readonly(["a", "b", "c"]).includes() tracks dependencies even though array is nonreactive

[lixiaofa]

Version

3.0.2

Reproduction link

https://codesandbox.io/s/vigorous-field-e0xxe?file=/src/App.vue

Steps to reproduce

readonly(["a", "b", "c"]) Collected by dependency

What is expected?

["a", "b", "c"] Should not be collected by dependency

What is actually happening?

["a", "b", "c"] Collected by dependency

[LinusBorg]

You misunderstand what readonly does. This is expected behaviour. readonly still allows for values to be collected as dependencies - it only keep you from mutating the source objects through the procxy returned by readonly.

Maybe you are looking for markRaw() or one of the shallow*() APIs.

Edit: my analysis here was wrong, see below (#2493 (comment))

[lixiaofa]

I'd like to ask why this design is so designed that indexes can't be collected by dependency, but by using lastIndexOf, indexof and includes. Shouldn't readonly behave consistently

[LinusBorg]

Please be more specific and provide an example.

[lixiaofa]

setup() {
const readonlyState = readonly(["a", "b", "c"]);
effect(() => {
debugger;
readonlyState.includes("a");
});
},
so
readonly(["a", "b", "c"]) Collected by dependency

if
setup() {
const readonlyState = readonly(["a", "b", "c"]);
effect(() => {
debugger;
readonlyState[0]
});
},
readonly(["a", "b", "c"]) Should not be collected by dependency

Shouldn't readonly behave consistently

[lixiaofa]

readonlyState.includes("a"); readonly(["a", "b", "c"]) Collected by dependency

readonlyState[0] readonly(["a", "b", "c"]) not be collected by dependency

Shouldn't readonly behave consistently

[LinusBorg]

I'm still not sure what you are asking as your code doesn't contain any example of how different behaviour affects your use case.

However:

• in the first example, using includes() makes the whole array a dependency, as well as each index, as any index could be "a".
• in the second example, you access one specific index, and consequently only access to that specific index is collected as a dep.

[lixiaofa]

I'd like to ask why this design is so designed
readonly(["a", "b", "c"])
I mean, why don't you collect dependencies in both cases, or not

[lixiaofa]

and readonlyState.includes ("a") to be collected dependency, readonlystate [0] will not be collected dependency ， Any thoughts

[LinusBorg]

We only collect the minimal dependencies necessary.

1. in the first example, "a" could be anywhere in the array, so we have to collect the whole array as a dep.
2. in the second example, we only need 1 dep for the first index of the array, because that's all that's ever read from the array.

I'm not sure how to make that clearer without an explanation of why you think we should collect more/something different.

[LinusBorg]

Ah, now I get what you mean. I failed at reproducing it properly first with the snippet your provided.

Let's look into it, we might have an issue here.

[lixiaofa]

You may have misunderstood the meaning

In the case of readonly(),

Why? readonlyState.includes ("a") to collect dependencies, readonlystate [0] will not collect dependencies
Not consistent behavior

[lixiaofa]

OK, thank you