`Erasing state when props change` shouldn't be called "Anti-pattern"
Open
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- JavaScript
- Stars
- 11.8k
- Forks
- 7.9k
- Avg merge
- 1d 11h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 11
Description
If we rename mail to defaultMail in that example, I think the component's behavior makes sense. And this pattern also has no conflict with Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 both. Even it's more convenient, because we don't have to update id or key when passing a new default value.
In fact， this pattern doesn't cause any new problem.
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.
Research direction
Start from the documentation example titled "Erasing state when props change" and compare its wording with Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. Review whether the example should use defaultMail and whether calling the pattern an anti-pattern is accurate; done means the example and guidance reflect the agreed terminology.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- javascript, react
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 2/5
- Estimated time
- 1-3 hours
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100