Introduce a new hook that called useStateRef

[behnammodi]

Summary

Introduce a new hook to reduce/improve some processes.

Basic example

In this example we see useEffect that doesn't need a dependency to read updated count's value, so that's mean we don't need to perform useEffect effect function event count will change. useStateRef just is a name, so might we need to change to a better name.

const[count,setCount,getCount]=useStateRef();useEffect(()=>{consthandleVisibility=()=>{console.log(getCount());};document.addEventListener('visibilitychange',handleVisibility);return()=>document.removeEventListener('visibilitychange',handleVisibility);},[]);

Also, in this example, useCallback doesn't need a dependency to know count's value, so useCallback inside function just performs once. that's awesome

const[count,setCount,getCount]=useStateRef();consthandleClick=useCallback(()=>{console.log(getCount());},[]);

Motivation

useEffect and useCallback need to know dependencies to redefine function depended on new values of dependencies. but these are redundant process for React because we don't know what time we need it exactly ex: handleClick depend on user behavior so we just need count's value when the user needs it.

Detailed design

A basic of implementation for useStateRef that we can use in project is:

TS version:

functionuseStateRef<T>(initialValue: T): [T, (nextState: T) =>void,()=>T]{const[state,setState]=useState(initialValue);conststateRef=useRef(state);stateRef.current=state;constgetState=useCallback(()=>stateRef.current,[]);return[state,setState,getState];}

JS version:

functionuseStateRef(initialValue){const[state,setState]=useState(initialValue);conststateRef=useRef(state);stateRef.current=state;constgetState=useCallback(()=>stateRef.current,[]);return[state,setState,getState];}

Drawbacks

This is a new hook, so we don't have any breaking change, also we can implement that by internal React hooks.

Alternatives

Alternative can be a package, maybe

Adoption strategy

Fortunately, we don't have any breaking change, also we can embed this hook to useState without breaking change

const[count,setCount,getCount]=useState();

How we teach this

This RFC introduce a new hook, so we have to add some section to React documentation

Unresolved questions

• do we need to implement a new hook or embed it to useState?

[aghArdeshir]

Nice. Encouraging the use of getters can also prevent issues like this from happening more often: https://reactjs.org/docs/hooks-faq.html#why-am-i-seeing-stale-props-or-state-inside-my-function

(But, of course, may result in other type of bugs and mis-assumptions to appear more often, like when you intentionally want to see the value of state when you triggered an action, and not the current value)

See this for example:
https://codesandbox.io/s/epic-fire-frpyo?file=/src/App.js

Also from syntax point of view, hooks removed variables and assignments and instead provided variables and setters. Encouraging use of getters feels more like removing variables and assignments and instead providing getters and setters. With getters you can have best of both worlds more easily.

[badeggg]

How do you think of const [state, setState, stateRef] = useState();? Inspired by react/react#21931 . No need to add new hook and still no break change.

And I think useCallbackRef is really needed. Use useCallbackRef like:

const [doSomething, doSomethingRef] = useCallbackRef(() => {/* some code here */}, [dep1, dep2]);

Chances are that I need call a function but don't really want the function change trigger the calling:

const [state, setState] = useState(5);
const [shouldPrint, setShouldPrint] = useState(false);
const [print, printRef] = useCallbackRef(() => {
console.log(state);
}, [state]);
useEffect(() => {
// I need call print here, but don't really want print in dependence
// array which will trigger code execution here
if (shouldPrint) {
printRef.current();
}
}, [shouldPrint, printRef]);

As I mentioned in react/react#22773, the real problem we are talking here is

that hooks mix the concept of dependence and effect. An effect execution may need the fresh value of a state but doesn't want the changing of the state trigger the execution. So the state has a confusing place to set. Should the state appear in dependency array?

useCallback has similar problem.

[viniciusdacal]

Just had this same idea and I'm so glad someone already open an RFC for it.
Just giving my 2 cents, I imagine we could use React.useState, adding an additional returning value to the tuple.
Also, there might be a case that the suggested implementation wouldn't cover, which is an immediately getState after a setState. Not sure if it's a real scenario, but it's worthy to keep it in mind:

const[count,setCount,getCount]=React.useStateRef(0);consthandleClick=useCallback(()=>{setCount((c)=>c+1);console.log(getCount());// this would print 0 as the state doesn't update sincronously},[]);

I'm not familiar with react internal code, but I imagine it keeps a stack of all recent calls to setState. I believe such a stack could be accessed and also executed (in the case an update used a callback) to get the latest state.

[behnammodi]

@viniciusdacal Thank you, your consideration is perfect, but the purpose of this is to remove dependencie from useCallback and useEffect and not change React default behavior, please see the below example:

const[a,setA]=useState(0);const[b,setB]=useState(0);consthandleClick=useCallback(()=>{setA(a+1);// a is 0 heresetB(a+b);// a is 0 here yetconsole.log(a,b);// 0 0},[a,b]);

so we want to remove dependencie from above code:

const[a,setA,getA]=useStateRef(0);const[b,setB,getB]=useStateRef(0);consthandleClick=useCallback(()=>{setA(getA()+1);// getA() returns 0 heresetB(getA()+getB());// getA() returns 0 here yet as above codeconsole.log(getA(),getB());// 0 0},[]);

as you see we didn't change behavior we just prevent re-initiate handleClick, but imagine getA() returns 1 instead of 0 in the next line.

[behnammodi]

@aghArdeshir Thanks, yes I agree with you on some points, I tried to prevent breaking-changes.

[behnammodi]

@badeggg Thank you for the comment, as you see this hook could be embedded to useState and the main purpose is removing dependencies from useCallback and useEffect not anymore

[webcarrot]

I use something like:

import{useState,useRef,useMemo,useCallback,useEffect,SetStateAction,Dispatch,}from"react";exportconstuseStateRef=<S>(initialState: S|(()=>S)): [S,Dispatch<SetStateAction<S>>,()=>S]=>{const[,updateRenderState]=useState(0);conststateRef=useRef<S>(useMemo(initialStateinstanceofFunction ? initialState : ()=>initialState,[]));useEffect(()=>()=>{stateRef.current=nullasS;// Just in case help to free some memory},[]);return[stateRef.current,useCallback<Dispatch<SetStateAction<S>>>((v)=>{stateRef.current=vinstanceofFunction ? v(stateRef.current) : v;updateRenderState((v)=>(v+1)%Number.MAX_SAFE_INTEGER);},[]),useCallback(()=>stateRef.current,[]),];};

In this implementation getState always return most recent value of state.

PS. This is a simplified version - as a lazy programmer I handle a bit more useful cases like:

import{useState,useRef,useMemo,useCallback,useEffect,SetStateAction,Dispatch,}from"react";constINI=Object.create(null);exportconstuseSmartState=<S>(initialState: S|(()=>S),updateStateOnInitialStateChange=false): [S,Dispatch<SetStateAction<S>>,()=>S]=>{const[,updateRenderState]=useState(0);conststateRef=useRef<S>(INIasS);useMemo(()=>{stateRef.current=stateRef.current===INI||updateStateOnInitialStateChange
? initialStateinstanceofFunction
? initialState()
: initialState
: stateRef.current;},[initialState,updateStateOnInitialStateChange]);useEffect(()=>()=>{stateRef.current=nullasS;},[]);return[stateRef.current,useCallback<Dispatch<SetStateAction<S>>>((v)=>{constcurrent=stateRef.current;stateRef.current=vinstanceofFunction ? v(current) : v;if(stateRef.current!==current){updateRenderState((v)=>(v+1)%Number.MAX_SAFE_INTEGER);}},[]),useCallback(()=>stateRef.current,[]),];};

[gaearon]

We have posted an alternative proposal that we think achieves the same goals (but differently). Feedback welcome!

#220