I'm trying to read data from a MongoDB Atlas collection using Node.js. When I try to read the contents of my collection I get the error MongoError: Cannot use a session that has ended. Here is my code
client.connect(err => {
const collection = client
.db("sample_airbnb")
.collection("listingsAndReviews");
const test = collection.find({}).toArray((err, result) => {
if (err) throw err;
});
client.close();
});
I'm able to query for a specific document, but I'm not sure how to return all documents of a collection. I've searched for this error, I can't find much on it. Thanks
In your code, it doesn't wait for the find() to complete its execution and goes on to the client.close() statement. So by the time it tries to read data from the db, the connection has already ended. I faced this same problem and solved it like this:
// connect to your cluster
const client = await MongoClient.connect('yourMongoURL', {
useNewUrlParser: true,
useUnifiedTopology: true,
});
// specify the DB's name
const db = client.db('nameOfYourDB');
// execute find query
const items = await db.collection('items').find({}).toArray();
console.log(items);
// close connection
client.close();
EDIT: this whole thing should be in an async function.
Ran into the same issue when I updated the MongoClient from 3.3.2 to the latest version (3.5.2 as of this writing.) Either install only 3.3.2 version by changing the package.json "mongodb": "3.3.2", or just use async and await wrapper.
If still the issue persists, remove the node_modules and install again.
One option is to use aPromise chain. collection.find({}).toArray() can either receive a callback function or return a promise, so you can chain calls with .then()
collection.find({}).toArray() // returns the 1st promise
.then( items => {
console.log('All items', items);
return collection.find({ name: /^S/ }).toArray(); //return another promise
})
.then( items => {
console.log("All items with field 'name' beginning with 'S'", items);
client.close(); // Last promise in the chain closes the database
);
Of course, this daisy chaining makes the code more synchronous. This is useful when the next call in the chain relates to the previous one, like getting a user id in the first one, then looking up user detail in the next.
Several unrelated queries should be executed in parallel (async) and when all the results are back, dispose of the database connection.
You could do this by tracking each call in an array or counter, for example.
const totalQueries = 3;
let completedQueries = 0;
collection.find({}).toArray()
.then( items => {
console.log('All items', items);
dispose(); // Increments the counter and closes the connection if total reached
})
collection.find({ name: /^S/ }).toArray()
.then( items => {
console.log("All items with field 'name' beginning with 'S'", items);
dispose(); // Increments the counter and closes the connection if total reached
);
collection.find({ age: 55 }).toArray()
.then( items => {
console.log("All items with field 'age' with value '55'", items);
dispose(); // Increments the counter and closes the connection if total reached
);
function dispose(){
if (++completedQueries >= totalQueries){
client.close();
}
}
You have 3 queries. As each one invokes dispose() the counter increments. When they've all invoked dispose(), the last one will also close the connection.
Async/Await should make it even easier, because they unwrap the Promise result from the then function.
async function test(){
const allItems = await collection.find({}).toArray();
const namesBeginningWithS = await collection.find({ name: /^S/ }).toArray();
const fiftyFiveYearOlds = await collection.find({ age: 55 }).toArray();
client.close();
}
test();
Below is an example of how Async/Await can end up making async code behave sequentially and run inefficiently by waiting for one async function to complete before invoking the next one, when the ideal scenario is to invoke them all immediately and only wait until they all are complete.
let counter = 0;
function doSomethingAsync(id, start) {
return new Promise(resolve => {
setTimeout(() => {
counter++;
const stop = new Date();
const runningTime = getSeconds(start, stop);
resolve(`result${id} completed in ${runningTime} seconds`);
}, 2000);
});
}
function getSeconds(start, stop) {
return (stop - start) / 1000;
}
async function test() {
console.log('Awaiting 3 Async calls');
console.log(`Counter before execution: ${counter}`);
const start = new Date();
let callStart = new Date();
const result1 = await doSomethingAsync(1, callStart);
callStart = new Date();
const result2 = await doSomethingAsync(2, callStart);
callStart = new Date();
const result3 = await doSomethingAsync(3, callStart);
const stop = new Date();
console.log(result1, result2, result3);
console.log(`Counter after all ran: ${counter}`);
console.log(`Total time to run: ${getSeconds(start, stop)}`);
}
test();
Note: Awaiting like in the example above makes the calls sequential again. If each takes 2 seconds to run, the function will take 6 seconds to complete.
Combining the best of all worlds, you would want to use Async/Await while running all calls immediately. Fortunately, Promise has a method to do this, so test() can be written like this: -
async function test(){
let [allItems, namesBeginningWithS, fiftyFiveYearOlds] = await Promise.all([
collection.find({}).toArray(),
collection.find({ name: /^S/ }).toArray(),
collection.find({ age: 55 }).toArray()
]);
client.close();
}
Here's a working example to demonstrate the difference in performance: -
let counter = 0;
function doSomethingAsync(id, start) {
return new Promise(resolve => {
setTimeout(() => {
counter++;
const stop = new Date();
const runningTime = getSeconds(start, stop);
resolve(`result${id} completed in ${runningTime} seconds`);
}, 2000);
});
}
function getSeconds(start, stop) {
return (stop - start) / 1000;
}
async function test() {
console.log('Awaiting 3 Async calls');
console.log(`Counter before execution: ${counter}`);
const start = new Date();
const [result1, result2, result3] = await Promise.all([
doSomethingAsync(1, new Date()),
doSomethingAsync(2, new Date()),
doSomethingAsync(3, new Date())
]);
const stop = new Date();
console.log(result1, result2, result3);
console.log(`Counter after all ran: ${counter}`);
console.log(`Total time to run: ${getSeconds(start, stop)}`);
}
test();
other people have touched on this but I just want to highlight that .toArray() is executed asynchronously so you need to make sure that it has finished before closing the session
this won't work
const randomUser = await db.collection('user').aggregate([ { $sample: { size: 1 } } ]);
console.log(randomUser.toArray());
await client.close();
this will
const randomUser = await db.collection('user').aggregate([ { $sample: { size: 1 } } ]).toArray();
console.log(randomUser);
await client.close();
client.connect(err => {
const collection = client
.db("sample_airbnb")
.collection("listingsAndReviews");
const test = collection.find({}).toArray((err, result) => {
if (err) throw err;
client.close();
});
});
I'm writing a Node AWS Lambda function that queries around 5,000 items from my DB and sends them via messages into an AWS SQS queue.
My local environment involves me running my lambda with AWS SAM local, and emulating AWS SQS with GoAWS.
An example skeleton of my Lambda is:
async run() {
try {
const accounts = await this.getAccountsFromDB();
const results = await this.writeAccountsIntoQueue(accounts);
return 'I\'ve written: ' + results + ' messages into SQS';
} catch (e) {
console.log('Caught error running job: ');
console.log(e);
return e;
}
}
There are no performance issues with my getAccountsFromDB() function and it runs almost instantly, returning me an array of 5,000 accounts.
My writeAccountsIntoQueue function looks like:
async writeAccountsIntoQueue(accounts) {
// Extract the sqsClient and queueUrl from the class
const { sqsClient, queueUrl } = this;
try {
// Create array of functions to concurrenctly call later
let promises = accounts.map(acc => async () => await sqsClient.sendMessage({
QueueUrl: queueUrl,
MessageBody: JSON.stringify(acc),
DelaySeconds: 10,
})
);
// Invoke the functions concurrently, using helper function `eachLimit`
let writtenMessages = await eachLimit(promises, 3);
return writtenMessages;
} catch (e) {
console.log('Error writing accounts into queue');
console.log(e);
return e;
}
}
My helper, eachLimit looks like:
async function eachLimit (funcs, limit) {
let rest = funcs.slice(limit);
await Promise.all(
funcs.slice(0, limit).map(
async (func) => {
await func();
while (rest.length) {
await rest.shift()();
}
}
)
);
}
To the best of my understanding, it should be limiting concurrent executions to limit.
Additionally, I've wrapped the AWS SDK SQS client to return an object with a sendMessage function that looks like:
sendMessage(params) {
const { client } = this;
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
client.sendMessage(params, (err, data) => {
if (err) {
console.log('Error sending message');
console.log(err);
return reject(err);
}
return resolve(data);
});
});
}
So nothing fancy there, just Promisifying a callback.
I've got my lambda set up to timeout after 300 seconds, and the lambda always times out, and if it doesn't it ends abruptly and misses some final logging that should go on, which makes me thing it may even be erroring somewhere, silently. When I check the SQS queue I'm missing around 1,000 entries.
I can see a couple of issues in your code,
First:
let promises = accounts.map(acc => async () => await sqsClient.sendMessage({
QueueUrl: queueUrl,
MessageBody: JSON.stringify(acc),
DelaySeconds: 10,
})
);
You're abusing async / await. Always bear in mind await will wait until your promise is resolved before continuing with the next one, in this case whenever you map the array promises and call each function item it will wait for the promise wrapped by that function before continuing, which is bad. Since you're only interested in getting the promises back, you could simply do this instead:
const promises = accounts.map(acc => () => sqsClient.sendMessage({
QueueUrl: queueUrl,
MessageBody: JSON.stringify(acc),
DelaySeconds: 10,
})
);
Now, for the second part, your eachLimit implementation looks wrong and very verbose, I've refactored it with help of es6-promise-pool to handle the concurrency limit for you:
const PromisePool = require('es6-promise-pool')
function eachLimit(promiseFuncs, limit) {
const promiseProducer = function () {
while(promiseFuncs.length) {
const promiseFunc = promiseFuncs.shift();
return promiseFunc();
}
return null;
}
const pool = new PromisePool(promiseProducer, limit)
const poolPromise = pool.start();
return poolPromise;
}
Lastly, but very important, have a look at SQS Limits, SQS FIFO has up to 300 sends / sec. Since you are processing 5k items, you could probably up your concurrency limit to 5k / (300 + 50) , approx 15. The 50 could be any positive number, just to move away from the limit a bit.
Also, considering using SendMessageBatch which you could have much more throughput and reach 3k sends / sec.
EDIT
As I suggested above, using sendMessageBatch the throughput is much better, so I've refactored the code mapping your promises to support sendMessageBatch:
function chunkArray(myArray, chunk_size){
var index = 0;
var arrayLength = myArray.length;
var tempArray = [];
for (index = 0; index < arrayLength; index += chunk_size) {
myChunk = myArray.slice(index, index+chunk_size);
tempArray.push(myChunk);
}
return tempArray;
}
const groupedAccounts = chunkArray(accounts, 10);
const promiseFuncs = groupedAccounts.map(accountsGroup => {
const messages = accountsGroup.map((acc,i) => {
return {
Id: `pos_${i}`,
MessageBody: JSON.stringify(acc),
DelaySeconds: 10
}
});
return () => sqsClient.sendMessageBatch({
Entries: messages,
QueueUrl: queueUrl
})
});
Then you can call eachLimit as usual:
const result = await eachLimit(promiseFuncs, 3);
The difference now is every promise processed will send a batch of messages of size n (10 in the example above).
As far as I understand, in ES7/ES2016 putting multiple await's in code will work similar to chaining .then() with promises, meaning that they will execute one after the other rather than in parallel. So, for example, we have this code:
await someCall();
await anotherCall();
Do I understand it correctly that anotherCall() will be called only when someCall() is completed? What is the most elegant way of calling them in parallel?
I want to use it in Node, so maybe there's a solution with async library?
EDIT: I'm not satisfied with the solution provided in this question: Slowdown due to non-parallel awaiting of promises in async generators, because it uses generators and I'm asking about a more general use case.
You can await on Promise.all():
await Promise.all([someCall(), anotherCall()]);
To store the results:
let [someResult, anotherResult] = await Promise.all([someCall(), anotherCall()]);
Note that Promise.all fails fast, which means that as soon as one of the promises supplied to it rejects, then the entire thing rejects.
const happy = (v, ms) => new Promise((resolve) => setTimeout(() => resolve(v), ms))
const sad = (v, ms) => new Promise((_, reject) => setTimeout(() => reject(v), ms))
Promise.all([happy('happy', 100), sad('sad', 50)])
.then(console.log).catch(console.log) // 'sad'
If, instead, you want to wait for all the promises to either fulfill or reject, then you can use Promise.allSettled. Note that Internet Explorer does not natively support this method.
const happy = (v, ms) => new Promise((resolve) => setTimeout(() => resolve(v), ms))
const sad = (v, ms) => new Promise((_, reject) => setTimeout(() => reject(v), ms))
Promise.allSettled([happy('happy', 100), sad('sad', 50)])
.then(console.log) // [{ "status":"fulfilled", "value":"happy" }, { "status":"rejected", "reason":"sad" }]
Note: If you use Promise.all actions that managed to finish before rejection happen are not rolled back, so you may need to take care of such situation. For example
if you have 5 actions, 4 quick, 1 slow and slow rejects. Those 4
actions may be already executed so you may need to roll back. In such situation consider using Promise.allSettled while it will provide exact detail which action failed and which not.
TL;DR
Use Promise.all for the parallel function calls, the answer behaviors not correctly when the error occurs.
First, execute all the asynchronous calls at once and obtain all the Promise objects. Second, use await on the Promise objects. This way, while you wait for the first Promise to resolve the other asynchronous calls are still progressing. Overall, you will only wait for as long as the slowest asynchronous call. For example:
// Begin first call and store promise without waiting
const someResult = someCall();
// Begin second call and store promise without waiting
const anotherResult = anotherCall();
// Now we await for both results, whose async processes have already been started
const finalResult = [await someResult, await anotherResult];
// At this point all calls have been resolved
// Now when accessing someResult| anotherResult,
// you will have a value instead of a promise
JSbin example: http://jsbin.com/xerifanima/edit?js,console
Caveat: It doesn't matter if the await calls are on the same line or on different lines, so long as the first await call happens after all of the asynchronous calls. See JohnnyHK's comment.
Update: this answer has a different timing in error handling according to the #bergi's answer, it does NOT throw out the error as the error occurs but after all the promises are executed.
I compare the result with #jonny's tip: [result1, result2] = Promise.all([async1(), async2()]), check the following code snippet
const correctAsync500ms = () => {
return new Promise(resolve => {
setTimeout(resolve, 500, 'correct500msResult');
});
};
const correctAsync100ms = () => {
return new Promise(resolve => {
setTimeout(resolve, 100, 'correct100msResult');
});
};
const rejectAsync100ms = () => {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
setTimeout(reject, 100, 'reject100msError');
});
};
const asyncInArray = async (fun1, fun2) => {
const label = 'test async functions in array';
try {
console.time(label);
const p1 = fun1();
const p2 = fun2();
const result = [await p1, await p2];
console.timeEnd(label);
} catch (e) {
console.error('error is', e);
console.timeEnd(label);
}
};
const asyncInPromiseAll = async (fun1, fun2) => {
const label = 'test async functions with Promise.all';
try {
console.time(label);
let [value1, value2] = await Promise.all([fun1(), fun2()]);
console.timeEnd(label);
} catch (e) {
console.error('error is', e);
console.timeEnd(label);
}
};
(async () => {
console.group('async functions without error');
console.log('async functions without error: start')
await asyncInArray(correctAsync500ms, correctAsync100ms);
await asyncInPromiseAll(correctAsync500ms, correctAsync100ms);
console.groupEnd();
console.group('async functions with error');
console.log('async functions with error: start')
await asyncInArray(correctAsync500ms, rejectAsync100ms);
await asyncInPromiseAll(correctAsync500ms, rejectAsync100ms);
console.groupEnd();
})();
Update:
The original answer makes it difficult (and in some cases impossible) to correctly handle promise rejections. The correct solution is to use Promise.all:
const [someResult, anotherResult] = await Promise.all([someCall(), anotherCall()]);
Original answer:
Just make sure you call both functions before you await either one:
// Call both functions
const somePromise = someCall();
const anotherPromise = anotherCall();
// Await both promises
const someResult = await somePromise;
const anotherResult = await anotherPromise;
There is another way without Promise.all() to do it in parallel:
First, we have 2 functions to print numbers:
function printNumber1() {
return new Promise((resolve,reject) => {
setTimeout(() => {
console.log("Number1 is done");
resolve(10);
},1000);
});
}
function printNumber2() {
return new Promise((resolve,reject) => {
setTimeout(() => {
console.log("Number2 is done");
resolve(20);
},500);
});
}
This is sequential:
async function oneByOne() {
const number1 = await printNumber1();
const number2 = await printNumber2();
}
//Output: Number1 is done, Number2 is done
This is parallel:
async function inParallel() {
const promise1 = printNumber1();
const promise2 = printNumber2();
const number1 = await promise1;
const number2 = await promise2;
}
//Output: Number2 is done, Number1 is done
I've created a gist testing some different ways of resolving promises, with results. It may be helpful to see the options that work.
Edit: Gist content as per Jin Lee's comment
// Simple gist to test parallel promise resolution when using async / await
function promiseWait(time) {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
setTimeout(() => {
resolve(true);
}, time);
});
}
async function test() {
return [
await promiseWait(1000),
await promiseWait(5000),
await promiseWait(9000),
await promiseWait(3000),
]
}
async function test2() {
return {
'aa': await promiseWait(1000),
'bb': await promiseWait(5000),
'cc': await promiseWait(9000),
'dd': await promiseWait(3000),
}
}
async function test3() {
return await {
'aa': promiseWait(1000),
'bb': promiseWait(5000),
'cc': promiseWait(9000),
'dd': promiseWait(3000),
}
}
async function test4() {
const p1 = promiseWait(1000);
const p2 = promiseWait(5000);
const p3 = promiseWait(9000);
const p4 = promiseWait(3000);
return {
'aa': await p1,
'bb': await p2,
'cc': await p3,
'dd': await p4,
};
}
async function test5() {
return await Promise.all([
await promiseWait(1000),
await promiseWait(5000),
await promiseWait(9000),
await promiseWait(3000),
]);
}
async function test6() {
return await Promise.all([
promiseWait(1000),
promiseWait(5000),
promiseWait(9000),
promiseWait(3000),
]);
}
async function test7() {
const p1 = promiseWait(1000);
const p2 = promiseWait(5000);
const p3 = promiseWait(9000);
return {
'aa': await p1,
'bb': await p2,
'cc': await p3,
'dd': await promiseWait(3000),
};
}
let start = Date.now();
test().then((res) => {
console.log('Test Done, elapsed', (Date.now() - start) / 1000, res);
start = Date.now();
test2().then((res) => {
console.log('Test2 Done, elapsed', (Date.now() - start) / 1000, res);
start = Date.now();
test3().then((res) => {
console.log('Test3 Done, elapsed', (Date.now() - start) / 1000, res);
start = Date.now();
test4().then((res) => {
console.log('Test4 Done, elapsed', (Date.now() - start) / 1000, res);
start = Date.now();
test5().then((res) => {
console.log('Test5 Done, elapsed', (Date.now() - start) / 1000, res);
start = Date.now();
test6().then((res) => {
console.log('Test6 Done, elapsed', (Date.now() - start) / 1000, res);
});
start = Date.now();
test7().then((res) => {
console.log('Test7 Done, elapsed', (Date.now() - start) / 1000, res);
});
});
});
});
});
});
/*
Test Done, elapsed 18.006 [ true, true, true, true ]
Test2 Done, elapsed 18.009 { aa: true, bb: true, cc: true, dd: true }
Test3 Done, elapsed 0 { aa: Promise { <pending> },
bb: Promise { <pending> },
cc: Promise { <pending> },
dd: Promise { <pending> } }
Test4 Done, elapsed 9 { aa: true, bb: true, cc: true, dd: true }
Test5 Done, elapsed 18.008 [ true, true, true, true ]
Test6 Done, elapsed 9.003 [ true, true, true, true ]
Test7 Done, elapsed 12.007 { aa: true, bb: true, cc: true, dd: true }
*/
In my case, I have several tasks I want to execute in parallel, but I need to do something different with the result of those tasks.
function wait(ms, data) {
console.log('Starting task:', data, ms);
return new Promise(resolve => setTimeout(resolve, ms, data));
}
var tasks = [
async () => {
var result = await wait(1000, 'moose');
// do something with result
console.log(result);
},
async () => {
var result = await wait(500, 'taco');
// do something with result
console.log(result);
},
async () => {
var result = await wait(5000, 'burp');
// do something with result
console.log(result);
}
]
await Promise.all(tasks.map(p => p()));
console.log('done');
And the output:
Starting task: moose 1000
Starting task: taco 500
Starting task: burp 5000
taco
moose
burp
done
(async function(){
function wait(ms, data) {
console.log('Starting task:', data, ms);
return new Promise(resolve => setTimeout(resolve, ms, data));
}
var tasks = [
async () => {
var result = await wait(1000, 'moose');
// do something with result
console.log(result);
},
async () => {
var result = await wait(500, 'taco');
// do something with result
console.log(result);
},
async () => {
var result = await wait(5000, 'burp');
// do something with result
console.log(result);
}
]
await Promise.all(tasks.map(p => p()));
console.log('done');
})();
await Promise.all([someCall(), anotherCall()]); as already mention will act as a thread fence (very common in parallel code as CUDA), hence it will allow all the promises in it to run without blocking each other, but will prevent the execution to continue until ALL are resolved.
another approach that is worth to share is the Node.js async that will also allow you to easily control the amount of concurrency that is usually desirable if the task is directly linked to the use of limited resources as API call, I/O operations, etc.
// create a queue object with concurrency 2
var q = async.queue(function(task, callback) {
console.log('Hello ' + task.name);
callback();
}, 2);
// assign a callback
q.drain = function() {
console.log('All items have been processed');
};
// add some items to the queue
q.push({name: 'foo'}, function(err) {
console.log('Finished processing foo');
});
q.push({name: 'bar'}, function (err) {
console.log('Finished processing bar');
});
// add some items to the queue (batch-wise)
q.push([{name: 'baz'},{name: 'bay'},{name: 'bax'}], function(err) {
console.log('Finished processing item');
});
// add some items to the front of the queue
q.unshift({name: 'bar'}, function (err) {
console.log('Finished processing bar');
});
Credits to the Medium article autor (read more)
You can call multiple asynchronous functions without awaiting them. This will execute them in parallel. While doing so, save the returned promises in variables, and await them at some point either individually or using Promise.all() and process the results.
You can also wrap the function calls with try...catch to handle failures of individual asynchronous actions and provide fallback logic.
Here's an example:
Observe the logs, the logs printed at the beginning of execution of the individual asynchronous functions get printed immediately even though the first function takes 5 seconds to resolve.
function someLongFunc () {
return new Promise((resolve, reject)=> {
console.log('Executing function 1')
setTimeout(resolve, 5000)
})
}
function anotherLongFunc () {
return new Promise((resolve, reject)=> {
console.log('Executing function 2')
setTimeout(resolve, 5000)
})
}
async function main () {
let someLongFuncPromise, anotherLongFuncPromise
const start = Date.now()
try {
someLongFuncPromise = someLongFunc()
}
catch (ex) {
console.error('something went wrong during func 1')
}
try {
anotherLongFuncPromise = anotherLongFunc()
}
catch (ex) {
console.error('something went wrong during func 2')
}
await someLongFuncPromise
await anotherLongFuncPromise
const totalTime = Date.now() - start
console.log('Execution completed in ', totalTime)
}
main()
// A generic test function that can be configured
// with an arbitrary delay and to either resolve or reject
const test = (delay, resolveSuccessfully) => new Promise((resolve, reject) => setTimeout(() => {
console.log(`Done ${ delay }`);
resolveSuccessfully ? resolve(`Resolved ${ delay }`) : reject(`Reject ${ delay }`)
}, delay));
// Our async handler function
const handler = async () => {
// Promise 1 runs first, but resolves last
const p1 = test(10000, true);
// Promise 2 run second, and also resolves
const p2 = test(5000, true);
// Promise 3 runs last, but completes first (with a rejection)
// Note the catch to trap the error immediately
const p3 = test(1000, false).catch(e => console.log(e));
// Await all in parallel
const r = await Promise.all([p1, p2, p3]);
// Display the results
console.log(r);
};
// Run the handler
handler();
/*
Done 1000
Reject 1000
Done 5000
Done 10000
*/
Whilst setting p1, p2 and p3 is not strictly running them in parallel, they do not hold up any execution and you can trap contextual errors with a catch.
This can be accomplished with Promise.allSettled(), which is similar to Promise.all() but without the fail-fast behavior.
async function Promise1() {
throw "Failure!";
}
async function Promise2() {
return "Success!";
}
const [Promise1Result, Promise2Result] = await Promise.allSettled([Promise1(), Promise2()]);
console.log(Promise1Result); // {status: "rejected", reason: "Failure!"}
console.log(Promise2Result); // {status: "fulfilled", value: "Success!"}
Note: This is a bleeding edge feature with limited browser support, so I strongly recommend including a polyfill for this function.
I create a helper function waitAll, may be it can make it sweeter.
It only works in nodejs for now, not in browser chrome.
//const parallel = async (...items) => {
const waitAll = async (...items) => {
//this function does start execution the functions
//the execution has been started before running this code here
//instead it collects of the result of execution of the functions
const temp = [];
for (const item of items) {
//this is not
//temp.push(await item())
//it does wait for the result in series (not in parallel), but
//it doesn't affect the parallel execution of those functions
//because they haven started earlier
temp.push(await item);
}
return temp;
};
//the async functions are executed in parallel before passed
//in the waitAll function
//const finalResult = await waitAll(someResult(), anotherResult());
//const finalResult = await parallel(someResult(), anotherResult());
//or
const [result1, result2] = await waitAll(someResult(), anotherResult());
//const [result1, result2] = await parallel(someResult(), anotherResult());
I vote for:
await Promise.all([someCall(), anotherCall()]);
Be aware of the moment you call functions, it may cause unexpected result:
// Supposing anotherCall() will trigger a request to create a new User
if (callFirst) {
await someCall();
} else {
await Promise.all([someCall(), anotherCall()]); // --> create new User here
}
But following always triggers request to create new User
// Supposing anotherCall() will trigger a request to create a new User
const someResult = someCall();
const anotherResult = anotherCall(); // ->> This always creates new User
if (callFirst) {
await someCall();
} else {
const finalResult = [await someResult, await anotherResult]
}