Welcome to the Treehouse Community
Want to collaborate on code errors? Have bugs you need feedback on? Looking for an extra set of eyes on your latest project? Get support with fellow developers, designers, and programmers of all backgrounds and skill levels here with the Treehouse Community! While you're at it, check out some resources Treehouse students have shared here.
Looking to learn something new?
Treehouse offers a seven day free trial for new students. Get access to thousands of hours of content and join thousands of Treehouse students and alumni in the community today.
Start your free trialKamil Korczynski
367 PointsYou can not filter like that
You have array of 3 items [false, true, true] after filtering you are displaying 2 items. If you now toggle checkbox in a first shown item you will change the value of a first item in first array. Now your original array is [true, true, true] instead of [false, false, true].
in other words - you have displayed an array of 2 items and now every change will have index 0 or 1 and this index will be sent to toggleConfirmationAt function
7 Answers
Guil Hernandez
Treehouse TeacherHi Kamil Korczynski,
That's exactly right -- it does create a "filter bug". We mention the bug in this video, then show you one (of many) possible solutions. :)
Kamil Korczynski
367 Pointsinsted of filtering you should add if statement inside mapping function
if(!props.isFiltred || guest.isConfirmed) return ...
Gabbie Metheny
33,778 PointsImplementing this solution, you may get the following error from ES Lint:
Arrow function expected a return value array-callback-return
I resolved this by return
ing false
after the if
statement, but is there a more elegant way of doing this?
const GuestList = props =>
<ul>
{props.guests
.map((guest, index) => {
if (!props.isFiltered || guest.isConfirmed) {
return (
<Guest
key={index}
name={guest.name}
isConfirmed={guest.isConfirmed}
isEditing={guest.isEditing}
handleConfirmation={() => props.toggleConfirmationAt(index)}
handleToggleEditing={() => props.toggleEditingAt(index)}
setName={text => props.setNameAt(text, index)} />
);
}
return false;
}
)}
</ul>;
Saqib Ishfaq
13,912 Pointsi did feel something wasnt quite right so i did the same with simple if else statement, not sure if it create the same error you mentioned above!!
{props.guests
.filter( (guest) => {
if(!props.isFiltered === true){
return true;
} else {
return guest.isConfirmed;
}
})
Reid Young
Courses Plus Student 14,209 PointsRough spot to mention this one, guys. It definitely would have caused some confusion if Kamil didn't pose this question. Maybe add a disclaimer at the end of the video when you have the time so students know that the bug exists and that the fix is coming. Cheers!
Saqib Ishfaq
13,912 PointsGabbie Metheny thanks for the resolve!!!
Brad Chandler
15,301 PointsHaven't watched the video recommended by Guil Hernandez yet, but I see the simplest way to correct this is to use a computed property on the App component.
Instead of passing down the isFiltered value, filter the guests and pass those to the GuestList component, replacing the guests prop value with the filtered guests function.
It would look something like this
filteredGuests = () => {
if (this.state.isFiltered) {
return this.state.guests.filter(guest => {
return guest.isConfirmed
});
} else {
return this.state.guests;
}
}
....
<GuestList
guests={this.filteredGuests()}
/>
Now when the isFiltered value changes, a different number of guests are sent.
Sum Tsui
Full Stack JavaScript Techdegree Student 29,117 Pointsthanks for asking this question!!
Cristina Rosales
10,929 PointsYeah, why go through the trouble of using a filter when a simple if/else statement will suffice?