Last Sync: 2022-09-29 15:00:05
This commit is contained in:
parent
8066fab26a
commit
2a772bff29
1 changed files with 22 additions and 0 deletions
|
@ -12,3 +12,25 @@ Despite React having a uni-directional, downwards data-flow, it is sometimes nec
|
|||
For the example we will use the standard click incrementer.
|
||||
|
||||
We have a counter on the parent that is updated in response to a click event in the child component.
|
||||
|
||||
Our parent component is `App` and the child component is `Child`
|
||||
|
||||
```jsx
|
||||
export default function App() {
|
||||
const [count, setCount] = useState(0);
|
||||
return (
|
||||
<>
|
||||
<p>{count}</p>
|
||||
<Child count={count} setCount={setCount} />
|
||||
</>
|
||||
);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
const Child = ({ count, setCount }) => {
|
||||
return <button onClick={() => setCount(count + 1)}>Increment</button>;
|
||||
};
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
So the overall state and updater function exists on the parent. The child is able to access this state by virtue of receiving `{count, setCount}` as props. It can therefore manipulate this state and have it be reflected in the parent.
|
||||
|
||||
It is not necessary to pass the state variable every time. You could just pass the updater. We have passed the `count` variable here because the child needs access to the current value, in order to be able to increment it.
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Add table
Reference in a new issue