I was recently challenged to make a simple working implementation of a react authentication system using hooks. I was linked this article as an exa...
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
The article seems to use a state hooks implementation of the general Lifting State Up pattern to share state with a nested component (if so, a reference/link would be nice - mainly because mentioning "Lifting State Up" gives the approach a name - long before it can reveal itself through the details).
Side note:
The established term "child component" as it is used in this article is at best ambiguous, at worse misleading.
A parent component has its children passed via
props.children
- so a child component is theReactNode
(or an item inReactNode[]
) inprops.children
. The parent doesn't create its children but is composed with them.The React documentation once used to contain the following:
Ownership:
So given:
Avatar
is the owner (that sets the props) ofProfilePic
andProfileLink
.<div>
is the parent (but not the owner) ofProfilePic
andProfileLink
.ProfilePic
andProfileLink
are children to<div>
but are ownees ofAvatar
.Using that terminology: "Passing Data from Ownee to Owner with React Hooks".
To use this with
props.children
the parent would likely have to usecloneElement
to inject its update function into a component prop to create instances that interact with its state (though it probably makes more sense to use a render prop at that point).I can only guess why "owner-ownee" was removed from the documentation - maybe they just gave up as everybody keeps using "parent-child" for the "owner-ownee" relationship.
Maybe the term "ownee" was a problem.
The Svelte documentation refers to components that are referenced in the markup section as nested components (child components go into the parent component's
<slot></slot>
).Hello, and thanks for the reply! I wasn't aware of the owner/ownee terminology as it seems like I've read other people misusing parent/child before as well. You mention that the React documentation used to contain that distinction. Do you think it was removed because the terminology became so misused that parent/child functionally became used to mean both definitions?
From Wrong context warning? - 'Warning: owner-based and parent-based contexts differ' #3451
According to Documentation inconsistencies around Parent/Child vs Owner/Ownee #7794
This is a curious statement given how often parent/child is being used in introductory tutorials to describe the relationship between a component and the components being used in its
render
method - most often attempting to state something like:"Passing props is how information flows in React apps, from owners to ownees."
So it would seem that the official documentation simply tries to avoid the parent/child terminology unless it's referring to a relationship within the render result (i.e. the DOM tree or some intermediate representation thereof).
React.createElement
So here it should be clear that
type
is the parent "node" tochildren
- but notice thattype
(the parent) doesn't createchildren
.However community contributions to the documentation may re-introduce the notion of the "creational parent":
"Passing props is how information flows in React apps, from parents to children."
In the absence of definitive terminology (i.e. avoiding owner/ownee) it's easy to think of the component that creates another component (while rendering) as the "parent".
The "component tree" could be seen as a hierarchy that represents the rendering process but that is different from the result of the rendering process - the "tree of rendered elements".
It is possible to imagine the "tree of rendered elements" and draw boxes around the fragments that are rendered by specific components - at that point a component could be perceived as "containing" elements or nested components.
It could also be argued that the "parent-child relationship between nodes" isn't all that interesting in React due to the limitations of the
children
prop. Whilechildren
can be used to pass slotted content to a parent component,children
needs to be a "children as a function
" for the more interesting cases. But in those cases best practice suggests to use render props/component injection - which lessens the importance ofchildren
(and by extension the parent-child relationship).Full gist
Note that in the above example
MyList
is the parent ofShape
(andColor
) within theApp
component. But bothShape
andColor
have to be passed as "children
as a function" (rather than simple child components) so thatMyList
can pass props to them. However typically this would be implemented with component injection - so the injected component is a simple prop rather than a child.A "parent" is simply an element (or component) with an opening and closing tag (in JSX) and any elements (or components) between those tags are the "children" to that parent. The only time that relationship is really of any interest is with components with a slot:
Using parent/child to also refer to the creational relationships between components can make discussions ambiguous and downright difficult when it is necessary to simultaneously discuss relationships within the creational (i.e. rendering) process and within the content model (e.g. DOM tree and the like).
Edit:
Another way to look at it - given:
CompA
is the parent toCompC
CompB
is the parent toCompD
App
toCompA
,CompB
,CompC
andCompD
.How does the statement:
"Passing props is how information flows in React apps, from parents to children."
hold up now?
CompA
toCompC
.CompB
toCompD
.App
.I guess:
CompA
andCompB
are parents from the content/document perspective.App
is a parent from the rendering perspective.But nobody seems to bother with that distinction.
When I run the code pen and enter the username it always says You are not Authorized.
Yes, the codepen is just to show the functionality of the modal. I have the full workimg demo in the link at the end
Thanks for replying, will check again.
I can see how that would be confusing. I changed the pen for clarity!
I can't get it to work I get a login is not a function
Hi Christian, have you taken a look at the source code?
github.com/pnkfluffy/react_auth_demo
If you are still having difficulty, feel free to share your code here
This may be easier with the new context API I feel.
Still a really cool example.
Yes! Context API is certainly a better way to do this if your passing data through multiple layers of the component tree. I feel like simply using a function is a better, more readable method when one variable needs to be passed up a single component.
Thanks for sharing the valuable information.
Thanks for sharing, this is really nice.
I follow up with the article and write it in Typescript, you can view it here
github.com/dewaleolaoye/auth
This might happening when separating the boilerplate code into shorter lines.