Node id 0 not set properly

[sauln]

It seems that if a node id is 0, then any links that should point to 0 instead point to an [Object object].

Here's a minimal example

import React from 'react';
import ReactDOM from 'react-dom';

import { Graph } from 'react-d3-graph';

var badgraph = {
    "id": 1,
    "nodes": [{
        "id": 0
    }, {
        "id": 1
    }, {
        "id": 2
    }, {
        "id": 3
    }, {
        "id": 4
    }, {
        "id": 5
    }, {
        "id": 6
    }],
    "links": [{
        "source": 0,
        "target": 1
    }, {
        "source": 0,
        "target": 3
    }, {
        "source": 2,
        "target": 4
    }, {
        "source": 2,
        "target": 5
    }, {
        "source": 2,
        "target": 6
    }]
}


const config = {
  height: 400,
  width: 400,
  staticGraph: false,
  node: {
    color: 'brown',
    size: 20
  },
  d3: {
    alphaTarget: 0.05,
    gravity: -30,
    linkDistance: 0.05,
    linkLength: 1,
  }
};

ReactDOM.render(
  <Graph id={"graph"}
         data={badgraph}
         config={config}
  />,
  document.getElementById('root')
)

and the resulting graph is shown below. It looks like one end of the link is never updated, even though the location of the 0 node is updated.

By changing the first node to have id 999, the graph renders correctly.

I'm new to react and javascript, so this might be a user error.

[danielcaldas]

Hey thanks for reporting, this is actually a bug, the problem is that react-d3-graph is currently supporting both data types as ids (not the best decision IMHO) you can have the type number or the type string and it should just work... Still, as you may know, 0 evaluates to false in javascript that is why some checks for node.id fallback to something else rather than the actual id 0. This is an internal inconsistency, still I would strongly recommend that you use strings as ids only. In the future, we might be dropping the support for number id as data type as it unnecessarily increases complexity and causes this kind of naughty bugs.

[sauln]

Thanks for getting back to me. I'll definitely switch to strings in the meantime.

[danielcaldas]

This was fixed with #161