ReactJS defaultProps empty function declaration












3















What is the best practice defining a function defaultProps that is empty in ReactJS?



My solution so far is either an empty arrow function or a null value. Which way would be better?



MyComponent.defaultProps = {

  onClick: () => {},

  onClickNull: null,

};





javascript reactjs







share|improve this question


















  • 1





    I think this depends on the situation whether "null" could mean something in your code. "null" means having no data, so if your code has a logic that handles differently whether onClick is defined or not, then null else use the null object pattern by declaring () => {}.

    – Sung M. Kim
    Jan 3 at 16:09






  • 2





    It's entirely up to you. If you want your code to know whether the function was provided, use null or undefined or leave the property off the defaults. If you don't need your code to know and want to be able to use it without any checks, use the no-op function. (I usually create a single no-op function I reuse, although with modern engines I guess there's really no good reason for that...)

    – T.J. Crowder
    Jan 3 at 16:10











  • The "no-op" term seems new to me. Thank you for your answer and the new dev term I gained @T.J.Crowder :p

    – dmraptis
    Jan 3 at 16:54
















3















What is the best practice defining a function defaultProps that is empty in ReactJS?



My solution so far is either an empty arrow function or a null value. Which way would be better?



MyComponent.defaultProps = {

  onClick: () => {},

  onClickNull: null,

};





javascript reactjs







share|improve this question


















  • 1





    I think this depends on the situation whether "null" could mean something in your code. "null" means having no data, so if your code has a logic that handles differently whether onClick is defined or not, then null else use the null object pattern by declaring () => {}.

    – Sung M. Kim
    Jan 3 at 16:09






  • 2





    It's entirely up to you. If you want your code to know whether the function was provided, use null or undefined or leave the property off the defaults. If you don't need your code to know and want to be able to use it without any checks, use the no-op function. (I usually create a single no-op function I reuse, although with modern engines I guess there's really no good reason for that...)

    – T.J. Crowder
    Jan 3 at 16:10











  • The "no-op" term seems new to me. Thank you for your answer and the new dev term I gained @T.J.Crowder :p

    – dmraptis
    Jan 3 at 16:54














3












3








3








What is the best practice defining a function defaultProps that is empty in ReactJS?



My solution so far is either an empty arrow function or a null value. Which way would be better?



MyComponent.defaultProps = {

  onClick: () => {},

  onClickNull: null,

};





javascript reactjs







share|improve this question














What is the best practice defining a function defaultProps that is empty in ReactJS?



My solution so far is either an empty arrow function or a null value. Which way would be better?



MyComponent.defaultProps = {

  onClick: () => {},

  onClickNull: null,

};





javascript reactjs




javascript reactjs






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Jan 3 at 16:06









dmraptisdmraptis

143210




143210








  • 1





    I think this depends on the situation whether "null" could mean something in your code. "null" means having no data, so if your code has a logic that handles differently whether onClick is defined or not, then null else use the null object pattern by declaring () => {}.

    – Sung M. Kim
    Jan 3 at 16:09






  • 2





    It's entirely up to you. If you want your code to know whether the function was provided, use null or undefined or leave the property off the defaults. If you don't need your code to know and want to be able to use it without any checks, use the no-op function. (I usually create a single no-op function I reuse, although with modern engines I guess there's really no good reason for that...)

    – T.J. Crowder
    Jan 3 at 16:10











  • The "no-op" term seems new to me. Thank you for your answer and the new dev term I gained @T.J.Crowder :p

    – dmraptis
    Jan 3 at 16:54














  • 1





    I think this depends on the situation whether "null" could mean something in your code. "null" means having no data, so if your code has a logic that handles differently whether onClick is defined or not, then null else use the null object pattern by declaring () => {}.

    – Sung M. Kim
    Jan 3 at 16:09






  • 2





    It's entirely up to you. If you want your code to know whether the function was provided, use null or undefined or leave the property off the defaults. If you don't need your code to know and want to be able to use it without any checks, use the no-op function. (I usually create a single no-op function I reuse, although with modern engines I guess there's really no good reason for that...)

    – T.J. Crowder
    Jan 3 at 16:10











  • The "no-op" term seems new to me. Thank you for your answer and the new dev term I gained @T.J.Crowder :p

    – dmraptis
    Jan 3 at 16:54








1




1





I think this depends on the situation whether "null" could mean something in your code. "null" means having no data, so if your code has a logic that handles differently whether onClick is defined or not, then null else use the null object pattern by declaring () => {}.

– Sung M. Kim
Jan 3 at 16:09





I think this depends on the situation whether "null" could mean something in your code. "null" means having no data, so if your code has a logic that handles differently whether onClick is defined or not, then null else use the null object pattern by declaring () => {}.

– Sung M. Kim
Jan 3 at 16:09




2




2





It's entirely up to you. If you want your code to know whether the function was provided, use null or undefined or leave the property off the defaults. If you don't need your code to know and want to be able to use it without any checks, use the no-op function. (I usually create a single no-op function I reuse, although with modern engines I guess there's really no good reason for that...)

– T.J. Crowder
Jan 3 at 16:10





It's entirely up to you. If you want your code to know whether the function was provided, use null or undefined or leave the property off the defaults. If you don't need your code to know and want to be able to use it without any checks, use the no-op function. (I usually create a single no-op function I reuse, although with modern engines I guess there's really no good reason for that...)

– T.J. Crowder
Jan 3 at 16:10













The "no-op" term seems new to me. Thank you for your answer and the new dev term I gained @T.J.Crowder :p

– dmraptis
Jan 3 at 16:54





The "no-op" term seems new to me. Thank you for your answer and the new dev term I gained @T.J.Crowder :p

– dmraptis
Jan 3 at 16:54












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















1














I don't think there is a right answer for this.



If you want to be more explicit in your code, go with the null and check if the function is null before calling it.



If you want to have less code, go with empty function.



The more important thing I would say, is to be consistent in the entire project.






share|improve this answer
























  • My main concern was the possibility of performance issues using an empty function. However, your point of view helped me clarify it, thanks @Anas !!

    – dmraptis
    Jan 3 at 16:49












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',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
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%2f54025892%2freactjs-defaultprops-empty-function-declaration%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









1














I don't think there is a right answer for this.



If you want to be more explicit in your code, go with the null and check if the function is null before calling it.



If you want to have less code, go with empty function.



The more important thing I would say, is to be consistent in the entire project.






share|improve this answer
























  • My main concern was the possibility of performance issues using an empty function. However, your point of view helped me clarify it, thanks @Anas !!

    – dmraptis
    Jan 3 at 16:49
















1














I don't think there is a right answer for this.



If you want to be more explicit in your code, go with the null and check if the function is null before calling it.



If you want to have less code, go with empty function.



The more important thing I would say, is to be consistent in the entire project.






share|improve this answer
























  • My main concern was the possibility of performance issues using an empty function. However, your point of view helped me clarify it, thanks @Anas !!

    – dmraptis
    Jan 3 at 16:49














1












1








1







I don't think there is a right answer for this.



If you want to be more explicit in your code, go with the null and check if the function is null before calling it.



If you want to have less code, go with empty function.



The more important thing I would say, is to be consistent in the entire project.






share|improve this answer













I don't think there is a right answer for this.



If you want to be more explicit in your code, go with the null and check if the function is null before calling it.



If you want to have less code, go with empty function.



The more important thing I would say, is to be consistent in the entire project.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Jan 3 at 16:10









AnasAnas

3,92533161




3,92533161













  • My main concern was the possibility of performance issues using an empty function. However, your point of view helped me clarify it, thanks @Anas !!

    – dmraptis
    Jan 3 at 16:49



















  • My main concern was the possibility of performance issues using an empty function. However, your point of view helped me clarify it, thanks @Anas !!

    – dmraptis
    Jan 3 at 16:49

















My main concern was the possibility of performance issues using an empty function. However, your point of view helped me clarify it, thanks @Anas !!

– dmraptis
Jan 3 at 16:49





My main concern was the possibility of performance issues using an empty function. However, your point of view helped me clarify it, thanks @Anas !!

– dmraptis
Jan 3 at 16:49




















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.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f54025892%2freactjs-defaultprops-empty-function-declaration%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

Monofisismo

Image
Monofisismo (do grego: monos - "único, singular" e physis - "natureza") é o ponto de vista cristológico que defende que, depois da união do divino e do humano na encarnação histórica, Jesus Cristo, como encarnação do Filho ou Verbo ( Logos ) de Deus, teria apenas uma única "natureza", a divina, e não uma síntese de ambas. O monofisismo é contraposto pelo diofisismo (ou "diafisismo"), que defende que Jesus preservou em si as duas naturezas. Historicamente, o monofisismo se refere primordialmente à posição dos que (especialmente no Egito e, em menor grau, na Síria) rejeitaram as decisões do Concílio de Calcedônia em 451 (o quarto concílio ecumênico). Os membros mais moderados entre eles, porém, defendem a teologia "miafisita", que se tornou a oficial para as Igrejas Ortodoxas Orientais. Muitos ortodoxos orientais, porém, rejeitam essa classificação, mesmo como um termo genérico, mas ele é amplamente utilizado na literatura históri...
Read more

Angular Downloading a file using contenturl with Basic Authentication

Image
0 I have a contentUrl when user clicks on that,file should be downloaded. If I try to browse the contentUrl in the browser it asks for Userid and password.I believe this is Basic Authentication.I dont want user to enter UserId and Password so I am passing it Authorization(Please see below code). Url looks some thing like this: http://XXX.XXX.XX.XXX:8080/flowable-rest/service/runtime/tasks/90875/attachments/90555/content let username : string = 'admin'; let pwd : string = 'test'; let headers = new Headers(); headers.set('Accept', 'text/json'); headers.append('Content-Type', 'application/json'); headers.set('Access-Control-Allow-Origin', '*'); headers.set('Access-Control-Allow-Methods','POST, GET, OPTIONS, PUT, DELETE'); head...
Read more

Olmecas

Image
Monumento 1, uma das quatro cabeças colossais encontradas em La Venta, com altura aproximada de 3 metros Olmecas é a designação do povo e da civilização que estiveram na origem da antiga cultura pré-colombiana da Mesoamérica e que se desenvolveram nas regiões tropicais do centro-sul do atual México durante o pré-clássico, próximo de onde hoje estão localizados os estados mexicanos de Veracruz e Tabasco, no Istmo de Tehuantepec, numa zona designada área nuclear olmeca. A cultura olmeca floresceu nesta região aproximadamente entre 1500 e 400 a.C., [ 1 ] e crê-se que tenha sido a civilização-mãe de todas as civilizações mesoamericanas que se desenvolveram posteriormente. [ 2 ] No entanto, desconhece-se a sua exacta filiação étnica, ainda que existam numerosas hipóteses colocadas para tentar resolver esta questão. O etnónimo olmeca foi cunhado pelos arqueólogos do século XX, e não devem confundir-se com os muito posteriores olmecas-xicalancas que ocuparam vários locais do México...
Read more