A proposal for bundling reducers, action types and actions when using Redux
I find as I am building my redux app, one piece of functionality at a time, I keep needing to add {actionTypes, actions, reducer}
tuples for each use case. I have been keeping these in separate files and even separate folders, however 95% of the time, it’s only one reducer/actions pair that ever needs their associated actions.
To me, it makes more sense for these pieces to be bundled together in an isolated module that is self contained, and can even be packaged easily into a library.
See also: Common JS Example.
// widgets.js
// Actions
const LOAD = 'my-app/widgets/LOAD';
const CREATE = 'my-app/widgets/CREATE';
const UPDATE = 'my-app/widgets/UPDATE';
const REMOVE = 'my-app/widgets/REMOVE';
// Reducer
export default function reducer(state = {}, action = {}) {
switch (action.type) {
// do reducer stuff
default: return state;
}
}
// Action Creators
export function loadWidgets() {
return { type: LOAD };
}
export function createWidget(widget) {
return { type: CREATE, widget };
}
export function updateWidget(widget) {
return { type: UPDATE, widget };
}
export function removeWidget(widget) {
return { type: REMOVE, widget };
}
// side effects, only as applicable
// e.g. thunks, epics, etc
export function getWidget () {
return dispatch => get('/widget').then(widget => dispatch(updateWidget(widget)))
}
A module…
export default
a function called reducer()
export
its action creators as functionsnpm-module-or-app/reducer/ACTION_TYPE
UPPER_SNAKE_CASE
, if an external reducer needs to listen for them, or if it is a published reusable libraryThese same guidelines are recommended for {actionType, action, reducer}
bundles that are shared as reusable Redux libraries.
Java has jars and beans. Ruby has gems. I suggest we call these reducer bundles “ducks”, as in the last syllable of “redux”.
You can still do:
import { combineReducers } from 'redux';
import * as reducers from './ducks/index';
const rootReducer = combineReducers(reducers);
export default rootReducer;
You can still do:
import * as widgetActions from './ducks/widgets';
…and it will only import the action creators, ready to be passed to bindActionCreators()
.
Actually, it’ll also import
default
, which will be the reducer function. It’ll add an action creator nameddefault
that won’t work. If that’s a problem for you, you should enumerate each action creator when importing.
There will be some times when you want to export
something other than an action creator. That’s okay, too. The rules don’t say that you can only export
action creators. When that happens, you’ll just have to enumerate the action creators that you want. Not a big deal.
import {loadWidgets, createWidget, updateWidget, removeWidget} from './ducks/widgets';
// ...
bindActionCreators({loadWidgets, createWidget, updateWidget, removeWidget}, dispatch);
React Redux Universal Hot Example uses ducks. See /src/redux/modules
.
There are configurable BattleCry generators ready to be downloaded and help scaffolding ducks:
npm install -g battlecry
cry download generator erikras/ducks-modular-redux
cry init duck
Run cry --help
to check more info about the generators available;
The migration to this code structure was painless, and I foresee it reducing much future development misery.
Although it’s completely feasable to implement it without any extra library, there are some tools that might help you:
combineModules
function.Please submit any feedback via an issue or a tweet to @erikras. It will be much appreciated.
Happy coding!
– Erik Rasmussen
Photo credit to Airwolfhound.