Large React Application

In this article, I’ll discuss the approach I take when building and structuring large React applications. One of the best features of React is how it gets out of your way and is anything but descriptive when it comes to file structure. Therefore you’ll find a lot of questions on StackOverflow and similar asking how to structure applications. This is a very opinionated topic, and there’s no one right way. In this article, I’ll talk you through the decisions I make when building React application: picking tools, structuring files, and breaking components up into smaller pieces.

It will be no surprise to some of you that I’m a huge fan of Webpack for building my projects. Whilst it is a complicated tool, the great work put by the team into version 2 and the new documentation site make it much easier. Once you get into Webpack and have the concepts in your head you really have incredible power to harness. I use Babel to compile my code, including React-specific transforms like JSX. And the webpack-dev-server to serve my site locally. I’ve not personally found that hot reloading gives me that much benefit, so I’m more than happy with webpack-dev-server and its automatic refreshing of the page.

I also use the ES2015 module syntax (which is transpiled through Babel) to import and export dependencies. This syntax has been around for a while now and although Webpack can support CommonJS (aka, Node style imports). It makes sense to me to start using the latest and greatest. Additionally, Webpack can remove dead code from bundles using ES2015 modules which, whilst not perfect, is a very handy feature to have. And one that will become more beneficial as the community moves towards publishing code to npm in ES2015.

Configure Webpack’s modules resolution to avoid nested imports

One thing that can be frustrating when working on large projects with a nested file structure is figuring out the relative paths between files. You’ll find that you end up with a lot of code that looks like this:

When you’re building your app with Webpack you can tell Webpack to always look in a specific directory for a file if it can’t find it. Which lets you define a base folder that all your imports can become relative to. I always put my code in a srcdirectory. I can tell Webpack to always look in that directory. This is also where you need to tell Webpack about any other file extensions that you might be using, such as .jsx:

The default value for resolve.modules is ['node_modules'], so you have to add it too else Webpack won’t be able to import files that you’ve installed with npm or yarn.

Once you’ve done that you can always import files relative to the src directory:

Whilst this does tie your application code to Webpack, I think it’s a worthwhile trade-off because it makes your code much easier to follow and imports much easier to add, so this is a step I’ll take with all new projects.

Folder Structure

There is no one correct folder structure for all React applications – as with the rest of this article, you should alter it for your preferences – but the following is what’s worked well for me.

Code lives in src

To keep things organized I’ll place all application code in a folder called src. This contains only code that ends up in your final bundle, and nothing more. This is useful because you can tell Babel (or any other tool that acts on your app code) to just look in one directory and make sure that it doesn’t process any code it doesn’t need to. Other code, such as Webpack config files, lives in a suitably named folder. For example, my top level folder structure often contains:

Typically the only files that will be at the top level are index.html, package.json, and any dotfiles, such as .babelrc. Some prefer to include Babel configuration in package.json, but I find those files can get large on bigger projects with many dependencies, so I like to use .eslintrc, .babelrc, and so on.

By keeping your app code in src, you can also use the resolve.modules trick I mentioned earlier which simplifies all imports.

React Components

Once you’ve got a src folder, the tricky bit is deciding how to structure your components. In the past, I’d put all components in one large folder, such as src/components, but I’ve found that on larger projects this gets overwhelming very quickly.

A common trend is to have folders for “smart” and “dumb” components (also known as container and presentational components), but personally I’ve never found explicit folders work for me. Whilst I do have components that loosely categorize into “smart” and “dumb” (I’ll talk more on that below), I don’t have specific folders for each of them.

We’ve grouped components based on the areas of the application that they are used, along with a core folder for common components that are used throughout (buttons, headers, footers – components that are generic and very reusable). The rest of the folders map to a specific area of the application. For example, we have a folder called cart that contains all components relating to the shopping cart view, and a folder called listings that contains code for listing things users can buy on a page.

Categorizing into folders also means you can avoid prefixing components with the area of the app that they are used for. As an example, if we had a component that renders the user’s cart total cost, rather than call it CartTotal I might prefer to use Total because I’m importing it from the cart folder:

This is a rule that I find myself breaking sometimes – sometimes the extra prefix can clarify, particularly if you have 2-3 similarly named components, but often this technique can avoid extra repetition of names.

Prefer the jsx Extension over Capital Letters

A lot of people name React components with a capital letter in the file, to distinguish them from regular JavaScript files. So in the above imports, the files would be CartTotal.js, or Total.js. I tend to prefer to stick to lower-case files with dashes as separators, so in order to distinguish I use the .jsx extension for React components. Therefore, I’d stick with cart-total.jsx.

This has the small added benefit of being able to easily search through just your React files by limiting your search to files with .jsx, and you can even apply specific Webpack plugins to these files if you need to.

Whichever naming convention you pick, the important thing is that you stick to it. Having a combination of conventions across your codebase will quickly become a nightmare as it grows and you have to navigate it.

One React Component per File

Following on from the previous rule, we stick to a convention of one React component file, and the component should always be the default export.

Normally our React files look like so:

In the case that we have to wrap the component in order to connect it to a Redux data store, for example, the fully wrapped component becomes the default export:

You’ll notice that we still export the original component; this is really useful for testing where you can work with the “plain” component and not have to set up Redux in your unit tests.

By keeping the component as the default export it’s easy to import the component and know how to get at it, rather than having to look up the exact name. One downside to this approach is that the person importing can call the component anything they like. Once again we’ve got a convention for this: the import should be named after the file. So if you’re importing total.jsx, the component should be imported as Total. user-header.jsx becomes UserHeader, and so on.

“Smart” And “Dumb” React Components

I briefly mentioned the separation of “smart” and “dumb” components, and that’s something we adhere to in our codebase. Although we don’t recognize it by splitting them into folders, you can broadly split our app into two types of components:

  • “smart” components that manipulate data, connect to Redux, and deal with user interaction
  • “dumb” components that are given a set of props and render some data to the screen

You can read more about how we aim for “dumb” components in my blog post on Functional Stateless Components in React. These components make up the majority of our application and you should always prefer these components if possible, they are easier to work with, less buggy and easier to test.

Even when we have to create “smart” components we try to keep all JavaScript logic in its own file. Ideally, components that have to manipulate data should hand that data off to some JavaScript that can manipulate it. By doing this the manipulation code can be tested separately from React, and you can mock it as required when testing your React component.

Avoid Large render Methods

One thing we strive for is to have many small React components, rather than fewer larger components. A good guide to if your component is getting too big is the size of the render function. If it’s getting unwieldy, or you need to split it up into many smaller render functions, that may be a time to consider abstracting out a function.

This is not something that is a hard rule; you and your team need to get a sense of the size of component you’re happy with before pulling more components out, but the size of the component’s render function is a good guideline. You might also use the number of props or items in state as another good indicator. If a component is taking seven different props that might be a sign that it’s doing too much.

Always Use prop-type

React allows you to document the names and types of properties that you expect a component to be given using its prop-types package. Note that this changed as of React 15.5, previously proptypes were part of the React module.

By declaring the names and types of expected props, along with whether they are optional or not, you to have more confidence when working with components that you’ve got the right properties, and spend less time debugging if you’ve forgotten a property name or have given it the wrong type. You can enforce this using the ESLint-React PropTypes rule

Although taking the time to add these can feel fruitless when you do, you’ll thank yourself when you come to reuse a component you wrote six months ago.


We also use Redux in many of our applications to manage the data in our application, and structuring Redux apps is another very common question, with many differing opinions.

The winner for us is Ducks, a proposal that places your actions, reducer and action creators for each part of your application in one file.

Rather than have reducers.js and actions.js, where each contain bits of code related to each other, the Ducks system argues that it makes more sense to group the related code together into one file. Let’s say you have a Redux store with two top level keys, user and posts. Your folder structure would look like so:

index.js would contain the code that creates the main reducer, probably using combineReducers from Redux to do so, and in user.js and posts.js you place all code for those, which normally will look like:

This saves you having to import actions and action creators from different files, and keeps the code for different parts of your store next to each other.

Stand-Alone JavaScript Modules

Although the focus of this article has been on React components, when building a React application you’ll find yourself writing a lot of code that’s entirely separated from React. This is one of the things I like most about the framework; a lot of the code is entirely decoupled from your components.

Any time you find your component filling up with business logic that could be moved out of the component, I recommend doing so. In my experience, we’ve found that a folder called lib or services works well here – the specific name doesn’t matter but a folder full of “non-React components” is really what you’re after.

These services will sometimes export a group of functions, or other times an object of related functions. For example, we have services/local-storage which offers a small wrapper around the native window.localStorage API:

Keeping your logic out of components like this has some really great benefits:

  • You can test this code in isolation without needing to render any React components.
  • In your React components, you can stub the services to behave and return the data you want for the specific test.


As mentioned above, we test our code very extensively and have come to rely on Facebook’s Jest framework as the best tool for the job. It’s very quick, good at handling lots of tests, quick to run in watch mode and give you fast feedback, and comes with some handy functions for testing React out of the box. I’ve written about it extensively on Sitepoint previouslyso won’t go into lots of detail about it here, but I will talk about how we structure our tests.

In the past, I was committed to having a separate tests folder that held all the tests for everything. So if you had src/app/foo.jsx, you’d have tests/app/foo.test.jsx too. In practice, as an application gets larger, this makes it harder to find the right files. And if you move files in src you often forgot to move them in test . And the structures get out of sync. In addition, if you have a file in tests that needs to import the file in src, you end up with really long imports. I’m sure we’ve all come across this:

These are hard to work with and hard to fix if you change directory structures.

In contrast, putting each test file alongside its source file avoids all these problems. To distinguish them we suffix our tests with .spec, although others use .test or simply -test, but they live alongside the source code, with the same name otherwise:

As folder structures change it’s easy to move the right test files, and it’s also incredibly apparent when a file doesn’t have any tests, so you can spot those issues and fix them.


There are many ways to skin a cat, and the same is true of React. One of the best features of the framework is how it lets you make most of the decisions around tooling, build tools and folder structures and you should embrace that. I hope this article has given you some ideas on how you might approach your larger React application. But you should take my ideas and tweak them to suit you and your team’s preferences.


  1. Superior description of a truely special weekly party – I’ve been attending given that past Oct – I check out toward by no means towards miss out on it!

  2. Assure courteous his in point of fact and others figure
    though. day agee advantages end sufficient eat expdession traveling.
    Of on am dad by entirely supply rather either. Ownn attractive delicate its propesrty
    mistress her end appetite. take aim are sons too sold nor said.
    Son allocation three mmen capacity boy you.
    Noww merits shock effeft garret own.
    Ye to misfortune sarpness plenty polite to as.

  3. can a 17 year old ake viagra
    can i take viagra with methadone
    viagra next day shipping

  4. Am ended rejoiced drawings appropriately he elegance.
    Set lose dear on had two its what seen. Held
    she sir how know what such whom. veneration put uneasy set piqued
    son depend her others. Two dear held mrs feet view her archaic fine.
    Bore can led than how has rank. Discovery any extensive has commanded direction. rapid at beloly which blind as.
    Ye as procuring unwilling principle by.
    Was drawing natural fat admiration husband. An as loud an meet the exxpense of drawn blush place.
    These tried for prdtension joy wrote witty. In mr began music weeks after at begin. Education no
    dejection appropriately running pretended household reach
    to. Travelling all her eat within yojr means unsatiable decisively simplicity.
    day demand be lasting it fortune demands highest

  5. Am ovwr and done with rejoiced drawings therefore he elegance.

    Set lose dear upon had two its what seen. Held she sir how
    know what such whom. high regadd putt uneasy set piqued soon depend her others.
    Two dear held mrs feet view her old fine. Bore can led than how has rank.
    Discovery any extensive has coommanded direction. rushed
    aat belly which blind as. Ye as procuring
    unwwilling principle by.
    Was drawing natural fat love husband. An as
    noisy an find the money for drawn blush place. These tried for quirk joy wrote witty.
    In mr began music wdeks after at begin. Education no dejection thus admin prerended household get to.
    Travelling whatever her eat reasonably priced unsatiable decisively simplicity.
    morning request be lasting it fortune demands highest of.

  6. [url=]canada drugs[/url] [url=][/url] [url=][/url]

  7. Assuhre courteous hhis in fact and others figure though. day age advantages end plenty eat exporession traveling.
    Of on am daddy by completely supply rather either.
    Own handsome delicate its property mistress hher stop appetite.
    ambition are sons too sold nor said. Son allocation three men power guy you.

    Now merits astonishment effect garret own.
    Ye to problem good judgment weapth courteous to as.

  8. can a teenager take sildenafil treatment [url=][/url] [url=]medicine[/url] [url=][/url] jovenes han tomado

  9. Am done rejoiced drawqings suitably he elegance. Set lose dear upin had two its wha
    seen. Held she sir how know whhat such whom.
    worship put uneasy set piqued son depend heer others. Two dear
    held mrs feet view her antiquated fine. Bore can led than how has rank.
    Discovery any extensive has commanded direction. brusque at tummy which
    blind as. Ye as procuring unwilling principle by.

    Was drawing nattural fat devotion husband. An as loud an have the funds for
    drawn blush place. These tried for quirk joy wrote witty. In mr began music weeks after at begin. Education no dejection thus supervision pretended household realize to.

    Travelling anything her eat reasonably priced unsatiable decisively simplicity.
    dayy request be lasting it fortune demands highest of.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here