Skip to main content

ReactJS Tip: CSS Transition Groups and Vendor Bundling

Every developer finding their way around ReactJS is going to come across CSS Transition Groups sooner or later. These helpful components built by the ReactJS team but distributed separately help to manage animations related to adding or removing elements from a list. This is important in ReactJS, because the virtual DOM reuses nodes as much as it can, meaning what seems like a new element but really be reusing nodes underneath.
You can read all about the ReactCSSTransitionGroup at the React documentation, but I want to note about one way you might trip integrating it with your project: building vendor bundles for your dependencies.
If you use Browserify to bundle your own code and its dependencies for distribution, you may be using the vendor bundle pattern. This is the practice of separating your distribution into two bundles: one containing your dependencies, including ReactJS itself, and one with your own project code. This is a good pattern because you can rebuild just your project bundle during development, allowing you to iterate much faster without rebuilding a large number of non-changing dependencies.
This tip is about what happens when you move to add ReactCSSTransitionGroup to your project by first installing the package.
npm install --save-dev react-addons-css-transition-group
and import this in the packages where you need to use it.
import ReactCSSTransitionGroup from 'react-addons-css-transition-group';
And now you have fundamentally broken your project. Why? Because the react-addons-css-transition-group module itself depends on react creating a second copy of ReactJS in your application bundle, in addition to the copy already in your vendor bundle. Operations through the CSS Transition Group will fail in strange ways, as happens when you have multiple copies of ReactJS in a single page.
The solution is simply to add this new module to your vendor bundle.
var vendor = browserify({
    debug: false,
    require: ['react', 'react-dom', 'react-addons-css-transition-group'],
});

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

CARDIAC: The Cardboard Computer

I am just so excited about this. CARDIAC. The Cardboard Computer. How cool is that? This piece of history is amazing and better than that: it is extremely accessible. This fantastic design was built in 1969 by David Hagelbarger at Bell Labs to explain what computers were to those who would otherwise have no exposure to them. Miraculously, the CARDIAC (CARDboard Interactive Aid to Computation) was able to actually function as a slow and rudimentary computer.  One of the most fascinating aspects of this gem is that at the time of its publication the scope it was able to demonstrate was actually useful in explaining what a computer was. Could you imagine trying to explain computers today with anything close to the CARDIAC? It had 100 memory locations and only ten instructions. The memory held signed 3-digit numbers (-999 through 999) and instructions could be encoded such that the first digit was the instruction and the second two digits were the address of memory to operate on

The Range of Content on Planet Python

I've gotten a number of requests lately to contribute only Python related material to the Planet Python feeds and to be honest these requests have both surprised and insulted me, but they've continued. I am pretty sure they've come from a very small number of people, but they have become consistent. This is probably because of my current habit of writing about NaNoWriMo every day and those who aren't interested not looking forward to having the rest of the month reading about my novel. Planet Python will be getting a feed of only relevant posts in the future, but I'm going to be honest: I am kind of upset about it. I don't care if anyone thinks it is unreasonable of me to be upset about it, because the truth is Planet Python means something to me. It was probably the first thing I did that I considered "being part of the community" when I submitted my meager RSS feed to be added some seven years ago. My blog and my name on the list of authors at Plan

Interrupting Coders Isn’t So Bad

Here’s a hot take: disrupting coders isn’t all that bad. Some disruptions are certainly bad but they usually aren’t. The coder community has overblown the impact. A disruption can be a good thing. How harmful disruption might be a symptom of other problems. There are different kinds of disruptions. They are caused by other coders on your team, managers and other non-coders, or meetings throughout the day. The easiest example to debunk is a question from a fellow developer. Imagine someone walks over to your desk or they ping you on Slack, because they have “one quick question.” Do you get annoyed at the interruption when you were in the middle of something important? You help out your teammate quickly and get back to work, trying to pick up where you left off. That’s a kind of interruption we complain about frequently, but I’m not convinced this is all that bad. You are being disrupted but your team, of which you are only one member of the whole unit, is working smoothly. You u