I have 2 routes:
<Route path="/hello/:name" component={A}>
<Route path="/hello/custom/:name" component={B}>
Now when I navigate to /hello/custom/aPerson. Component A and B are called. How can I avoid that? Currently I have to add logic to component A to check its param :name to see if any "/" is used. If so, I disable component A.
The fix is to add exact to the routes.
<Route exact path="/hello/:name" component={A}>
<Route exact path="/hello/custom/:name" component={B}>
Related
TypeError: Cannot read properties of undefined (reading 'pathname')
What is the problem?
My code
import {BrowserRouter as Routes, Route, Router} from "react-router-dom";
const App = () => {
return (
<div className={stl.container}>
<Header/>
<Nav/>
<Router>
<Routes>
<Route path='/messages' element={<Messages/>}/>
<Route path='/profile' element={<ProfileContent/>}/>
</Routes>
</Router>
</div>
);
}
Maybe something is wrong with your environment. I had the same issue, reinstalling packages really helped me.
Fix the imports. You're importing BrowserRouter as Routes.
import { BrowserRouter as Router, Routes, Route } from "react-router-dom";
Move the Nav component into the Router so it has a routing context provided to it. Any Link components rendered need the routing context.
const App = () => {
return (
<div className={stl.container}>
<Router>
<Header/>
<Nav/>
<Routes>
<Route path='/messages' element={<Messages/>} />
<Route path='/profile' element={<ProfileContent/>} />
</Routes>
</Router>
</div>
);
}
If the code still isn't working then check your installed version of react-router-dom from your project's directory run:
npm list react-router-dom
If it is any v6.x version then you should be good. If there's still issue though then I suggest uninstalling and reinstalling react-router-dom.
npm un -s react-router-dom
npm i -s react-router-dom
then run the list command above to validate/verify the installed version.
The issue is due to you cannot pass an 'undefined' or 'null' value to the attribute, like in my case, I could have added a null-check, but I chose to add a "/" before it, as shown
Remove "/" from the beginning of the path attribute in Route component.
Ex: <Route path='messages' element={}/>.
Also give the same value to the "to" attribute in Link Component
Ex: Messages
Must Use Attribute (to="#") with Link and see that this will run
import is in wrong way,
import like this
import {BrowserRouter as Router, Routes, Route} from 'react-router-dom'
correct sequence is Router then Routes then Route
You are importing Routes Route Router :)
i'm trying to use nested routing in react router. But my nesting routig not working. If that's make diffrence i'm using Typescript.
//This is working
<Route exact path={path} component={StudentList}></Route>
//This is not working
<Route path={`${path}/:id`} component={StudentComponent}></Route>
I have a module called StudentModule. In module a have two routes like above when i route to
/students/1 nothing render
I created a sample app on CodeSandbox
https://codesandbox.io/s/vibrant-pasteur-n1eq7
To see what's wrong, navigate to students in menu then click student. It's needs to render StudentComponent and writes Student works on the screen.
Pls help me what's wrong in my code ?
At your main router, you declared
<Route exact path="/students" component={StudentModule} />
Because you set path to be exact from one hand, and not declare path as students*, while navigate to students/1, you aren't entering into the Route which holds the sub-router at all.
In component StudentModule, please declare the variable id, I think you have missed it and string literal is understanding the id as general string.
And pass the url like
<Route exact path={`${path}/${id}`} component={StudentComponent}></Route>
Find the updated code below:
import React from "react";
import { useEffect } from "react";
import { Route, Switch, useRouteMatch } from "react-router-dom";
import StudentComponent from "./Student";
import StudentList from "./StudentList";
export default function StudentModule() {
let { path } = useRouteMatch();
let id = 1;
useEffect(() => {
console.log(path);
});
return (
<Switch>
<Route exact path={path} component={StudentList}></Route>
<Route exact path={`${path}/${id}`} component={StudentComponent}></Route>
</Switch>
);
}
try it, hope this will be helpful.
In order to handle authentication / conditional routing in my App, I decided to bring in a HOC component that, based on a switch statement, checks whether a component should be rendered or not.
Of course I could get the same by defining the conditions in the components themselves, but now it allows me to have a single file to handle this.
However, using the useHistory() hook seems to return history as undefined. Likely since my app Routes are not written in a conventional way (AllowAccess is the HOC component here):
<Router>
<Switch>
<Route exact path='/success' component={AllowAccess(SuccessComponent)}></Route>
<Route render={() => <Redirect to="/" />} />
</Switch>
</Router>
Are there ways so I can acces the history prop from the useHistory hook and use them in both the HOC as 'normal' component?
well as i see you code i dont really find why it not help you, but i use here PrivateRoute file that handle the access to the route.
but why you want to access the useHistory from the HOC
const PrivateRoute = ({ component: Component,isAuthenticated, ...rest }) => {
return (
<Route {...rest} render={props =>
!isAuthenticated ? (
<Redirect to='/'/>
) : (
<Component {...props} />
)
}
/>
);
};
implementation
`<PrivateRoute exa`ct path="/add" component={AddEmployee} isAuthenticated={isAdmin}/>
I have followed the examples closely but I cannot get the MemoryRouter (is this how you are supposed to test route components?) to work with a test using jest and enzyme.
I would like to navigate to one of the routes, and have that reflected in my snapshot. The code below attempts to navigate using MemoryRouter to "/A" so I assume I would see <div>A</div>
import React from 'react';
import Enzyme, {mount} from 'enzyme';
import Adapter from 'enzyme-adapter-react-16';
import {BrowserRouter as Router, MemoryRouter, Route, Switch} from 'react-router-dom';
Enzyme.configure({adapter: new Adapter()});
describe('Routing test', () => {
let wrapper;
beforeEach(() => {
wrapper = mount(
<MemoryRouter initialEntries={["/A"]}>
<div className={"Test"}>This is my Test Component and should not have any test specific code in it
<Router>
<Switch>
<Route path={"/A"}>
<div className={"A"}>A</div>
</Route>
<Route path={"/B"}>
<div>B</div>
</Route>
</Switch>
</Router>
</div>
</MemoryRouter>
);
});
afterEach(() => {
wrapper.unmount();
});
it('matches snapshot', () => {
expect(wrapper.find(".Test")).toHaveLength(1); //this ok
expect(wrapper.find(".A")).toHaveLength(1); //but this is not ok :( It should find A
});
});
Instead of seeing <div>Test<div>A</div></div> I just see <div>Test</div>
NOTE: My example is simplified into one class. My real world situation is that <div>Test...</div> is a seperate component.
I can't find any proof of this but I always was under impression than you should use only one <Router> somewhere at the top of the tree and shouldn't nest them.
So I've looked in the source code myself, and if I got it right, this is true. Because:
react-router uses Context API to pass props down the hierarchy.
From React docs:
[...] it will read the current context value from the closest matching Provider above it in the tree.
<Router> is a Provider but not a Consumer, so it can't peek up props from a parent <Router>
When people advocate for tests they also mention that writing tests leads to a more testable code and a more testable code is cleaner. I wouldn't argue about this, I just wan't to note, that if you can write a testable code, then you also can write a non-testable one. And this looks like the case.
So although you specifically say that
should not have any test specific code in it
I would ague that, while you probably shouldn't use createMemoryHistory as #aquinq suggested, or put anything else specifically and only for testing purposes, you can and probably should modify your code to be more testable.
You can:
Move <Router> higher. You can even wrap the <App> with it - it's the simplest and a recommended way, although may not apply to your case. But still I don't see why can't you put <div className={"Test"}> inside the <Router> and not vice versa.
In your tests you are not supposed to test third-party libraries, you supposed to test your own code, so you can extract this
<Switch>
<Route path={"/A"}>
<div className={"A"}>A</div>
</Route>
<Route path={"/B"}>
<div>B</div>
</Route>
</Switch>
part into a separate component and test it separately.
Or if we combine these two: put <div className={"Test"}> inside the <Router>, extract <div className={"Test"}> into a separate component, write
wrapper = mount(
<MemoryRouter initialEntries={["/A"]}>
<TestDiv/>
</MemoryRouter>
)
Also createMemoryHistory can be a useful feature on it's own. And some time in the future you'll find yourself using it. In that case #aquinq's answer will do.
But if you can't/don't want to modify your code at all. Then you can cheat a little and try this approach: How to test a component with the <Router> tag inside of it?
OK I figured it out.
Its very ugly but you need to create a __mocks__ directory (In the first level of your project). __mocks__ seems to be poorly documented but it seems to be a jest thing, and everything in here will be run when testing, and here you can add mock stubs for certain external libraries.
import React from 'react';
const reactRouterDom = require("react-router-dom")
reactRouterDom.BrowserRouter = ({children}) => <div>{children}</div>
module.exports = reactRouterDom
My test file is the same as in my question (i think) :
import React from 'react';
import Enzyme, {mount} from 'enzyme';
import Adapter from 'enzyme-adapter-react-16';
import {BrowserRouter as Router, MemoryRouter, Route, Switch} from 'react-router-dom';
Enzyme.configure({adapter: new Adapter()});
describe('Routing test', () => {
let wrapper;
beforeEach(() => {
wrapper = mount(
<MemoryRouter initialEntries={['/A']}>
<div className={"Test"}>This is my Test Component and should not have any test specific code in it
<Router>
<Switch>
<Route path={"/A"}>
<div className={"A"}>A</div>
</Route>
<Route path={"/B"}>
<div>B</div>
</Route>
</Switch>
</Router>
</div>
</MemoryRouter>
);
});
afterEach(() => {
wrapper.unmount();
});
it('matches snapshot', () => {
expect(wrapper.find(".Test")).toHaveLength(1); //this ok
expect(wrapper.find(".A")).toHaveLength(1); //but this is not ok :( It should find A
});
});
This works and my test is green! :)
UPDATE :
I think I got a bit confused because I was treating the Router like any other react component, when it actually is a top level component like redux Provider. Router should not be inside the App but outside the App like so (in an index.js file for example).
ReactDOM.render(
<Provider store={store}>
<Router>
<App/>,
</Router>
</Provider>,
document.getElementById('root')
);
Now when writing tests against App, I provide my own router such as MemoryRouter.
According to documentation, if you use a regular Router in your test, you should pass a history prop to it
While you may be tempted to stub out the router context yourself, we recommend you wrap your unit test in one of the Router components: the base Router with a history prop, or a <StaticRouter>, <MemoryRouter>, or <BrowserRouter>
Hope this will work. If not, maybe using a second MemoryRouter instead of Router will simply do the job.
Typically Router will be outside of the app logic, and if you're using other <Route> tags, then you could use something like <Switch>, like this:
<Router>
<Switch>
<Route exact path="/">
<HomePage />
</Route>
<Route path="/blog">
<BlogPost />
</Route>
</Switch>
</Router>
MemoryRouter actually is a Router, so it may be best to replace the "real" Router here. You could split this into a separate component for easier testing.
According to the source GitHub:
The most common use-case for using the low-level <Router> is to
synchronize a custom history with a state management lib like Redux or Mobx. Note that this is not required to use state management libs alongside React Router, it's only for deep integration.
import React from "react";
import ReactDOM from "react-dom";
import { Router } from "react-router";
import { createBrowserHistory } from "history";
const history = createBrowserHistory();
ReactDOM.render(
<Router history={history}>
<App />
</Router>,
node
);
From personal experience:
I have used an outer component (we called it "Root") that includes the <Provider> and <Router> components at the top level, then the <App> includes just the <Switch> and <Route> components.
Root.jsx returns:
<Provider store={rootStore}>
<Router history={rootHistory}>
<App />
</Router>
</Provider>
and App.jsx returns:
<Switch>
<Route exact path="/" component={HomePage}>
<Route exact path="/admin" component={AdminPage}>
</Switch>
This allows the App.test.jsx to use:
mount(
<Provider store={fakeStore}>
<MemoryRouter initialEntries={['/']}>
<App myProp={dummyProp} />
</MemoryRouter>
</Provider>
)
Is there a way to specify a route handler that handles all routes that do not match the routes defined? Like a catch-all route or a default route handler.
I'm running into the use case where I want a default page to load if no matching routes are found. For example, it would load a "page not found" page.
In v4 of react-router you can just add a Route without a path prop component as the last one in your route definition and it will be matched if no other routes are matched:
Example copied from the react-router docs:
<Switch>
<Route path="/" exact component={Home}/>
<Redirect from="/old-match" to="/will-match"/>
<Route path="/will-match" component={WillMatch}/>
<Route component={NoMatch}/>
</Switch>
Here is the url path is not /, /old-match or /will-match the NoMatch component is shown.
In v3 of react-router the same principle applies: You just add an Route component with just the wildcard character * in the path prop to the end of your routing definition:
<Router ... >
{ /* Your actual route declarations */ }
<Route component={ NoMatch } path="*" />
</Router>
Hope this helps!