Black Sheep Code

I no longer recommend doing this.

This entire post is an attempt at avoiding including your state management business logic in your component tests and/or avoiding module mocking.

While both module mocking and inclusion of business logic might have their downsides, on balance the unconventional nature of this approach is likely worse.

For updated guide to testing, see this post.

Where this approach might be valid, is if you were moving off a state management framework, to another, eg. you were moving away from a GraphQL based state management.

In a previous post I outlined my strategy for agnostic state management in React.

In this post I'm discussing the use of this strategy with redux.

Our context is this - our application uses timestamps about the place, and it requires allowing the user to easily change the timezone that the timestamps display in.

Our App

So we have two components, our timezone selector:

export const PreferredTimeZoneSelector = (props: PreferredTimeZoneSelectorProps) => {
    const {
    } = props;

    return (
            <select value={preferredTimeZone || ""} onChange={(e) => {

                <option value="" disabled>(None selected)</option>
                { => {
                    return <option

This component is not state hooked, we pass the selected timezone and onChange handler in as props, we'll allow the parent to hook into state and pass these values in.

Our time display:

export const TimeDisplay = (props: TimeDisplayProps) => {
  const {time  } = props;

  const {preferredTimezone} = useTimezone(); 

  return (
      <p >{new Date(time).toLocaleString("en-GB", {
        timeZone: preferredTimezone || undefined
      })} ({JSON.stringify(preferredTimezone)}) </p>

This component is state hooked - the reason being, we're going to be using timestamps all about the place, and we don't want to be doing the same useTimezone call in every parent that uses this component.

Note that we allow the preferred timezone to be null and in this case the display reverts to using the browser's locale for the timezone.

Now note also that in accordance to advice I give about making your components be agnostic to your state management solution, we've abstracted the implementation of our setting and retrieving our preferred timezone to a useTimezone hook.

Our useTimezone implementation

So lets look at a straight forward implementation of that useTimezone hook, using redux.

export const useTimezone = () => {

    const dispatch = useDispatch(); 
    const preferredTz = useSelector(selectPreferredTimezone);

    return {
        setPreferredTimezone: (newTz: string) => dispatch(createSetPreferredTimezoneAction(newTz)), 
        preferredTimezone: preferredTz

Pretty straight forward. We won't delve into the implementation of the reducers and selectors, but we can see here we access our redux store via the useDispatch and useSelector hooks, and we wire in the correct selector and action creators to use.

Full application solution

Here's what a full application looks like:

const App = () => {

    const { preferredTimezone, setPreferredTimezone } = useTimezone();
    return <>
        <PreferredTimeZoneSelector preferredTimeZone={preferredTimezone} onChange={setPreferredTimezone} />
        <TimeDisplay time="2022-07-29T02:14:10.910Z" />

export const Solution2App1 = (props: Solution1App1Props) => {
    const { } = props;

    return (
        <Provider store={store}>
            <App />

Again, pretty straight forward. At the application root we instantiate our redux provider, and our components sit within that context and so when they use useTimezone everything works fine.

But in a testing context it's a different story

For this example I'll use Storybook stories, but it's the exact same issue if you were writing RTL tests.

First, the not-a-problem example

Our PreferredTimeZoneSelector component is not a problem, it's dead-easy to write tests and stories for, because it's not state hooked.

export const Default = () => {

    const [tz, setTz] = useState(null as null | string);
    return <div>

State-hooked components won't work off the bat though, because they require the redux context

For example say we try write our stories like this:

export const InvalidDate = () => {
  return <TimeDisplay time="invalid_date" />;

export const IsoStringDate = () => {
  return <TimeDisplay time="2022-07-29T02:14:10.910Z" />;

These will just error with the message

Error: could not find react-redux context value;
please ensure the component is wrapped in a <Provider>

We add the Provider to our tests

export const InvalidDateWithProvider = () => {

  return <Provider store={store}>
    <TimeDisplay time="invalid_date" />

And note that we could render the redux provider for all stories in storybook's preview.js or for RTL with a custom render.

Why I don't like adding Provider to the tests

1. We're using a 'production' store in our tests.

In the simple redux store we're using here, there's not much to go wrong.

However, in the real world:

2. If we're not using our production store, then we need to maintain a separate 'test' store.

Ok, so maybe instead of using the production store, we instantiate that provider like:

export const InvalidDateWithProvider = () => {

  return <Provider store={testStore}>
    <TimeDisplay time="invalid_date" />

The problem with this kind of approach is that now, as I add slices to the store, I need to make sure to be adding them to two different places. Perhaps I fail to do that, no problems at first, but latter down the track I'm trying to write a test and we start getting a 'could not find 'value' of undefined' type error.

A dependency injected redux solution

Here is a fully agnostic/dependency injected solution.

The basic strategy is that we have an agnostic useTimezone provider interface, and in our production usage we implement it with a redux store, but in testing we can implement it with our own implementation.

import React, { useState } from "react";
import { createSetPreferredTimezoneAction, selectPreferredTimezone } from "./store";
import {useDispatch, useSelector} from "react-redux"; 

// We define the properties provided by our context
type TimeZoneContextType = {
    preferredTimezone: string | null;
    setPreferredTimezone: (tz: string) => void;

// Define default values (what happens if no context is provided)
const TimeZoneProviderContext = React.createContext<TimeZoneContextType>({
    preferredTimezone: null,
    setPreferredTimezone: () => {
        console.warn("TimezoneProvider not implemented, this is a noop");

// Fully flexible generic provider
// It's behaviour will be whatever you pass in as props
export const TimeZoneProvider = (props: React.PropsWithChildren<TimeZoneContextType>) => {

    const { children, } = props;
    return <TimeZoneProviderContext.Provider value={rest}>{children}</TimeZoneProviderContext.Provider>

// Hook to use the context
export const useTimezone = () => {
    return React.useContext(TimeZoneProviderContext);

// Our 'production' provider
// This is where we wire in our redux specific code
export const ReduxTimeZoneProvider = (props: React.PropsWithChildren<{}>) => {
    const dispatch = useDispatch();
    const preferredTz = useSelector(selectPreferredTimezone);

    return <TimeZoneProvider
        setPreferredTimezone={(tz) => dispatch(createSetPreferredTimezoneAction(tz))}

Now, when we write our story like:

export const IsoStringDate = () => {
  return <TimeDisplay time="2022-07-29T02:14:10.910Z" />;

The default behaviour of the context will occur.

We can also customise the context by instantiating our own provider:

export const IsoStringDateWithMelbourneTimezone = () => {
  return <><TimeZoneProvider
    setPreferredTimezone={() => { }}
    <Info>We no longer have the problem that solution 2 has, because we can now use the default values on the context</Info>
    <TimeDisplay time="2022-07-29T02:14:10.910Z" />

And nothing prevents us from using our production provider as well

export const UsingReduxProvider = () => {
  return <ReduxTimeZoneProvider>
        <TimeDisplay time="2022-07-29T02:14:10.910Z" />

This approach gives ultimate flexibility.

Is a sensible approach? Or are we over engineering things?

I want to take a step back here and consider whether this is genuinely a good approach, or if it's unnecessary complexity.

I think that it's true that this approach provides ultimate flexibility, in choosing the behaviour of these injected dependencies.

However, is that really useful?

Let's take a look at list of objections I had again:

Arguably there other ways you could inject your non-deterministic functions into your redux store.

For example, see this Stack Overflow answer.

The idea being, your redux store will essentially a deterministic reducer (deterministic because in test, you'll be passing in deterministic services).

We're arguably doing the same thing in the approach I've suggested, where we pass in our own setPreferredTimezone function.

I think what I don't like about the redux approach is the cerebral overhead of understanding what the redux store is doing.

You could make the argument that we're doing the same thing here. For each test we need to define the behaviour of our services/data.

But this doesn't really bother me, at least in the example we've got. If anything, I'd consider it a feature, that when writing tests you need to consider how the component interacts with injected dependencies.

However, I could see a scenario where say you are testing quite a large/higher level component, you don't want to reproduce your state management logic in the test. However, in this scenario, there would be nothing preventing you from using a your redux store.

Spotted an error? Edit this page with Github