Add forwardRef DEV warning for prop-types on render function

[bvaughn]

Someone at FB recently reported a bug that boiled down to the following:

function MyComponent(props, ref) {
  return <p ref={ref}>myProp: {props.myProp}</p>;
}
MyComponent.defaultProps = {
  myProp: "default"
};
MyComponent.propTypes = {
  myProp: React.PropTypes.string.isRequired
};

const MyWrappedComponent = React.forwardRef(MyComponent);

This kind of worked but, of course, prop-types didn't work.

What they meant to do was:

function MyComponent(props) {
  return <p ref={props.forwardedRef}>myProp: {props.myProp}</p>;
}
MyComponent.defaultProps = {
  myProp: "default"
};
MyComponent.propTypes = {
  myProp: React.PropTypes.string.isRequired
};

const MyWrappedComponent = React.forwardRef((props, ref) => (
  <MyComponent {...props} forwardedRef={ref} />
));

I think it would be nice for us to warn about this in DEV mode. I'm not enamored with this warning message in particular though if someone has better suggestions.

[pull-bot]

Details of bundled changes.

Comparing: 0887c7d...4a64257

react

File	Filesize Diff	Gzip Diff	Prev Size	Current Size	Prev Gzip	Current Gzip	ENV
react.development.js	+0.4%	+0.4%	55.22 KB	55.46 KB	15.17 KB	15.24 KB	UMD_DEV
react.development.js	+0.5%	+0.5%	45.86 KB	46.1 KB	12.82 KB	12.88 KB	NODE_DEV
React-dev.js	+0.7%	+0.7%	45.8 KB	46.11 KB	12.48 KB	12.56 KB	FB_WWW_DEV

Generated by 🚫 dangerJS

[eemeli]

I encountered this same issue, and was surprised that defaultProps and propTypes did not work for a forwardRef-wrapped render function.

@bvaughn Is there a reason why the defaultProps and propTypes could not be reassigned to the resulting component?

[bvaughn]

Hopefully the recently added warning will help with this 😄

There's a couple of reasons why defaultProps and propTypes aren't automatically forwarded:

The thing being returned might not be a functional or class component. It could be e.g. a <div> or a <Context.Consumer> etc.

The author of the forwardRef component necessarily has a reference to the underlying component anyway (MyComponent in the above example) and so can set propTypes or defaultProps directly. External users of a component shouldn't really be setting those, anymore than you would expect to override the propTypes value for any other third party component you use.

[eemeli]

I don't think the argument regarding the eventual result of the render applies here, and I'm pretty sure that its defaultProps and propTypes could both be applied to the object returned by forwardRef. Manually doing so in fact already works for defaultProps, but for propTypes validatePropTypes(element) in ReactElementValidator requires that element.type is a function.

I do agree that there is an alternative formulation available here for the component author that does allow for the desired result, but I have two concerns with the current situation:

• It feels clumsy to have to create an intermediary component just to get ref into the inner props object with some other name.
• The shape of the forwardRef argument (props, ref) => node makes it look very much like a functional component, and it's not intuitive that it then works as a functional component in all other aspects except for how its defaultProps and propTypes work.

Would you be open for a PR fixing this, or are there murkier depths that I'm not considering here?

[gaearon]

but for propTypes validatePropTypes(element) in ReactElementValidator requires that element.type is a function.

This sounds like an omission to me. Let’s fix that?

[bvaughn]

I'm pretty sure that its defaultProps and propTypes could both be applied to the object returned by forwardRef.

Maybe we're saying different things? I'll attempt to clarify.

This works. (Prop type warnings will fire for InnerComponent):

function InnerComponent(props) { /* ... */ }
InnerComponent.propTypes = {
  foo: PropTypes.string.isRequired
};

const OuterComponent = React.forwardRef(
  (props, ref) => <InnerComponent ref={ref} {...props} />
);

This is intentionally not supported:

function InnerComponent(props) { /* ... */ }

const OuterComponent = React.forwardRef(
  (props, ref) => <InnerComponent ref={ref} {...props} />
);
OuterComponent.propTypes = {
  foo: PropTypes.string.isRequired
};

External code shouldn't be overriding propTypes or defaultProps. For example, you wouldn't do this:

import { Link } from 'react-router-dom';

Link.propTypes = { /* ... */ };

Attributes like propTypes and defaultProps are part of the component. They should be declared where the component is declared. (And the place where forwardRef is used will necessarily have access to the original component, in order to actually return it.)

It feels clumsy to have to create an intermediary component just to get ref into the inner props object with some other name.

This is required in order to not break backwards compatibility. I know reading old RFCs is a lot of work, but the necessity of this was considered and discussed in the ref forwarding RFC. (You might be interested in checking out that portion of the RFC at least! 😄)

[eemeli]

Yeah, I think we're talking about slightly different things. What I would like to work is this (note the two args of Componentish):

const Componentish = (props, ref) => (<div {...props} ref={ref} />)
Componentish.propTypes = { foo: PropTypes.string.isRequired, bar: PropTypes.string }
Componentish.defaultProps = { bar: 'BAZ' }
export default React.forwardRef(Componentish);

At the moment, that produces the warning of this PR, but as a developer I'd prefer if instead it "just worked", which I believe would be possible with something like this backwards-compatible solution (not meant to be production code, just a sketch of what I mean):

--- a/packages/react/src/ReactElement.js
+++ b/packages/react/src/ReactElement.js
@@ -219,8 +219,8 @@ export function createElement(type, config, children) {
   }

   // Resolve default props
-  if (type && type.defaultProps) {
-    const defaultProps = type.defaultProps;
+  const defaultProps = type && (type.defaultProps || (type.render && type.render.defaultProps));
+  if (defaultProps) {
     for (propName in defaultProps) {
       if (props[propName] === undefined) {
         props[propName] = defaultProps[propName];

--- a/packages/react/src/ReactElementValidator.js
+++ b/packages/react/src/ReactElementValidator.js
@@ -213,11 +213,19 @@ function validateChildKeys(node, parentType) {
  * @param {ReactElement} element
  */
 function validatePropTypes(element) {
-  const componentClass = element.type;
+  let componentClass = element.type;
   if (typeof componentClass !== 'function') {
-    return;
+    if (
+      typeof componentClass === 'object' &&
+      componentClass !== null &&
+      typeof componentClass.render === 'function'
+    ) {
+      componentClass = componentClass.render;
+    } else {
+      return;
+    }
   }
-  const name = componentClass.displayName || componentClass.name;
+  const name = getComponentName(element)
   const propTypes = componentClass.propTypes;
   if (propTypes) {
     currentlyValidatingElement = element;

I have read through the RFC discussion, and I don't think that this option was considered. Now, whether it's an option that could be considered is something I think you might be more qualified to answer. :)

[bvaughn]

I see. Thank you for clarifying. 😄

It still seems to me like you should be able to accomplish what you're trying to do like this:

const Component = ({ forwardedRef, ...props }) => <div {...props} ref={ref} />;
Component.propTypes = {
  foo: PropTypes.string.isRequired,
  bar: PropTypes.string
};
Component.defaultProps = { bar: "BAZ" };

export default React.forwardRef((props, ref) => (
  <Component {...props} forwardedRef={ref} />
));

Is there a reason this doesn't work? (Why do the propTypes and defaultProps need to be attached to the ref-forwarding function? Just because it's more succinct?)

[eemeli]

Sure, that does work. I mentioned a couple of concerns with this earlier, but really they boil down to the argument (props, ref) => node looking very much like a functional component, but then not working like one with regard to defaultProps and propTypes. So I guess in the end this is about API design styles; whether it's better to log a warning as currently, or to do the thing that the developer clearly intended to happen. I myself would prefer the latter, but do I understand right that a warning is the more React-y way to go here?

[piuccio]

guys can you maybe also update this page, please? https://reactjs.org/docs/forwarding-refs.html

I've read this conversation and still I'm not quite sure where I'm now supposed to put my prop-types.

All I know is that the following code gives a warning in 16.4.0

function Component(props, ref) {}
Component.propTypes = {};
export default React.forwardRef(Component);

I have no clue on how to fix it, but I'll wait for #12911, maybe it'll go away magically as it appeared.

[gaearon]

@piuccio The thing you put into forwardRef is not a "component". It's a render function.

This should work:

function MyComponent(props) {}
MyComponent.propTypes = {};
export default React.forwardRef((props, ref) => <MyComponent {...props} forwardedRef={ref} />);

In the next release we'll make this work too:

function renderComponent(props, ref) {}
const MyComponent = React.forwardRef(renderComponent);
MyComponent.propTypes = {};
export default MyComponent;

(But it doesn't work yet.)

[bvaughn]

@piuccio The thing you put into forwardRef is not a "component". It's a render function.

Just wanted to add that the warning will remain for this case too, since it will continue to not work 😄

Just to recap:

function MyComponent(props) {
  // ...
}
MyComponent.propTypes = {}; // This will work now

function renderFunction(props, ref) {
  return <MyComponent {...props} forwardedRef={ref} />;
}
renderFunction.propTypes = {}; // This WILL NOT work

const ExportedComponent = React.forwardRef(renderFunction);
ExportedComponent.propTypes = {}; // This will work in the next release

[piuccio]

Thanks, I've fixed my code. It would also be nice to mention in the documentation that forwardedRef is a PropTypes.object

[bvaughn]

Thanks, I've fixed my code. It would also be nice to mention in the documentation that forwardedRef is a PropTypes.object

It's not. It is an Object with a couple of special keys that React knows how to recognize and handle. It isn't really meant to be used for anything other than passing to React.createElement, so its type/shape didn't seem too important to document in detail.

[piuccio]

Well, if you use eslint-plugin-react to lint your code it'll complain if you don't put forwardedRef inside .propTypes and of all the types, the only one that doesn't generate a warning during development is PropTypes.object. I guess PropTypes.shape would work as well, but it's more typing to also specify those special keys.

So for plain users like me, I guess PropTypes.object is the best guess.

Even if the shape is not too important, having it in documentation will help people understand where to defined the .propTypes

[bvaughn]

@piuccio I misread your original message as "forwardRef" rather than "forwardedRef". Sorry for any confusion my response caused.

That being said, I'm not quite sure what you're saying. The forwardedRef prop would just be a regular prop, like any other, except this one happens to contain a ref. That particular pattern has been around for a long time- although the naming varies from project to project.

If you want to specify it as one of the prop-types for the inner component, I would suggest using PropTypes.any. 😄

So maybe something like this would work for you, at a high level?

const sharedPropTypes = {
  bar: PropType.string.isRequired,
  foo: PropType.string.isRequired
};

const SomeComponent = ({ bar, foo, forwardedRef }) => {
  // Your component here...
};
SomeComponent.propTypes = {
  ...sharedPropTypes,
  forwardedRef: PropTypes.any
};

const RefForwardingWrapper = React.forwardRef((props, ref) => (
  <SomeComponent {...props} forwardedRef={ref} />
));
RefForwardingWrapper.propTypes = sharedPropTypes;