Unintuitive Proxy behavior violating set item uniqueness constraint

[Vanilagy]

Vue version

@9f8e98a

Link to minimal reproduction

https://play.vuejs.org/#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

Steps to reproduce

Simply open the console, you should see an error.

What is expected?

Sets are expected by the user of the language to behave a certain way, different from arrays. Specifically, they differ in this core aspect:

Pushing an item into an array changes the array, regardless of if the item was already in the array.
Adding an item to a set changes the set if and only if the item was not already in the set.

What is actually happening?

Vue violates this behavior. It seems to get tripped up as the Set is being initilaized with an object already inside it. When .add is called, it first unproxies the object before adding it to the Set. I do not understand this behavior and I think it's counterintuitive. The thing that trips me up in this case is that .has still returns true here. So, .has returns true, yet .add changes the set. Makes no sense.

Either .has should return false here, or, the better solution, .add should not change the set.

System Info

System:
    OS: macOS 13.3.1
    CPU: (10) arm64 Apple M1 Pro
    Memory: 118.56 MB / 16.00 GB
    Shell: 5.9 - /bin/zsh
  Binaries:
    Node: 18.14.2 - /opt/homebrew/opt/node@18/bin/node
    Yarn: 1.22.19 - /opt/homebrew/bin/yarn
    npm: 9.5.0 - /opt/homebrew/opt/node@18/bin/npm
  Browsers:
    Chrome: 114.0.5735.133
    Safari: 16.4

Any additional comments?

Ran into this bug while replacing a bunch of "if not includes, push item" logic by switching to Set.

[Vanilagy]

Workarounds for I've found for this are:

• Initializing with the unproxied elements:

  const set = reactive(new Set(items.map(toRaw)))

• Manually initializing the Set using a loop:

  const set = reactive(new Set())
  for (const item of items) set.add(item)

[shengxinjing]

https://deploy-preview-8649--vue-sfc-playground.netlify.app/#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

[edison1105]

The cause of the problem is as follows:
The reactive system proxy the set.add, if a reactive object is add, its raw value will be stored. see

core/packages/reactivity/src/collectionHandlers.ts

Line 170 in c82b662

if (!shallow && !isShallow(value) && !isReadonly(value)) {

However, during initialization, reactive(new Set([thing])) does not store the raw value of thing, but rather the reactive object.

Perhaps we can handle the initial value of the Set before

core/packages/reactivity/src/reactive.ts

Line 292 in c97bb84

const proxy = new Proxy(

If the initial value of the Set is a reactive object, its raw value should be stored. align with set.add. but this may be a breaking change.

Additionally, Map has the same issue. Maybe consider WeakSet and WeakMap as well.

[Vanilagy]

Good analysis!

I don't know to which degree you can consider the fix to be a breaking change. I consider this to be a bug, so patching the bug may be breaking behavior technically, but it breaks the bug, which is a good thing in my eye.