Web components/custom elements provide some great features that can make your UX more efficient and scalable, but there are some "gotchas" that can prevent teams from having a good experience with your components.
One of the great things about custom elements/web components can sometimes be a challenge for them - they can be used anywhere. You never know if they're being used in a framework, in a type-safe environment, rendered on the server with a language like PHP, created programmatically using JavaScript's creatElement function, or even in plain ol' HTML.
The challenge is that there's no consistent way to ensure your web component APIs are correctly implemented. Because of this, one of the items in our component library's PR checklist is:
✅ Attributes and properties work when set, unset, and poorly set.
For example, in our library, we have an "input" component that, like a native element, has a type attribute with some specified values. It doesn't have all of the same options because we have specific components for some of the other controls like radios and checkboxes.
/** A string specifying the type of control to render. */ @property() type: | 'color' | 'date' | 'email' | 'number' | 'password' | 'search' | 'tel' | 'text' = 'text';
NOTE: The code examples are using Lit, but the principles discussed here can be applied to other libraries and frameworks.
When we test testing this attribute, we get inconsistent results.
<my-input type="color"></my-input> <my-input type="date"></my-input> <my-input type="email"></my-input> <my-input type="number"></my-input> <my-input type="password"></my-input> <my-input type="search"></my-input> <my-input type="tel"></my-input> <my-input type="text"></my-input>
// When the attribute is not set <my-input></my-input> // When the property is `undefined` (example using JSX) <my-input type={undefined}></my-input>
<!-- not a real type --> <my-input type="rubbish"></my-input> <!-- we don't want users using this type --> <my-input type="range"></my-input>
You can test this example here:
I noticed that the native HTML element seems to pass the "set, unset, and poorly set" test, so let's see if we can learn from it.
When I poorly set the native input's attribute and log the property values, I can see why it works.
<!-- set the value to a non-standard type --> <input type="rubbish" /> <input> <p>If an invalid value is assigned to the attribute or property, it falls back to a default value. We should be able to do the same and still maintain strong typing.</p> <p>Let's start by creating a list of valid values and a type for our property.<br> </p> <pre class="brush:php;toolbar:false">const inputTypes = [ 'color', 'date', 'email', 'number', 'password', 'search', 'tel', 'text', ] as const;
We can use the array to create a union type for TypeScript validation.
/** A string specifying the type of control to render. */ @property() type: | 'color' | 'date' | 'email' | 'number' | 'password' | 'search' | 'tel' | 'text' = 'text';
Now we can update our custom elements property with some validation logic. We can do this by converting our existing property to a standard JavaScript class getter and setter.
<my-input type="color"></my-input> <my-input type="date"></my-input> <my-input type="email"></my-input> <my-input type="number"></my-input> <my-input type="password"></my-input> <my-input type="search"></my-input> <my-input type="tel"></my-input> <my-input type="text"></my-input>
Here's our final output:
With this new validation in place, our input component is far more resilient than before and also allows for more complex validation if necessary. This method may also be overkill for some of your attributes, especially those that are for styling. For those scenarios, be sure to check out this article.
The above is the detailed content of Bullet-Proof Web Component APIs. For more information, please follow other related articles on the PHP Chinese website!