DON'T call [read] inside build if the value is used only for events:
Widget build(BuildContext context) {
// counter is used only for the onPressed of RaisedButton
final counter = context.read<Counter>();
return RaisedButton(
onPressed: () => counter.increment(),
);
}
While this code is not bugged in itself, this is an anti-pattern.
It could easily lead to bugs in the future after refactoring the widget
to use counter
for other things, but forget to change [read] into [watch].
CONSIDER calling [read] inside event handlers:
Widget build(BuildContext context) {
return RaisedButton(
onPressed: () {
// as performant as the previous previous solution, but resilient to refactoring
context.read<Counter>().increment(),
},
);
}
This has the same efficiency as the previous anti-pattern, but does not
suffer from the drawback of being brittle.
DON'T use [read] for creating widgets with a value that never changes
Widget build(BuildContext context) {
// using read because we only use a value that never changes.
final model = context.read<Model>();
return Text('${model.valueThatNeverChanges}');
}
While the idea of not rebuilding the widget if something else changes is
good, this should not be done with [read].
Relying on [read] for optimisations is very brittle and dependent
on an implementation detail.
CONSIDER using [select] for filtering unwanted rebuilds
Widget build(BuildContext context) {
// Using select to listen only to the value that used
final valueThatNeverChanges = context.select((Model model) => model.valueThatNeverChanges);
return Text('$valueThatNeverChanges');
}
While more verbose than [read], using [select] is a lot safer.
It does not rely on implementation details on Model
, and it makes
impossible to have a bug where our UI does not refresh.