Allow functional components in JSX about hastscript

[cowboyd]

I ended up creating a very simple jsx-runtime, hastx that emits HAST directly instead of passing it through hastscript. This is very similar to what @jollytoad suggested as his workaround except that it creates the HAST data structures directly rather than relying on the h() function.

Also, it flatten's children from Root nodes into the tree per @remcohaszing's suggestion (but it does not yet flatten children for function types).

• https://deno.land/x/hastx
• https://npmjs.org/package/hastx

Caveats

• It only supports the modern JSX transform, and not "classic" jsx factory a-la React.createElement
• It does not do any type schema checking on HTML/SVG element attributes (e.g. <a wat={true} /> will be just fine).

Hopefully this could serve as a blueprint to eventually roll into hastscript proper, but was just enough to satisfy my immediate use-case perfectly.

[alecmev]

@wooorm Sorry for the silence again, I remember about this, simply have more pressing tasks lately. I'll get around to this eventually, but if somebody wants to pick this up - please do go ahead!

[alecmev]

@wooorm I get the appeal of "GitHub Zero" and less stuff to maintain 😉 Okay for me if you close it! I have this in my personal backlog.

[cowboyd]

While the classic runtime remains to be figured out, I plugged in the automatic JSX transform into my website and it worked flawlessly.

[wooorm]

Did you see the comment above that line?

It is intentional that components cannot be passed in the types, and hence that that line is there, because components are not supported in hastscript.

How are you using components currently, if they aren’t supported? 🤔

See also: syntax-tree/unist-builder#11

[alecmev]

Sorry for my ignorance, for some reason I assumed <Header>Bar</Header> gets transpiled into Header({ children: "Bar" }), while in reality it's _jsx(Header, { children: "Bar" }), so it won't work until h supports functions as selector.

Is that something that you would accept a PR for? At a glance, a simple pass-through should work, as suggested here:

} else if (typeof selector === "function") {
  return selector({ ...properties, children: value });
} else {

Inserted here:

hastscript/lib/core.js

Lines 68 to 70 in 2f8c133

	children.unshift(properties)
	} else {
	node = parseSelector(selector, defaultTagName)

No need to handle properties or children, it's component's responsibility. Or am I missing something?

[wooorm]

Yes, I believe that that is the addition.

However, what “is” a component? Do components even make sense here?
What about “class” components?
What about other lifetime things?
Should children be a field, instead of another parameter?
Should components return elements? Could they return other things?

[wooorm]

@alecmev Friendly ping! Do you have answers to my questions?

[alecmev]

Sorry! Got a bit of a Github backlog.

However, what “is” a component?

I'd say it's just syntactic sugar for an element factory. So that instead of this:

<section>{Header(<div>foo</div>, { isFoo: true })}</section>

I can write this:

<section><Header isFoo><div>foo</div></Header></section>

Do components even make sense here?

Make sense? I think so, lots of people are familiar with the concept of functional components, and it appears to fit in, since it looks and smells like React or any other JSX-friendly presentation layer library.

Is this a killer feature? Probably not. Composition still works, it just doesn't play by JSX rules (so the function signature can be whatever you want). I might be forgetting something, but it's not coming to me right now, been away from React for too long.

What about “class” components?
What about other lifetime things?

Out of scope, I think. There's no state. "Components" return the HResult and they're done.

Should children be a field, instead of another parameter?

This is up to the spec and transpilers, I think? So there's no choice, children is just a special prop. I might be wrong.

Should components return elements? Could they return other things?

They must return an HResult. And maybe an array of HResult? Need to investigate.

Another reason to have this is because people writing JavaScript will try this, being familiar with React. They'll see that it doesn't work, but it might take a bit to understand why.

---

Sorry, my answers are superficial and possibly inaccurate, but I thought this could still be useful. I can go more in-depth if you start to really consider implementing this. Also, seemed like @remcohaszing might be able to add something?

[wooorm]

I previously assumed that we’d add component support to h:

h(Component, props?, ...Array<Child|string|Array<Child|string>>)

But we could also just add it to the automatic runtime:

hastscript/lib/runtime.js

Line 31 in 2f8c133

function (type, props) {

Because the main Q seems to be: “JSX with hastscript looks like JSX with React, so I expected components to work too”.

This is up to the spec and transpilers, I think? So there's no choice, children is just a special prop. I might be wrong.

Our _jsx function must indeed handle props.children in the automatic runtime.
In the classic runtime, this wasn’t defined.
Still, in _jsx of our automatic runtime, we take it out:

hastscript/lib/runtime.js

Line 32 in 2f8c133

const {children, ...properties} = props

.

[remcohaszing]

I can see why this is useful. It’s mostly semantic. Because of how the automatic runtime and TypeScript types, children should be passed as an attribute named children.

I also think children should be coerced into a flat array. This is what makes usage more than just semantic.

function FancyHeader({ children }) {
  // children is always an array of element or text nodes here.
}

<FancyHeader>
  <div />
  <div />
</FancyHeader>
<FancyHeader>
  <div />
</FancyHeader>
<FancyHeader>
  {[<div />]}
</FancyHeader>
<FancyHeader>
  <>
    <div />
  </>
</FancyHeader>
<FancyHeader children={<div />} />
<FancyHeader children="Hello" />
<FancyHeader>
  Hello
</FancyHeader>

I also wonder if this would cause any issues in xastscript.

[wooorm]

xastscript

What problems are you thinking off?

--

@alecmev I think I’d be open to a PR! Interested in working on it?

[github-actions]

Hi! This was marked as ready to be worked on! Note that while this is ready to be worked on, nothing is said about priority: it may take a while for this to be solved.

Is this something you can and want to work on?

Team: please use the area/* (to describe the scope of the change), platform/* (if this is related to a specific one), and semver/* and type/* labels to annotate this. If this is first-timers friendly, add good first issue and if this could use help, add help wanted.

[wooorm]

@alecmev Friendly ping! Something you’d like to work on?

[wooorm]

@alecmev Ping! 🔔 :)

[remcohaszing]

xastscript

What problems are you thinking off?

About the fact that children is a valid XML attribute. Although I don’t really think it affects this issue.

[wooorm]

@alecmev if this isn’t really needed for you, we can also close it :)
I think it’s an interesting idea, and I don’t see big downsides, but also: if nobody really practically needs it (yet), it’s easier to maintain less code!

[remcohaszing]

Let's keep this open. I'd really like to see this feature as well.

I think hastscript + this feature + mdx + node --watch / tsx watch could yield a pretty good static site generation experience for minimalistic websites.

If nobody else fixes this issue, I will some day.

[wooorm]

If nobody else fixes this issue, I will some day.

You are welcome to do so.

I would really like for someone to actually need and use this feature.
Implementing features that nobody uses is just scope creep and it’ll likely be broken for your eventual use case, if we don’t try to build that use case in tandem: see this thread, it’s unclear how it would work.

As this isn’t actionable currently, I think it should be closed.
Closing this doesn’t mean it will never be actionable

[jollytoad]

I'm using JSX in Deno, and was using Preact (and preact-render-to-string), but I was curious as to whether hastscript would be suitable instead. At first the lack of function components tripped me and the incompatible TS types, but I've eventually found a work-around, by wrapping the jsx function with my own, and supplying my own JSX type:

// deno-lint-ignore-file no-explicit-any
import * as r from "hastscript/jsx-runtime";
import type { Child, Properties, Result } from "hastscript";

export const jsx = (type: any, props: any) => {
  if (typeof type === "function") {
    return type(props);
  } else {
    return r.jsx(type, props);
  }
};

export const jsxs = jsx;
export const jsxDEV = jsx;
export const Fragment = r.Fragment;

// deno-lint-ignore no-namespace
export namespace JSX {
  export type Element = Result;

  export interface IntrinsicAttributes {
    key?: any;
  }

  export interface IntrinsicElements {
    [name: string]:
      | Properties
      | {
        children?: Child;
      };
  }

  export interface ElementChildrenAttribute {
    children?: any;
  }
}

I think this could be a fairly simple change to the hastscript runtime to support functions, and provide a better (least surprise) experience for any devs trying to use hastscript for jsx.

This and hast-util-to-html now works for me as a drop-in replacement of preact & preact-render-to-string.

[remcohaszing]

This is very similar to what I had in mind, except I would also like to flatten children before passing them to type()

[wooorm]

It’s still open, but it needs someone who a) actually needs this/is going to use this, and b) it will require making several decisions, which need to be discussed.

[wooorm]

Closing, it’s perhaps of interest, but needs someone who wants to work on it and actually use it, instead of a theoretical nice to have IMO! Thanks all :)

[github-actions]

Hi! This was closed. Team: If this was fixed, please add phase/solved. Otherwise, please add one of the no/* labels.

[cowboyd]

Funny, that this was closed yesterday.... I actually discovered this today, and I have a real usecase: a vanilla HTML templating library (no stateful components, just one-way functions that generate html). I had been using my own html library and corresponding jsx-transform.

I was thinking to drop that in favor of using hastscript in order to benefit from the entire rehype ecosystem, but then I hit this. I can submit a PR if it would be accepted.

[wooorm]

Yeah feel free to work on it in a pr!
See the above thread, I believe there are some points to dicuss/figure out!

[cowboyd]

@wooorm Ok, I created a PR that implements the transform for the "automatic" runtime. #19

I'm not quite certain what should be done about the "classic" runtime though since it's basically a pass-through.