How can I update state.item[1] in state using setState?
Asked Answered
M

27

454

I'm creating an app where the user can design his own form. E.g. specify name of the field and details of which other columns that should be included.

The component is available as a JSFiddle.

My initial state looks like this:

var DynamicForm = React.createClass({
  getInitialState: function() {
   var items = {};
   items[1] = { name: 'field 1', populate_at: 'web_start',
                same_as: 'customer_name',
                autocomplete_from: 'customer_name', title: '' };
   items[2] = { name: 'field 2', populate_at: 'web_end',
                same_as: 'user_name', 
                    autocomplete_from: 'user_name', title: '' };

     return { items };
   },

  render: function() {
     var _this = this;
     return (
       <div>
         { Object.keys(this.state.items).map(function (key) {
           var item = _this.state.items[key];
           return (
             <div>
               <PopulateAtCheckboxes this={this}
                 checked={item.populate_at} id={key} 
                   populate_at={data.populate_at} />
            </div>
            );
        }, this)}
        <button onClick={this.newFieldEntry}>Create a new field</button>
        <button onClick={this.saveAndContinue}>Save and Continue</button>
      </div>
    );
  }

I want to update the state when the user changes any of the values, but I'm having a hard time to target the correct object:

var PopulateAtCheckboxes = React.createClass({
  handleChange: function (e) {
     item = this.state.items[1];
     item.name = 'newName';
     items[1] = item;
     this.setState({items: items});
  },
  render: function() {
    var populateAtCheckbox = this.props.populate_at.map(function(value) {
      return (
        <label for={value}>
          <input type="radio" name={'populate_at'+this.props.id} value={value}
            onChange={this.handleChange} checked={this.props.checked == value}
            ref="populate-at"/>
          {value}
        </label>
      );
    }, this);
    return (
      <div className="populate-at-checkboxes">
        {populateAtCheckbox}
      </div>
    );
  }
});

How should I craft this.setState to get it to update items[1].name ?

Mollescent answered 9/4, 2015 at 11:28 Comment(0)
C
444

Here's how you can do it without helper libs:

handleChange: function (e) {
    // 1. Make a shallow copy of the items
    let items = [...this.state.items];
    // 2. Make a shallow copy of the item you want to mutate
    let item = {...items[1]};
    // 3. Replace the property you're intested in
    item.name = 'newName';
    // 4. Put it back into our array. N.B. we *are* mutating the array here, 
    //    but that's why we made a copy first
    items[1] = item;
    // 5. Set the state to our new copy
    this.setState({items});
},

You can combine steps 2 and 3 if you want:

let item = {
    ...items[1],
    name: 'newName'
}

Or you can do the whole thing in one line:

this.setState(({items}) => ({
    items: [
        ...items.slice(0,1),
        {
            ...items[1],
            name: 'newName',
        },
        ...items.slice(2)
    ]
}));

Note: I made items an array. OP used an object. However, the concepts are the same.


You can see what's going on in your terminal/console:

❯ node
> items = [{name:'foo'},{name:'bar'},{name:'baz'}]
[ { name: 'foo' }, { name: 'bar' }, { name: 'baz' } ]
> clone = [...items]
[ { name: 'foo' }, { name: 'bar' }, { name: 'baz' } ]
> item1 = {...clone[1]}
{ name: 'bar' }
> item1.name = 'bacon'
'bacon'
> clone[1] = item1
{ name: 'bacon' }
> clone
[ { name: 'foo' }, { name: 'bacon' }, { name: 'baz' } ]
> items
[ { name: 'foo' }, { name: 'bar' }, { name: 'baz' } ] // good! we didn't mutate `items`
> items === clone
false // these are different objects
> items[0] === clone[0]
true // we don't need to clone items 0 and 2 because we're not mutating them (efficiency gains!)
> items[1] === clone[1]
false // this guy we copied
Carniola answered 26/3, 2018 at 23:20 Comment(13)
@TranslucentCloud Oh yeah, the helper methods are definitely nice, but I think everyone should know what's going on under the hood :-)Carniola
Why do we need step 2 and 3? Why can't we mutate the clone after the first step directly?Turku
@Turku Because it's not a deep clone. Step 1 is just cloning the array, not the objects inside. In other words, each of the objects inside the new array still "point to" the existing objects in memory -- mutating one will mutate the other (they're one and the same). See also the items[0] === clone[0] bit in my terminal example at the bottom. Triple = checks if the objects refer to the same thing.Carniola
Becomes more complicated if you don't know the item's index in the array.Valor
@IanWarburton Not really. items.findIndex() should make short work of that.Carniola
How do you make step to variable? Meaning, instead of hard coding the index, how do you make it so that it adapts to the field you're updating? I hope that makes sense.Catiline
@athomas Just replace 1 with i and 2 with i+1. To find the index, you can use findIndex.Carniola
This worked beautifully for me. I did need to add the key to the state object: this.setState({ filteredRows: rows })Faina
I think this slice method is even faster then the update thing from the immutability helper.Phila
This worked beautifully for me. Awesome explanation with every steps and every conditions. <3Foretell
Using React is like breaking your leg so that you can use a crutch.Nozzle
This solution is highly unoptimized and not recommended. you do 4 copies in the handlechange function, 3 in the second exampleDeceptive
@Deceptive These are shallow copies and are necessary to avoid mutating the state.Carniola
Z
144

You could use the update immutability helper for this:

this.setState({
  items: update(this.state.items, {1: {name: {$set: 'updated field name'}}})
})

Or if you don't care about being able to detect changes to this item in a shouldComponentUpdate() lifecycle method using ===, you could edit the state directly and force the component to re-render - this is effectively the same as @limelights' answer, as it's pulling an object out of state and editing it.

this.state.items[1].name = 'updated field name'
this.forceUpdate()

Post-edit addition:

Check out the Simple Component Communication lesson from react-training for an example of how to pass a callback function from a state-holding parent to a child component which needs to trigger a state change.

Zouave answered 9/4, 2015 at 11:38 Comment(2)
Reading this answer: https://mcmap.net/q/56477/-how-can-i-update-state-item-1-in-state-using-setstate, I think you still need the updater form of the setstate function, that uses prevstate callback.Discontent
Thanks a lot, Jonny, wasted one day and finally get solution.Clack
S
114

Wrong way!

handleChange = (e) => {
    const { items } = this.state;
    items[1].name = e.target.value;

    // update state
    this.setState({
        items,
    });
};

As pointed out by a lot of better developers in the comments: mutating the state is wrong!

Took me a while to figure this out. Above works but it takes away the power of React. For example componentDidUpdate will not see this as an update because it's modified directly.

So the right way would be:

handleChange = (e) => {
    this.setState(prevState => ({
        items: {
            ...prevState.items,
            [prevState.items[1].name]: e.target.value,
        },
    }));
};
Shrink answered 14/7, 2016 at 15:30 Comment(18)
ES6 just because you're using "const"?Economically
Interesting that this works, can you explain a bit? Thank you!Aussie
@BillK You just assign your current state to a const (var) then you change the role in that const to the value of the target and then you just update the state (using a shorthand instead of items: items) withe the new data.Shrink
Ah ok got confused with this shorthand, thank you mate @ShrinkAussie
Isn't calling items[1].role = e.target.value mutating state directly?Tentmaker
you are mutating the state, this is totally against the idea of maintaining the state immutable like react suggested. This can give you a lot of pain in a big application.Sisak
To be specific, the downside of mutating state is you can't perform a === comparison in shouldComponentUpdate, and your state changes may be overridden when setState runs. facebook.github.io/react/docs/react-component.html#stateMeyers
@TranslucentCloud It's just my writing style and my eslint loves it :)Shrink
This recommends to go behind React’s back and mutate something which should be treated as immutable.Tannatannage
@MarvinVK, your answer says "So best practice would be:" followed by use of "this.forceUpdate();" which is not recommended as it could be overwritten by setState(), see facebook.github.io/react/docs/react-component.html#state. Best to change this so it's not confusing to future readers.Heptastich
@JamesZ. not only this, but a lot of other answers here propose a 'solution' to directly mutate the state, even the top-voted ones. I should probably downvote and comment on all of them, and you should too, for the better! And upvote the correct methods. Newbs will be grateful.Transvestite
@MarvinVK, You are still mutating the state arn't you? Basically: this.state.items[1].role = e.target.value; . You must know this is wrong. It's very confusing that it has so many upvotes. You should delete this answer.Glower
This answer is misleading due to the high number of up-votes. You're mutating state directly. This is exactly how not to update state in reactButz
To avoid mutating state, you can use ES6 spread operator to make a copy of the list. The functional setState also avoids mutating state. Both of these are preferable to this answer. Here is an example of both. ``` <!-- language: lang-js --> this.setState(prevState => { const items = [...prevState.items] items[1].role = e.target.value return {items} })Bangs
Just wanted to point out that a lot of the comments are irrelevant now due to edits and the right way is actually the right way.Ballesteros
This should be downvoted more. item is not defined in your "right way"Signac
This solution will not work i believe, since you use the value of name as keyFranky
The correct way is not working for me. Look at @Jonas answer, that one worked for meSeeress
T
62

To modify deeply nested objects/variables in React's state, typically three methods are used: vanilla JavaScript's Object.assign, immutability-helper and cloneDeep from Lodash.

There are also plenty of other less popular third-party libs to achieve this, but in this answer, I'll cover just these three options. Also, some additional vanilla JavaScript methods exist, like array spreading, (see @mpen's answer for example), but they are not very intuitive, easy to use and capable to handle all state manipulation situations.

As was pointed innumerable times in top voted comments to the answers, whose authors propose a direct mutation of state: just don't do that. This is a ubiquitous React anti-pattern, which will inevitably lead to unwanted consequences. Learn the right way.

Let's compare three widely used methods.

Given this state object structure:

state = {
    outer: {
        inner: 'initial value'
    }
}

You can use the following methods to update the inner-most inner field's value without affecting the rest of the state.

1. Vanilla JavaScript's Object.assign

const App = () => {
  const [outer, setOuter] = React.useState({ inner: 'initial value' })

  React.useEffect(() => {
    console.log('Before the shallow copying:', outer.inner) // initial value
    const newOuter = Object.assign({}, outer, { inner: 'updated value' })
    console.log('After the shallow copy is taken, the value in the state is still:', outer.inner) // initial value
    setOuter(newOuter)
  }, [])

  console.log('In render:', outer.inner)

  return (
    <section>Inner property: <i>{outer.inner}</i></section>
  )
}

ReactDOM.render(
  <App />,
  document.getElementById('react')
)
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/react/16.10.2/umd/react.production.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/react-dom/16.10.2/umd/react-dom.production.min.js"></script>

<main id="react"></main>

Keep in mind, that Object.assign will not perform a deep cloning, since it only copies property values, and that's why what it does is called a shallow copying (see comments).

For this to work, we should only manipulate the properties of primitive types (outer.inner), that is strings, numbers, booleans.

In this example, we're creating a new constant (const newOuter...), using Object.assign, which creates an empty object ({}), copies outer object ({ inner: 'initial value' }) into it and then copies a different object { inner: 'updated value' } over it.

This way, in the end the newly created newOuter constant will hold a value of { inner: 'updated value' } since the inner property got overridden. This newOuter is a brand new object, which is not linked to the object in state, so it can be mutated as needed and the state will stay the same and not changed until the command to update it is ran.

The last part is to use setOuter() setter to replace the original outer in the state with a newly created newOuter object (only the value will change, the property name outer will not).

Now imagine we have a more deep state like state = { outer: { inner: { innerMost: 'initial value' } } }. We could try to create the newOuter object and populate it with the outer contents from the state, but Object.assign will not be able to copy innerMost's value to this newly created newOuter object since innerMost is nested too deeply.

You could still copy inner, like in the example above, but since it's now an object and not a primitive, the reference from newOuter.inner will be copied to the outer.inner instead, which means that we will end up with local newOuter object directly tied to the object in the state.

That means that in this case mutations of the locally created newOuter.inner will directly affect the outer.inner object (in state), since they are in fact became the same thing (in computer's memory).

Object.assign therefore will only work if you have a relatively simple one level deep state structure with innermost members holding values of the primitive type.

If you have deeper objects (2nd level or more), which you should update, don't use Object.assign. You risk mutating state directly.

2. Lodash's cloneDeep

const App = () => {
  const [outer, setOuter] = React.useState({ inner: 'initial value' })

  React.useEffect(() => {
    console.log('Before the deep cloning:', outer.inner) // initial value
    const newOuter = _.cloneDeep(outer) // cloneDeep() is coming from the Lodash lib
    newOuter.inner = 'updated value'
    console.log('After the deeply cloned object is modified, the value in the state is still:', outer.inner) // initial value
    setOuter(newOuter)
  }, [])

  console.log('In render:', outer.inner)

  return (
    <section>Inner property: <i>{outer.inner}</i></section>
  )
}

ReactDOM.render(
  <App />,
  document.getElementById('react')
)
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/react/16.10.2/umd/react.production.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/react-dom/16.10.2/umd/react-dom.production.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.15/lodash.min.js"></script>

<main id="react"></main>

Lodash's cloneDeep is way more simple to use. It performs a deep cloning, so it is a robust option, if you have a fairly complex state with multi-level objects or arrays inside. Just cloneDeep() the top-level state property, mutate the cloned part in whatever way you please, and setOuter() it back to the state.

3. immutability-helper

const App = () => {
  const [outer, setOuter] = React.useState({ inner: 'initial value' })
  
  React.useEffect(() => {
    const update = immutabilityHelper
    console.log('Before the deep cloning and updating:', outer.inner) // initial value
    const newOuter = update(outer, { inner: { $set: 'updated value' } })
    console.log('After the cloning and updating, the value in the state is still:', outer.inner) // initial value
    setOuter(newOuter)
  }, [])

  console.log('In render:', outer.inner)

  return (
    <section>Inner property: <i>{outer.inner}</i></section>
  )
}

ReactDOM.render(
  <App />,
  document.getElementById('react')
)
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/react/16.10.2/umd/react.production.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/react-dom/16.10.2/umd/react-dom.production.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://wzrd.in/standalone/[email protected]"></script>

<main id="react"></main>

immutability-helper takes it to a whole new level, and the cool thing about it is that it can not only $set values to state items, but also $push, $splice, $merge (etc.) them. Here is a list of commands available.

Side notes

Again, keep in mind, that setOuter only modifies the first-level properties of the state object (outer in these examples), not the deeply nested (outer.inner). If it behaved in a different way, this question wouldn't exist.

Which one is right for your project?

If you don't want or can't use external dependencies, and have a simple state structure, stick to Object.assign.

If you manipulate a huge and/or complex state, Lodash's cloneDeep is a wise choice.

If you need advanced capabilities, i.e. if your state structure is complex and you need to perform all kinds of operations on it, try immutability-helper, it's a very advanced tool which can be used for state manipulation.

...or, do you really need to do this at all?

If you hold a complex data in React's state, maybe this is a good time to think about other ways of handling it. Setting a complex state objects right in React components is not a straightforward operation, and I strongly suggest to think about different approaches.

Most likely you better be off keeping your complex data in a Redux store, setting it there using reducers and/or sagas and access it using selectors.

Transvestite answered 21/10, 2017 at 16:11 Comment(7)
Object.assign does not perform a deep copy. Say, if a = {c: {d: 1}} and b = Object.assign({}, a), then you execute b.c.d = 4, then a.c.d is mutated.Wreathe
You're right, the value 1 of the innermost object (a.c.d) will get mutated. But if you will reassign the first-level successor of b, like this: b.c = {f: 1}, the corresponding part of a will not get mutated (it'll stay {d: 1}). Nice catch anyway, I'll update the answer right away.Transvestite
What you have defined is actually a shallow copy and not a deep copy. It's easy to confuse what shallow copy means. In shallow copy, a !== b, but for each key from source object a, a[key] === b[key]Wreathe
Yeah, explicitly mentioned shallowness of Object.assign in the answer.Transvestite
JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(object)) is also a variant for deep clone. The performance is worse then lodash cloneDeep though. measurethat.net/Benchmarks/Show/2751/0/…Deaver
@Deaver yeah, for a long time. They changed something and the test is gone. And I still didn't take my time to re-write those tests. Seems like I should delete the link for now.Transvestite
I would personally avoid JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(object)) like a plague. Although it works most of the time, It is not meant for this task.Transvestite
J
54

I had the same problem. Here's a simple solution that works !

const newItems = [...this.state.items];
newItems[item] = value;
this.setState({ items:newItems });
Jaynajayne answered 30/11, 2017 at 18:59 Comment(3)
@TranslucentCloud - this is most certainly not a direct mutation. the original array was cloned, modified and then the state was set again using the cloned Array.Tartuffery
@Tartuffery yeah, now after you edited the original answer this is not a mutation at all.Transvestite
@TranslucentCloud - Before also, my edit has nothing to do with it, thanks a lot for the attitude. @Jaynajayne here only made a simple mistake in his answer, using { curly braces instead of brackets which I had remediedTartuffery
U
40

According to the React documentation on setState, using Object.assign as suggested by other answers here is not ideal. Due to the nature of setState's asynchronous behavior, subsequent calls using this technique may override previous calls causing undesirable outcomes.

Instead, the React docs recommend to use the updater form of setState which operates on the previous state. Keep in mind that when updating an array or object you must return a new array or object as React requires us to preserve state immutability. Using ES6 syntax's spread operator to shallow copy an array, creating or updating a property of an object at a given index of the array would look like this:

this.setState(prevState => {
    const newItems = [...prevState.items];
    newItems[index].name = newName;
    return {items: newItems};
})
Unaccountedfor answered 25/6, 2018 at 7:33 Comment(2)
This is appropriate answer if you use ES6. It is inline what @Jaynajayne has answered. However due to explanation it stands out.Natashianatassia
Yes this code is working perfectly fine and a very simple one..Tamas
S
27

First get the item you want, change what you want on that object and set it back on the state. The way you're using state by only passing an object in getInitialState would be way easier if you'd use a keyed object.

handleChange: function (e) {
   item = this.state.items[1];
   item.name = 'newName';
   items[1] = item;

   this.setState({items: items});
}
Schumer answered 9/4, 2015 at 11:32 Comment(9)
Nah, it yields Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read property 'items' of null.Mollescent
No it won't. Your error most likely stems from the way you're doing getInitialState.Schumer
Added more code to the post to get a better context. Please have a look.Mollescent
How do you suggest I should design getInitialState ? Can you please give me an example?Mollescent
Aha, that state in PopulateCheckboxes doesn't have access to your DynamicForms state. You need to pass items as props if you want to "access" that.Schumer
@HenrikAndersson Something doesn't seem right in your example. items is not defined anywhere.Hutt
@EdwardD'Souza You're absolutely correct! My answer is to show how it should be defined and used. The way the askers code is setup does not work for the thing he/she would like to which is why the need for a keyed object is required.Schumer
This is a typical React anti-pattern, you're assigning item a reference to the state's own this.state.items[1] variable. Then you modify item (item.name = 'newName'), and thus mutate state directly, which is highly discouraged. In your example, there is even no need to call this.setState({items: items}), because state is already mutated directly.Transvestite
you are mutating the original object. That is a big no noDemolish
P
24

Don't mutate the state in place. It can cause unexpected results. I have learned my lesson! Always work with a copy/clone, Object.assign() is a good one:

item = Object.assign({}, this.state.items[1], {name: 'newName'});
items[1] = item;
this.setState({items: items});

https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Object/assign

Parnell answered 4/2, 2017 at 0:12 Comment(2)
what is items in your example? Did you mean this.state.items or something else?Glower
I tested this but he is missing one line. Above items[1] = item; there should be a line saying items = this.state.items;. Beware my javascript is rusty and I'm learning react for my home project so I have no idea if this is good or bad :-)Belvabelvedere
B
13

Use array map with arrow function, in one line

this.setState({
    items: this.state.items.map((item, index) =>
      index === 1 ? { ...item, name: 'newName' } : item,
   )
})
Bickerstaff answered 8/4, 2020 at 22:57 Comment(1)
This is basically identical to this other answer posted around a year agoTraitor
S
11

Sometimes in React, mutating the cloned array can affect the original one, this method will never cause mutation:

    const myNewArray = Object.assign([...myArray], {
        [index]: myNewItem
    });
    setState({ myArray: myNewArray });

Or if you just want to update a property of an item:

    const myNewArray = Object.assign([...myArray], {
        [index]: {
            ...myArray[index],
            prop: myNewValue
        }
    });
    setState({ myArray: myNewArray });
Semolina answered 31/7, 2020 at 12:58 Comment(1)
This is the most elegant solution.Nozzle
C
7

As none of the above options was ideal to me I ended up using map:

this.setState({items: this.state.items.map((item,idx)=> idx!==1 ?item :{...item,name:'new_name'}) })
Crisscross answered 4/5, 2019 at 16:24 Comment(1)
Isn't this same as commented by @Unaccountedfor ?Beatup
J
4

Mutation free:

// given a state
state = {items: [{name: 'Fred', value: 1}, {name: 'Wilma', value: 2}]}

// This will work without mutation as it clones the modified item in the map:
this.state.items
   .map(item => item.name === 'Fred' ? {...item, ...{value: 3}} : item)

this.setState(newItems)
Jacquejacquelin answered 3/11, 2017 at 18:9 Comment(3)
I can't see where newItems is set.Transvestite
Isn't a map plus comparison in the array horrible for performance?Benedetto
@NatassiaTavares .. what? maybe you are confused with fo of or forEach map is the fastest.Tricostate
D
4

In modern-day JavaScript (see compatability table), we can use the Array.prototype.with(index, value) method on arrays to produce a new updated array without mutating the original array:

Updating a primitive value in an array:

To update primitives (non-objects) within an array, you can simply just set the value using .with(). The array returned from with() can then be used as the new state value:

// state is `[1, 2, 3]` for example
setState(prev => prev.with(index, value));

Updating an object in an array:

When updating an object within an array, the nested object as well as the array both need to be a new reference. The new reference to the array will be produced by .with(), and the new object reference can be produced by spreading (...) the object's properties into a new object and then updating your desired property:

// state is `[{name: 'field 1'}, {name: 'field 2'}, {name: 'field 3'}]` for example
setState(prev => prev.with(index, {...prev[index], name: newName}));

Note that the above uses the functional component state-setter that you get from useState(). If you're using class components, you would use this.setState() and return an object that updates your specific state-property.

Dragonet answered 26/7, 2023 at 0:8 Comment(1)
nice clean approachDeceptive
R
3

It's really simple.

First pull the entire items object from state, updated the part of the items object as desired, and put the entire items object back in state via setState.

handleChange: function (e) {
  items = Object.assign(this.state.items); // Pull the entire items object out. Using object.assign is a good idea for objects.
  items[1].name = 'newName'; // update the items object as needed
  this.setState({ items }); // Put back in state
}
Retrieval answered 27/5, 2018 at 6:22 Comment(1)
"Object.assign will work if you have a relatively simple one level deep state structure with innermost members holding values of primitive type".Transvestite
M
1

Found this surprisingly hard and none of the ES6 spread magic seemed to work as expected. Was using a structure like this to get rendered element properties for layout purposes.

found using the update method from immutability-helper to be the most straight forward one in this simplified example:

constructor(props) {
    super(props)
    this.state = { values: [] }
    this.updateContainerState = this.updateContainerState.bind(this)
  }

updateContainerState(index, value) {
    this.setState((state) => update(state, { values: { [index]: { $set: value } } }))
  }

as adapted from https://github.com/kolodny/immutability-helper#computed-property-names

of the to be updated array member is a more nested complex object use the appropriate deep copy method based on complexity.

There are surely better ways to handle layout parameters, but this is about how to handle arrays. The relevant values for each child element could also be computed outside of them, but I found it more convenient to pass containerState down, so they childs can fetch properties at will and Update the parent state array at their given index.

import React from 'react'
import update from 'immutability-helper'
import { ContainerElement } from './container.component.style.js'
import ChildComponent from './child-component'
export default class ContainerComponent extends React.Component {
  constructor(props) {
    super(props)
    this.state = { values: [] }
    this.updateContainerState = this.updateContainerState.bind(this)
  }

  updateContainerState(index, value) {
    this.setState((state) => update(state, { values: { [index]: { $set: value } } }))
  }

  // ...

  render() {
    let index = 0
    return (
      <ContainerElement>
      <ChildComponent
        index={index++}
        containerState={this.state}
        updateContainerState={this.updateContainerState}
      />
      <ChildComponent
        index={index++}
        containerState={this.state}
        updateContainerState={this.updateContainerState}
      />
      </ContainerElement>
    )
  }
}
Mccurry answered 28/1, 2020 at 17:16 Comment(0)
F
1

@JonnyBuchanan's answer works perfectly, but for only array state variable. In case the state variable is just a single dictionary, follow this:

inputChange = input => e => {
    this.setState({
        item: update(this.state.item, {[input]: {$set: e.target.value}})
    })
}

You can replace [input] by the field name of your dictionary and e.target.value by its value. This code performs the update job on input change event of my form.

Filbert answered 13/5, 2020 at 14:0 Comment(0)
D
0

Use the event on handleChange to figure out the element that has changed and then update it. For that you might need to change some property to identify it and update it.

See fiddle https://jsfiddle.net/69z2wepo/6164/

Diuretic answered 9/4, 2015 at 12:12 Comment(0)
G
0

How about creating another component(for object that needs to go into the array) and pass the following as props?

  1. component index - index will be used to create/update in array.
  2. set function - This function put data into the array based on the component index.
<SubObjectForm setData={this.setSubObjectData}                                                            objectIndex={index}/>

Here {index} can be passed in based on position where this SubObjectForm is used.

and setSubObjectData can be something like this.

 setSubObjectData: function(index, data){
      var arrayFromParentObject= <retrieve from props or state>;
      var objectInArray= arrayFromParentObject.array[index];
      arrayFromParentObject.array[index] = Object.assign(objectInArray, data);
 }

In SubObjectForm, this.props.setData can be called on data change as given below.

<input type="text" name="name" onChange={(e) => this.props.setData(this.props.objectIndex,{name: e.target.value})}/>
Glair answered 6/10, 2016 at 15:5 Comment(0)
M
0

I would move the function handle change and add an index parameter

handleChange: function (index) {
    var items = this.state.items;
    items[index].name = 'newName';
    this.setState({items: items});
},

to the Dynamic form component and pass it to the PopulateAtCheckboxes component as a prop. As you loop over your items you can include an additional counter (called index in the code below) to be passed along to the handle change as shown below

{ Object.keys(this.state.items).map(function (key, index) {
var item = _this.state.items[key];
var boundHandleChange = _this.handleChange.bind(_this, index);
  return (
    <div>
        <PopulateAtCheckboxes this={this}
            checked={item.populate_at} id={key} 
            handleChange={boundHandleChange}
            populate_at={data.populate_at} />
    </div>
);
}, this)}

Finally you can call your change listener as shown below here

<input type="radio" name={'populate_at'+this.props.id} value={value} onChange={this.props.handleChange} checked={this.props.checked == value} ref="populate-at"/>
Munford answered 31/1, 2017 at 7:28 Comment(1)
Never mutate React's state directly.Transvestite
B
0

If you need to change only part of the Array, You've a react component with state set to.

state = {items: [{name: 'red-one', value: 100}, {name: 'green-one', value: 999}]}

It's best to update the red-one in the Array as follows:

const itemIndex = this.state.items.findIndex(i=> i.name === 'red-one');
const newItems = [
   this.state.items.slice(0, itemIndex),
   {name: 'red-one', value: 666},
   this.state.items.slice(itemIndex)
]

this.setState(newItems)
Becerra answered 14/8, 2017 at 12:36 Comment(2)
what is newArray? do you mean newItems? If you do, wouldn't that leave the state with only one item afterward?Plumbic
This will introduce a new property newItems to the state object, and will not update the existing items property.Transvestite
W
0

or if you have a dynamically generated list and you don't know the index but just have the key or id:

let ItemsCopy = []
let x = this.state.Items.map((entry) =>{

    if(entry.id == 'theIDYoureLookingFor')
    {
        entry.PropertyToChange = 'NewProperty'
    }

    ItemsCopy.push(entry)
})


this.setState({Items:ItemsCopy});
Whortleberry answered 30/6, 2019 at 18:0 Comment(0)
C
0

Try with code:

this.state.items[1] = 'new value';
var cloneObj = Object.assign({}, this.state.items);

this.setState({items: cloneObj });
Conservation answered 19/8, 2019 at 16:21 Comment(0)
S
0

Following piece of code went easy on my dull brain. Removing the object and replacing with the updated one

    var udpateditem = this.state.items.find(function(item) { 
                   return item.name == "field_1" });
    udpateditem.name= "New updated name"                       
    this.setState(prevState => ({                                   
    items:prevState.dl_name_template.filter(function(item) { 
                                    return item.name !== "field_1"}).concat(udpateditem)
    }));
Strom answered 20/8, 2019 at 11:38 Comment(0)
P
0
this.setState({
      items: this.state.items.map((item,index) => {
        if (index === 1) {
          item.name = 'newName';
        }
        return item;
      })
    });
Paltry answered 8/4, 2020 at 9:24 Comment(2)
this is so not optimal, you iterate the whole array in order to update only the second item?Izaak
You're also mutating the element in the first array too, you should use item = Object.assign({}, item, {name: 'newName'});Gaut
B
0

I'd just like to add that using an immutability library like Immer makes updating nested state so much easier and more elegant.

Instead of:

handleChange: function (e) {
    let items = [...this.state.items];
    let item = {...items[1]};
    item.name = 'newName';
    items[1] = item;
    this.setState({items});
}

You can simply have:

handleChange: function (e) {
    this.setState(produce(draft => {
    draft[1].name = 'newName'
    }));
}

While your code looks simple like it's simply mutating state directly, you keep the benefits of immutability. The best of both worlds!

Bobbee answered 14/10, 2023 at 4:57 Comment(0)
J
-3
 handleChanges = (value, key) => {
     // clone the current State object
    let cloneObject = _.extend({}, this.state.currentAttribute);
    // key as user.name and value= "ABC" then current attributes have current properties as we changes
    currentAttribute[key] = value;
    // then set the state "currentAttribute" is key and "cloneObject" is changed object.  
    this.setState({currentAttribute: cloneObject});

and Change from Text box add onChange event

onChange = {
   (event) => {                                                
      this.handleChanges(event.target.value, "title");
   }
}
Jackstay answered 20/1, 2020 at 13:28 Comment(0)
T
-7

Try this it will definetly work,other case i tried but didn't work

import _ from 'lodash';

this.state.var_name  = _.assign(this.state.var_name, {
   obj_prop: 'changed_value',
});
Tipster answered 23/3, 2016 at 9:21 Comment(1)
Never mutate React's state directly.Transvestite

© 2022 - 2025 — McMap. All rights reserved.