Using fetch in useEffect and checking if the component is mounted before setting state
@gaearon já está trabalhando nisso.
Desde 11/3/2020.
- Linguagem predominante
- JavaScript
- Estrelas
- 11.8k
- Forks
- 7.9k
- Merge médio
- 1d 11h
- PRs com merge (30d)
- 11
Descrição
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.
Guia de contribuição
Primeiros passos
- Leia a issue inteira e depois o guia de contribuição do projeto.
- Comente na issue dizendo que vai assumir — evita que duas pessoas façam o mesmo trabalho.
- Faça um fork do repositório e trabalhe em uma branch.
- Abra um pull request que referencie o número da issue.
Avaliação
Esta issue ainda não foi avaliada.