I wrote this code in lib/helper.js:
var myfunction = async function(x,y) {
....
return [variableA, variableB]
}
exports.myfunction = myfunction;
Then I tried to use it in another file :
var helper = require('./helper.js');
var start = function(a,b){
....
const result = await helper.myfunction('test','test');
}
exports.start = start;
I got an error:
await is only valid in async function
What is the issue?
The error is not refering to myfunction but to start.
async function start() {
....
const result = await helper.myfunction('test', 'test');
}
// My function
const myfunction = async function(x, y) {
return [
x,
y,
];
}
// Start function
const start = async function(a, b) {
const result = await myfunction('test', 'test');
console.log(result);
}
// Call start
start();
I use the opportunity of this question to advise you about an known anti pattern using await which is : return await.
WRONG
async function myfunction() {
console.log('Inside of myfunction');
}
// Here we wait for the myfunction to finish
// and then returns a promise that'll be waited for aswell
// It's useless to wait the myfunction to finish before to return
// we can simply returns a promise that will be resolved later
// useless async here
async function start() {
// useless await here
return await myfunction();
}
// Call start
(async() => {
console.log('before start');
await start();
console.log('after start');
})();
CORRECT
async function myfunction() {
console.log('Inside of myfunction');
}
// Here we wait for the myfunction to finish
// and then returns a promise that'll be waited for aswell
// It's useless to wait the myfunction to finish before to return
// we can simply returns a promise that will be resolved later
// Also point that we don't use async keyword on the function because
// we can simply returns the promise returned by myfunction
function start() {
return myfunction();
}
// Call start
(async() => {
console.log('before start');
await start();
console.log('after start');
})();
Also, know that there is a special case where return await is correct and important : (using try/catch)
Are there performance concerns with `return await`?
To use await, its executing context needs to be async in nature
As it said, you need to define the nature of your executing context where you are willing to await a task before anything.
Just put async before the fn declaration in which your async task will execute.
var start = async function(a, b) {
// Your async task will execute with await
await foo()
console.log('I will execute after foo get either resolved/rejected')
}
Explanation:
In your question, you are importing a method which is asynchronous in nature and will execute in parallel. But where you are trying to execute that async method is inside a different execution context which you need to define async to use await.
var helper = require('./helper.js');
var start = async function(a,b){
....
const result = await helper.myfunction('test','test');
}
exports.start = start;
Wondering what's going under the hood
await consumes promise/future / task-returning methods/functions and async marks a method/function as capable of using await.
Also if you are familiar with promises, await is actually doing the same process of promise/resolve. Creating a chain of promise and executes your next task in resolve callback.
For more info you can refer to MDN DOCS.
When I got this error, it turned out I had a call to the map function inside my "async" function, so this error message was actually referring to the map function not being marked as "async". I got around this issue by taking the "await" call out of the map function and coming up with some other way of getting the expected behavior.
var myfunction = async function(x,y) {
....
someArray.map(someVariable => { // <- This was the function giving the error
return await someFunction(someVariable);
});
}
I had the same problem and the following block of code was giving the same error message:
repositories.forEach( repo => {
const commits = await getCommits(repo);
displayCommit(commits);
});
The problem is that the method getCommits() was async but I was passing it the argument repo which was also produced by a Promise. So, I had to add the word async to it like this: async(repo) and it started working:
repositories.forEach( async(repo) => {
const commits = await getCommits(repo);
displayCommit(commits);
});
If you are writing a Chrome Extension and you get this error for your code at root, you can fix it using the following "workaround":
async function run() {
// Your async code here
const beers = await fetch("https://api.punkapi.com/v2/beers");
}
run();
Basically you have to wrap your async code in an async function and then call the function without awaiting it.
The current implementation of async / await only supports the await keyword inside of async functions Change your start function signature so you can use await inside start.
var start = async function(a, b) {
}
For those interested, the proposal for top-level await is currently in Stage 2: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-top-level-await
async/await is the mechanism of handling promise, two ways we can do it
functionWhichReturnsPromise()
.then(result => {
console.log(result);
})
.cathc(err => {
console.log(result);
});
or we can use await to wait for the promise to full-filed it first, which means either it is rejected or resolved.
Now if we want to use await (waiting for a promise to fulfil) inside a function, it's mandatory that the container function must be an async function because we are waiting for a promise to fulfiled asynchronously || make sense right?.
async function getRecipesAw(){
const IDs = await getIds; // returns promise
const recipe = await getRecipe(IDs[2]); // returns promise
return recipe; // returning a promise
}
getRecipesAw().then(result=>{
console.log(result);
}).catch(error=>{
console.log(error);
});
If you have called async function inside foreach update it to for loop
Found the code below in this nice article: HTTP requests in Node using Axios
const axios = require('axios')
const getBreeds = async () => {
try {
return await axios.get('https://dog.ceo/api/breeds/list/all')
} catch (error) {
console.error(error)
}
}
const countBreeds = async () => {
const breeds = await getBreeds()
if (breeds.data.message) {
console.log(`Got ${Object.entries(breeds.data.message).length} breeds`)
}
}
countBreeds()
Or using Promise:
const axios = require('axios')
const getBreeds = () => {
try {
return axios.get('https://dog.ceo/api/breeds/list/all')
} catch (error) {
console.error(error)
}
}
const countBreeds = async () => {
const breeds = getBreeds()
.then(response => {
if (response.data.message) {
console.log(
`Got ${Object.entries(response.data.message).length} breeds`
)
}
})
.catch(error => {
console.log(error)
})
}
countBreeds()
In later nodejs (>=14), top await is allowed with { "type": "module" } specified in package.json or with file extension .mjs.
https://www.stefanjudis.com/today-i-learned/top-level-await-is-available-in-node-js-modules/
This in one file works..
Looks like await only is applied to the local function which has to be async..
I also am struggling now with a more complex structure and in between different files. That's why I made this small test code.
edit: i forgot to say that I'm working with node.js.. sry. I don't have a clear question. Just thought it could be helpful with the discussion..
function helper(callback){
function doA(){
var array = ["a ","b ","c "];
var alphabet = "";
return new Promise(function (resolve, reject) {
array.forEach(function(key,index){
alphabet += key;
if (index == array.length - 1){
resolve(alphabet);
};
});
});
};
function doB(){
var a = "well done!";
return a;
};
async function make() {
var alphabet = await doA();
var appreciate = doB();
callback(alphabet+appreciate);
};
make();
};
helper(function(message){
console.log(message);
});
A common problem in Express:
The warning can refer to the function, or where you call it.
Express items tend to look like this:
app.post('/foo', ensureLoggedIn("/join"), (req, res) => {
const facts = await db.lookup(something)
res.redirect('/')
})
Notice the => arrow function syntax for the function.
The problem is NOT actually in the db.lookup call, but right here in the Express item.
Needs to be:
app.post('/foo', ensureLoggedIn("/join"), async function (req, res) {
const facts = await db.lookup(something)
res.redirect('/')
})
Basically, nix the => and add async function .
"await is only valid in async function"
But why? 'await' explicitly turns an async call into a synchronous call, and therefore the caller cannot be async (or asyncable) - at least, not because of the call being made at 'await'.
Yes, await / async was a great concept, but the implementation is completely broken.
For whatever reason, the await keyword has been implemented such that it can only be used within an async method. This is in fact a bug, though you will not see it referred to as such anywhere but right here. The fix for this bug would be to implement the await keyword such that it can only be used TO CALL an async function, regardless of whether the calling function is itself synchronous or asynchronous.
Due to this bug, if you use await to call a real asynchronous function somewhere in your code, then ALL of your functions must be marked as async and ALL of your function calls must use await.
This essentially means that you must add the overhead of promises to all of the functions in your entire application, most of which are not and never will be asynchronous.
If you actually think about it, using await in a function should require the function containing the await keyword TO NOT BE ASYNC - this is because the await keyword is going to pause processing in the function where the await keyword is found. If processing in that function is paused, then it is definitely NOT asynchronous.
So, to the developers of javascript and ECMAScript - please fix the await/async implementation as follows...
await can only be used to CALL async functions.
await can appear in any kind of function, synchronous or asynchronous.
Change the error message from "await is only valid in async function" to "await can only be used to call async functions".
I have an api call which triggers an async function doSomething. Inside this function I have another async function that creates a notification for the user but I do not want to wait for it until it is finished. So I removed the await statement. The code works but is this a bad idea or bad practice because I get a "Missing await for an async function call" warning.
public async createNotification(createdStuff: CreatedStuff): Promise<void> {
const userNotification = new Notifcation(..);
await userNotification.save();
}
public async doSomething(): Promise<CreatedStuff> {
const createdStuff = await this.createStuff();
await createdStuff.save();
// here I removed the await statement
this.notificationService.createNotification(createdStuff);
return createdStuff;
}
If createLogPlayNotification(...) rejects, you will run into an unhandledRejection event which you probably don't want as it will crash your app depending on your NodeJS version (see this link for more information).
This does not mean you have to await it, you can simply add a .catch-handler on the returned promise:
// ..
this.notificationService.createLogPlayNotification(loggedPLay)
.catch(err => {
// do something with err, e.g. log it
});
return createdStuff;
This is a Azure Function httpTrigger in node.js. How to wait for f1() finishes then calls f2()?
model.exports = main(param) // async main plus await f1(param) don't wait either.
{
f1(param)
.then(
good => f2(good, callback), // execution jumps into f2 without waiting for f1 finishes
bad => {...}
);
}
async function f1(param)
{
try
{
// await NOT wait here,
// but waits in Express
await googlelib.verifyIdToken(something, (err, ok) =>
{
if (err) { return Promise.reject("Invalid"); }
else { return Promise.resolve("OK"); }
});
}
catch (e) { return Promise.reject("catch"); }
}
If googlelib.verifyIdToken() supports promises as a built-in part of its interface (as long as you do not pass it a callback), then you can change your code to this:
function f1(param) {
return googlelib.verifyIdToken(something);
}
And, you will just directly return the promise that googlelib.verifyIdToken() provides, allowing the caller to use either await or .then() on the result that f1(...) returns.
If googlelib.verifyIdToken() does not support promises as a built-in part of its interface (when you do not pass it a callback), then you can "promisify" it yourself:
const {promisify} = require('util');
// create promisified interface .verifyIdTokenP
googlelib.verifyIdTokenP = promisify(googlelib.verifyIdToken);
// use that promisified interface
function f1(param) {
return googlelib.verifyIdTokenP(something);
}
This process of manually promisifying a function works for any asynchronous API that supports the "nodejs asynchronous calling convention" where the function accepts a callback as the last argument and that callback will be called with two arguments as callback(err, value). If the asynchronous API works differently than this, then you can't use the util.promisify() function for it and would have to manually wrap it in your own promise.
I want to call a given function asynchronously. The wrapper function tryCallAsync is one way of doing this. This approach works. However, it requires that the callback for setImmediate to be an async function. This seems wrong, as the callback is returning a Promise that is not used. Is it wrong to pass an async function to setImmediate for this purpose?
async function tryCallAsync(fn, ...args) {
return new Promise((r, j) => {
setImmediate(async () => {
try {
r(await fn(...args));
}
catch (e) {
j(e);
}
})
})
}
// Using tryCallAsync
let resolveAsync = tryCallAsync(()=>{
return new Promise((r,j)=>{
setImmediate(()=>r('resolveAsync'));
});
})
resolveAsync.then((resolve)=>console.log(resolve));
let resolve = tryCallAsync(()=>{
return 'resolve';
});
resolve.then((resolve)=>console.log(resolve));
NB: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3Nh350b6S4
Yes, it's wrong, for multiple reasons:
setImmediate doesn't handle the returned promise, especially it doesn't deal with errors1
Don't put business logic in asynchronous (non-promise) callbacks when using promises. Settle a promise from there, nothing else.
1: And even while your particular callback never rejects the returned promise due to the try/catch, it still feels wrong
Your function should be written as
async function tryCallAsync(fn, ...args) {
await new Promise(resolve => {
setImmediate(resolve);
});
return fn(...args);
}
This approach doesn't waste a Promise, however, still, it's not as performant as the conventional way of doing this.
function tryCallAsync(fn, ...args) {
return new Promise((r, j) => {
setImmediate(() => {
(async function () {
return await fn(...args);
})().then(r).catch(j);
});
});
}
Whenever I'm trying to generate random keys from crypto or nanoid (new library) it just returns [object Promise]
async function createCode(length){
if(!length){
return nanoid;
} else {
return nanoid(length);
}
}
// another one for example
async function createCode(){
return await crypto.randomBytes(64).toString('hex');
}
An async function returns a promise by default. Please call await createCode() in another async function or use createCode().then()
All async function return a promise. Always.
So, the caller of an async function has to either use await themselves (from within another async function) or use .then() to get the value out of the promise.
It doesn't look to me like either of your functions benefit from being async. return await someFunc() when someFunc() returns a promise can be done with just return someFunc() just the same. The await is not necessary at all.
FYI, crypto.randomBytes() uses a callback if you want the asynchronous version. If you don't pass it a callback, then it's just a plain synchronous function. Unless you've done something to make a promisified version of that library, it doesn't return a promise.
So, you can just use this:
// another one for example
function createCode(){
return crypto.randomBytes(64).toString('hex');
}
Which you can just call as a regular function:
let randomVal = createCode();
console.log(randomVal);
If you want the asynchronous version and want to use it with promises, then you'd have to promisify it:
// another one for example
function createCode(){
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
crypto.randomBytes(64, function(err, val) {
if (err) return reject(err);
resolve(val.toString('hex'));
});
});
}
Then, you can call it:
createCode().then(val => {
console.log(val);
}).catch(err => {
console.log(err);
});