I have a method that I want place inside a try catch. How would I change the syntax so it handles it correctly in a trycatch?
try{
rekognition.detectFaces(params, function(err, data) {
});
}catch(e){
}
Getting the error: error expected to be handled
This is probably an asynchronous function call -
rekognition.detectFaces(params, function(err, data) {
// ...
})
You cannot wrap such a call with try/catch. Instead the convention is to handle errors in the callback -
rekognition.detectFaces(params, function(err, data) {
// handle errors here...
if (err) {
// do something
console.error(err)
}
else {
// no errors here
console.log(data)
}
})
A better option is to use util.promisify -
const { promisify } =
require("util")
const detectFaces =
promisify(rekognition.detectFaces.bind(rekognition))
detectFaces(params)
.then(result => console.log("got result", result))
.catch(err => console.error("error encountered", err))
Such promisify function simply converts a callback-style function to Promise-based async function. It's a generic transformation -
const promisify = func =>
(...args) =>
new Promise
( (resolve, reject) =>
func
( ...args
, (err, result) =>
err
? reject(err)
: resolve(result)
)
)
Using the Promised-based function, try/catch is possible if we also use async/await -
const detectFaces =
promisify(rekognition.detectFaces.bind(rekognition))
async function main () { // <-- async
try { // <-- try
const result =
await detectFaces(params) // <-- await
console.log(result)
}
catch (err) { // <-- catch
console.error(err)
}
}
main()
Related
My Codes below;
I've a then-catch block. My responseArray is a global variable. i got response from functionName function; but i can't use result out of then block. How can i use then response out of block?
My Codes below;
I've a then-catch block. My responseArray is a global variable. i got response from functionName function; but i can't use result out of then block. How can i use then response out of block?
module.exports = {
foo1: function(param){
return new Promise((resolve,reject) => {
var result = //some code here
resolve(result);
});
},
foo2: function(param){
return new Promise((resolve,reject) => {
this.foo1('abc').then(function(res){
let response = {
'item':'ok',
'result':res.some_field
};
console.log(response); // its ok here.
responseArray.push(response); //its ok here too
}).catch(err =>{
console.log(err);
reject(err);
});
console.log(responseArray); //nothing in array here
resolve(responseArray);
});
}
};
First thing to remember is that promises are asynchronous. Promises are doing exactly what they say, you are essentially signing a contract (promise) that you will get your data (or error) but not synchronously, but at some time in the future when the computations have finished.
In order to access your responseArray you will need to resolve your foo2 promise (inside of .then) and continue the promise chain by calling it, i.e.
module.exports = {
foo1: function(param){
return new Promise((resolve,reject) => {
var result = //some code here
resolve(result);
});
},
foo2: function(param){
return new Promise((resolve,reject) => {
this.foo1('abc').then(function(res){
let response = {
'item':'ok',
'result':res.some_field
};
console.log(response); // its ok here.
responseArray.push(response); //its ok here too
resolve(responseArray) // resolve the promise inside of .then
}).catch(err =>{
console.log(err);
reject(err);
});
});
}
};
foo2('someValue').then(response => {
console.log(response) // this will be your array
})
Also, as a side note, ensure you are not falling into the trap of the promise constructor anti-pattern. This is where you unnecessarily turn synchronous code into asynchronous code just for the sake of using "promises"
For example, a valid use of a promise would be to convert a callback, like so:
const getFile = filename => {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
fs.readFile(filename, 'utf8', (err, data) => {
if (err) reject(err)
resolve(data)
})
})
}
whereas this is unnecessary:
const printData = data => {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
resolve(console.log(data))
})
}
vs
const printData = data => {
console.log(data)
}
Read more here: What is the explicit promise construction antipattern and how do I avoid it?
I'm fairly new to async await in javascript so this question might be something I don't know.
I have this
async function foo(req, res, next) {
try {
await scan(req.params.stack);
res.send('ok');
} catch (err) {
res.status(500).send('fail');
}
}
async function scan(stack) {
try {
const libs = [1,2,3];
const promises = libs.map(async l => analyze(stack, l)
.catch((err) => { throw new Error(err); }));
return q.allSettled(promises)
.then((results) => {
const rejected = results.filter(r => r.state === 'rejected');
if (rejected.length === results.length) throw new Error('Failed');
return results;
})
.catch((err) => {
throw new Error(err);
});
} catch (err) {
throw new Error(err);
}
}
async function analyze(stack, libraries) {
try {
const config = await buildConfiguration(stack, libraries);
return await databaseInsertion(vulnsObject);
} catch (err) {
return Promise.reject('Error while trying to analyze libs');
}
}
Somehow I'm getting this wild warning and I don't know where I am not catching the error.
Of course, I'm making build configuration fail in order to test the error, but instead of having a normal flow cathing the error I got this:
(node:415) UnhandledPromiseRejectionWarning: Unhandled promise rejection (rejection id: 3): Error: Error while trying to analyze libs
Am I using async await good? Is there any pattern I should follow in order to chain async await?
The wild thing is that the foo function works well, meaning that the res.status.(500).send('fail'); works and I'm getting the response
When I was using native promises this error didn't appear.
I'm really stuck here
While using async-await scan function you were mixing .then() .catch() waterfall with await. async-await handles promises as good as .then(). So stick with one flow and try to mix both in one function or one inside another.
async foo(req, res, next) {
try {
await scan(req.params.stack);
res.send('ok');
} catch (err) {
res.status(500).send('fail');
}
}
async scan(stack) {
try {
const libs = [1,2,3];
// This libs.map functions return promise. then why not use await?
const promises = await libs.map(async l => analyze(stack, l);
// Again q.allSettled returns promise, use await here too
let results = await q.allSettled(promises);
const rejected = results.filter(r => r.state === 'rejected');
if (rejected.length === results.length) throw new Error('Failed');
return results;
}
// If any promise call reject function will be in catch
catch (err) {
throw new Error(err);
}
}
async function analyze(stack, libraries) {
try {
const config = await buildConfiguration(stack, libraries);
return await databaseInsertion(vulnsObject);
}
catch (err) {
console.log(err);
return null;
}
}
Calling an async function (here, analyze) would return a promise, which will resolve or reject according to the return value of the async function or whether an error was thrown.
Now, the analyze function is handling the error thrown but it will return a Promise.reject() when an error is thrown. A Promise.reject() is the unhandled rejection here, which is what the log is stating.
In terms of a synchronous function the equivalent will be
function sync() {
try {
// do something dangerous
} catch (ex) {
throw Error('Something bad happened'); // this error is still being thrown and nobody is handling it
}
}
To handle this error you can do the following when you are calling sync, wrap it in try and catch again
try {
sync();
} catch (ex) {
console.error(ex); // not gonna throw another exception, otherwise the program might crash
}
Now, the equivalent of this wrap for the analyze function will be using another async function, or better since calling async function will return a Promise, use the catch method of a Promise
analyze()
.then(() => console.log('My work is done here'))
.catch(ex => console.error(ex)); // NOTE: not throwing another exception
Even better would be to not return a rejection from catch in the first place, thus making analyze,
async function analyze(stack, libraries) {
try {
const config = await buildConfiguration(stack, libraries);
return await databaseInsertion(vulnsObject);
} catch (err) {
console.error(err); // not eating up good errors with something vague is always good
return null; // or something else to signify that insert failed
}
}
In the analyze() you are returning Project.reject() but analyze() is an async function. Therefor it resolves any value that you return and rejects any error you throw.
async function analyze(stack, libraries) {
try {
const config = await buildConfiguration(stack, libraries);
return await databaseInsertion(vulnsObject);
} catch (err) {
return Promise.reject('Error while trying to analyze libs');
}
}
So when the analyze function catches an error you are creating a rejection but then resolving the function. So Promise.reject('Error while trying to analyze libs'); is not being handled. Since async functions always return a promise that resolves with whatever you return and rejects whatever you throw, your analyze function is always going to resolve. Try doin this...
async function analyze(stack, libraries) {
try {
const config = await buildConfiguration(stack, libraries);
return await databaseInsertion(vulnsObject);
} catch (err) {
throw Error('Error while trying to analyze libs');
}
}
The other thing I see as a possible problem in this code is even though you pass the map(async func) an async function, it doesn't care. It won't wait for each function to complete before calling the next.
const promises = libs.map(async l => analyze(stack, l)
.catch((err) => { throw new Error(err); }));
return q.allSettled(promises)
.then((results) => {
const rejected = results.filter(r => r.state === 'rejected');
if (rejected.length === results.length) throw new Error('Failed');
return results;
})
.catch((err) => {
throw new Error(err);
});
There are two changes bellow
const promises = libs.map(async l => await analyze(stack, l)
.catch((err) => { throw new Error(err); }));
return q.allSettled( await promises)
.then((results) => {
const rejected = results.filter(r => r.state === 'rejected');
if (rejected.length === results.length) throw new Error('Failed');
return results;
})
.catch((err) => {
throw new Error(err);
});
I added an await before the analyze function and an await before passing the promises variable into q.allSettled().
I have this code:
async function getURL() {
try {
await fetch("http://www.blah.com");
return 0;
} catch (err) {
return err;
}
}
getURL().then( result => {
if (result === 0) console.log("success");
else console.log(result);
});
The fetch will fail and the error is logged to the console. How do I rework the code so it uses async and try/catch everywhere? That is, I'm looking to avoid doing getURL().then for the sake of consistency.
EDIT:
For those downvoting me, await getURL() won't work as it's invalid syntax.
EDIT2:
Tried this but it didn't catch the error:
async function getURL() {
return await fetch("http://www.blah.com");
}
let result = async function() {return await getURL();}
try {
result();
} catch (e) {
console.log(e);
}
You can wrap your whole code inside an instantly executed async function like this:
// service.js
async function getURL() {
return await fetch("http://www.blah.com");
}
// your.module.js
(async function() {
// do things...
try {
let result = await getURL();
} catch (e) {
console.log(e);
}
// do things...
res.send({});
});
Every time you need to catch an error from promise, either using new Promise, async-await or generator you need to use .then() or you can do something like this another async-await.
async function getURL() {
try {
await fetch("http://www.blah.com");
return 0; // EDIT: just returning value which is success
} catch (err) {
return err; // EDIT: returning value not rejecting a promise
}
}
async function main () {
try {
let result = await getURL();
if (result === 0) console.log("success");
console.log(result); // EDIT: error will be print.
}
catch (err) { // EDIT: getURL() never rejects so always success.
console.log(err);
}
});
main();
This situation doesn't really occurs as while our main function in server-side or client-side are async and handling this for us.
Like using express:
app.post('/api', async (req, res) => {
try {
let result = await getURL();
res.send(async);
}
catch(err) {
res.send(err);
}
});
EDIT: asyn-await doesn't reject or resolve a call, just return a value. thus must be used carefully.
function fetch(url) {
return new Promise( (resolve, reject) => {
let x = Math.floor(Math.random() * Math.floor(9) + 1);
// 50-50 resolve or reject
if(x%2===0) return resolve(false); //resolve with `false` statement
reject(true); // reject with `true` still a reject
});
}
async function getURL() {
try {
await fetch("http://www.blah.com");
return 0; // if fetch resolve
} catch (err) { //only if fetch reject
return err;
}
}
async function main () {
try {
let result = getURL();
if (result === 0) console.log("success"); //getURL never reject any call
console.log(result);
}
catch (err) { // getURL doesnt reject
console.log(err);
}
};
main();
I realize now async functions always return a promise. Even if you throw an error it still gets wrapped up into a promise. Therefore using try/catch won't help. This is how I ended up writing the code:
async function getURL() {
return await fetch("http://fake");
}
getURL().then( () => console.log("success")).catch( (e) => console.log(e));
To overcome callback hell in javascript, I'm trying to use async await from legacy code written in SQLServer procedure.
But I'm not sure my code might be write properly.
My first confusing point is when async function returns, should it return resolve() as boolean, or just return reject and handle with try-catch?
Here is my code snippets.
Please correct me to right direction.
apiRoutes.js
app.route('/api/dansok/cancelDansok')
.post(dansokCancelHandler.cancelDansok);
dansokCancelController.js
const sequelize = models.Sequelize;
const jwt = require('jsonwebtoken');
async function jwtAccessAuthCheck(accessToken) {
if (!accessToken) {
return Promise.reject('Empty access token');
}
jwt.verify(accessToken,"dipa",function(err){
if(err) {
return Promise.reject('TokenExpiredError.');
} else {
return Promise.resolve();
}
});
}
async function checkFeeHist(dansokSeqNo) {
let feeHist = await models.FeeHist.findOne({
where: { DansokSeqNo: dansokSeqNo}
});
return !!feeHist;
}
async function getNextDansokHistSerialNo(dansokSeqNo) {
....
}
async function getDansokFee(dansokSeqNo) {
....
}
async function doCancel(dansokSeqNo) {
try {
if (await !checkFeeHist(dansokSeqNo)) {
log.error("doCancel() invalid dansokSeqNo for cancel, ", dansokSeqNo);
return;
}
let nextDansokSerialNo = await getNextDansokHistSerialNo(dansokSeqNo);
await insertNewDansokHist(dansokSeqNo, nextDansokSerialNo);
await updateDansokHist(dansokSeqNo);
await updateVBankList(dansokSeqNo, danokFee.VBankSeqNo);
await getVBankList(dansokSeqNo);
} catch (e) {
log.error("doCancel() exception:", e);
}
}
exports.cancelDansok = function (req, res) {
res.setHeader("Content-Type", "application/json; charset=utf-8");
const dansokSeqNo = req.body.DANSOKSEQNO;
const discKindCode = req.body.HISTKIND;
const worker = req.body.PROCWORKER;
const workerIp = req.body.CREATEIP;
const accessToken = req.headers.accesstoken;
//check input parameter
if (!dansokSeqNo || !discKindCode || !worker || !workerIp) {
let e = {status:400, message:'params are empty.'};
return res.status(e.status).json(e);
}
try {
jwtAccessAuthCheck(accessToken)
.then(() => {
log.info("jwt success");
doCancel(dansokSeqNo).then(() => {
log.info("cancelDansok() finish");
res.status(200).json({ message: 'cancelDansok success.' });
});
});
} catch(e) {
return res.status(e.status).json(e);
}
};
You'll need to rewrite jwtAccessAuthCheck(accessToken) so that it keeps track of the outcome of its nested tasks. In the code you've written:
// Code that needs fixes!
async function jwtAccessAuthCheck(accessToken) {
// This part is fine. We are in the main async flow.
if (!accessToken) {
return Promise.reject('Empty access token');
}
// This needs to be rewritten, as the async function itself doesn't know anything about
// the outcome of `jwt.verify`...
jwt.verify(accessToken,"dipa",function(err){
if(err) {
// This is wrapped in a `function(err)` callback, so the return value is irrelevant
// to the async function itself
return Promise.reject('TokenExpiredError.');
} else {
// Same problem here.
return Promise.resolve();
}
});
// Since the main async scope didn't handle anything related to `jwt.verify`, the content
// below will print even before `jwt.verify()` completes! And the async call will be
// considered complete right away.
console.log('Completed before jwt.verify() outcome');
}
A better rewrite would be:
// Fixed code. The outcome of `jwt.verify` is explicitly delegated back to a new Promise's
// `resolve` and `reject` handlers, Promise which we await for.
async function jwtAccessAuthCheck(accessToken) {
await new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
if (!accessToken) {
reject('Empty access token');
return;
}
jwt.verify(accessToken,"dipa",function(err){
if(err) {
reject('TokenExpiredError.');
} else {
resolve();
}
});
});
// We won't consider this async call done until the Promise above completes.
console.log('Completed');
}
An alternate signature that would also work in this specific use case:
// Also works this way without the `async` type:
function jwtAccessAuthCheck(accessToken) {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
...
});
}
Regarding your cancelDansok(req, res) middleware, since jwtAccessAuthCheck is guaranteed to return a Promise (you made it an async function), you'll also need to handle its returned Promise directly. No try / catch can handle the outcome of this asynchronous task.
exports.cancelDansok = function (req, res) {
...
jwtAccessAuthCheck(accessToken)
.then(() => {
log.info("jwt success");
return doCancel(dansokSeqNo);
})
.then(() => {
log.info("cancelDansok() finish");
res.status(200).json({ message: 'cancelDansok success.' });
})
.catch(e => {
res.status(e.status).json(e);
});
};
I strongly suggest reading a few Promise-related articles to get the hang of it. They're very handy and powerful, but also bring a little pain when mixed with other JS patterns (async callbacks, try / catch...).
https://www.promisejs.org/
Node.js util.promisify
I'm getting an error that says
(node:27301) UnhandledPromiseRejectionWarning: Unhandled promise rejection (rejection id: 1): Error: Callback was already called.
From what I understand about rejecting promises in await's and per the Mozilla description:
If the Promise is rejected, the await expression throws the rejected value.
I reject the error in the callback that's wrapped around my Promise like so:
Airport.nearbyAirports = async (location, cb) => {
let airports
try {
airports = await new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
Airport.find({
// code
}, (err, results) => {
if (err)
reject(err) // Reject here
else
resolve(results)
})
})
} catch (err) { // Catch here
cb(err, null)
return
}
if (!airports.empty)
cb(null, airports)
}
My question is
Why does it still consider my promise rejection unhandled? I thought the catch statement should silent this error.
Why does it consider my callback already called? I have a return statement in my catch, so both should never be called.
The problem was actually my framework (LoopbackJS), not my function. Apparently at the time of writing this, using promises are not supported:
https://loopback.io/doc/en/lb3/Using-promises.html#setup
Meaning I can't even use await in my function because the remote method wraps my function somewhere else, so async would always be unhandled. I ended up going back to a Promise-based implementation of the inner code:
Airport.nearbyAirports = (location, cb) => {
const settings = Airport.dataSource.settings
const db = DB(settings)
let airports
NAME_OF_QUERY().then((res) => {
cb(null, res)
}).catch((err) => {
cb(err, null)
})
If Airport.find() throws an exception, then execution will jump to your catch block and your Promise will never be resolved or rejected. Perhaps you need to wrap it in its own try/catch:
Airport.nearbyAirports = async (location, cb) => {
let airports
try {
airports = await new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
try {
Airport.find({
// code
}, (err, results) => {
if (err)
reject(err) // Reject here
else
resolve(results)
})
} catch (err) {
reject(err) // Reject here too
cb(err, null)
}
})
} catch (err) { // Catch here
cb(err, null)
return
}
if (!airports.empty)
cb(null, airports)
}
As said here, loopback 3 support this by allowing you to use a simple return.
This :
Entry.findFooById = async (id, cb) => {
const result = await Entry.findById(id);
return result;
};
...Is equivalent to :
Entry.findFooById = (id, cb) => {
Entry.findById(id)
.then(result => cb(null, result))
.catch(cb);
};
We use Loopback 2.31.0 and it also supports simple return for async functions used for remote methods. If you put a break-point somewhere in your remote method and jump one level above it in the call-stack you will see how it is implemented in loopback itself (shared-method.js):
// invoke
try {
var retval = method.apply(scope, formattedArgs);
if (retval && typeof retval.then === 'function') {
return retval.then(
function(args) {
if (returns.length === 1) args = [args];
var result = SharedMethod.toResult(returns, args);
debug('- %s - promise result %j', sharedMethod.name, result);
cb(null, result);
},
cb // error handler
);
}
return retval;
} catch (err) {
debug('error caught during the invocation of %s', this.name);
return cb(err);
}
};
What it does here - it calls your function and if it is an async function - it will return a promise (retval.then === 'function' will be true). In this case loopback will handle your result correctly, as a promise. It also do the error check for you, so you no longer try/catch blocks in your code anymore.
So, in your own code you just need to use it like below:
Airport.nearbyAirports = async (location) => {
let airports = await new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
Airport.find({
// code
}, (err, results) => {
if (err)
reject(err) // Reject here
else
resolve(results)
})
});
if (!airports.empty)
return airports;
}
else {
return {}; // not sure what you would like to return here as it wan not handled in your sample...
}
}
Note, you do not need to use callback (cb) at all here.