Assume an Express route that makes a call to Mongoose and has to be async so it can await on the mongoose.find(). Also assume we are receiving XML but we have to change it to JSON, and that also needs to be async so I can call await inside of it.
If I do this:
app.post('/ams', async (req, res) => {
try {
xml2js.parseString(xml, async (err, json) => {
if (err) {
throw new XMLException();
}
// assume many more clauses here that can throw exceptions
res.status(200);
res.send("Data saved")
});
} catch(err) {
if (err instanceof XML2JSException) {
res.status(400);
message = "Malformed XML error: " + err;
res.send(message);
}
}
}
The server hangs forever. I'm assuming the async/await means that the server hits a timeout before something concludes.
If I put this:
res.status(200);
res.send("Data saved")
on the line before the catch(), then that is returned, but it is the only thing every returned. The client gets a 200, even if an XMLException is thrown.
I can see the XMLException throw in the console, but I cannot get a 400 to send back. I cannot get anything I that catch block to execute in a way that communicates the response to the client.
Is there a way to do this?
In a nutshell, there is no way to propagate an error from the xml2js.parseString() callback up to the higher code because that parent function has already exited and returned. This is how plain callbacks work with asynchronous code.
To understand the problem here, you have to follow the code flow for xml2js.parseString() in your function. If you instrumented it like this:
app.post('/ams', async (req, res) => {
try {
console.log("1");
xml2js.parseString(xml, async (err, json) => {
console.log("2");
if (err) {
throw new XMLException();
}
// assume many more clauses here that can throw exceptions
res.status(200);
res.send("Data saved")
});
console.log("3");
} catch (err) {
if (err instanceof XML2JSException) {
res.status(400);
message = "Malformed XML error: " + err;
res.send(message);
}
}
console.log("4");
});
Then, you would see this in the logs:
1 // about to call xml2js.parseString()
3 // after the call to xml2js.parseString()
4 // function about to exit
2 // callback called last after function returned
The outer function has finished and returned BEFORE your callback has been called. This is because xml2js.parseString() is asynchronous and non-blocking. That means that calling it just initiates the operation and then it immediately returns and the rest of your function continues to execute. It works in the background and some time later, it posts an event to the Javascript event queue and when the interpreter is done with whatever else it was doing, it will pick up that event and call the callback.
The callback will get called with an almost empty call stack. So, you can't use traditional try/catch exceptions with these plain, asynchronous callbacks. Instead, you must either handle the error inside the callback or call some function from within the callback to handle the error for you.
When you try to throw inside that plain, asynchronous callback, the exception just goes back into the event handler that triggered the completion of the asynchronous operation and no further because there's nothing else on the call stack. Your try/catch you show in your code cannot catch that exception. In fact, no other code can catch that exception - only code within the exception.
This is not a great way to write code, but nodejs survived with it for many years (by not using throw in these circumstances). However, this is why promises were invented and when used with the newer language features async/await, they provide a cleaner way to do things.
And, fortunately in this circumstance xml2js.parseString() has a promise interface already.
So, you can do this:
app.post('/ams', async (req, res) => {
try {
// get the xml data from somewhere
const json = await xml2js.parseString(xml);
// do something with json here
res.send("Data saved");
} catch (err) {
console.log(err);
res.status(400).send("Malformed XML error: " + err.message);
}
});
With the xml2js.parseString() interface, if you do NOT pass it a callback, it will return a promise instead that resolves to the final value or rejects with an error. This is not something all asynchronous interfaces can do, but is fairly common these days if the interface had the older style callback originally and then they want to now support promises. Newer interfaces are generally just built with only promise-based interfaces. Anyway, per the doc, this interface will return a promise if you don't pass a callback.
You can then use await with that promise that the function returns. If the promise resolves, the await will retrieve the resolved value of the promise. If the promise rejects, because you awaiting the rejection will be caught by the try/catch. FYI, you can also use .then() and .catch() with the promise, but in many cases, async and await are simpler so that's what I've shown here.
So, in this code, if there is invalid XML, then the promise that xml2js.parseString() returns will reject and control flow will go to the catch block where you can handle the error.
If you want to capture only the xml2js.parseString() error separately from other exceptions that could occur elsewhere in your code, you can put a try/catch around just it (though this code didn't show anything else that would likely throw an exception so I didn't add another try/catch). In fact, this form of try/catch can be used pretty much like you would normally use it with synchronous code. You can throw up to a higher level of try/catch too.
A few other notes, many people who first start programming with asynchronous operations try to just put await in front of anything asynchronous and hope that it solves their problem. await only does anything useful when you await a promise so your asynchronous function must return a promise that resolves/rejects when the asynchronous operation is complete for the await to do anything useful.
It is also possible to take a plain callback asynchronous function that does not have a promise interface and wrap a promise interface around it. You pretty much never want to mix promise interface functions with plain callback asynchronous operations because error handling and propagation is a nightmare with a mixed model. So, sometimes you have to "promisify" an older interface so you can use promises with it. In most cases, you can do that with util.promisify() built into the util library in nodejs. Fortunately, since promises and async/await are the modern and easier way to do asynchronous things, most newer asynchronous interfaces in the nodejs world come with promise interfaces already.
You are throwing exceptions inside the callback function. So you cant expect the catch block of the router to receive it.
One way to handle this is by using util.promisify.
try{
const util = require('util');
const parseString = util.promisify(xml2js.parseString);
let json = await parsestring(xml);
}catch(err)
{
...
}
Related
I'm writing an API where I'm having a bit of trouble with the error handling. What I'm unsure about is whether the first code snippet is sufficient or if I should mix it with promises as in the second code snippet. Any help would be much appreciated!
try {
var decoded = jwt.verify(req.params.token, config.keys.secret);
var user = await models.user.findById(decoded.userId);
user.active = true;
await user.save();
res.status(201).json({user, 'stuff': decoded.jti});
} catch (error) {
next(error);
}
Second code snippet:
try {
var decoded = jwt.verify(req.params.token, config.keys.secret);
var user = models.user.findById(decoded.userId).then(() => {
}).catch((error) => {
});
user.active = true;
await user.save().then(() => {
}).catch((error) => {
})
res.status(201).json({user, 'stuff': decoded.jti});
} catch (error) {
next(error);
}
The answer is: it depends.
Catch every error
Makes sense if you want to react differently on every error.
e.g.:
try {
let decoded;
try {
decoded = jwt.verify(req.params.token, config.keys.secret);
} catch (error) {
return response
.status(401)
.json({ error: 'Unauthorized..' });
}
...
However, the code can get quite messy, and you'd want to split the error handling a bit differently (e.g.: do the JWT validation on some pre request hook and allow only valid requests to the handlers and/or do the findById and save part in a service, and throw once per operation).
You might want to throw a 404 if no entity was found with the given ID.
Catch all at once
If you want to react in the same way if a) or b) or c) goes wrong, then the first example looks just fine.
a) var decoded = jwt.verify(req.params.token, config.keys.secret);
b) var user = await models.user.findById(decoded.userId);
user.active = true;
c) await user.save();
res.status(201).json({user, 'stuff': decoded.jti});
I read some articles that suggested the need of a try/catch block for each request. Is there any truth to that?
No, that is not required. try/catch with await works conceptually like try/catch works with regular synchronous exceptions. If you just want to handle all errors in one place and want all your code to just abort to one error handler no matter where the error occurs and don't need to catch one specific error so you can do something special for that particular error, then a single try/catch is all you need.
But, if you need to handle one particular error specifically, perhaps even allowing the rest of the code to continue, then you may need a more local error handler which can be either a local try/catch or a .catch() on the local asynchronous operation that returns a promise.
or if I should mix it with promises as in the second code snippet.
The phrasing of this suggests that you may not quite understand what is going on with await because promises are involved in both your code blocks.
In both your code blocks models.user.findById(decoded.userId); returns a promise. You have two ways you can use that promise.
You can use await with it to "pause" the internal execution of the function until that promise resolves or rejects.
You can use .then() or .catch() to see when the promise resolves or rejects.
Both are using the promise returns from your models.user.findById(decoded.userId); function call. So, your phrasing would have been better to say "or if I should use a local .catch() handler on a specific promise rather than catching all the rejections in one place.
Doing this:
// skip second async operation if there's an error in the first one
async function someFunc() {
try {
let a = await someFunc():
let b = await someFunc2(a);
return b + something;
} catch(e) {
return "";
}
}
Is analogous to chaining your promise with one .catch() handler at the end:
// skip second async operation if there's an error in the first one
function someFunc() {
return someFunc().then(someFunc2).catch(e => "");
}
No matter which async function rejects, the same error handler is applied. If the first one rejects, the second one is not executed as flow goes directly to the error handler. This is perfectly fine IF that's how you want the flow to go when there's an error in the first asynchronous operation.
But, suppose you wanted an error in the first function to be turned into a default value so that the second asynchronous operation is always executed. Then, this flow of control would not be able to accomplish that. Instead, you'd have to capture the first error right at the source so you could supply the default value and continue processing with the second asynchronous operation:
// always run second async operation, supply default value if error in the first
async function someFunc() {
let a;
try {
a = await someFunc():
} catch(e) {
a = myDefaultValue;
}
try {
let b = await someFunc2(a);
return b + something;
} catch(e) {
return "";
}
}
Is analogous to chaining your promise with one .catch() handler at the end:
// always run second async operation, supply default value if error in the first
function someFunc() {
return someFunc()
.catch(err => myDefaultValue)
.then(someFunc2)
.catch(e => "");
}
Note: This is an example that never rejects the promise that someFunc() returns, but rather supplies a default value (empty string in this example) rather than reject to show you the different ways of handling errors in this function. That is certainly not required. In many cases, just returning the rejected promise is the right thing and that caller can then decide what to do with the rejection error.
I am new to nodejs/expressjs and mongodb. I am trying to create an API that exposes data to my mobile app that I am trying to build using Ionic framework.
I have a route setup like this
router.get('/api/jobs', (req, res) => {
JobModel.getAllJobsAsync().then((jobs) => res.json(jobs)); //IS THIS THe CORRECT WAY?
});
I have a function in my model that reads data from Mongodb. I am using the Bluebird promise library to convert my model functions to return promises.
const JobModel = Promise.promisifyAll(require('../models/Job'));
My function in the model
static getAllJobs(cb) {
MongoClient.connectAsync(utils.getConnectionString()).then((db) => {
const jobs = db.collection('jobs');
jobs.find().toArray((err, jobs) => {
if(err) {
return cb(err);
}
return cb(null, jobs);
});
});
}
The promisifyAll(myModule) converts this function to return a promise.
What I am not sure is,
If this is the correct approach for returning data to the route callback function from my model?
Is this efficient?
Using promisifyAll is slow? Since it loops through all functions in the module and creates a copy of the function with Async as suffix that now returns a promise. When does it actually run? This is a more generic question related to node require statements. See next point.
When do all require statements run? When I start the nodejs server? Or when I make a call to the api?
Your basic structure is more-or-less correct, although your use of Promise.promisifyAll seems awkward to me. The basic issue for me (and it's not really a problem - your code looks like it will work) is that you're mixing and matching promise-based and callback-based asynchronous code. Which, as I said, should still work, but I would prefer to stick to one as much as possible.
If your model class is your code (and not some library written by someone else), you could easily rewrite it to use promises directly, instead of writing it for callbacks and then using Promise.promisifyAll to wrap it.
Here's how I would approach the getAllJobs method:
static getAllJobs() {
// connect to the Mongo server
return MongoClient.connectAsync(utils.getConnectionString())
// ...then do something with the collection
.then((db) => {
// get the collection of jobs
const jobs = db.collection('jobs');
// I'm not that familiar with Mongo - I'm going to assume that
// the call to `jobs.find().toArray()` is asynchronous and only
// available in the "callback flavored" form.
// returning a new Promise here (in the `then` block) allows you
// to add the results of the asynchronous call to the chain of
// `then` handlers. The promise will be resolved (or rejected)
// when the results of the `job().find().toArray()` method are
// known
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
jobs.find().toArray((err, jobs) => {
if(err) {
reject(err);
}
resolve(jobs);
});
});
});
}
This version of getAllJobs returns a promise which you can chain then and catch handlers to. For example:
JobModel.getAllJobs()
.then((jobs) => {
// this is the object passed into the `resolve` call in the callback
// above. Do something interesting with it, like
res.json(jobs);
})
.catch((err) => {
// this is the error passed into the call to `reject` above
});
Admittedly, this is very similar to the code you have above. The only difference is that I dispensed with the use of Promise.promisifyAll - if you're writing the code yourself & you want to use promises, then do it yourself.
One important note: it's a good idea to include a catch handler. If you don't, your error will be swallowed up and disappear, and you'll be left wondering why your code is not working. Even if you don't think you'll need it, just write a catch handler that dumps it to console.log. You'll be glad you did!
I'm writing a JavaScript function that makes an HTTP request and returns a promise for the result (but this question applies equally for a callback-based implementation).
If I know immediately that the arguments supplied for the function are invalid, should the function throw synchronously, or should it return a rejected promise (or, if you prefer, invoke callback with an Error instance)?
How important is it that an async function should always behave in an async manner, particularly for error conditions? Is it OK to throw if you know that the program is not in a suitable state for the async operation to proceed?
e.g:
function getUserById(userId, cb) {
if (userId !== parseInt(userId)) {
throw new Error('userId is not valid')
}
// make async call
}
// OR...
function getUserById(userId, cb) {
if (userId !== parseInt(userId)) {
return cb(new Error('userId is not valid'))
}
// make async call
}
Ultimately the decision to synchronously throw or not is up to you, and you will likely find people who argue either side. The important thing is to document the behavior and maintain consistency in the behavior.
My opinion on the matter is that your second option - passing the error into the callback - seems more elegant. Otherwise you end up with code that looks like this:
try {
getUserById(7, function (response) {
if (response.isSuccess) {
//Success case
} else {
//Failure case
}
});
} catch (error) {
//Other failure case
}
The control flow here is slightly confusing.
It seems like it would be better to have a single if / else if / else structure in the callback and forgo the surrounding try / catch.
This is largely a matter of opinion. Whatever you do, do it consistently, and document it clearly.
One objective piece of information I can give you is that this was the subject of much discussion in the design of JavaScript's async functions, which as you may know implicitly return promises for their work. You may also know that the part of an async function prior to the first await or return is synchronous; it only becomes asynchronous at the point it awaits or returns.
TC39 decided in the end that even errors thrown in the synchronous part of an async function should reject its promise rather than raising a synchronous error. For example:
async function someAsyncStuff() {
return 21;
}
async function example() {
console.log("synchronous part of function");
throw new Error("failed");
const x = await someAsyncStuff();
return x * 2;
}
try {
console.log("before call");
example().catch(e => { console.log("asynchronous:", e.message); });
console.log("after call");
} catch (e) {
console.log("synchronous:", e.message);
}
There you can see that even though throw new Error("failed") is in the synchronous part of the function, it rejects the promise rather than raising a synchronous error.
That's true even for things that happen before the first statement in the function body, such as determining the default value for a missing function parameter:
async function someAsyncStuff() {
return 21;
}
async function example(p = blah()) {
console.log("synchronous part of function");
throw new Error("failed");
const x = await Promise.resolve(42);
return x;
}
try {
console.log("before call");
example().catch(e => { console.log("asynchronous:", e.message); });
console.log("after call");
} catch (e) {
console.log("synchronous:", e.message);
}
That fails because it tries to call blah, which doesn't exist, when it runs the code to get the default value for the p parameter I didn't supply in the call. As you can see, even that rejects the promise rather than throwing a synchronous error.
TC39 could have gone the other way, and had the synchronous part raise a synchronous error, like this non-async function does:
async function someAsyncStuff() {
return 21;
}
function example() {
console.log("synchronous part of function");
throw new Error("failed");
return someAsyncStuff().then(x => x * 2);
}
try {
console.log("before call");
example().catch(e => { console.log("asynchronous:", e.message); });
console.log("after call");
} catch (e) {
console.log("synchronous:", e.message);
}
But they decided, after discussion, on consistent promise rejection instead.
So that's one concrete piece of information to consider in your decision about how you should handle this in your own non-async functions that do asynchronous work.
How important is it that an async function should always behave in an async manner, particularly for error conditions?
Very important.
Is it OK to throw if you know that the program is not in a suitable state for the async operation to proceed?
Yes, I personally think it is OK when that is a very different error from any asynchronously produced ones, and needs to be handled separately anyway.
If some userids are known to be invalid because they're not numeric, and some are will be rejected on the server (eg because they're already taken) you should consistently make an (async!) callback for both cases. If the async errors would only arise from network problems etc, you might signal them differently.
You always may throw when an "unexpected" error arises. If you demand valid userids, you might throw on invalid ones. If you want to anticipate invalid ones and expect the caller to handle them, you should use a "unified" error route which would be the callback/rejected promise for an async function.
And to repeat #Timothy: You should always document the behavior and maintain consistency in the behavior.
Callback APIs ideally shouldn't throw but they do throw because it's very hard to avoid since you have to have try catch literally everywhere. Remember that throwing error explicitly by throw is not required for a function to throw. Another thing that adds to this is that the user callback can easily throw too, for example calling JSON.parse without try catch.
So this is what the code would look like that behaves according to these ideals:
readFile("file.json", function(err, val) {
if (err) {
console.error("unable to read file");
}
else {
try {
val = JSON.parse(val);
console.log(val.success);
}
catch(e) {
console.error("invalid json in file");
}
}
});
Having to use 2 different error handling mechanisms is really inconvenient, so if you don't want your program to be a fragile house of cards (by not writing any try catch ever) you should use promises which unify all exception handling under a single mechanism:
readFile("file.json").then(JSON.parse).then(function(val) {
console.log(val.success);
})
.catch(SyntaxError, function(e) {
console.error("invalid json in file");
})
.catch(function(e){
console.error("unable to read file")
})
Ideally you would have a multi-layer architecture like controllers, services, etc. If you do validations in services, throw immediately and have a catch block in your controller to catch the error format it and send an appropriate http error code. This way you can centralize all bad request handling logic. If you handle each case youll end up writing more code. But thats just how I would do it. Depends on your use case
I'm new to node.js and using it for a backend that takes data from syslog messages and stores it to a database.
I've run into the following type of serial operations:
1. Query the database
2. If the query value is X do A. otherwise do B.
A. 1. Store "this" in DB
2. Query the database again
3. If the query value is Y do P. otherwise do Q.
P. Store "something"
Q. Store "something else"
B. 1. Store "that" in the DB
2. Store "the other thing" in the DB
The gist here is that I have some operations that need to happen in order, but there is branching logic in the order.
I end up in callback hell (I didn't know what that is when I came to Node.. I do now).
I have used the async library for things that are more straight forward - like doing things in order with async.forEachOfSeries or async.queue. But I don't think there's a way to use that if things have to happen in order but there is branching.
Is there a way to handle this that doesn't lead to callback hell?
Any sort of complicated logic like this is really, really going to benefit from using promises for every async operation, especially when you get to handling errors, but also just for structuring the logic flow.
Since you haven't provided any actual code, I will make up an example. Suppose you have two core async operations that both return a promise: query(...) and store(...).
Then, you could implement your above logic like this:
query(...).then(function(value) {
if (value === X) {
return store(value).then(function() {
return query(...).then(function(newValue) {
if (newValue === Y) {
return store("something");
} else {
return store("something else");
}
})
});
} else {
return store("that").then(function() {
return store("the other thing");
});
}
}).then(function() {
// everything succeeded here
}, function(err) {
// error occurred in anyone of the async operations
});
I won't pretend this is simple. Implemented logic flow among seven different async operation is just going to be a bit of code no matter how you do it. But, promises can make it less painful than otherwise and massively easier to make robust error handling work and to interface this with other async operations.
The main keys of promises used here are:
Make all your async operations returning promises that resolve with the value or reject with the failure as the reason.
Then, you can attach a .then() handler to any promise to see when the async operation is finished successfully or with error.
The first callback to .then() is the success handler, the second callback is the error handler.
If you return a promise from within a .then() handler, then that promise gets "chained" to the previous one so all success and error state becomes linked and gets returned back to the original promise state. That's why you see the above code always returning the nested promises. This automates the returning of errors all the way back to the caller and allows you to return a value all the way back to the caller, even from deeply nested promises.
If any promise in the above code rejects, then it will stop that chain of promises up until an actual reject handler is found and propagate that error back to that reject handler. Since the only reject handler in the above code is at the to level, then all errors can be caught and seen there, no matter how deep into the nested async mess it occurred (try doing that reliably with plain callbacks - it's quite difficult).
Native Promises
Node.js has promises built in now so you can use native promises for this. But, the promise specification that node.js implements is not particularly feature rich so many folks use a promise library (I use Bluebird for all my node.js development) to get additional features. One of the more prominent features is the ability to "promisify" an existing non-promise API. This allows you to take a function that works only with a callback and create a new function that works via a promise. I find this particularly useful since many APIs that have been around awhile do not natively return promises.
Promisifying a Non-Promise Interface
Suppose you had an async operation that used a traditional callback and you wanted to "promisify it". Here's an example of how you could do that manually. Suppose you had db.query(whatToSearchFor, callback). You can manually promisify it like this:
function queryAsync(whatToSearchFor) {
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
db.query(whatToSearchFor, function(err, data) {
if (!err) {
reject(err);
} else {
resolve(data);
}
});
});
}
Then, you can just call queryAsync(whatToSearchFor) and use the returned promise.
queryAsync("foo").then(function(data) {
// data here
}, function(err) {
// error here
});
Or, if you use something like the Bluebird promise library, it has a single function for promisifying any async function that communicates its result via a node.js-style callback passed as the last argument:
var queryAsync = Promise.promisify(db.query, db);
I spent too much time trying to figure out why my express.js controller did not respond to a simple query, and figured out that runtime errors fired from a Mongoose-promise callback were silently interrupting the callback process.
Here is a simplified version of my code:
server.get('/api/test', function (req, res, next) {
User.find({}).exec().then(function success(users){
console.log('SUCCESS');
typo[0] = 1; // throws a runtime error
res.json(users);
}, function error(err){
console.log('ERROR');
res.json({error: err});
});
});
This results in SUCCESS showing up in my console, but nothing happens then. No response is given to the user, the error caused by my typo is not appearing in my console, and the error callback is not called either.
I am aware that one should not throw exceptions from a callback function, but in that case, this was just a typo, and it would make sense to me to be warned (e.g. a stack trace in my standard output) whenever one makes this kind of mistake. (we're humans, after all...)
In your opinion, what's the best way to get feedback whenever this kind of mistakes are made in promise callbacks?
This is Mongoose's fault for using a bad promise implementation. Promises are throw-safe so exceptions are caught (so they can be later handled by future code) - the future code never comes and Mongoose never reports that it did not. Good promise implementations do not suffer from this issue.
Your options are two:
Use a library like Bluebird:
var Promise = require("bluebird");
var mongoose = Promise.promisifyAll(require("mongoose"));
User.findAsync({}).then(function(data){
JSON.prase("dsa"); // not a silent failure, will show up, easy debugging
});
This has the advantage of being faster than mongoose promises so there is no performance penalty. Alternatively, if you're super conservative and don't want the performance and API gains of bluebird - you can use native promises:
// Promise is the native promise
Promise.resolve(User.find({}).exec()).then(function(data){
JSON.prase("dsa");
});
And then, assuming you're running a modern variant of nodejs (read: io.js v 1.4.1 or upper), you can subscribe to promise rejections:
process.on("unhandledRejection", function(p, why){
console.log("FOUND ERROR!!!!", p , why);
});
So exceptions are not silently suppressed.
The exec() has two promises
.then(function)
.then(null , function)
try this, I think it will help
server.get('/api/test', function(req, res, next) {
User.find({}).exec()
.then(function success(users) {
console.log('SUCCESS');
typo[0] = 1; // throws a runtime error
res.json(users);
})
.then(null, function error(err) {
console.log('ERROR');
res.json({
error: err
});
});
});