Filtered by React

Page 4

Reset

How to throttle AND debounce an autocomplete input in React

March 1, 2018
18 comments Web development, JavaScript, React

Let's start with some best practices for a good autocomplete input:

'f' - most common search term on Google

  • You want to start suggesting something as soon user starts typing. Apparently the most common search term on Google is f because people type that and Google's autocomplete starts suggesting Facebook (www.facebook.com).

  • If your autocomplete depends on a list of suggestions that is huge, such that you can't have all possible options preloaded in memory in JavaScript, starting a XHR request for every single input is not feasible. You have to throttle the XHR network requests.

  • Since networks are unreliable and results come back asynchronously in a possible different order from when they started, you should only populate your autocomplete list based on the latest XHR request.

  • If people type a lot in and keep ignoring autocomplete suggestions, you can calm your suggestions.

  • Unless you're Google or Amazon.com it might not make sense to suggest new words to autocomplete if what's been typed previously is not going to yield any results anyway. I.e. User's typed "Xjhfgxx1m 8cxxvkaspty efx8cnxq45jn Pet", there's often little value in suggesting "Peter" for that later term you're typing.

  • Users don't necessarily type one character at a time. On mobile, you might have some sort of autocomplete functionality with the device's keyboard. Bear that in mind.

  • You should not have to make an XHR request for the same input as done before. I.e. user types "f" then types in "fa" then backspaces so it's back to "f" again. This should only be at most 2 lookups.

To demonstrate these best practises, I'm going to use React with a mocked-out network request and mocked out UI for actual drop-down of options that usually appears underneath the input widget.

The Most Basic Version

In this version we have an event listener on every onChange and send the value of the input to the autocomplete function (called _fetch in this example):


class App extends React.Component {
  state = { q: "" };

  changeQuery = event => {
    this.setState({ q: event.target.value }, () => {
      this.autocompleteSearch();
    });
  };

  autocompleteSearch = () => {
    this._fetch(this.state.q);
  };

  _fetch = q => {
    const _searches = this.state._searches || [];
    _searches.push(q);
    this.setState({ _searches });
  };

  render() {
    const _searches = this.state._searches || [];
    return (
      <div>
        <input
          placeholder="Type something here"
          type="text"
          value={this.state.q}
          onChange={this.changeQuery}
        />
        <hr />
        <ol>
          {_searches.map((s, i) => {
            return <li key={s + i}>{s}</li>;
          })}
        </ol>
      </div>
    );
  }
}

You can try it here: No Throttle or Debounce

Note, when use it that an autocomplete lookup is done for every single change to the input (characters typed in or whole words pasted in). Typing in "Alask" at a normal speed our make an autocomplete lookup for "a", "al", "ala", "alas", and "alask".

Also worth pointing out, if you're on a CPU limited device, even if the autocomplete lookups can be done without network requests (e.g. you have a local "database" in-memory) there's still expensive DOM updates for that needs to be done for every single character/word typed in.

Throttled

What a throttle does is that it triggers predictably after a certain time. Every time. Basically, it prevents excessive or repeated calling of another function but doesn't get reset.

So if you type "t h r o t t l e" at a speed of 1 key press per 500ms the whole thing will take 8x500ms=3s and if you have a throttle on that, with a delay of 1s, it will fire 4 times.

I highly recommend using throttle-debounce to actually do the debounce. Let's rewrite our demo to use debounce:


import { throttle } from "throttle-debounce";

class App extends React.Component {
  constructor(props) {
    super(props);
    this.state = { q: "" };
    this.autocompleteSearchThrottled = throttle(500, this.autocompleteSearch);
  }

  changeQuery = event => {
    this.setState({ q: event.target.value }, () => {
      this.autocompleteSearchThrottled(this.state.q);
    });
  };

  autocompleteSearch = q => {
    this._fetch(q);
  };

  _fetch = q => {
    const _searches = this.state._searches || [];
    _searches.push(q);
    this.setState({ _searches });
  };

  render() {
    const _searches = this.state._searches || [];
    return (
      <div>
        <h2>Throttle</h2>
        <p>½ second Throttle triggering the autocomplete on every input.</p>
        <input
          placeholder="Type something here"
          type="text"
          value={this.state.q}
          onChange={this.changeQuery}
        />
        <hr />
        {_searches.length ? (
          <button
            type="button"
            onClick={event => this.setState({ _searches: [] })}
          >
            Reset
          </button>
        ) : null}
        <ol>
          {_searches.map((s, i) => {
            return <li key={s + i}>{s}</li>;
          })}
        </ol>
      </div>
    );
  }
}

One thing to notice on the React side is that the autocompleteSearch method can no longer use this.state.q because the function gets executed by the throttle function so the this is different. That's why, in this version we pass the search term as an argument instead.

You can try it here: Throttle

If you type something reasonably fast you'll notice it fires a couple of times. It's quite possible that if you type a bunch of stuff, with your eyes on the keyboard, by the time you're done you'll see it made a bunch of (mocked) autocomplete lookups whilst you weren't paying attention. You should also notice that it fired on the very first character you typed.

A cool feature about this is that if you can afford the network lookups, the interface will feel snappy. Hopefully, if your server is fast to respond to the autocomplete lookups there are quickly some suggestions there. At least it's a great indicator that the autocomplete UX is a think the user can expect as she types more.

Debounce

An alternative approach is to use a debounce. From the documentation of throttle-debounce:

"Debouncing, unlike throttling, guarantees that a function is only executed a single time, either at the very beginning of a series of calls, or at the very end."

Basically, ever time you "pile something on" it discards all the other delayed executions. Changing to this version is easy. just change import { throttle } from "throttle-debounce"; to import { debounce } from "throttle-debounce"; and change this.autocompleteSearchThrottled = throttle(1000, this.autocompleteSearch); to this.autocompleteSearchDebounced = debounce(1000, this.autocompleteSearch);

Here is the debounce version:


import { debounce } from "throttle-debounce";

class App extends React.Component {
  constructor(props) {
    super(props);
    this.state = { q: "" };
    this.autocompleteSearchDebounced = debounce(500, this.autocompleteSearch);
  }

  changeQuery = event => {
    this.setState({ q: event.target.value }, () => {
      this.autocompleteSearchDebounced(this.state.q);
    });
  };

  autocompleteSearch = q => {
    this._fetch(q);
  };

  _fetch = q => {
    const _searches = this.state._searches || [];
    _searches.push(q);
    this.setState({ _searches });
  };

  render() {
    const _searches = this.state._searches || [];
    return (
      <div>
        <h2>Debounce</h2>
        <p>
          ½ second Debounce triggering the autocomplete on every input.
        </p>
        <input
          placeholder="Type something here"
          type="text"
          value={this.state.q}
          onChange={this.changeQuery}
        />
        <hr />
        {_searches.length ? (
          <button
            type="button"
            onClick={event => this.setState({ _searches: [] })}
          >
            Reset
          </button>
        ) : null}
        <ol>
          {_searches.map((s, i) => {
            return <li key={s + i}>{s}</li>;
          })}
        </ol>
      </div>
    );
  }
}

You can try it here: Throttle

If you try it you'll notice that if you type at a steady pace (under 1 second for each input), it won't really trigger any autocomplete lookups at all. It basically triggers when you take your hands off the keyboard. But the silver lining with this approach is that if you typed "This is my long search input" it didn't bother looking things up for "this i", "this is my l", "this is my long s", "this is my long sear", "this is my long search in" since they are probably not very useful.

Best of Both World; Throttle and Debounce

The throttle works great in the beginning when you want the autocomplete widget to seem eager but if the user starts typing in a lot, you'll want to be more patient. It's quite human. If a friend is trying to remember something you're probably at first really quick to try to help with suggestions, but once you friend starts to remember and can start reciting, you patiently wait a bit more till they have said what they're going to say.

In this version we're going to use throttle (the eager one) in the beginning when the input is short and debounce (the patient one) when user has ignored the first autocomplete inputs and starting typing something longer.

Here is the version that uses both:


import { throttle, debounce } from "throttle-debounce";

class App extends React.Component {
  constructor(props) {
    super(props);
    this.state = { q: ""};
    this.autocompleteSearchDebounced = debounce(500, this.autocompleteSearch);
    this.autocompleteSearchThrottled = throttle(500, this.autocompleteSearch);
  }

  changeQuery = event => {
    this.setState({ q: event.target.value }, () => {
      const q = this.state.q;
      if (q.length < 5) {
        this.autocompleteSearchThrottled(this.state.q);
      } else {
        this.autocompleteSearchDebounced(this.state.q);
      }
    });
  };

  autocompleteSearch = q => {
    this._fetch(q);
  };

  _fetch = q => {
    const _searches = this.state._searches || [];
    _searches.push(q);
    this.setState({ _searches });
  };

  render() {
    const _searches = this.state._searches || [];
    return (
      <div>
        <h2>Throttle and Debounce</h2>
        <p>
          ½ second Throttle when input is small and ½ second Debounce when
          the input is longer.
        </p>
        <input
          placeholder="Type something here"
          type="text"
          value={this.state.q}
          onChange={this.changeQuery}
        />
        <hr />
        {_searches.length ? (
          <button
            type="button"
            onClick={event => this.setState({ _searches: [] })}
          >
            Reset
          </button>
        ) : null}
        <ol>
          {_searches.map((s, i) => {
            return <li key={s + i}>{s}</li>;
          })}
        </ol>
      </div>
    );
  }
}

In this version I cheated a little bit. The delays are different. The throttle has a delay of 500ms and the debounce as a delay of 1000ms. That makes it feel little bit more snappy there in the beginning when you start typing but once you've typed more than 5 characters, it switches to the more patient debounce version.

You can try it here: Throttle and Debounce

With this version, if you, in a steady pace typed in "south carolina" you'd notice that it does autocomplete lookups for "s", "sout" and "south carolina".

Avoiding wrongly ordered async responses

Suppose the user slowly types in "p" then "pe" then "pet", it would trigger 3 XHR requests. I.e. something like this:


fetch('/autocomplete?q=p')

fetch('/autocomplete?q=pe')

fetch('/autocomplete?q=pet')

But because all of these are asynchronous and sometimes there's unpredictable slowdowns on the network, it's not guarantee that they'll all come back in the same exact order. The solution to this is to use a "global variable" of the latest search term and then compare that to the locally scoped search term in each fetch callback promise. That might sound harder than it is. The solution basically looks like this:


class App extends React.Component {

  makeAutocompleteLookup = q => {
    // Store the latest input here scoped in the App instance.
    this.waitingFor = q;
    fetch('/autocompletelookup?q=' + q)
    .then(response => {
      if (response.status === 200) {
        // Only bother with this XHR response
        // if this query term matches what we're waiting for.
        if (q === this.waitingFor) {
          response.json()
          .then(results => {
              this.setState({results: results});
          })
        }
      }
    })
  }
}

Bonus feature; Caching

For caching the XHR requests, to avoid unnecessary network requests if the user uses backspace, the simplest solution is to maintain a dictionary of previous results as a component level instance. Let's assume you do the XHR autocomplete lookup like this initially:


class App extends React.Component {

  makeAutocompleteLookup = q => {
    const url = '/autocompletelookup?q=' + q;
    fetch(url)
    .then(response => {
      if (response.status === 200) {
        response.json()
        .then(results => {
            this.setState({ results });
        })
      }
    })
  }

}

To add caching (also a form of memoization) you can simply do this:


class App extends React.Component {

  _autocompleteCache = {};

  makeAutocompleteLookup = q => {
    const url = '/autocompletelookup?q=' + q;

    const cached = this._autocompleteCache[url];
    if (cached) {
      return Promise.resolve(cached).then(results => {
        this.setState({ results });
        });
      });
    }

    fetch(url)
    .then(response => {
      if (response.status === 200) {
        response.json()
        .then(results => {
            this.setState({ results });
        })
      }
    })
  }

}

In a more real app you might want to make that whole method always return a promise. And you might want to do something slightly smarter when response.status !== 200.

Bonus feature; Watch out for spaces

So the general gist of these above versions is that you debounce the XHR autocomplete lookups to only trigger sometimes. For short strings we trigger every, say, 300ms. When the input is longer, we only trigger when it appears the user has stopped typing. A more "advanced" approach is to trigger after a space. If I type "south carolina is a state" it's hard for a computer to know if "is", "a", or "state" is a complete word. Humans know and some English words can easily be recognized as stop words. However, what you can do is take advantage of the fact that a space almost always means the previous word was complete. It would be nice to trigger an autocomplete lookup after "south carolina" and "south carolina is" and "south carolina is a". These are also easier to deal with on the server side because, depending on your back-end, it's easier to search your database if you don't include "broken" words like "south carolina is a sta". To do that, here's one such implementation:


class App extends React.Component {

  // Just overriding the changeQuery method in this example.

  changeQuery = event => {
    const q = event.target.value
    this.setState({ q }, () => {

      // If the query term is short or ends with a
      // space, trigger the more impatient version.
      if (q.length < 5 || q.endsWith(' ')) {
        this.autocompleteSearchThrottled(q);
      } else {
        this.autocompleteSearchDebounced(q);
      }
    });
  };

  // Just overriding the changeQuery method in this example.

}

You can try it here: Throttle and Debounce with throttle on ending spaces.

Next level stuff

There is so much more that you can do for that ideal user experience. A lot depends on the context.

For example, when the input is small instead of doing a search on titles or names or whatever, you instead return a list of possible full search terms. So, if I have typed "sou" the back-end could return things like:

{
  "matches": [
     {"term": "South Carolina", "count": 123},
     {"term": "Southern", "count": 469},
     {"term": "South Dakota", "count": 98},
  ]
}

If the user selects one of these autocomplete suggestions, instead of triggering a full search you just append the selected match back into the search input widget. This is what Google does.

And if the input is longer you go ahead and actually search for the full documents. So if the input was "south caro" you return something like this:

{
  "matches": [
     {
       "title": "South Carolina Is A State", 
       "url": "/permapage/x19v093d"
     },
     {
       "title": "Best of South Carolina Parks", 
       "url": "/permapage/9vqif3z"
     },
     {
       "title": "I Live In South Carolina", 
       "url": "/permapage/abc300a1y"
     },
  ]
}

And when the XHR completes you look at what the user clicked and do something like this:


  return (<ul className="autocomplete">
    {this.state.results.map(result => {
      return <li onClick={event => {
        if (result.url) {
          document.location.href = result.url;
        } else {
          this.setState({ q: result.term });
        }
      }}>
        {result.url ? (
          <p className="document">{result.title}</p>
        ) : (
            <p className="new-term">{result.term}</p>
          )}
      </li>
    })
    }
    </ul>
  )

This is an incomplete example and more pseudo-code than a real solution but the pattern is quite nice. You're either helping the user type the full search term or if it's already a good match you can go skip the actual searching and go to the result directly.

This is how SongSearch works for example:

Suggestions for full search terms
Suggestions for full search terms

Suggestions for actual documents
Suggestions for actual documents

Items function in JavaScript for looping over dictionaries like Python

February 23, 2018
1 comment JavaScript, React

Too many times I've written code like this:


class MyComponent extends React.PureComponent {
  render() {
    return <ul>
      {Object.keys(this.props.someDictionary).map(key => {
        return <li key={key}><b>{key}:</b> {this.props.someDictionary[key]}</li> 
      })}
    </ul>
  }
}

The clunky thing about this is that you have to reference the dictionary twice. Makes it harder to refactor. In Python, you do this instead:


for key, value in some_dictionary.items():
    print(f'$key: $value')

To do the same in JavaScript make a function like this:


function items(dict, fn) {
  return Object.keys(dict).map((key, i) => {
    return fn(key, dict[key], i)
  })
}

Now you can use it "more like Python":


class MyComponent extends React.PureComponent {
  render() {
    return <ul>
      {items(this.props.someDictionary, (key, value) => {
        return <li key={key}><b>{key}:</b> {value}</li> 
      })}
    </ul>
  }
}

Example on CodeSandbox here

UPDATE

Thanks to @Osmose and @saltycrane for alerting me to Object.entries().


class MyComponent extends React.PureComponent {
  render() {
    return <ul>
      {Object.entries(this.props.someDictionary).map(([key, value]) => {
        return <li key={key}><b>{key}:</b> {value}</li> 
      })}
    </ul>
  }
}

Updated CodeSandbox here

Component, component function or plain function in React

February 6, 2018
1 comment React

tl;dr; Use React.PureComponent (or React.Component) if your component contains, or might contain, non-trivial logic that might affect it rendering or not. For all other cases, use a function, especially if it's not React specific.

Your choices

When you have state, especially good old this.state and this.setState you have to use React.PureComponent (or React.Component if you must).

For stateless functions, where you're just getting some props in, perhaps massaging them and rendering some JSX, you have choices.
You can write a React component in these three different ways:

Component


class MyComponent extends React.PureComponent {
  render() {
    return <h1>Hello {this.props.name}</h1>
  }
}

Component function


const MyComponent = ({ name }) => {
  return <h1>Hello {name}</h1>
}

Plain function


const MyComponent = name => {
  return <h1>Hello {name}</h1>
}

The first two can be used like this:


return (
  <div>
    <MyComponent name="Peter"/>
  </div>
)

The last one can be called directly:


return (
  <div>
    {MyComponent("Peter")}/>
  </div>
)

To be exact, you can actually call the second, component function, like this too:


return (
  <div>
    {MyComponent({name: "Peter"})}
  </div>
)

Example CodeSandbox here.

Each one has its strength and weaknesses.

Pros & cons for class MyComponent extends React.PureComponent

  • You have access to life-cycle hooks such as componentDidMount.
  • It's easy to add class-level public field functions, e.g. onButtonClick = event => {...} if inlining isn't convenient.
  • It has a shouldComponentUpdate method which means it can avoid a potentially expensive render execution when the props (or state) haven't changed.
  • If you decide you want to add some state, you just need to add a constructor that sets up this.state = {...}
  • If you use prop-types you can, depending on your babel transforms, set it as a static class member inside the class without having to repeat the name of the component outside (e.g. not having to do MyComponent.propTypes = {...} outside)
  • Maybe slower. I heard this rumor. Let's see later if it checks out.
  • Doesn't feel as simple because it's not a regular old function.
  • Might make you feel uncertain that it might have side-effects that aren't obvious.

Pros & cons for const MyComponent = (...) =>

  • Clearly it's just doing one thing. Rendering. No buts, ifs, or maybes.
  • Doesn't say React all over and thus should be easy to reason about outside React, such as in a unit test.
  • If it doesn't have to do all the mounting life-cycle hooks, perhaps that's valuable time saved.
  • There's something hip about writing functions and feeling "functional" without all that verbosity and boilerplate like class and extends and render etc.
  • Maybe faster. We'll see.

Benchmarking the difference

I don't know with confidence if this is the right way to test this but I really wanted to avoid process.env.NODE_ENV==='development' and I wanted to run each variant a bunch of times, because it feels more realistic, so as to avoid the slowness of the initial mounting.

So I made an app that looks like this:


class Components extends React.Component {
  render() {
    return <Component100 count={this.props.count} />;
  }
}

export default Components;

class Component100 extends React.PureComponent {
  render() {
    return <Component99 count={this.props.count} />;
  }
}
class Component99 extends React.PureComponent {
  render() {
    return <Component98 count={this.props.count} />;
  }
}

//...
//...you can imagine...
//...

class Component1 extends React.PureComponent {
  render() {
    return <Component0 count={this.props.count} />;
  }
}

class Component0 extends React.PureComponent {
  render() {
    collect('Components', performance.now());
    return <h1>Component0: {this.props.count}</h1>;
  }
}

This long chain of components calling "sub-components" starts right after the prop at the top changes. In the App that parents all of the variants, when the state changes the props change and it trickles down to that final last component. By taking a timestamp right before changing the state and during that last render you get a rough timeline for how long the whole chain took to render.

See the variants here:

Perhaps it's best to skim the code of the App.js too. It's a bit messy and there's a bunch of whacky code that uses global window to log all the timestamps but the gist is that it measures the few milliseconds it takes before a re-render is triggered until the final components render function gets called.

The app has a little hacky interval function that randomly switches between the different variants every 2 seconds and every 300 milliseconds it clicks a button, which changes the state which triggers a re-render.

Benchmark results

Results

Component style Median Comparison
Components 3.46ms 100%
ComponentFunctions 3.04ms 14% faster
Functions 2.02ms 71% faster

This was done using React 16.2.0 with process.env.NODE_ENV === 'production' in Firefox 60.

Sample app
You can try for yourself here: https://peterbe.github.io/function-or-component/

It might break when you click Reset. If it doesn't work very well in github.io, just download it and test locally.

Discussion

Here's my rule of thumb, the life-cycle hooks are awesome. I often write a component, using ...extends React.PureComponent even though it could be a plain function. But over time, eventually you expand it and realize you need some life cycle hook. Or you might find that writing inline functions is getting messy. Or, you realize that this component is sometimes unnecessarily called by a more complicated parent, with the same props as last time!

The performance penalty, for using full React components, is small. It exists, but it's probably dwarfed by other costs such as mounting not to mention actual DOM updating. It's also very likely that your components could benefit more from avoiding render (which only shouldComponentUpdate really can do) than the cost of calling it. Meaning, if the slower component only has to render 500 times, marginally slower, than the function component rendering 1,000 times, then the slower sometimes-not-needing-to-render will eventually win the performance battle.

There is still value in the functional stateless component. See the pros & cons above. But one rule of thumb I have is that if the component is really simple and contains no fancy logic that might affect its rendering or not rendering, then use components as functions. They're "sending a message" (to the code reader) by being brief and simple. For example, I have this little snippet in my Common.js module:


export const formatFileSize = (bytes, decimals = 0) => {
  if (!bytes) return '0 bytes'
  const k = 1024
  const dm = decimals + 1 || 3
  const sizes = ['bytes', 'KB', 'MB', 'GB', 'TB', 'PB', 'EB', 'ZB', 'YB']
  const i = Math.floor(Math.log(bytes) / Math.log(k))
  return parseFloat((bytes / Math.pow(k, i)).toFixed(dm)) + ' ' + sizes[i]
}

It's got nothing to do with React and that becomes extra obvious simply my looking at it. It's cleary got just one job. It's used a lot and often by more complicated components.

Last but not least; I'm very aware that the much more experienced React gurus of the world have already said something similar but with more accuracy. But I didn't want to just blurt out my opinion without adding some meat and some numbers to it. And I've always disliked the confusion that there's a choice at all so hopefully this blog post will help someone else who still suffers from having to wonder when to use which.

This tweet sums it up well:
Craig Kerstiens tweet

Display current React version

January 7, 2018
1 comment JavaScript, React

Usually you know what version of React your app is using by opening the package.json, or poking around in node_modules/react/index.js. But perhaps there are many packaging abstractions in between your command line and the server. Especially if you have a continous integration server that builds your static assets and if that CI uses caching. It might get scary.

If you really want to print out what version of React is rendering your app here's one way to do that:


import React from 'react'

class Introspection extends React.Component {
  render() {
    return <div>
      Currently using React {React.version}
    </div>
  }
}

Suppose that you want this display to depend on the app being in dev or prod mode:


import React from 'react'

class Introspection extends React.Component {
  render() {
    return <div>
      {
        process.env.NODE_ENV === 'development' ?
        <p>Currently using React {React.version}</p> : null
      }
    </div>
  }
}

Note that there's no need to import process.

See this CodeSandbox snippet for a live example.

How to create-react-app with Docker

November 17, 2017
31 comments Linux, Web development, JavaScript, React, Docker

Why would you want to use Docker to do React app work? Isn't Docker for server-side stuff like Python and Golang etc? No, all the benefits of Docker apply to JavaScript client-side work too.

So there are three main things you want to do with create-react-app; dev server, running tests and creating build artifacts. Let's look at all three but using Docker.

Create-react-app first

If you haven't already, install create-react-app globally:

▶ yarn global add create-react-app

And, once installed, create a new project:

▶ create-react-app docker-create-react-app
...lots of output...

▶ cd docker-create-react-app
▶ ls
README.md    node_modules package.json public       src          yarn.lock

We won't need the node_modules here in the project directory. Instead, when building the image we're going let node_modules stay inside the image. So you can go ahead and... rm -fr node_modules.

Create the Dockerfile

Let's just dive in. This Dockerfile is the minimum:

FROM node:8

ADD yarn.lock /yarn.lock
ADD package.json /package.json

ENV NODE_PATH=/node_modules
ENV PATH=$PATH:/node_modules/.bin
RUN yarn

WORKDIR /app
ADD . /app

EXPOSE 3000
EXPOSE 35729

ENTRYPOINT ["/bin/bash", "/app/run.sh"]
CMD ["start"]

A couple of things to notice here.
First of all we're basing this on the official Node v8 repository on Docker Hub. That gives you a Node and Yarn by default.

Note how the NODE_PATH environment variable puts the node_modules in the root of the container. That's so that it doesn't get added in "here" (i.e. the current working directory). If you didn't do this, the node_modules directory would be part of the mounted volume which not only slows down Docker (since there are so many files) it also isn't necessary to see those files.

Note how the ENTRYPOINT points to run.sh. That's a file we need to create too, alongside the Dockerfile file.

#!/usr/bin/env bash
set -eo pipefail

case $1 in
  start)
    # The '| cat' is to trick Node that this is an non-TTY terminal
    # then react-scripts won't clear the console.
    yarn start | cat
    ;;
  build)
    yarn build
    ;;
  test)
    yarn test $@
    ;;
  *)
    exec "$@"
    ;;
esac

Lastly, as a point of convenience, note that the default CMD is "start". That's so that when you simply run the container the default thing it does is to run yarn start.

Build container

Now let's build it:

▶ docker image build -t react:app .

The -t react:app is up to you. It doesn't matter so much what it is unless you're going to upload your container the a registry. Then you probably want the repository to be something unique.

Let's check that the build is there:

▶ docker image ls react:app
REPOSITORY          TAG                 IMAGE ID            CREATED             SIZE
react               app                 3ee5c7596f57        13 minutes ago      996MB

996MB! The base Node image is about ~700MB and the node_modules directory (for a clean new create-react-app) is ~160MB (at the time of writing). What the remaining difference is, I'm not sure. But it's empty calories and easy to lose. When you blow away the built image (docker image rmi react:app) your hard drive gets all that back and no actual code is lost.

Before we run it, lets go inside and see what was created:

▶ docker container run -it react:app bash
root@996e708a30c4:/app# ls
Dockerfile  README.md  package.json  public  run.sh  src  yarn.lock
root@996e708a30c4:/app# du -sh /node_modules/
148M    /node_modules/
root@996e708a30c4:/app# sw-precache
Total precache size is about 355 kB for 14 resources.
service-worker.js has been generated with the service worker contents.

The last command (sw-precache) was just to show that executables in /node_modules/.bin are indeed on the $PATH and can be run.

Run container

Now to run it:

▶ docker container run -it -p 3000:3000 react:app
yarn run v1.3.2
$ react-scripts start
Starting the development server...

Compiled successfully!

You can now view docker-create-react-app in the browser.

  Local:            http://localhost:3000/
  On Your Network:  http://172.17.0.2:3000/

Note that the development build is not optimized.
To create a production build, use yarn build.

Default app running

Pretty good. Open http://localhost:3000 in your browser and you should see the default create-react-app app.

Next step; Warm reloading

create-react-app does not support hot reloading of components. But it does support web page reloading. As soon as a local file is changed, it sends a signal to the browser (using WebSockets) to tell it to... document.location.reload().

To make this work, we need to do two things:
1) Mount the current working directory into the Docker container
2) Expose the WebSocket port

The WebSocket thing is set up by exposing port 35729 to the host (-p 35729:35729).

Below is an example running this with a volume mount and both ports exposed.

▶ docker container run -it -p 3000:3000 -p 35729:35729 -v $(pwd):/app react:app
yarn run v1.3.2
$ react-scripts start
Starting the development server...

Compiled successfully!

You can now view docker-create-react-app in the browser.

  Local:            http://localhost:3000/
  On Your Network:  http://172.17.0.2:3000/

Note that the development build is not optimized.
To create a production build, use yarn build.

Compiling...
Compiled successfully!
Compiling...
Compiled with warnings.

./src/App.js
  Line 7:  'neverused' is assigned a value but never used  no-unused-vars

Search for the keywords to learn more about each warning.
To ignore, add // eslint-disable-next-line to the line before.

Compiling...
Failed to compile.

./src/App.js
Module not found: Can't resolve './Apps.css' in '/app/src'

In the about example output. First I make a harmless save in the src/App.js file just to see that the dev server notices and that my browser reloads when I did that. That's where it says

Compiling...
Compiled successfully!

Secondly, I make an edit that triggers a warning. That's where it says:

Compiling...
Compiled with warnings.

./src/App.js
  Line 7:  'neverused' is assigned a value but never used  no-unused-vars

Search for the keywords to learn more about each warning.
To ignore, add // eslint-disable-next-line to the line before.

And lastly I make an edit by messing with the import line

Compiling...
Failed to compile.

./src/App.js
Module not found: Can't resolve './Apps.css' in '/app/src'

This is great! Isn't create-react-app wonderful?

Build build :)

There are many things you can do with the code you're building. Let's pretend that the intention is to build a single-page-app and then take the static assets (including the index.html) and upload them to a public CDN or something. To do that we need to generate the build directory.

The trick here is to run this with a volume mount so that when it creates /app/build (from the perspective) of the container, that directory effectively becomes visible in the host.

▶ docker container run -it -v $(pwd):/app react:app build
yarn run v1.3.2
$ react-scripts build
Creating an optimized production build...
Compiled successfully.

File sizes after gzip:

  35.59 KB  build/static/js/main.591fd843.js
  299 B     build/static/css/main.c17080f1.css

The project was built assuming it is hosted at the server root.
To override this, specify the homepage in your package.json.
For example, add this to build it for GitHub Pages:

  "homepage" : "http://myname.github.io/myapp",

The build folder is ready to be deployed.
You may serve it with a static server:

  yarn global add serve
  serve -s build

Done in 5.95s.

Now, on the host:

▶ tree build
build
├── asset-manifest.json
├── favicon.ico
├── index.html
├── manifest.json
├── service-worker.js
└── static
    ├── css
    │   ├── main.c17080f1.css
    │   └── main.c17080f1.css.map
    ├── js
    │   ├── main.591fd843.js
    │   └── main.591fd843.js.map
    └── media
        └── logo.5d5d9eef.svg

4 directories, 10 files

The contents of that file you can now upload to a CDN some public Nginx server that points to this as the root directory.

Running tests

This one is so easy and obvious now.

▶ docker container run -it -v $(pwd):/app react:app test

Note the that we're setting up a volume mount here again. Since the test runner is interactive it sits and waits for file changes and re-runs tests immediately, it's important to do the mount now.

All regular jest options work too. For example:

▶ docker container run -it -v $(pwd):/app react:app test --coverage
▶ docker container run -it -v $(pwd):/app react:app test --help

Debugging the node_modules

First of all, when I say "debugging the node_modules", in this context, I'm referring to messing with node_modules whilst running tests or running the dev server.

One way to debug the node_modules used is to enter a bash shell and literally mess with the files inside it. First, start the dev server (or start the test runner) and give the container a name:

▶ docker container run -it -p 3000:3000 -p 35729:35729 -v $(pwd):/app --name mydebugging react:app

Now, in a separate terminal start bash in the container:

▶ docker exec -it mydebugging bash

Once you're in you can install an editor and start editing files:

root@2bf8c877f788:/app# apt-get update && apt-get install jed
root@2bf8c877f788:/app# jed /node_modules/react/index.js

As soon as you make changes to any of the files, the dev server should notice and reload.

When you stop the container all your changes will be reset. So if you had to sprinkle the node_modules with console.log('WHAT THE HECK!') all of those disappear when the container is stopped.

NodeJS shell

This'll come as no surprise by now. You basically run bash and you're there:

▶ docker container run -it -v $(pwd):/app react:app bash
root@2a21e8206a1f:/app# node
> [] + 1
'1'

Conclusion

When I look back at all the commands above, I can definitely see how it's pretty intimidating and daunting. So many things to remember and it's got that nasty feeling where you feel like your controlling your development environment through unwieldy levers rather than your own hands.

But think of the fundamental advantages too! It's all encapsulated now. What you're working on will be based on the exact same version of everything as your teammate, your dev server and your production server are using.

Pros:

  • All packaged up and all team members get the exact same versions of everything, including Node and Yarn.
  • The node_modules directory gets out of your hair.
  • Perhaps some React code is just a small part of a large project. E.g. the frontend is React, the backend is Django. Then with some docker-compose magic you can have it all running with one command without needing to run the frontend in a separate terminal.

Cons:

  • Lack of color output in terminal.
  • The initial (or infrequent) wait for building the docker image is brutal on a slow network.
  • Lots of commands to remember. For example, How do you start a shell again?

In my (Mozilla Services) work, the projects I work on, I actually use docker-compose for all things. And I have a Makefile to help me remember all the various docker-compose commands (thanks Jannis & Will!). One definitely neat thing you can do with docker-compose is start multiple containers. Then you can, with one command, start a Django server and the create-react-app dev server with one command. Perhaps a blog post for another day.

React lifecycle hooks must-have

August 13, 2017
1 comment Web development, JavaScript, React

I don't know who made this flowchart originally, but whoever you are: Thank you!

At this point, in my React learning I think I've memorized much of this but it's taken me a lot of time and having to dig up the documentation again. (Also, not to mention the number of times I've typo'ed componentWillReciveProps and componentWillRecevieProps etc.)

Remember this; You don't need to know all of these by heart to be good at React. In fact, there's several of these that I almost never use.

React lifecycle hooks flowchart

UPDATE

The above link is dead. Use this blog post instead.

UPDATE April 2018

Here's an even better one from @dan_abramov:

React life-cycle hooks

Public Class Fields saves sooo many keystrokes in React code

April 14, 2017
1 comment JavaScript, React

tl;dr; I'm not a TC39 member and I barely understand half of what those heros are working on but there is one feature they're working on that really stands out, in my view, for React coders; Public Class Fields.

The Problem?

Very common pattern in React code is that have a component that has methods that are tied to DOM events (e.g. onClick) and often these methods need acess to this. The component's this. So you can reach things like this.state or this.setState().

You might have this in your code:


class App extends Component {
  state = {counter: 0}

  constructor() {
    super()

    // Like homework or situps; something you have to do :(
    this.incrementCounter = this.incrementCounter.bind(this) 
  }

  incrementCounter() {
    this.setState(ps => {
      return {counter: ps.counter + 1}
    })
  }

  render() {
    return (
      <div>
        <p>
          <button onClick={this.incrementCounter}>Increment</button>
        </p>
        <h1>{this.state.counter}</h1>
      </div>
    )
  }
}

Demo

If you don't bind the class method to this in the constructor, this will be undefined inside the class instance field incrementCounter. Buu!

Suppose you don't like having the word incrementCounter written in 4 placecs, you might opt for this shorthand notation where you create a new unnamed function inside the render function:


class App extends Component {
  state = {counter: 0}

  render() {
    return (
      <div>
        <p>
          <button onClick={() => {
            this.setState(ps => {
              return {counter: ps.counter + 1}
            })
          }}>Increment</button>
        </p>
        <h1>{this.state.counter}</h1>
      </div>
    )
  }
}

Demo

Sooo much shorter and kinda nice that the code can be so close in proximity to the actual onClick event definition.

But this notation has a horrible side-effect. It creates a new function on every render. If instead of a regular DOM jsx object <button> it might be a sub-component like <CoolButton/> then that sub-component would be forced to re-render every time (unless you write your own shouldComponentUpdate.

Also, this notation works when the code is small and light but it might get messy quickly if you need that functionality on other element's onClick. Or it might become mess with really deep indentation.

The Solution?

Public Class Fields.

That new feature is currently in the "Draft" stage at TC39. Aka. stage 1.

However, I discovered that you can use stage-2 in Babel to use this particular feature.

Note! I don't understand why you only have to put on your stage-2-brave socks for this feature when it's part of a definition that is stage 1.

Anyway, what it means is that you can define your field (aka method) like this instead:


class App extends Component {
  state = {counter: 0}

  incrementCounter = () => {
    this.setState(ps => {
      return {counter: ps.counter + 1}
    })
  }

  render() {
    return (
      <div>
        <p>
          <button onClick={this.incrementCounter}>Increment</button>
        </p>
        <h1>{this.state.counter}</h1>
      </div>
    )
  }
}

Demo

Now it's only mentioned by name incrementCounter twice. And no need for that manual binding in a constructor.
And since it's automatically bound, the function isn't recreated and those can easily make sub-components be pure.

So, let's always write our React methods this way from now on.

Oh, and in case you wonder. Inheritence works the same with these public class fields as the regular class instance fields.

More CSS load performance experiments (of a React app)

March 25, 2017
0 comments Web development, JavaScript, React

tl;dr; More experiments with different ways to lazy load CSS with and without web fonts. Keeping it simple is almost best but not good enough.

Background

Last week I blogged about Web Performance Optimization of a Single-Page-App and web fonts in which I experimented with tricks to delay the loading of some massive CSS file. The app is one of those newfangled single-page-app where JavaScript (React in this case) does ALL the DOM rendering, which is practical but suffers the first-load experience.

Again, let's iterate that single-page-apps built with fully fledged JavaScript frameworks isn't the enemy. The hope is that your visitors will load more than just one page. If users load it once, any further click within the app might involve some "blocking" AJAX but generally the app feels great since a click doesn't require a new page load.

Again, let's iterate what the ideal is. Ideally the page should load and be visually useful by the server sending all the DOM you almost need and once loaded, some JavaScript can turn the app "alive" so that further clicks just update the DOM instead of reloading. But that's not trivial. Things like react-router (especially version 4) makes it a lot easier but you now need a NodeJS server to render the pages server-side and you can't just easily take your "build" directory and put into a CDN like Firebase or CloudFront.

When I first started these experiements I was actually looking at what I can do with the JavaScript side to make first loads faster. Turns out fixing your CSS render blocking load and assessing use of web fonts has a bigger "bang for the buck".

Go Straight to the Results

Visual comparison on WebPagetest.org
Visual comparison of 6 different solutions

Same visual but as a comparative video

Stare at that for a second or two. Note that some versions start rendering something earlier than others. Some lose some of their rendered content and goes blank. Some change look significantly more than once before the final rendered result. As expected they almost all take the same total time till the final thing is fully rendered with DOM and all CSS loaded.

What Each Experimental Version Does

Original

A regular webapp straight out of the ./build directory built with Create React App. Blocking CSS, blocking JS and no attempts to show any minimal DOM stuff first.

Optimized Version 1

Inline CSS with basic stuff like background color and font color. CSS links are lazy loaded using tricks from loadCSS.

Optimized Version 2

Same as Optimized version 1 but both the JavaScript that lazy loads the CSS and the React JavaScript has a defer on it to prevent render blockage.

Optimized Version 3

Not much of an optimization. More of a test. Takes the original version but moves the <link rel="stylesheet" ... tags to just above the </body> tag. So below the <script src="..."> tags. Note how, around the 15 second mark, this renders the DOM (by the JavaScript code) before the CSS has loaded and it gets ugly. Note also how much longer this one takes because it has to context switch and go back to CSS loading and re-rendering after the DOM is built by the JavaScript.

Optimized Version 4

All custom web font loading removed. Bye bye "Lato" font-family. Yes you could argue that it looks worse but I still believe performance makes users more happy ultimately than prettiness (not true for all sites, e.g. a fashion web app).
Actually this version is copied from the Optimized version 1 but with the web fonts removed. The final winner in my opinion.

Optimized Version 5

Out of curiousity, let's remove the web fonts one more time but do it based on the Original. So no web fonts but CSS still render blocking.

So, Which Is Best?

I would say Optimized version 4. Remove the web font and do the loadCSS trick of loading the CSS after some really basic rendering but do that before loading the JavaScript. This is what I did to Podcast Time except slightly improved the initial server HTML so that it says "Loading..." immediately and I made the header nav look exactly like the one you get when everything is fully loaded.

Also, Chrome is quite a popular browser after all and the first browser that supports <link rel="preload" ...>. That means that when Chrome (and Opera 43 and Android Browser) parses the initial HTML and sees <link rel="preload" href="foo.css"> it can immediately start downloading that file and probably start parsing it too (in parallel). The visual comparison I did here on WebPagetest used Chrome (on 3G Emerging Markets) so that gives the optimized versions above a slight advantage only for Chrome.

What's Next?

To really make your fancy single-page-app fly like greased lightning you should probably do two things:

  1. Server-side render the HTML but perhaps do it in such a way that if your app depends on a lot of database data, skip that so you at least send a decent amount of HTML so when React/Angular/YouNameIt starts executing it doesn't have to do much DOM rendering and can just go straight to a loading message whilst it starts fetching the actual AJAX data that needs to be displayed. Or if it's a news article or blog post, include that in the server rendered HTML but let the client-side load other things like comments or a sidebar with related links.

  2. Tools like critical that figures out the critical above-the-fold CSS don't work great with single-page-apps where the DOM is generated by loaded JavaScript but you can probably hack around that by writing some scripts that generate a DOM as a HTML string by first loading the app in PhantomJS in various ways. That way you can inline all the CSS needed even after the JavaScript has built the DOM. And once that's loaded, then you can lazy load in the remaining CSS (e.g. bootstrap.min.css) to have all styles ready when the user starts clicking around on stuff.

Most important is the sites' functionality and value but hopefully these experiments have shown that you can get pretty good mileage from your standard build of a single-page-app without having to do too much tooling.

Web Performance Optimization of a Single-Page-App and web fonts

March 16, 2017
0 comments Web development, JavaScript, React

tl;dr; Don't worry so much about your bloated JavaScript and how to async it. Worry about your CSS and your Web fonts. Here I demonstrate a web performance optimization story with Webpagetest.org results demonstrating the improvements.

The app playground

I have a little app called Podcast Time. It's a single-page-app that renders all the functionality in React with the help of MobX and I use Bootstrap 4 and Bootswatch to make it "pretty". And that Bootswatch theme I chose depends on the Lato font by Google Fonts.

I blogged about it last month. Check it out if you're curious what it actually does. As with almost all my side-projects, it ultimately becomes a playground to see how I can performance optimize it.

sourcemap of combined .js file
The first thing I did was add a Service Worker so that consecutive visits all draws from a local cache. But I fear most visitors (all 52 of them (I kid, I don't know)) come just once and don't benefit from the Service Worker. The compiled and minified JavaScript weighs 124 KB gzipped (440 KB uncompressed) and the CSS weighs 20 KB gzipped (151 KB uncompressed). Not only that but the bootstrap.min.css contained an external import to Google Fonts's CSS that loads the external font files. And lastly, the JavaScript is intense. It's almost 0.5 MB of heavy framework machinery. Of that JavaScript about 45 KB which is "my code". By the way, as ES6 code it's actually 66 KB that my fingers have typed. So that's an interesting factoid about the BabelJS conversion to ES5 code.

Anyway, to make site ultra fast the bestest thing would be to rewrite all the JavaScript in vanilla JavaScript and implement, with browser quirks (read: polyfills), HTML5 pushState etc. Also, I guess I should go through the bootstrap.css file and extract exactly only the selectors I'm actually using. But I'm not going to do that. That would be counter productive and I wouldn't have a chance to add the kind of features I have and can add. So that fat JavaScript and that fat CSS needs to be downloaded.

So what can I do to make that slightly less painful? ...when Service Workers isn't an option.

1. The baseline

Here's the test results on Webpagetest.org

Click on the first Filmstrip View and notice that the rendering both starts and finishes between the 3.0 and 3.5 second mark. The test is done using Chrome on what they call "Mobile 3G Fast".

2. Have some placeholder content whilst it's downloading

I poked around at the CSS to get some really basics out of it. The background color, the font color, the basic grid. I then copied that into the index.html as an inline stylesheet. You can see it here.

The second thing I did was to replace all <link rel="stylesheet" href="..."> meta tags with this:


<link rel="preload" href="FOO.css" as="style" onload="this.rel='stylesheet'">
<noscript><link rel="stylesheet" href="FOO.css"></noscript>

Also, near the bottom of the index.html I took the loadCSS.js and cssrelpreload.js scripts from Filament Group's loadCSS solution.

And lastly I copied the header text and the sub-title from the DOM, once rendered, plus added a little "Loading..." paragraph and put that into the DOM element that React mounts into once fully loaded.

Now the cool effect is that the render blocking CSS is gone. CSS loads AFTER some DOM rendering has happened. Yes, there's going to be an added delay when the browser has to re-render everything all over again, but at least now it appears that the site is working whilst you're waiting for the site to fully load. Much more user-friendly if you ask me.

Here's the test results on Webpagetest.org

A lot of blankness
Click on the first Filmstrip View and notice that some rendering started at the 0.9 second mark (instead of 3 seconds in the previous version). Then, after the browser notices that it's not the right font so it blanks the DOM, waits for the web font to load and around the time the web font is loaded, the JavaScript is loaded and ready so it starts rendering the final version at around the 2.8 second mark.

Note that the total time from start to finish is still the same. 3.1 second vs. 3.5 second. It's just that in this second version the user gets some indication that the site is alive and loading. I think the pulsating "Loading..." message puts the user at ease and although they're unhappy it still hasn't loaded I think it buys me a smidge of patience.

3. Hang on! Are web fonts really that important?

That FOIT is still pretty annoying though. When the browser realizes that the font is wrong, it makes the DOM blank until the right font has been loaded. My poor user has to stare at a blank screen for 1.3 seconds instad of seeing the "Loading..." message. Not only that but instead of just saying "Loading..." this could be an opportunity to display something more "constructive" that the user can actually start consuming with their eyes and brains. Then, by the time the full monty has been downloaded and ready the user will not have been waiting in vain.

So how important are those web fonts really? It's a nerdy app where search, content and aggregates matter more than the easthetic impression. Sure, a sexy looking site (no matter what the context/environment) does yield a better impression but there's tradeoffs to be made. If I can load it faster, my hunch is that that'll be more impressive than a pretty font. Secs sells.

I know there are possible good hacks to alleviate these FOIT problems. For example, in "How We Load Web Fonts Progressively" they first set the CSS to point to a system font-family, then, with a JavaScript polyfill they can know when the external web font has been downloaded and then they change the CSS. Cute and cool but it means yet another piece of JavaScript that has to be loaded. It also means "FOUT" (Flash Of Unstyled Text) which can disturb the view quite a lot if the changed font changes layout shifts.

Anyway, I decided I'll prefer fast loading over pretty font so I removed all font family hacks and references to the external font. Bye bye!

Here's the test results on Webpagetest.org

Click on the first Filmstrip View and notice that the rendering starts already at 1.2 seconds and stay with the "Loading..." message all the way till around 3.0 seconds when both the CSS and the full JavaScript has been loaded.

Side note; Lato vs. Helvetica Neue vs. Helvetica

You decide, is the Lato font that much prettier?

Lato

Lato

Helvetica Neue

Helvetica Neue

Helvetica

Helvetica

In Conclusion

PageSpeed Insights
I started this exploration trying to decide if there are better ways I can load my JavaScript files. I did some experiments with some server-side loading and async and defer. I scrutinized my ES6 code to see if there are things I can cut out. Perhaps I should switch to Preact instead of React but then I'd have to own the whole es-lint, babel and webpack config hell that create-react-app has eliminated and I'd get worried about not being able to benefit from awesome libraries like MobX and various routing libraries. However, when I was doing various measurements I noticed that all the tricks I tried, for a better loading experience, dwarfed in comparison to the render blocking CSS and the web font loading.

Service Workers is to web apps, what smartphone native apps are to mobile web pages in terms of loading performance. But Service Workers only work if you have a lot of repeat users.

If you want a fast loading experience and still have the convenience of building your app in a powerful JavaScript framework; focus on your CSS and your web font loading.

Podcasttime.io - How Much Time Do Your Podcasts Take To Listen To?

February 13, 2017
3 comments Python, Web development, Django, JavaScript, React

tl;dr; It's a web app where you search and find the podcasts you listen to. It then gives you a break down how much time that requires to keep up, per day, per week and per month. Podcasttime.io

Podcasttime.io on Firefox iOS
First I wrote some scripts to scrape various sources of podcasts. This is basically a RSS feed URL from which you can fetch the name and an image. And with some cron jobs you can download and parse each podcast feed and build up an index of how many episodes they have and how long each episode is. Together with each episodes "publish date" you can easily figure out an average of how much content each podcast puts out over time.

Suppose you listen to JavaScript Air, Talk Python To Me and Google Cloud Platform Podcast for example, that means you need to listen to podcasts for about 8 minutes per day to keep up.

The Back End

The technology is exciting. The backend is a Django 1.10 server. It manages a PostgreSQL database of all the podcasts, episodes, cron jobs etc. Through Django ORM signals is packages up each podcast with its metadata and stores it in an Elasticsearch database. All the communication between Django and ElasticSearch is done with Elasticsearch DSL.

Also, all the downloading and parsing of feeds is done as background tasks in Celery. This got really interesting/challenging because sooo many podcasts are poorly marked up and many a times the only way to find out how long an episode is is to use ffmpeg to probe it and that takes time.

Another biggish challenge is that fact that often things simply don't work because of networks being what they are, unreliable. So you have to re-attempt network calls without accidentally getting caught in infinite loops of accidentally putting a bad/broken RSS feed back into the background queue again and again and again.

The Front End

Actually, the first prototype of this app was written with Django as the front end plus some jQuery to tie things together. On a plane ride, and as an excuse to learn it, I re-wrote the whole thing in React with Redux. To be honest, I never really enjoyed that and it felt like everything was hard and I had to do more jumping-around-files than actual coding. In particular, Redux is nice but when you have a lot of AJAX both inside components and upon mounting it gets quite messy in my humble opinion.

So, on another plane ride (to Hawaii, so I had more time) I re-wrote it from scratch but this time using three beautiful pieces of front end technology: create-react-app, Mobx and mobx-router. Suddenly it became fun again. Mobx (or Redux or something "fluxy") is necessary if you want fancy pushState URLs AND a central (aka global) state management.

To be perfectly honest, I never actually tried combining Mobx with something like react-router or if it's even possible. But with mobx-router it's quite neat. You write a "views route map" (see example) where you can kick off AJAX before entering (and leaving) routes. Then you use that to populate a global store and now all components can be almost entirely about simply rendering the store. There is some AJAX within the mounted components (e.g. the search and autocomplete).

Plotly graph
On the home page, there's a chart that rather unscientifically plots episode durations over time as a line chart. I'm trying a library called Plotly which is actually a online app for building charts but they offer a free JavaScript library too for generating graphs. Not entirely sure how I feel about it yet but apart from looking a big crowded on mobile, it's working really well.

A Killer Feature

This is a pattern I've wanted to build but never managed to get right. The way to get data about a podcast (and its episodes) is to do an Elasticsearch search. From the homepage you basically call /find?q=Planet%20money when you search. That gives you almost all the information you need. So you store that in the global store. Then, if the user clicks on that particular podcast to go to its "perma page" you can simply load that podcast's individual route and you don't need to do something like /find?id=727 because you already have everything you need. If the user then opens that page in a new tab or reloads you now have to fetch just the one podcast, so you simply call /find?id=727. In other words, subsequent page loads load instantly! (Basically, it updates the store's podcast object upon clicking any of the podcasts iterated over from the listing. Code here)

And to top that - and this is where a good router shines - if you make a search or something, click something and click back since you have a global store of state, you can simply reuse that without needing another AJAX query.

The State of the Future

First of all, this is a fun little side project and it's probably buggy. My goal is not to make money on it but to build up a graph. Every time someone uses the site and finds the podcasts they listen to that slowly builds up connections. If you listen to "The Economist", "Planet Money" and "Freakonomics", that tie those together loosely. It's hard to programmatically know that those three podcasts are "related" but they are by "peoples' taste".

The ultimate goal of this is; now I can recommend other podcasts based on a given set. It's a little bit like LastFM used to work. Using Audioscrobbler LastFM was able to build up a graph based on what people preferred to listen to and using that network of knowledge they can recommend things you have not listened to but probably would appreciate.

At the moment, there's a simple Picks listing of "lists" (aka "picks") that people have chosen. With enough time and traffic I'll try to use Elasticsearch's X-Pack Graph capabilities to develop a search engine based on this.

At the time of writing, I've indexed 4,669 podcasts, spanning 611,025 episodes which equates to 549,722 hours of podcast content.

The Code

The front end code is available on github.com/peterbe/podcasttime2 and is relatively neat and tidy. The most interesting piece is probably the views/index.js which is the "controller" of things. That's where it decides which component to render, does the AJAX queries and manages the global store.

The back end code is a bit messier. It's done as an "app" as part of this very blog. The way the Elasticsearch indexing is configured is here and the hotch potch code for scraping and parsing RSS feeds is here.

Please try it out and show me your selection. You can drop feedback here.