Using fetch in useEffect and checking if the component is mounted before setting state
@gaearon is already working on this.
Since Mar 11, 2020.
- Dominant language
- JavaScript
- Stars
- 11.8k
- Forks
- 7.9k
- Avg merge
- 1d 11h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 11
Description
Consider the following code:
const useIsMounted = () => {
const isMounted = React.useRef(false);
React.useEffect(() => {
isMounted.current = true;
return () => isMounted.current = false;
}, []);
return isMounted;
};
And the effect:
const [result, setResult] = React.useState({
loading: true,
data: []
})
const isMounted = useIsMounted();
React.useEffect(() => {
console.log('in effect')
fetch('https://jsonplaceholder.typicode.com/todos')
.then(result => result.json())
.then(data => {
//before setting state in async function you should
// check if the component is still mounted
isMounted.current && setResult({ loading: false, data })
})
},[isMounted])
This code will start a discussion about this being an anti pattern. I think that it's comparing apples with oranges and that article does not apply here.
The useEffect clean up examples show a situation where variables in the callback's closure don't go out of scope and can cause a memory leak but the fetch example won't have that problem.
Is it possible to provide examples of how to safely combine setting state with asynchronous fetch result while not setting it on unmounted components?
It is possible to cancel a fetch (maybe in all browser with the correct babel configuration) but when using SSR (like next.js) and using something like isomorphic-fetch then this is not an option.
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Assessment
This issue has not been assessed yet.