javascript - How do I update the grapqhl cache with urql upon a mutation, where the initial query response does not include the

admin管理员组

文章数量:1332619

My situation has 4 ponents nested within each other in this order: Products (page), ProductList, ProductListItem, and CrossSellForm.

Products executes a graphql query (using urql) as such:

const productsQuery = `
  query {
    products {
      id
      title
      imageSrc
      crossSells {
        id
        type
        title
      }
    }
  }
`;

...

const [response] = useQuery({
    query: productsQuery,
  });
  const { data: { products = [] } = {}, fetching, error } = response;

...

 <ProductList products={products} />

products returns an array of Products that contains a field, crossSells, that returns an array of CrossSells. Products is propagated downwards to CrossSellForm, which contains a mutation query that returns an array of CrossSells.

The problem is that when I submit the crossSellForm the request goes through successfully but the crossSells up in Products does not update, and the UI reflects stale data. This only happens when the initial fetch up in Products contains no crossSells, so the initial response looks something like this:

{
data: {
      products: [
        {
          id: '123123',
          title: 'Nice',
          imageSrc: '',
          crossSells: [],
          __typename: "Product"
        },
        ...
      ]
    }
}
}

If there is an existing crossSell, there is no problem, the ui updates properly and the response looks like this:

{
  data: {
      products: [
        {
          id: '123123',
          title: 'Nice',
          imageSrc: '',
          crossSells: [
            {
              id: 40,
              title: 'Nice Stuff',
              type: 'byVendor',
              __typename: 'CrossSell'
            }
          ],
          __typename: "Product"
        },
        ...
      ]
    }
  }
}

I read up a bit on urql's caching mechanism at / and from what I understand it uses a document cache, so it caches the document based on __typename. If a query requests something with a the same __typename it will pull it from the cache. If a mutation occurs with the same __typename it will invalidate all objects in the cache with that __typename so the next time the user fetches an object with that __typename it will execute a network request instead of cache.

What I think is going on is in the initial situation where there are products but no crossSells the form submission is successful but the Products page does not update because there is no reference to an object with __typename of CrossSell, but in the second situation there is so it busts the cache and executes the query again, refreshes products and cross-sells and the UI is properly updated.

I've really enjoyed the experience of using urql hooks with React ponents and want to continue but I'm not sure how I can fix this problem without reaching for another tool.

I've tried to force a re-render upon form submission using tips from: How can I force ponent to re-render with hooks in React? but it runs into the same problem where Products will fetch from the cache again and crossSells will return an empty array. I thought about modifying urql's RequestPolicy to network only, along with the forced re-render, but I thought that would be unnecessarily expensive to re-fetch every single time. The solution I'm trying out now is to move all the state into redux, a single source of truth so that any update to crossSells will propagate properly, and although I'm sure it will work it will also mean I'll trade in a lot of the convenience I had with hooks for standard redux boilerplate.

How can I gracefully update Products with crossSells upon submitting the form within CrossSellForm, while still using urql and hooks?

My situation has 4 ponents nested within each other in this order: Products (page), ProductList, ProductListItem, and CrossSellForm.

Products executes a graphql query (using urql) as such:

const productsQuery = `
  query {
    products {
      id
      title
      imageSrc
      crossSells {
        id
        type
        title
      }
    }
  }
`;

...

const [response] = useQuery({
    query: productsQuery,
  });
  const { data: { products = [] } = {}, fetching, error } = response;

...

 <ProductList products={products} />

products returns an array of Products that contains a field, crossSells, that returns an array of CrossSells. Products is propagated downwards to CrossSellForm, which contains a mutation query that returns an array of CrossSells.

The problem is that when I submit the crossSellForm the request goes through successfully but the crossSells up in Products does not update, and the UI reflects stale data. This only happens when the initial fetch up in Products contains no crossSells, so the initial response looks something like this:

{
data: {
      products: [
        {
          id: '123123',
          title: 'Nice',
          imageSrc: 'https://image.',
          crossSells: [],
          __typename: "Product"
        },
        ...
      ]
    }
}
}

If there is an existing crossSell, there is no problem, the ui updates properly and the response looks like this:

{
  data: {
      products: [
        {
          id: '123123',
          title: 'Nice',
          imageSrc: 'https://image.',
          crossSells: [
            {
              id: 40,
              title: 'Nice Stuff',
              type: 'byVendor',
              __typename: 'CrossSell'
            }
          ],
          __typename: "Product"
        },
        ...
      ]
    }
  }
}

I read up a bit on urql's caching mechanism at https://formidable./open-source/urql/docs/basics/ and from what I understand it uses a document cache, so it caches the document based on __typename. If a query requests something with a the same __typename it will pull it from the cache. If a mutation occurs with the same __typename it will invalidate all objects in the cache with that __typename so the next time the user fetches an object with that __typename it will execute a network request instead of cache.

What I think is going on is in the initial situation where there are products but no crossSells the form submission is successful but the Products page does not update because there is no reference to an object with __typename of CrossSell, but in the second situation there is so it busts the cache and executes the query again, refreshes products and cross-sells and the UI is properly updated.

I've really enjoyed the experience of using urql hooks with React ponents and want to continue but I'm not sure how I can fix this problem without reaching for another tool.

I've tried to force a re-render upon form submission using tips from: How can I force ponent to re-render with hooks in React? but it runs into the same problem where Products will fetch from the cache again and crossSells will return an empty array. I thought about modifying urql's RequestPolicy to network only, along with the forced re-render, but I thought that would be unnecessarily expensive to re-fetch every single time. The solution I'm trying out now is to move all the state into redux, a single source of truth so that any update to crossSells will propagate properly, and although I'm sure it will work it will also mean I'll trade in a lot of the convenience I had with hooks for standard redux boilerplate.

How can I gracefully update Products with crossSells upon submitting the form within CrossSellForm, while still using urql and hooks?

• javascript
• reactjs
• caching
• graphql
• urql

Share Improve this question Follow edited Nov 11, 2019 at 0:27 Kyle Truong asked Sep 7, 2019 at 17:43 Kyle TruongKyle Truong 2,76199 gold badges3636 silver badges5555 bronze badges 1

• I dug a bit more and found a similar issue in the repo's github: github./FormidableLabs/urql/issues/212 There seems to be a normalized cache exchange under development that can replace the default one in urql: github./FormidableLabs/urql-exchange-graphcache. I briefly looked into it but it seemed to require a bit more configuration out of the box for my use-case and I decided that using redux would be simpler. – Kyle Truong Commented Sep 7, 2019 at 21:09

Add a ment  | 

1 Answer 1

Sorted by: Reset to default 8

core contributor here

本文标签：