background image
James DiGioia

my little web home

useEffect’s function dependency pitfall

useEffect is a powerful hook provided in React 16.8, allowing you to sync data with the outside world. One of the minor annoyances with useEffect is its dependency array, which indicates to useEffect when it should rerun. Adding a function to the dependency array can cause major problems with useEffect. Let’s take a look at an example where adding a function useEffect‘s dependency array causes problems for our React application.

A look at the problem

The other day, I got a question from a developer on my team. She was working on some cart related functionality, and ESLint was complaining about the following code:

useEffect(() => {
}, []);

refreshCart is a function that does exactly what it says: Refresh the cart & save the data to Context. The cart is something that’s used throughout the application, so we set it up as a Context for easy reuse. In this case, it was eslint-plugin-react-hooks warning about a missing dependency, the refreshCart function.

A stroll through useEffect

First, let’s talk about what the second parameter, the dependency array, is doing. useEffect says “if any dependency in this array changes, rerun the effect”. Think about this as a “synchronization mechanism”, keeping your Component’s data & some external side effect in sync with each other.

We have a great example of this in our app: On one page, we want to load a list of potential plans based on what the user has entered into the form. As the user changes the values in the form, we make a new API request to fetch those plans with useEffect, keeping the latest request in sync with form data and cleaning up the previous request as we go.

So there are consequences to leaving values out of the dependency array. It can cause issues where the effect doesn’t run when you expect it to, or is running selectively when some data changes but needs to run when all of the data changes, or functions are running with stale data. The ESLint rules call this out so you can handle it.

The problem with refreshCart

The reason this is annoying in this case is refreshCart is defined within the scope of the component, so it’s created fresh on every render. If you were to just stuff it into the dependency array as it tells you, you’d get an infinite loop. On initial mount, the effect would call the function, which fetch the cart & saves the data, triggering a render. When it does, it would see refreshCart as a new reference. useEffect goes “oh hey, my dependency changed, I should rerun the effect”, starting the whole cycle over again.

Note that you only have this problem with functions created with in the component function. If you can hoist the function out of the component scope, ESLint will stop complaining because useEffect will see the same function reference on every render.

We could do that in this case because refreshCart saves the data to a useState hook. This state is eventually passed into the Cart context mentioned earlier, so we need refreshCart to be within the component scope so it has access to setCartContext, the setter returned by useState.

What we can do about it

There are a couple solutions to this:

  1. Wrap refreshCart in useCallback, a specialized version of useMemo. Similar to useEffect, useMemo calls the callback provided whenever any of the dependencies changes, but instead of performing a side effect, it memoizes the return value. This is helpful for minimizing the number of times you recalculate a value as well as maintaining references between renders. In the latter case, useCallback provides a specialized version of useMemo for creating callbacks, where the function reference is reused if the dependencies haven’t changed.
  2. Assign refreshCart to a ref created with useRef. ESLint doesn’t complain about ref usage in effects because they’re intentionally designed for mutable data. If you do this, you can create a singleton that you assign on first render and never touch again. If you mutate it further, it could cause issues in Concurrent Mode in the future. You can use this if you know for certain there are no dependencies or they will never change.
  3. Tell eslint to shut up with eslint-disable-next-line. Generally, eslint yells at you about these things for good reasons, so this is really a last resort if neither of the above solutions work for various reason. If you do go this route, you should always leave a comment as to why.

Solution 1

If we assume our refreshCart function looks something like this:

const refreshCart = () =>
  api.getCart().then(cart => setState(cart));

Then we can wrap the function in useCallback like this:

const refreshCart = useCallback(
  () => api.getCart().then(cart => setState(cart)),

In this case, which is similar to our real application, we can leave out setCart as a dependency. ESLint knows that setCart will always be the same reference because useState (as well as useReducer) returns a stable function reference as the second value in the array. If your function has additional dependencies, ESLint can fix that for you automatically. Wrap your refreshCart equivalent in useCallback with an empty dependency array and run eslint --fix.

Solution 2

In the above example, we know for sure that everything we’re using in the function is a stable reference and won’t change over time. If you’re positive this is the case, and you know that won’t eventually change, you can instead assign the function to a ref with useRef.

const refreshCartRef = useRef(null);

if (!refreshCartRef.current) {
  refreshCartRef.current = () =>
    api.getCart().then(cart => setState(cart));

useEffect(() => refreshCartRef.current(), []);

Couple of things to be aware of here:

  1. We only create the function once, the first time the reference is created. On future renders, refreshCart.current will point to the same function reference as the initial render, so the if block won’t run. This will cause a problem if refreshCart references values outside of its scope that change over time. This is know as the “stale closure problem”. One way you can avoid this problem is using the callback form of setState, which eliminates the dependency on the state value itself.
  2. You must use the ref directly in useEffect in order to keep ESLint from complaining. Because ESLint knows that refs are designed for mutable data, it knows not to include them in useEffect‘s dependency array.

The “stale closure problem” is a big potential issue here, so it’s worth emphasizing: You will end up with unexpected behaviors if you rely on useState values, props, or other changing values within your refreshCart. This is because the closure captures the values in its scope. Because the function is never recreated, it never captures the updated values in its scope. Hence “stale closure problem.”

Solution 3

As a last resort, and if you know exactly what you’re doing and what the consequences are, you can always tell ESLint to leave you alone. If you choose to go this route, be sure to leave a comment explaining why, so future you knows what the thinking was. Additionally, you should disable the specific rule that ESLint is complaining about, so if that part of the code has additional problems, ESLint will still complain about them.

useEffect(() => {
  // refreshCart is recreated fresh, but we only want to
  // do this on initial render, so we're going to provide
  // an empty array here so it only runs once.
  // eslint-disable-next-line react-hooks/exhaustive-deps
}, []);

Now, if you come back to this, you know why this rule was disabled, what the purpose is, and whether that logic still applies. If you’re making changes to refreshCart, you may want to refactor this code into one of the above solutions.


The ESLint plugin is incredibly helpful for catching situations like this, and with these tools in your tool belt, you can choose the best answer for your situation. I would also argue this is the preference order for these 3 solutions; do useCallback first. There are good reason to use the other two, and you should have them available to you, but all of these are dependent on how the code will change. The less likely it is to change, the further down the list you can go. However, useCallback (& useMemo!) leans into the way hooks are designed, with the dependency array linking everything all the way back. That’s why it’s the best solution for the common case and what you should reach for first.