Update README.md #10
Update README.md #10
Conversation
Using this.state in setState is discouraged due to potential timing issues. Might want to rethink the union type example, addition to null would give a type error and the fix looks unwieldy.
|
this.state in setState is NOT discouraged at all in the current changed example you changed |
|
It's almost identical to the example of wrong usage in the documentation? https://reactjs.org/docs/state-and-lifecycle.html#state-updates-may-be-asynchronous |
|
So strange! I maintain at work hundreds of components in big UI projects and didn't bump with any issue for almost 20 months. (Project still adding pages/components til now)! |
|
thanks @jasanst, i agree. i was just being lazy :) |
|
I just bumped with this issue today at work when I used async componentDidUpdate (That contains await and after the await resolve it will set the state) and concluded the following: "You MUST use Functional setState in React if you've async usages of setState (Like after await).. so you can catch up the last state snapshot correctly without overriding the things" |
|
Other than that case, I use setState as regular in Sync operations 👍 |
|
saw this, will try to replicate next week
…On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 6:07 AM Islam Attrash ***@***.***> wrote:
Other than that case, I use setState as regular in Sync operations 👍
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#10 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AiT1ghSpW-s2eXik3xvw-7EPx9oXcD7mks5t8ORpgaJpZM4UX7vq>
.
|
Using this.state in setState is discouraged due to potential timing issues.
Might want to rethink the union type example, addition to null would give a type error and the fix looks unwieldy.