Ensuring React state has updated for game loop











up vote
4
down vote

favorite












I am writing a version of Conway's Game of Life in React. The component's state contains the grid describing which of the cells is alive at the current time. In each game loop, the new grid is calculated and the state is updated with the next iteration.



It occurs to me that since setState is asynchronous, when repeatedly calling the iterate function with setInterval, I am not guaranteed to be using the current version of grid each time iterate runs.



Is there an alternative to using setInterval in React that would avoid any potential issues caused by setState being asynchronous?



Here are the relevant functions that describe the game loop:



  go = () => {
const { tickInterval } = this.state;
this.timerId = setInterval(this.iterate, 570 - tickInterval);
this.setState({
running: true,
});
};

iterate = () => {
const { grid, gridSize, ticks } = this.state;
const nextGrid = getNextIteration(grid, gridSize);
this.setState({
grid: nextGrid,
ticks: ticks + 1,
});
};









share|improve this question


















  • 1




    setState can take a callback function which executes after the new state has completely propagated.
    – MTCoster
    Nov 19 at 14:06










  • With this.timerId coming from setInterval, I can easily stop the loop by calling clearInterval. Using callbacks, I guess the callback function would be using setTimeout? What would be the way to stop a loop consisting of callback functions?
    – wbruntra
    Nov 19 at 14:15















up vote
4
down vote

favorite












I am writing a version of Conway's Game of Life in React. The component's state contains the grid describing which of the cells is alive at the current time. In each game loop, the new grid is calculated and the state is updated with the next iteration.



It occurs to me that since setState is asynchronous, when repeatedly calling the iterate function with setInterval, I am not guaranteed to be using the current version of grid each time iterate runs.



Is there an alternative to using setInterval in React that would avoid any potential issues caused by setState being asynchronous?



Here are the relevant functions that describe the game loop:



  go = () => {
const { tickInterval } = this.state;
this.timerId = setInterval(this.iterate, 570 - tickInterval);
this.setState({
running: true,
});
};

iterate = () => {
const { grid, gridSize, ticks } = this.state;
const nextGrid = getNextIteration(grid, gridSize);
this.setState({
grid: nextGrid,
ticks: ticks + 1,
});
};









share|improve this question


















  • 1




    setState can take a callback function which executes after the new state has completely propagated.
    – MTCoster
    Nov 19 at 14:06










  • With this.timerId coming from setInterval, I can easily stop the loop by calling clearInterval. Using callbacks, I guess the callback function would be using setTimeout? What would be the way to stop a loop consisting of callback functions?
    – wbruntra
    Nov 19 at 14:15













up vote
4
down vote

favorite









up vote
4
down vote

favorite











I am writing a version of Conway's Game of Life in React. The component's state contains the grid describing which of the cells is alive at the current time. In each game loop, the new grid is calculated and the state is updated with the next iteration.



It occurs to me that since setState is asynchronous, when repeatedly calling the iterate function with setInterval, I am not guaranteed to be using the current version of grid each time iterate runs.



Is there an alternative to using setInterval in React that would avoid any potential issues caused by setState being asynchronous?



Here are the relevant functions that describe the game loop:



  go = () => {
const { tickInterval } = this.state;
this.timerId = setInterval(this.iterate, 570 - tickInterval);
this.setState({
running: true,
});
};

iterate = () => {
const { grid, gridSize, ticks } = this.state;
const nextGrid = getNextIteration(grid, gridSize);
this.setState({
grid: nextGrid,
ticks: ticks + 1,
});
};









share|improve this question













I am writing a version of Conway's Game of Life in React. The component's state contains the grid describing which of the cells is alive at the current time. In each game loop, the new grid is calculated and the state is updated with the next iteration.



It occurs to me that since setState is asynchronous, when repeatedly calling the iterate function with setInterval, I am not guaranteed to be using the current version of grid each time iterate runs.



Is there an alternative to using setInterval in React that would avoid any potential issues caused by setState being asynchronous?



Here are the relevant functions that describe the game loop:



  go = () => {
const { tickInterval } = this.state;
this.timerId = setInterval(this.iterate, 570 - tickInterval);
this.setState({
running: true,
});
};

iterate = () => {
const { grid, gridSize, ticks } = this.state;
const nextGrid = getNextIteration(grid, gridSize);
this.setState({
grid: nextGrid,
ticks: ticks + 1,
});
};






javascript reactjs






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Nov 19 at 14:03









wbruntra

425414




425414








  • 1




    setState can take a callback function which executes after the new state has completely propagated.
    – MTCoster
    Nov 19 at 14:06










  • With this.timerId coming from setInterval, I can easily stop the loop by calling clearInterval. Using callbacks, I guess the callback function would be using setTimeout? What would be the way to stop a loop consisting of callback functions?
    – wbruntra
    Nov 19 at 14:15














  • 1




    setState can take a callback function which executes after the new state has completely propagated.
    – MTCoster
    Nov 19 at 14:06










  • With this.timerId coming from setInterval, I can easily stop the loop by calling clearInterval. Using callbacks, I guess the callback function would be using setTimeout? What would be the way to stop a loop consisting of callback functions?
    – wbruntra
    Nov 19 at 14:15








1




1




setState can take a callback function which executes after the new state has completely propagated.
– MTCoster
Nov 19 at 14:06




setState can take a callback function which executes after the new state has completely propagated.
– MTCoster
Nov 19 at 14:06












With this.timerId coming from setInterval, I can easily stop the loop by calling clearInterval. Using callbacks, I guess the callback function would be using setTimeout? What would be the way to stop a loop consisting of callback functions?
– wbruntra
Nov 19 at 14:15




With this.timerId coming from setInterval, I can easily stop the loop by calling clearInterval. Using callbacks, I guess the callback function would be using setTimeout? What would be the way to stop a loop consisting of callback functions?
– wbruntra
Nov 19 at 14:15












3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
1
down vote



accepted










If you need to set state based on a current state, it is wrong to directly rely on this.state, because it may be updated asynchronously. What you need to do is to pass a function to setState instead of an object:



this.setState((state, props) => ({
// updated state
}));


And in your case it would be something like:



iterate = () => {

this.setState(state => {
const { grid, gridSize, ticks } = state;
const nextGrid = getNextIteration(grid, gridSize);
return {
grid: nextGrid,
ticks: ticks + 1
}
});

};





share|improve this answer




























    up vote
    0
    down vote













    SetState is Asynchronous



    this.setState({
    running: true,
    });


    To make it synchronously execute a method:



    this.setState({
    value: true
    }, function() {
    this.functionCall()
    })





    share|improve this answer




























      up vote
      0
      down vote













      If you have a look at the react official documentation, the setState api does take a callback in following format:



      setState(updater[, callback])


      Here the first argument will be your modified state object and second argument would be callback function to be executed when setState has completed execution.



      As per the official docs:




      setState() does not always immediately update the component. It may
      batch or defer the update until later. This makes reading this.state
      right after calling setState() a potential pitfall. Instead, use
      componentDidUpdate or a setState callback (setState(updater,
      callback)), either of which are guaranteed to fire after the update
      has been applied. If you need to set the state based on the previous
      state, read about the updater argument below.




      You can have a look at official docs to get more information on this.






      share|improve this answer





















      • If I understood the docs correctly, I don't actually need to use the callback, the first argument supplied to the updater function will use the most up-to-date version of state, so I think the answer from streletss is easier to implement.
        – wbruntra
        Nov 24 at 14:54













      Your Answer






      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
      StackExchange.snippets.init();
      });
      });
      }, "code-snippets");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "1"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53376333%2fensuring-react-state-has-updated-for-game-loop%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes








      up vote
      1
      down vote



      accepted










      If you need to set state based on a current state, it is wrong to directly rely on this.state, because it may be updated asynchronously. What you need to do is to pass a function to setState instead of an object:



      this.setState((state, props) => ({
      // updated state
      }));


      And in your case it would be something like:



      iterate = () => {

      this.setState(state => {
      const { grid, gridSize, ticks } = state;
      const nextGrid = getNextIteration(grid, gridSize);
      return {
      grid: nextGrid,
      ticks: ticks + 1
      }
      });

      };





      share|improve this answer

























        up vote
        1
        down vote



        accepted










        If you need to set state based on a current state, it is wrong to directly rely on this.state, because it may be updated asynchronously. What you need to do is to pass a function to setState instead of an object:



        this.setState((state, props) => ({
        // updated state
        }));


        And in your case it would be something like:



        iterate = () => {

        this.setState(state => {
        const { grid, gridSize, ticks } = state;
        const nextGrid = getNextIteration(grid, gridSize);
        return {
        grid: nextGrid,
        ticks: ticks + 1
        }
        });

        };





        share|improve this answer























          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted







          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted






          If you need to set state based on a current state, it is wrong to directly rely on this.state, because it may be updated asynchronously. What you need to do is to pass a function to setState instead of an object:



          this.setState((state, props) => ({
          // updated state
          }));


          And in your case it would be something like:



          iterate = () => {

          this.setState(state => {
          const { grid, gridSize, ticks } = state;
          const nextGrid = getNextIteration(grid, gridSize);
          return {
          grid: nextGrid,
          ticks: ticks + 1
          }
          });

          };





          share|improve this answer












          If you need to set state based on a current state, it is wrong to directly rely on this.state, because it may be updated asynchronously. What you need to do is to pass a function to setState instead of an object:



          this.setState((state, props) => ({
          // updated state
          }));


          And in your case it would be something like:



          iterate = () => {

          this.setState(state => {
          const { grid, gridSize, ticks } = state;
          const nextGrid = getNextIteration(grid, gridSize);
          return {
          grid: nextGrid,
          ticks: ticks + 1
          }
          });

          };






          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Nov 19 at 14:52









          streletss

          2,035321




          2,035321
























              up vote
              0
              down vote













              SetState is Asynchronous



              this.setState({
              running: true,
              });


              To make it synchronously execute a method:



              this.setState({
              value: true
              }, function() {
              this.functionCall()
              })





              share|improve this answer

























                up vote
                0
                down vote













                SetState is Asynchronous



                this.setState({
                running: true,
                });


                To make it synchronously execute a method:



                this.setState({
                value: true
                }, function() {
                this.functionCall()
                })





                share|improve this answer























                  up vote
                  0
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  0
                  down vote









                  SetState is Asynchronous



                  this.setState({
                  running: true,
                  });


                  To make it synchronously execute a method:



                  this.setState({
                  value: true
                  }, function() {
                  this.functionCall()
                  })





                  share|improve this answer












                  SetState is Asynchronous



                  this.setState({
                  running: true,
                  });


                  To make it synchronously execute a method:



                  this.setState({
                  value: true
                  }, function() {
                  this.functionCall()
                  })






                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Nov 19 at 14:36









                  J Dorrian

                  1156




                  1156






















                      up vote
                      0
                      down vote













                      If you have a look at the react official documentation, the setState api does take a callback in following format:



                      setState(updater[, callback])


                      Here the first argument will be your modified state object and second argument would be callback function to be executed when setState has completed execution.



                      As per the official docs:




                      setState() does not always immediately update the component. It may
                      batch or defer the update until later. This makes reading this.state
                      right after calling setState() a potential pitfall. Instead, use
                      componentDidUpdate or a setState callback (setState(updater,
                      callback)), either of which are guaranteed to fire after the update
                      has been applied. If you need to set the state based on the previous
                      state, read about the updater argument below.




                      You can have a look at official docs to get more information on this.






                      share|improve this answer





















                      • If I understood the docs correctly, I don't actually need to use the callback, the first argument supplied to the updater function will use the most up-to-date version of state, so I think the answer from streletss is easier to implement.
                        – wbruntra
                        Nov 24 at 14:54

















                      up vote
                      0
                      down vote













                      If you have a look at the react official documentation, the setState api does take a callback in following format:



                      setState(updater[, callback])


                      Here the first argument will be your modified state object and second argument would be callback function to be executed when setState has completed execution.



                      As per the official docs:




                      setState() does not always immediately update the component. It may
                      batch or defer the update until later. This makes reading this.state
                      right after calling setState() a potential pitfall. Instead, use
                      componentDidUpdate or a setState callback (setState(updater,
                      callback)), either of which are guaranteed to fire after the update
                      has been applied. If you need to set the state based on the previous
                      state, read about the updater argument below.




                      You can have a look at official docs to get more information on this.






                      share|improve this answer





















                      • If I understood the docs correctly, I don't actually need to use the callback, the first argument supplied to the updater function will use the most up-to-date version of state, so I think the answer from streletss is easier to implement.
                        – wbruntra
                        Nov 24 at 14:54















                      up vote
                      0
                      down vote










                      up vote
                      0
                      down vote









                      If you have a look at the react official documentation, the setState api does take a callback in following format:



                      setState(updater[, callback])


                      Here the first argument will be your modified state object and second argument would be callback function to be executed when setState has completed execution.



                      As per the official docs:




                      setState() does not always immediately update the component. It may
                      batch or defer the update until later. This makes reading this.state
                      right after calling setState() a potential pitfall. Instead, use
                      componentDidUpdate or a setState callback (setState(updater,
                      callback)), either of which are guaranteed to fire after the update
                      has been applied. If you need to set the state based on the previous
                      state, read about the updater argument below.




                      You can have a look at official docs to get more information on this.






                      share|improve this answer












                      If you have a look at the react official documentation, the setState api does take a callback in following format:



                      setState(updater[, callback])


                      Here the first argument will be your modified state object and second argument would be callback function to be executed when setState has completed execution.



                      As per the official docs:




                      setState() does not always immediately update the component. It may
                      batch or defer the update until later. This makes reading this.state
                      right after calling setState() a potential pitfall. Instead, use
                      componentDidUpdate or a setState callback (setState(updater,
                      callback)), either of which are guaranteed to fire after the update
                      has been applied. If you need to set the state based on the previous
                      state, read about the updater argument below.




                      You can have a look at official docs to get more information on this.







                      share|improve this answer












                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer










                      answered Nov 19 at 14:42









                      Pranay Tripathi

                      510311




                      510311












                      • If I understood the docs correctly, I don't actually need to use the callback, the first argument supplied to the updater function will use the most up-to-date version of state, so I think the answer from streletss is easier to implement.
                        – wbruntra
                        Nov 24 at 14:54




















                      • If I understood the docs correctly, I don't actually need to use the callback, the first argument supplied to the updater function will use the most up-to-date version of state, so I think the answer from streletss is easier to implement.
                        – wbruntra
                        Nov 24 at 14:54


















                      If I understood the docs correctly, I don't actually need to use the callback, the first argument supplied to the updater function will use the most up-to-date version of state, so I think the answer from streletss is easier to implement.
                      – wbruntra
                      Nov 24 at 14:54






                      If I understood the docs correctly, I don't actually need to use the callback, the first argument supplied to the updater function will use the most up-to-date version of state, so I think the answer from streletss is easier to implement.
                      – wbruntra
                      Nov 24 at 14:54




















                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                      Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                      Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53376333%2fensuring-react-state-has-updated-for-game-loop%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      If I really need a card on my start hand, how many mulligans make sense? [duplicate]

                      Alcedinidae

                      Can an atomic nucleus contain both particles and antiparticles? [duplicate]