When it comes to nodejs promises: which implementation of chaining is a better practice and why?
Promise.resolve()
.then(() => somePromise())
.then(() => anotherPromise())
.catch(e => log(e));
versus
somePromise()
.then(() => anotherPromise())
.catch(e => log(e));
As long as somePromise() always returns a promise and doesn't throw synchronously, there's no reason to start the chain with Promise.resolve(). That just creates extra code to run that is not necessary. You can just start the chain with somePromise() instead (as in your 2nd example).
But, if somePromise() could throw synchronously and you wanted that to be routed into your .catch() handler, then your first option is one way to do that. I would argue that somePromise() is poorly designed if it could both return a promise and throw synchronously, but if that turned out to be the case and it wasn't your code that you could fix, then your first option would be one way to work around that bad design.
Also, if your functions really take no custom arguments (though I realize this may just be pseudocode), you don't need the extra functions. You can do:
somePromise()
.then(anotherPromise)
.catch(log);
Another possibility is to use the ability to catch both synchronous exceptions and promise errors and deal with functions that occasionally don't return a promise with await and try/catch.
async function myFunc() {
try {
await somePromise();
await anotherPromise();
} catch(e) {
log(e);
}
}
jfriend00 is right and nailed it with synchronous errors, but I would warmly recommend you consider async/await over chaining which is preferred. There are numerous benefit (performance, better stack traces and easier code):
try {
await somePromise();
await anotherPromise());
} catch (e) { log(e); }
Mostly, in new Node if somePromise throws inside - you will get a stack frame (in production) showing the calling code whereas with regular chaining you would not.
Related
Working on a MERN stack project. When trying to access the site on localhost on iPhone Posts are posts are not loading. Working fine on adnroid devices.
Screenshot of error
const fetchFeedPosts = async () => {
const URL = `${BASE__URL}api/posts/feed/${LOGGED__IN__USER}`;
await axios.get(URL)
.then((response) => setFeedPosts([...response.data].reverse()))
.catch((e) => console.log(e.response));
}
fetchFeedPosts()
What the error means
When an Error is thrown (e.g. throw new Error()) it can
be catched locally (e.g. try{...} catch(err) { /** here */ })
or be passed on to the calling function. And in that fashion it bubbles up from caller to caller until it reaches a catch somewhere.
However, if it continues to bubble up, and there's nothing that captures it by the time it reaches the root of your application or code, then that will result in a so-called "Unhandled" error.
Now, as you may know, promises are more like jobs that drift around. They aren't called from the root of your application. But as they bubble up they can also reach a similar root-point, in which case they become "Unhandled Promise rejections".
What to do about it
Unhandled errors or rejections are bad practice though. Errors should be caught somewhere. And without catching them, you can't really know what has caused the error to happen in the first place.
In most cases, you can catch them with a .catch() function, (e.g. yourPromise.catch((err) => {console.err(err)}))
In case your promise is handled in an async function and waited for with an await keyword, then it's slightly different. In that case it makes more sense to use a try-catch block to capture your error.
How to apply it to your code
So, the first way of doing it would be to use the .catch() function
axios.get(URL)
.then((response) => setFeedPosts([...response.data].reverse()))
.catch((err) => console.error(err));
The alternative is to use the await syntax with a try-catch. If you want to use this syntax, you have to put the async keyword before your function.
try {
const response = await axios.get(URL)
setFeedPosts([...response.data].reverse()))
} catch (err) {
console.log(err);
}
Sure, you could mix the 2, but in most cases that would be rather strange.
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)
{
...
}
I've a very large amount of data to create on the database and I want to generate them in parallel with a concurrency limit. In order to do that I'm using the Promise.map method from bluebird with the concurrency limit set. However, I also need to stop the execution of the chain as soon as one of the promises fails.
This is my current code:
await Promise.map(
entry.tags,
async (tag) => {
await factory(Tag)().create(tag);
},
{ concurrency: 1000 },
).catch(() => {
/** #todo find a better way */
process.exit(1);
});
At the moment, as you can see, I'm using process.exit(1) but I wouldn't handle the exit code there. Instead, the Promise chain should stop instantly and the error should be thrown in order to be caught from the parent function.
With the p-map library there's the parameter "stopOnError" which work exactly as I expect, I can't find anything similar on Bluebird instead.
I tried also to use the .cancel() method inside the .catch() but apparently it's not working.
Your promise chain is stopping instantly and would throw an error to your calling function. However, two things are happening here:
You're telling Bluebird to queue up to 1000 Promises in parallel, and once a Promise is created there is no meaningful way to cancel it. You may see ~999 Promises have an effect even after one fails, due to your concurrency limit of 1000.
By calling .catch on your Promise, you are handling a rejection that await would otherwise convert into the error you want.
See this fiddle, as Stack Snippets doesn't support Bluebird:
(async function() {
try {
await Promise.map(
seq(100),
(i) => {
console.log(i);
if (Math.random() > 0.5)
return Promise.resolve();
else return Promise.reject();
},
{ concurrency: 5 },
).catch(() => {
console.error("catch 1");
});
} catch(e) {
console.error("catch 2");
}
})();
function seq(i) {
return Array(i).keys();
}
As the code runs, you'll see the log for "catch 1" but not "catch 2", because the catch block causes the outer promise to resolve instead of rejecting. You'll also notice that fewer than 100 numbers are printed to output; in fact, fewer than 5 print to output, as Bluebird stops mapping as soon as possible, and in this example the Promise happens to fail fast enough that Bluebird doesn't even get the chance to fill all concurrent workers. In your real code, which is presumably asynchronous, you might see most or all of your 1000 workers start before any of them fail fast enough to cancel.
You can reduce your concurrency parameter if you want fewer attempts going at once, but again there isn't a guaranteed way to cancel Promises in Javascript. Even in Bluebird, which supports a Promise cancel method, "cancelling a promise simply means that its handler callbacks will not be called". These semantics, which the doc labels "don't care" semantics in contrast to "abort" semantics, are redundant to the semantics that Promise.map already provides you.
Regarding the catch block: If you were to remove the catch call surrounding my "catch 1", you would instead fail at "catch 2" in the outer try block—equivalent to catching the error in the parent function as you prefer. As an alternative, your Promise's catch block could re-throw the rejection reason, which would cause both "catch 1" and "catch 2" to be printed in your logs:
).catch((t) => {
console.error("catch 1");
return Promise.reject(t);
});
I am looking for a answer on what to use in my nodeJS app.
I have code which handles my generic dB access to mssql. This code is written using an async functions and then I used a promise to call that function and all works fine.
As my app is getting bigger and code larger I am planning to move some of the logic into functions and then call them.
So my question is: is there a drawback to using a mix of async/await and promises or does it really not matter?
Async / await makes it easier to write more readable code as I have to read and write to multiple db’s before I return something and I need results of some of these.
So the question is what is the better approach?
Async / await on dB layer that’s set and can’t change
The logic layer async / await which would allow me a async / and await on the function call or if I go with promise for logic then I am stuck with promise on function call.
So I hope someone can give me more insight if one has more advantages than the other, besides being able to write cleaner code.
async/await and promises are closely related. async functions return promises, and await is syntactic sugar for waiting for a promise to be resolved.
The only drawback from having a mix of promises and async functions might be readability and maintainability of the code, but you can certainly use the return value of async functions as promises as well as await for regular functions that return a promise.
Whether you choose one vs the other mostly depends on availability (does your node.js / browser support async?) and on your aesthetic preference, but a good rule of thumb (based on my own preference at the time of writing) could be:
If you need to run asynchronous code in series: consider using async/await:
return asyncFunction()
.then(result => f1(result))
.then(result2 => f2(result2));
vs
const result = await asyncFunction();
const result2 = await f1(result);
return await f2(result2);
If you need nested promises: use async/await:
return asyncFunction()
.then(result => {
return f1(result)
.then(result2 => f2(result, result2);
})
vs
const result = await asyncFunction();
const result2 = await f1(result);
return await f2(result, result2);
If you need to run it in parallel: use promises.
return Promise.all(arrayOfIDs.map(id => asyncFn(id)))
It has been suggested you can use await within an expression to await multiple tasks like so:
*note, this still awaits in sequence from left to right, which is OK if you don't expect errors. Otherwise the behaviour is different due to fail fast behaviour of Promise.all()
const [r1, r2, r3] = [await task1, await task2, await task3];
(async function() {
function t1(t) {
console.time(`task ${t}`);
console.log(`start task ${t}`);
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
setTimeout(() => {
console.timeEnd(`task ${t}`);
resolve();
}, t);
})
}
console.log('Create Promises');
const task1 = t1(100);
const task2 = t1(200);
const task3 = t1(10);
console.log('Await for each task');
const [r1, r2, r3] = [await task1, await task2, await task3];
console.log('Done');
}())
But as with Promise.all, the parallel promises need to be properly handled in case of an error. You can read more about that here.
Be careful not to confuse the previous code with the following:
let [r1, r2] = [await t1(100), await t2(200)];
function t1(t) {
console.time(`task ${t}`);
console.log(`start task ${t}`);
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
setTimeout(() => {
console.timeEnd(`task ${t}`);
resolve();
}, t);
})
}
console.log('Promise');
Promise.all([t1(100), t1(200), t1(10)]).then(async() => {
console.log('Await');
let [r1, r2, r3] = [await t1(100), await t1(200), await t1(10)]
});
Using these two methods is not equivalent. Read more about the difference.
In the end, Promise.all is a cleaner approach that scales better to an arbitrary number of tasks.
Actually it depends on your node version, But if you can use async/await then your code will be more readable and easier to maintain.
When you define a function as 'async' then it returns a native Promise, and when you call it using await it executes Promise.then.
Note:
Put your await calls inside a try/catch, because if the Promise fails it issues 'catch' which you can handle inside the catch block.
try{
let res1 = await your-async-function(parameters);
let res2 = await your-promise-function(parameters);
await your-async-or-promise-function(parameters);
}
catch(ex){
// your error handler goes here
// error is caused by any of your called functions which fails its promise
// this methods breaks your call chain
}
also you can handle your 'catch' like this:
let result = await your-asyncFunction(parameters).catch((error)=>{//your error handler goes here});
this method mentioned does not produce an exception so the execution goes on.
I do not think there is any performance difference between async/await other than the native Promise module implementation.
I would suggest to use bluebird module instead of native promise built into node.
At this point the only reason to use Promises is to call multiple asynchronous jobs using Promise.all() Otherwise you’re usually better with async/await or Observables.
Its depending upon what approach you are good with, both promise and async/await are good, but if you want to write asynchronous code, using synchronous code structure you should use async/await approach.Like following example, a function return user with both Promise or async/await style.
if we use Promise:
function getFirstUser() {
return getUsers().then(function(users) {
return users[0].name;
}).catch(function(err) {
return {
name: 'default user'
};
});
}
if we use aysnc/await
async function getFirstUser() {
try {
let users = await getUsers();
return users[0].name;
} catch (err) {
return {
name: 'default user'
};
}
}
Here in promise approach we need a thenable structure to follow and in async/await approach we use 'await' to hold execution of asynchronous function.
you can checkout this link for more clarity Visit https://medium.com/#bluepnume/learn-about-promises-before-you-start-using-async-await-eb148164a9c8
Yesterday I made a tentative decision to switch from using Promises to using Async/Await, independent of nodejs, based on the difficulty in accessing previous values in the Promise chain. I did come up with a compact solution using 'bind' to save values inside the 'then' functions, but Async seemed much nicer (and it was) in allowing direct access to local variables and arguments. And the more obvious advantage of Async/Await is, of course, the elimination of the distracting explicit 'then' functions in favor of a linear notation that looks much like ordinary function calls.
However, my reading today uncovered problems with Async/Await, which derail my decision. I think I'll stick with Promises (possibly using a macro preprocessor to make the 'then' functions look simpler) until Async/Await gets fixed, a few years from now.
Here are the problems I found. I'd love to find out that I am wrong, that these have easy solutions.
Requires an outer try/catch or a final Promise.catch(), otherwise errors and exceptions are lost.
A final await requires either a Promise.then() or an extra outer async function.
Iteration can only be properly done with for/of, not with other iterators.
Await can only wait for only one Promise at a time, not parallel Promises like Promise chains with Promise.all.
Await doesn't support Promise.race(), should it be needed.
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