkOp])

  return <MyContext.Provider value={ctxValue}>
    <MyComponent/>
  </MyContext.Provider>
}

function MyComponent() {
  const [files, actions] = useContext(MyContext)
  return <>
    {files.map(file =>
      <button onClick={() => actions.deleteFile(file)}>Delete File</button>
    )}
  </>
}

Solution 5

Use useAsync hook. Deliver an API, and have it memoed separately from the state.

Pros

  • allows writing normal async functions
  • composability of async operations
  • works along the philosophy of React hooks

Cons

  • requires context handlers to be mocked in testing consumers
  • guarantees immutability of actions object
  • risk of capturing changing state in API. Thus precaution needs to be taken to either use refs to the current version of state, or data to be put in state and read through invocations to setState(s => read "s" here)
function AsyncHookMemoedImmutableApi() {
  const [files, setFiles] = useState(['a', 'b', 'c'])
  const [unlinkOp, unlinkFn] = useAsync(pUnlink)

  const api = useMemo(() => {
    async function deleteFile(file) {
      await unlinkFn.run(file)
      // Beware of concurrent modifications to `files`
      setFiles(files => files.filter(f => f !== file))
    }

    return { deleteFile }
  }, [])

  const ctxValue = useMemo(() => [
    { files, unlinkOp }, //State
    api //Actions
  ], [files, unlinkOp])

  return <MyContext.Provider value={ctxValue}>
    <MyComponent/>
  </MyContext.Provider>
}

Solution 6

Use useAsync hook. Deliver an dispatcher, but make it asynchronous and non-pure

Pros

  • allows writing normal async functions
  • composability of async operations
  • works along the philosophy of React hooks
  • does not require context handlers to be mocked in testing consumers

Cons

  • requires context handlers to be mocked in testing consumers
  • guarantees immutability of actions object
  • risk of capturing changing state in API. Thus precaution needs to be taken to either use refs to the current version of state, or data to be put in state and read through invocations to setState(s => read "s" here)
  • sort of Redux, but potentially confusing since the "reducer" isn't sync or pure
// Utility (also used in next example)
function useAsyncDispatcher<T>(fn: (action: T, dispatch: ((action: T) => any)) => void) {
  return useMemo(() =>
    function dispatch(action: T) {
      return fn(action, dispatch)
    }, [])
}

function AsyncDispatcher() {
  const [files, setFiles] = useState(['a', 'b', 'c'])
  const [unlinkOp, unlinkFn] = useAsync(pUnlink)

  const dispatch = useAsyncDispatcher<DispatchType>(async (action, dispatch) => {
      switch (action.type) {
        case 'DELETE_FILE':
          await unlinkFn.run(action.file)
          setFiles(files => files.filter(f => f !== action.file))
          break
        default:
          throw new Error()
      }
    }
  )

  const ctxValue = useMemo(() => [
    { files, unlinkOp }, //State
    dispatch
  ], [files, unlinkOp])

  return <MyContext.Provider value={ctxValue}>
    <DispatchComponent/>
  </MyContext.Provider>
}

// Also used in next example
function DispatchComponent() {
  const [files, dispatch] = useContext(MyContext)
  return <>
    {files.map(file =>
      <button onClick={() => dispatch({ type: 'DELETE_FILE', file: file })}>Delete File</button>
    )}
  </>
}

Solution 7

Use useAsync hook. Deliver an dispatcher, but make it asynchronous and non-pure. Declare it inline in object

Pros

  • allows writing normal async functions
  • composability of async operations
  • works along the philosophy of React hooks
  • does not require context handlers to be mocked in testing consumers
  • neater syntax then switch for action

Cons

  • requires context handlers to be mocked in testing consumers
  • guarantees immutability of actions object
  • risk of capturing changing state in API. Thus precaution needs to be taken to either use refs to the current version of state, or data to be put in state and read through invocations to setState(s => read "s" here)
  • sort of Redux, but potentially confusing since the "reducer" isn't sync or pure
// Utility
function useAsyncNamedDispatcher<T extends { type: string }>(provider: () => { [type: string]: Function }) {
  const fnObj = useMemo(provider, [])
  return useAsyncDispatcher<T>((action, dispatch) => {
    if (action.type in fnObj)
      fnObj[action.type](action, dispatch)
    else
      throw new Error('Missing handler for action ' + action.type)
  })
}

function AsyncMapDispatcher() {
  const [files, setFiles] = useState(['a', 'b', 'c'])
  const [unlinkOp, unlinkFn] = useAsync(pUnlink)

  const dispatch = useAsyncNamedDispatcher<DispatchType>(() => ({
    async DELETE_FILE(action, dispatch) {
      await unlinkFn.run(action.file)
      setFiles(files => files.filter(f => f !== action.file))
    }
  }))

  const ctxValue = useMemo(() => [
    { files, unlinkOp }, //State
    dispatch
  ], [files, unlinkOp])

  return <MyContext.Provider value={ctxValue}>
    <DispatchComponent/>
  </MyContext.Provider>
}

@ScottWager
Copy link

My solution was to emulate useReducer using useState + an async function:

async function updateFunction(action) {
    switch (action.type) {
        case 'switch1':
            // Do async code here (access current state with 'action.state')
            action.setState('newState');
            break;
    }
}

function App() {
    const [state, setState] = useState(),
        callUpdateFunction = (vars) => updateFunction({ ...vars, state, setState });

    return <ExampleComponent callUpdateFunction={callUpdateFunction} />;
}

function ExampleComponent({ callUpdateFunction }) {
    return <button onClick={() => callUpdateFunction({ type: 'switch1' })} />
}

@ScottWager
Copy link

ScottWager commented Jun 24, 2020

I’ve created a custom hook called useAsyncReducer based on above that uses the exact same signature as a normal useReducer:

function useAsyncReducer(reducer, initState) {
    const [state, setState] = useState(initState),
        dispatchState = async (action) => setState(await reducer(state, action));
    return [state, dispatchState];
}

async function reducer(state, action) {
    switch (action.type) {
        case 'switch1':
            // Do async code here
            return 'newState';
    }
}

function App() {
    const [state, dispatchState] = useAsyncReducer(reducer, 'initState');
    return <ExampleComponent dispatchState={dispatchState} />;
}

function ExampleComponent({ dispatchState }) {
    return <button onClick={() => dispatchState({ type: 'switch1' })}>button</button>;
}

@Denys-Bushulyak
Copy link

@mikeLspohn
Copy link

How does setState handle the await dispatch(state, action) part? Would it not just try and setState to the promise being awaited? If not I wonder if there's any concern with future React versions or concurrent mode or anything breaking that behavior. I may just be missing something obvious though.

@ScottWager
Copy link

ScottWager commented Jul 3, 2020

@Denys-Bushulyak Thank you!

await makes setState wait for the promise to return a result. I haven't looked into concurrent mode yet so I'm not sure how that'll affect things.

@mikeLspohn
Copy link

Ah, yeah I was confusing myself I think. I think it's because I'm more use to seeing async/await used like

function useAsyncReducer(reducer, initState) {
    const [state, setState] = useState(initState),
        dispatchState = async (action) => {
          const newState = await reducer(state, action)
          setState(newState);
       }
    return [state, dispatchState];
}

So it just threw me off a little. I wasn't sure how execution under the hood would happen, was just curious if it would do the await before actually calling the setState or what, but it makes sense now. Thanks though, looks cool!

@pmrt
Copy link

pmrt commented Jul 15, 2020

Such an interesting discussion!

I'd go for a dispatch middleware. The solution by @ScottWager is really clean and interesting but IMO reducers should be pure functions (concept taken from redux), it's the action itself what is asynchronous not the reducer (which dictates the state change) so it makes sense to wait for the action to finish and then dispatch it to a pure reducer.

How about the middleware solution but with a more generic solution so it doesn't have the complicated architecture? — That is, a thunk:

/* 
 withThunk is a dispatch middleware. When dispatch is invoked if the action is a function it will call
 the function passing down the dispatch itself, if the action is not a function (an object) it will delegate
 to dispatch
*/
function withThunk(dispatch) {
  return actionOrThunk => 
   typeof actionOrThunk === "function"
     ? actionOrThunk(dispatch)
     : dispatch(actionOrThunk)
}

// deleteFile is an action with a thunk instead of an object
function deleteFile(file) {
  return (dispatch) {
      unlink(file, () => dispatch({ type: "DELETE_FILE_SUCCESS" });
   }
}

function App() {
  const [state, dispatch] = useReducer((state, action) => {
    switch (action.type) {
      case 'DELETE_FILE_SUCCESS':
          // Do your thing to your state after deletion
        };
    }
  }, {
    files: ['a', 'b', 'c']
  });

  return (
    <DispatchContext.Provider value={withThunk(dispatch)}>
      <Component files={state.files} />
    </DispatchContext.Provider>
  );
}

function Component({ files }) {
  const dispatch = useContext(DispatchContext);

  return (
    <>
      {files.map(file =>
        // dispatch the action thunk
        <button onClick={dispatch(deleteFile(file))}>Delete File</button>
      )}
    </>
  );
}

@hugomallet
Copy link

A better solution 1:
Instead of passing dispatch to your context, pass some async functions such as deleteFile that will delete the file and then dispatch

@ArifSanaullah
Copy link

I’ve created a custom hook called useAsyncReducer based on above that uses the exact same signature as a normal useReducer:

function useAsyncReducer(reducer, initState) {
    const [state, setState] = useState(initState),
        dispatchState = async (action) => setState(await reducer(state, action));
    return [state, dispatchState];
}

async function reducer(state, action) {
    switch (action.type) {
        case 'switch1':
            // Do async code here
            return 'newState';
    }
}

function App() {
    const [state, dispatchState] = useAsyncReducer(reducer, 'initState');
    return <ExampleComponent dispatchState={dispatchState} />;
}

function ExampleComponent({ dispatchState }) {
    return <button onClick={() => dispatchState({ type: 'switch1' })}>button</button>;
}

Worked like a magic for me.

@amsterdamharu
Copy link

amsterdamharu commented Mar 17, 2021

I created a useMiddlewareReducer that allows middleware to be passed as 3rd argument so no lazy state initialization.

const compose = (...fns) =>
  fns.reduce((result, fn) => (...args) =>
    fn(result(...args))
  );
const mw = () => (next) => (action) => next(action);
const createMiddleware = (...middlewareFunctions) => (
  store
) =>
  compose(
    ...middlewareFunctions
      .concat(mw)
      .reverse()
      .map((fn) => fn(store))
  );
const useMiddlewareReducer = (
  reducer,
  initialState,
  middleware = () => (b) => (c) => b(c)
) => {
  const stateContainer = useRef(initialState);
  const [state, setState] = useState(initialState);
  const mwDispatch = (action) => {
    const next = (action) => {
      stateContainer.current = reducer(
        stateContainer.current,
        action
      );
      setState(stateContainer.current);
      return action;
    };
    const store = {
      dispatch: mwDispatch,
      getState: () => stateContainer.current,
    };
    return middleware(store)(next)(action);
  };
  return [state, mwDispatch];
};

if you have only thunk middleware you can do the following:

const thunkMiddleWare = ({ getState, dispatch }) => (
  next
) => (action) =>
  typeof action === 'function'
    ? action(dispatch, getState)
    : next(action);
const App = () => {
  const [state, dispatch] = useMiddlewareReducer(
    reducer,
    initialState,
    thunkMiddleWare
  );

If you have multiple middleware functions you can do the following:

const middleware = createMiddleware(
  thunkMiddleWare,
  logMiddleware
);
const App = () => {
  const [state, dispatch] = useMiddlewareReducer(
    reducer,
    init,
    middleware
  );

If you need to put this in React context to be used by many components you may as well use Redux, the useMiddlewareReducer does not work with Redux devtools plugin and will re render all components that use context when dispatch and state are put in context, this is not the case with Redux and useSelector.

@meglio
Copy link

meglio commented Jul 6, 2021

Solution 3 has a few issues. Below I list the issues and proposed ways to tackle them.

Solution 3 - Issue 1

React guarantees dispatch to be the same function instance, which helps with reducing the number of re-renders. With the middleware in place, you now return the middleware function instead of the dispatch function, which is a new function every time. This will increase the number of re-renders and make the reducer less useful and less efficient. You'll no longer benefit form the dispatch being an unchangeable reference to the same function instance.

The solution is to useMemo:

const dispatchMiddleware = useMemo(() => {
        return () => {

        }
    }, [dispatch]);

Solution 3 - Issue 2

unlink(action.file, () => dispatch(action));

This is prone to race conditions! While the file is being deleted, some other component can request its deletion again.

In order to avoid this, you need a state variable that stores current api/ajax status, i.e. currentAjaxId = null.

Before you start deleting the file:

  • check if currentAjaxId is not null, and if so, then stop
  • set currentAjaxId to some non-null constant, e.g. AJAX_DELETING_FILE

After the api is complete:

  • set currentAjaxId to null
  • update the list of files

Bonus: you can now disable the "Delete" button based on the currentAjaxId

@Athelian
Copy link

Athelian commented Mar 13, 2024

Solution 3 has a few issues. Below I list the issues and proposed ways to tackle them.

I found the same issues as @meglio above, with an additional issue with the dispatch middleware in that it cannot access state in the memo unless it is added to the dependency array. Which is sub-optimal.

As a side note, the dependency array should be empty in this case as dispatch doesn't rely on stateful variables.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment