How to make a promise based function to be executed a few times with setTimeout before giving up in node 6 (i.e. no javascript specs for async/await) - node.js

I need to retrieve the actual value from a promise based function in a node 6 environment (Azure Functions), so I used co (https://www.npmjs.com/package/co) via generators (instead of the async/await paradigm) to handle the inner promise.
I need also to retry a few times that co/promise function using setTimeout before giving up definitively.
I am currently not able to make the following code work as expected. I am not sure where is the problem, but I can not "yield from the promise returned by co", so in the end the array that is passed around the recursive levels of the stack contains promises of values (1/0) rather than the actual values.
This is the wrapper for the "promise based function" that is handled with a try/catch to make sure we actually always return either 1 or 0.
const wannabeSyncFunc = () => {
console.log("outside co...");
return co(function *(){
console.log("inside co...");
try {
console.log("yielding...");
// promise that could be rejected hence try/catch
//
// I can not change this returned promise, so I must treat it
// as a promise that could potentially be rejected
let stuff = yield Promise.resolve();
console.log("stuff?", stuff);
console.log("returning 1");
return 1;
} catch (err) {
console.log("returning 0");
return 0;
}
console.log("after try/catch...");
});
}
This is the recursive/settimeout function that is supposed to try a few times before giving up.
const retryIntervalInMillis = 50;
const wannabeRecursiveFunc = (currTimes, attemptsArray) => {
return co(function *(){
console.log("Curr attemptsArray:", attemptsArray);
console.log("Curr attemptsArray[attemptsArray.length - 1]:", attemptsArray[attemptsArray.length - 1]);
console.log("Curr Promise.resolve(attemptsArray[attemptsArray.length - 1]):", Promise.resolve(attemptsArray[attemptsArray.length - 1]));
if (attemptsArray[attemptsArray.length - 1] == Promise.resolve(1)) {
console.log("Found the solution, returning straight away!")
return attemptsArray;
}
if (currTimes <= 0) {
console.log("Expired acquiring recursion");
return attemptsArray;
}
currTimes--;
const currValue = wannabeSyncFunc();
console.log(`First: currTimes: ${currTimes} currValue: ${currValue} curr attemptsArray: ${attemptsArray}`);
attemptsArray.push(currValue);
if (currValue === 1) {
return attemptsArray;
}
console.log(`Then: currTimes: ${currTimes} curr attemptsArray: ${attemptsArray}`);
return yield setTimeout(wannabeRecursiveFunc, currTimes*retryIntervalInMillis, currTimes, attemptsArray);
// return Promise.all(attemptsArray);
});
}
I've tried to invoke this in a few different ways like:
const numberOfAttempts = 3;
let theArray = wannabeRecursiveFunc(numberOfAttempts, []);
console.log(">>>", theArray);
Or assuming wannabeRecursiveFunc to return a promise and .then after the promise trying to print theArray.
I keep seeing inside the array these elements Promise { 1 } when printing it, but I would like to see either 1 or 0, so I hope those checks before the recursion could work as expected. At the moment those check don't work I think because I am comparing Promise { 1 } with 1.
However, I am not sure this is the reason why the whole thing is not working, and I am not even sure how to fix this. I am not sure whether co is needed (even in the node.js v6 environment), and how to make this promise/setTimeout work as expected.

I think I understand your objective: invoke a function that might fail, if it fails, wait a little bit and retry it. Do all of that with promises.
Here's a couple tools:
a promisified version of setTimeout...
function timeoutPromise(ms) {
return new Promise((resolve) => {
setTimeout(resolve, ms);
});
}
timeoutPromise(1000).then(() => {
console.log('time out expired');
});
A promise-returning dummy function that sometimes fails...
function fnThatMightFail() {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
let fail = Math.random() < 0.40;
(fail)? reject('bad') : resolve('good');
});
}
fnThatMightFail().then(result => {
console.log(result);
}).catch(error => {
console.log(error);
});
And then, I think here's the recursive idea you're looking for. Pass in a function and a wait time between attempts, call recursively until we succeed...
function fnThatMightFail() {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
let fail = Math.random() < 0.40;
(fail)? reject('bad') : resolve('good');
});
}
function timeoutPromise(ms) {
return new Promise((resolve) => {
setTimeout(() => resolve(), ms);
});
}
function fnRetryer(fn, tries, wait) {
if (tries <= 0) return Promise.reject('bad');
console.log('attempting fn');
return fn().then(result => {
console.log(`success: ${result}`);
return result;
}).catch(error => {
console.log(`error: ${error}, retrying after ${wait}ms`);
return timeoutPromise(wait).then(result => {
console.log(`${wait}ms elapsed, recursing...`);
return fnRetryer(fn, tries-1, wait);
});
});
}
fnRetryer(fnThatMightFail, 5, 1000).then(result => {
console.log(`we tried (and maybe tried) and got ${result}`);
}).catch(error => {
console.log('we failed after 5 tries, waiting 1s in between each try');
});
Note that you could add a parameter for a max number of attempts, decrement that on each recursive call and then don't recurse if that gets to zero. Also note, on the recursive call, you might opt to lengthen the wait time.

Related

What's the proper way to return a promise in this triggered Cloud Function

I understand that for a triggered function, I must always return a promise. Look at the following example:
//Example
exports.onAuthUserDelete = functions.auth.user().onDelete(async (user) => {
let userId = user.uid;
try {
await firestore.collection('Users').doc(userId).delete();
return Promise.resolve();
} catch (error) {
logger.error(error);
return Promise.reject(error);
}
});
My questions are:
Is return Promise.resolve() required or can I just do return firestore.collection('Users').doc(userId).delete()? If I opt to go with the latter, what would happen if the command failed? Will it still trigger catch()?
Is it better to just start every function with the following template to make sure a promise is always returned?
//Is it better to start with this boilerplate
exports.onAuthUserDelete = functions.auth.user().onDelete(async (user) => {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
//My code goes here...
});
}
Firestore's delete operation already returns a promise, so there's no need to create your own. As far as I can see that first example is example the same as:
exports.onAuthUserDelete = functions.auth.user().onDelete((user) => {
return firestore.collection('Users').doc(user.uid).delete();
});
Given that, I highly recommend using the above shorter version.

How to use Await Inside Array.map for API's response [duplicate]

Consider the following code that reads an array of files in a serial/sequential manner. readFiles returns a promise, which is resolved only once all files have been read in sequence.
var readFile = function(file) {
... // Returns a promise.
};
var readFiles = function(files) {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
var readSequential = function(index) {
if (index >= files.length) {
resolve();
} else {
readFile(files[index]).then(function() {
readSequential(index + 1);
}).catch(reject);
}
};
readSequential(0); // Start with the first file!
});
};
The above code works, but I don't like having to do recursion for things to occur sequentially. Is there a simpler way that this code can be re-written so that I don't have to use my weird readSequential function?
Originally I tried to use Promise.all, but that caused all of the readFile calls to happen concurrently, which is not what I want:
var readFiles = function(files) {
return Promise.all(files.map(function(file) {
return readFile(file);
}));
};
Update 2017: I would use an async function if the environment supports it:
async function readFiles(files) {
for(const file of files) {
await readFile(file);
}
};
If you'd like, you can defer reading the files until you need them using an async generator (if your environment supports it):
async function* readFiles(files) {
for(const file of files) {
yield await readFile(file);
}
};
Update: In second thought - I might use a for loop instead:
var readFiles = function(files) {
var p = Promise.resolve(); // Q() in q
files.forEach(file =>
p = p.then(() => readFile(file));
);
return p;
};
Or more compactly, with reduce:
var readFiles = function(files) {
return files.reduce((p, file) => {
return p.then(() => readFile(file));
}, Promise.resolve()); // initial
};
In other promise libraries (like when and Bluebird) you have utility methods for this.
For example, Bluebird would be:
var Promise = require("bluebird");
var fs = Promise.promisifyAll(require("fs"));
var readAll = Promise.resolve(files).map(fs.readFileAsync,{concurrency: 1 });
// if the order matters, you can use Promise.each instead and omit concurrency param
readAll.then(function(allFileContents){
// do stuff to read files.
});
Although there is really no reason not to use async await today.
Here is how I prefer to run tasks in series.
function runSerial() {
var that = this;
// task1 is a function that returns a promise (and immediately starts executing)
// task2 is a function that returns a promise (and immediately starts executing)
return Promise.resolve()
.then(function() {
return that.task1();
})
.then(function() {
return that.task2();
})
.then(function() {
console.log(" ---- done ----");
});
}
What about cases with more tasks? Like, 10?
function runSerial(tasks) {
var result = Promise.resolve();
tasks.forEach(task => {
result = result.then(() => task());
});
return result;
}
This question is old, but we live in a world of ES6 and functional JavaScript, so let's see how we can improve.
Because promises execute immediately, we can't just create an array of promises, they would all fire off in parallel.
Instead, we need to create an array of functions that returns a promise. Each function will then be executed sequentially, which then starts the promise inside.
We can solve this a few ways, but my favorite way is to use reduce.
It gets a little tricky using reduce in combination with promises, so I have broken down the one liner into some smaller digestible bites below.
The essence of this function is to use reduce starting with an initial value of Promise.resolve([]), or a promise containing an empty array.
This promise will then be passed into the reduce method as promise. This is the key to chaining each promise together sequentially. The next promise to execute is func and when the then fires, the results are concatenated and that promise is then returned, executing the reduce cycle with the next promise function.
Once all promises have executed, the returned promise will contain an array of all the results of each promise.
ES6 Example (one liner)
/*
* serial executes Promises sequentially.
* #param {funcs} An array of funcs that return promises.
* #example
* const urls = ['/url1', '/url2', '/url3']
* serial(urls.map(url => () => $.ajax(url)))
* .then(console.log.bind(console))
*/
const serial = funcs =>
funcs.reduce((promise, func) =>
promise.then(result => func().then(Array.prototype.concat.bind(result))), Promise.resolve([]))
ES6 Example (broken down)
// broken down to for easier understanding
const concat = list => Array.prototype.concat.bind(list)
const promiseConcat = f => x => f().then(concat(x))
const promiseReduce = (acc, x) => acc.then(promiseConcat(x))
/*
* serial executes Promises sequentially.
* #param {funcs} An array of funcs that return promises.
* #example
* const urls = ['/url1', '/url2', '/url3']
* serial(urls.map(url => () => $.ajax(url)))
* .then(console.log.bind(console))
*/
const serial = funcs => funcs.reduce(promiseReduce, Promise.resolve([]))
Usage:
// first take your work
const urls = ['/url1', '/url2', '/url3', '/url4']
// next convert each item to a function that returns a promise
const funcs = urls.map(url => () => $.ajax(url))
// execute them serially
serial(funcs)
.then(console.log.bind(console))
To do this simply in ES6:
function(files) {
// Create a new empty promise (don't do that with real people ;)
var sequence = Promise.resolve();
// Loop over each file, and add on a promise to the
// end of the 'sequence' promise.
files.forEach(file => {
// Chain one computation onto the sequence
sequence =
sequence
.then(() => performComputation(file))
.then(result => doSomething(result));
// Resolves for each file, one at a time.
})
// This will resolve after the entire chain is resolved
return sequence;
}
Addition example
const addTwo = async () => 2;
const addThree = async (inValue) => new Promise((resolve) => setTimeout(resolve(inValue + 3), 2000));
const addFour = (inValue) => new Promise((res) => setTimeout(res(inValue + 4), 1000));
const addFive = async (inValue) => inValue + 5;
// Function which handles promises from above
async function sequenceAddition() {
let sum = await [addTwo, addThree, addFour, addFive].reduce(
(promise, currPromise) => promise.then((val) => currPromise(val)),
Promise.resolve()
);
console.log('sum:', sum); // 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 = 14
}
// Run function. See console for result.
sequenceAddition();
General syntax to use reduce()
function sequence(tasks, fn) {
return tasks.reduce((promise, task) => promise.then(() => fn(task)), Promise.resolve());
}
UPDATE
items-promise is a ready to use NPM package doing the same.
I've had to run a lot of sequential tasks and used these answers to forge a function that would take care of handling any sequential task...
function one_by_one(objects_array, iterator, callback) {
var start_promise = objects_array.reduce(function (prom, object) {
return prom.then(function () {
return iterator(object);
});
}, Promise.resolve()); // initial
if(callback){
start_promise.then(callback);
}else{
return start_promise;
}
}
The function takes 2 arguments + 1 optional. First argument is the array on which we will be working. The second argument is the task itself, a function that returns a promise, the next task will be started only when this promise resolves. The third argument is a callback to run when all tasks have been done. If no callback is passed, then the function returns the promise it created so we can handle the end.
Here's an example of usage:
var filenames = ['1.jpg','2.jpg','3.jpg'];
var resize_task = function(filename){
//return promise of async resizing with filename
};
one_by_one(filenames,resize_task );
Hope it saves someone some time...
With Async/Await (if you have the support of ES7)
function downloadFile(fileUrl) { ... } // This function return a Promise
async function main()
{
var filesList = [...];
for (const file of filesList) {
await downloadFile(file);
}
}
(you must use for loop, and not forEach because async/await has problems running in forEach loop)
Without Async/Await (using Promise)
function downloadFile(fileUrl) { ... } // This function return a Promise
function downloadRecursion(filesList, index)
{
index = index || 0;
if (index < filesList.length)
{
downloadFile(filesList[index]).then(function()
{
index++;
downloadRecursion(filesList, index); // self invocation - recursion!
});
}
else
{
return Promise.resolve();
}
}
function main()
{
var filesList = [...];
downloadRecursion(filesList);
}
My preferred solution:
function processArray(arr, fn) {
return arr.reduce(
(p, v) => p.then((a) => fn(v).then(r => a.concat([r]))),
Promise.resolve([])
);
}
It's not fundamentally different from others published here but:
Applies the function to items in series
Resolves to an array of results
Doesn't require async/await (support is still quite limited, circa 2017)
Uses arrow functions; nice and concise
Example usage:
const numbers = [0, 4, 20, 100];
const multiplyBy3 = (x) => new Promise(res => res(x * 3));
// Prints [ 0, 12, 60, 300 ]
processArray(numbers, multiplyBy3).then(console.log);
Tested on reasonable current Chrome (v59) and NodeJS (v8.1.2).
First, you need to understand that a promise is executed at the time of creation.
So for example if you have a code:
["a","b","c"].map(x => returnsPromise(x))
You need to change it to:
["a","b","c"].map(x => () => returnsPromise(x))
Then we need to sequentially chain promises:
["a", "b", "c"].map(x => () => returnsPromise(x))
.reduce(
(before, after) => before.then(_ => after()),
Promise.resolve()
)
executing after(), will make sure that promise is created (and executed) only when its time comes.
Nicest solution that I was able to figure out was with bluebird promises. You can just do Promise.resolve(files).each(fs.readFileAsync); which guarantees that promises are resolved sequentially in order.
With async/await of ES2016 (and maybe some features of ES2018), this can be reduced to this form:
function readFile(file) {
... // Returns a promise.
}
async function readFiles(files) {
for (file in files) {
await readFile(file)
}
}
I haven't seen another answer express that simplicity. The OP said parallel execution of readFile was not desired. However, with IO like this it really makes sense to not be blocking on a single file read, while keeping the loop execution synchronous (you don't want to do the next step until all files have been read). Since I just learned about this and am a bit excited about it, I'll share that approach of parallel asynchronous execution of readFile with overall synchronous execution of readFiles.
async function readFiles(files) {
await Promise.all(files.map(readFile))
}
Isn't that a thing of beauty?
This is a slight variation of another answer above. Using native Promises:
function inSequence(tasks) {
return tasks.reduce((p, task) => p.then(task), Promise.resolve())
}
Explanation
If you have these tasks [t1, t2, t3], then the above is equivalent to Promise.resolve().then(t1).then(t2).then(t3). It's the behavior of reduce.
How to use
First You need to construct a list of tasks! A task is a function that accepts no argument. If you need to pass arguments to your function, then use bind or other methods to create a task. For example:
var tasks = files.map(file => processFile.bind(null, file))
inSequence(tasks).then(...)
I created this simple method on the Promise object:
Create and add a Promise.sequence method to the Promise object
Promise.sequence = function (chain) {
var results = [];
var entries = chain;
if (entries.entries) entries = entries.entries();
return new Promise(function (yes, no) {
var next = function () {
var entry = entries.next();
if(entry.done) yes(results);
else {
results.push(entry.value[1]().then(next, function() { no(results); } ));
}
};
next();
});
};
Usage:
var todo = [];
todo.push(firstPromise);
if (someCriterium) todo.push(optionalPromise);
todo.push(lastPromise);
// Invoking them
Promise.sequence(todo)
.then(function(results) {}, function(results) {});
The best thing about this extension to the Promise object, is that it is consistent with the style of promises. Promise.all and Promise.sequence is invoked the same way, but have different semantics.
Caution
Sequential running of promises is not usually a very good way to use promises. It's usually better to use Promise.all, and let the browser run the code as fast as possible. However, there are real use cases for it - for example when writing a mobile app using javascript.
My answer based on https://stackoverflow.com/a/31070150/7542429.
Promise.series = function series(arrayOfPromises) {
var results = [];
return arrayOfPromises.reduce(function(seriesPromise, promise) {
return seriesPromise.then(function() {
return promise
.then(function(result) {
results.push(result);
});
});
}, Promise.resolve())
.then(function() {
return results;
});
};
This solution returns the results as an array like Promise.all().
Usage:
Promise.series([array of promises])
.then(function(results) {
// do stuff with results here
});
Use Array.prototype.reduce, and remember to wrap your promises in a function otherwise they will already be running!
// array of Promise providers
const providers = [
function(){
return Promise.resolve(1);
},
function(){
return Promise.resolve(2);
},
function(){
return Promise.resolve(3);
}
]
const inSeries = function(providers){
const seed = Promise.resolve(null);
return providers.reduce(function(a,b){
return a.then(b);
}, seed);
};
nice and easy...
you should be able to re-use the same seed for performance, etc.
It's important to guard against empty arrays or arrays with only 1 element when using reduce, so this technique is your best bet:
const providers = [
function(v){
return Promise.resolve(v+1);
},
function(v){
return Promise.resolve(v+2);
},
function(v){
return Promise.resolve(v+3);
}
]
const inSeries = function(providers, initialVal){
if(providers.length < 1){
return Promise.resolve(null)
}
return providers.reduce((a,b) => a.then(b), providers.shift()(initialVal));
};
and then call it like:
inSeries(providers, 1).then(v => {
console.log(v); // 7
});
Using modern ES:
const series = async (tasks) => {
const results = [];
for (const task of tasks) {
const result = await task;
results.push(result);
}
return results;
};
//...
const readFiles = await series(files.map(readFile));
Most of the answers dont include the results of ALL promises individually, so in case someone is looking for this particular behaviour, this is a possible solution using recursion.
It follows the style of Promise.all:
Returns the array of results in the .then() callback.
If some promise fails, its returned immediately in the .catch() callback.
const promiseEach = (arrayOfTasks) => {
let results = []
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
const resolveNext = (arrayOfTasks) => {
// If all tasks are already resolved, return the final array of results
if (arrayOfTasks.length === 0) return resolve(results)
// Extract first promise and solve it
const first = arrayOfTasks.shift()
first().then((res) => {
results.push(res)
resolveNext(arrayOfTasks)
}).catch((err) => {
reject(err)
})
}
resolveNext(arrayOfTasks)
})
}
// Lets try it 😎
const promise = (time, shouldThrowError) => new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
const timeInMs = time * 1000
setTimeout(()=>{
console.log(`Waited ${time} secs`)
if (shouldThrowError) reject(new Error('Promise failed'))
resolve(time)
}, timeInMs)
})
const tasks = [() => promise(1), () => promise(2)]
promiseEach(tasks)
.then((res) => {
console.log(res) // [1, 2]
})
// Oops some promise failed
.catch((error) => {
console.log(error)
})
Note about the tasks array declaration:
In this case is not possible to use the following notation like Promise.all would use:
const tasks = [promise(1), promise(2)]
And we have to use:
const tasks = [() => promise(1), () => promise(2)]
The reason is that JavaScript starts executing the promise immediatelly after its declared. If we use methods like Promise.all, it just checks that the state of all of them is fulfilled or rejected, but doesnt start the exection itself. Using () => promise() we stop the execution until its called.
You can use this function that gets promiseFactories List:
function executeSequentially(promiseFactories) {
var result = Promise.resolve();
promiseFactories.forEach(function (promiseFactory) {
result = result.then(promiseFactory);
});
return result;
}
Promise Factory is just simple function that returns a Promise:
function myPromiseFactory() {
return somethingThatCreatesAPromise();
}
It works because a promise factory doesn't create the promise until it's asked to. It works the same way as a then function – in fact, it's the same thing!
You don't want to operate over an array of promises at all. Per the Promise spec, as soon as a promise is created, it begins executing. So what you really want is an array of promise factories...
If you want to learn more on Promises, you should check this link:
https://pouchdb.com/2015/05/18/we-have-a-problem-with-promises.html
If you want you can use reduce to make a sequential promise, for example:
[2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9].reduce((promises, page) => {
return promises.then((page) => {
console.log(page);
return Promise.resolve(page+1);
});
}, Promise.resolve(1));
it'll always works in sequential.
I really liked #joelnet's answer, but to me, that style of coding is a little bit tough to digest, so I spent a couple of days trying to figure out how I would express the same solution in a more readable manner and this is my take, just with a different syntax and some comments.
// first take your work
const urls = ['/url1', '/url2', '/url3', '/url4']
// next convert each item to a function that returns a promise
const functions = urls.map((url) => {
// For every url we return a new function
return () => {
return new Promise((resolve) => {
// random wait in milliseconds
const randomWait = parseInt((Math.random() * 1000),10)
console.log('waiting to resolve in ms', randomWait)
setTimeout(()=>resolve({randomWait, url}),randomWait)
})
}
})
const promiseReduce = (acc, next) => {
// we wait for the accumulator to resolve it's promise
return acc.then((accResult) => {
// and then we return a new promise that will become
// the new value for the accumulator
return next().then((nextResult) => {
// that eventually will resolve to a new array containing
// the value of the two promises
return accResult.concat(nextResult)
})
})
};
// the accumulator will always be a promise that resolves to an array
const accumulator = Promise.resolve([])
// we call reduce with the reduce function and the accumulator initial value
functions.reduce(promiseReduce, accumulator)
.then((result) => {
// let's display the final value here
console.log('=== The final result ===')
console.log(result)
})
As Bergi noticed, I think the best and clear solution is use BlueBird.each, code below:
const BlueBird = require('bluebird');
BlueBird.each(files, fs.readFileAsync);
I find myself coming back to this question many times and the answers aren't exactly giving me what I need, so putting this here for anyone that needs this too.
The code below does sequential promises execution (one after another), and each round consists of multiple callings:
async function sequence(list, cb) {
const result = [];
await list.reduce(async (promise, item) => promise
.then(() => cb(item))
.then((res) => result.push(res)
), Promise.resolve());
return result;
}
Showcase:
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/axios/0.15.3/axios.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://unpkg.com/#babel/standalone#7/babel.min.js"></script>
<script type="text/babel">
function sleep(ms) {
return new Promise(resolve => setTimeout(resolve, ms));
}
async function readFile(url, index) {
console.log('Running index: ', index);
// First action
const firstTime = await axios.get(url);
console.log('First API response: ', firstTime.data.activity);
// Second action
await sleep(1000);
// Third action
const secondTime = await axios.get(url);
console.log('Second API response: ', secondTime.data.activity);
// Fourth action
await sleep(1000);
return secondTime.data;
}
async function sequence(urls, fn) {
const result = [];
await urls.reduce(async (promise, url, index) => promise.then(() => fn(url, index)).then((res) => result.push(res)), Promise.resolve());
return result;
}
const urls = [
'https://www.boredapi.com/api/activity',
'https://www.boredapi.com/api/activity',
'https://www.boredapi.com/api/activity',
];
(async function init() {
const result = await sequence(urls, readFile);
console.log('result', result);
})()
</script>
I use the following code to extend the Promise object. It handles rejection of the promises and returns an array of results
Code
/*
Runs tasks in sequence and resolves a promise upon finish
tasks: an array of functions that return a promise upon call.
parameters: an array of arrays corresponding to the parameters to be passed on each function call.
context: Object to use as context to call each function. (The 'this' keyword that may be used inside the function definition)
*/
Promise.sequence = function(tasks, parameters = [], context = null) {
return new Promise((resolve, reject)=>{
var nextTask = tasks.splice(0,1)[0].apply(context, parameters[0]); //Dequeue and call the first task
var output = new Array(tasks.length + 1);
var errorFlag = false;
tasks.forEach((task, index) => {
nextTask = nextTask.then(r => {
output[index] = r;
return task.apply(context, parameters[index+1]);
}, e=>{
output[index] = e;
errorFlag = true;
return task.apply(context, parameters[index+1]);
});
});
// Last task
nextTask.then(r=>{
output[output.length - 1] = r;
if (errorFlag) reject(output); else resolve(output);
})
.catch(e=>{
output[output.length - 1] = e;
reject(output);
});
});
};
Example
function functionThatReturnsAPromise(n) {
return new Promise((resolve, reject)=>{
//Emulating real life delays, like a web request
setTimeout(()=>{
resolve(n);
}, 1000);
});
}
var arrayOfArguments = [['a'],['b'],['c'],['d']];
var arrayOfFunctions = (new Array(4)).fill(functionThatReturnsAPromise);
Promise.sequence(arrayOfFunctions, arrayOfArguments)
.then(console.log)
.catch(console.error);
Your approach is not bad, but it does have two issues: it swallows errors and it employs the Explicit Promise Construction Antipattern.
You can solve both of these issues, and make the code cleaner, while still employing the same general strategy:
var Q = require("q");
var readFile = function(file) {
... // Returns a promise.
};
var readFiles = function(files) {
var readSequential = function(index) {
if (index < files.length) {
return readFile(files[index]).then(function() {
return readSequential(index + 1);
});
}
};
// using Promise.resolve() here in case files.length is 0
return Promise.resolve(readSequential(0)); // Start!
};
This is my sequentially implementation that I use in various projects:
const file = [file1, file2, file3];
const fileContents = sequentially(readFile, files);
// somewhere else in the code:
export const sequentially = async <T, P>(
toPromise: (element: T) => Promise<P>,
elements: T[]
): Promise<P[]> => {
const results: P[] = [];
await elements.reduce(async (sequence, element) => {
await sequence;
results.push(await toPromise(element));
}, Promise.resolve());
return results;
};
Here is my Angular/TypeScript approach, using RxJS:
Given an array of URL strings, convert it into an Observable using the from function.
Use pipe to wrap the Ajax request, immediate response logic, any desired delay, and error handling.
Inside of the pipe, use concatMap to serialize the requests. Otherwise, using Javascript forEach or map would make the requests at the same time.
Use RxJS ajax to make the call, and also to add any desired delay after each call returns.
Working example: https://stackblitz.com/edit/rxjs-bnrkix?file=index.ts
The code looks like this (I left in some extras so you can choose what to keep or discard):
import { ajax } from 'rxjs/ajax';
import { catchError, concatMap, delay, from, of, map, Observable } from 'rxjs';
const urls = [
'https://randomuser.me/api/',
'https://randomuser.me/api/',
'https://randomuser.me/api/',
];
const delayAfterCall = 500;
from(urls)
.pipe(
concatMap((url: string) => {
return ajax.getJSON(url).pipe(
map((response) => {
console.log('Done! Received:', response);
return response;
}),
catchError((error) => {
console.error('Error: ', error);
return of(error);
}),
delay(delayAfterCall)
);
})
)
.subscribe((response) => {
console.log('received email:', response.results[0].email);
});
On the basis of the question's title, "Resolve promises one after another (i.e. in sequence)?", we might understand that the OP is more interested in the sequential handling of promises on settlement than sequential calls per se.
This answer is offered :
to demonstrate that sequential calls are not necessary for sequential handling of responses.
to expose viable alternative patterns to this page's visitors - including the OP if he is still interested over a year later.
despite the OP's assertion that he does not want to make calls concurrently, which may genuinely be the case but equally may be an assumption based on the desire for sequential handling of responses as the title implies.
If concurrent calls are genuinely not wanted then see Benjamin Gruenbaum's answer which covers sequential calls (etc) comprehensively.
If however, you are interested (for improved performance) in patterns which allow concurrent calls followed by sequential handling of responses, then please read on.
It's tempting to think you have to use Promise.all(arr.map(fn)).then(fn) (as I have done many times) or a Promise lib's fancy sugar (notably Bluebird's), however (with credit to this article) an arr.map(fn).reduce(fn) pattern will do the job, with the advantages that it :
works with any promise lib - even pre-compliant versions of jQuery - only .then() is used.
affords the flexibility to skip-over-error or stop-on-error, whichever you want with a one line mod.
Here it is, written for Q.
var readFiles = function(files) {
return files.map(readFile) //Make calls in parallel.
.reduce(function(sequence, filePromise) {
return sequence.then(function() {
return filePromise;
}).then(function(file) {
//Do stuff with file ... in the correct sequence!
}, function(error) {
console.log(error); //optional
return sequence;//skip-over-error. To stop-on-error, `return error` (jQuery), or `throw error` (Promises/A+).
});
}, Q()).then(function() {
// all done.
});
};
Note: only that one fragment, Q(), is specific to Q. For jQuery you need to ensure that readFile() returns a jQuery promise. With A+ libs, foreign promises will be assimilated.
The key here is the reduction's sequence promise, which sequences the handling of the readFile promises but not their creation.
And once you have absorbed that, it's maybe slightly mind-blowing when you realise that the .map() stage isn't actually necessary! The whole job, parallel calls plus serial handling in the correct order, can be achieved with reduce() alone, plus the added advantage of further flexibility to :
convert from parallel async calls to serial async calls by simply moving one line - potentially useful during development.
Here it is, for Q again.
var readFiles = function(files) {
return files.reduce(function(sequence, f) {
var filePromise = readFile(f);//Make calls in parallel. To call sequentially, move this line down one.
return sequence.then(function() {
return filePromise;
}).then(function(file) {
//Do stuff with file ... in the correct sequence!
}, function(error) {
console.log(error); //optional
return sequence;//Skip over any errors. To stop-on-error, `return error` (jQuery), or `throw error` (Promises/A+).
});
}, Q()).then(function() {
// all done.
});
};
That's the basic pattern. If you wanted also to deliver data (eg the files or some transform of them) to the caller, you would need a mild variant.
If someone else needs a guaranteed way of STRICTLY sequential way of resolving Promises when performing CRUD operations you also can use the following code as a basis.
As long as you add 'return' before calling each function, describing a Promise, and use this example as a basis the next .then() function call will CONSISTENTLY start after the completion of the previous one:
getRidOfOlderShoutsPromise = () => {
return readShoutsPromise('BEFORE')
.then(() => {
return deleteOlderShoutsPromise();
})
.then(() => {
return readShoutsPromise('AFTER')
})
.catch(err => console.log(err.message));
}
deleteOlderShoutsPromise = () => {
return new Promise ( (resolve, reject) => {
console.log("in deleteOlderShouts");
let d = new Date();
let TwoMinuteAgo = d - 1000 * 90 ;
All_Shouts.deleteMany({ dateTime: {$lt: TwoMinuteAgo}}, function(err) {
if (err) reject();
console.log("DELETED OLDs at "+d);
resolve();
});
});
}
readShoutsPromise = (tex) => {
return new Promise( (resolve, reject) => {
console.log("in readShoutsPromise -"+tex);
All_Shouts
.find({})
.sort([['dateTime', 'ascending']])
.exec(function (err, data){
if (err) reject();
let d = new Date();
console.log("shouts "+tex+" delete PROMISE = "+data.length +"; date ="+d);
resolve(data);
});
});
}
Array push and pop method can be used for sequence of promises. You can also push new promises when you need additional data. This is the code, I will use in React Infinite loader to load sequence of pages.
var promises = [Promise.resolve()];
function methodThatReturnsAPromise(page) {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
setTimeout(() => {
console.log(`Resolve-${page}! ${new Date()} `);
resolve();
}, 1000);
});
}
function pushPromise(page) {
promises.push(promises.pop().then(function () {
return methodThatReturnsAPromise(page)
}));
}
pushPromise(1);
pushPromise(2);
pushPromise(3);
(function() {
function sleep(ms) {
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
setTimeout(function() {
return resolve();
}, ms);
});
}
function serial(arr, index, results) {
if (index == arr.length) {
return Promise.resolve(results);
}
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
if (!index) {
index = 0;
results = [];
}
return arr[index]()
.then(function(d) {
return resolve(d);
})
.catch(function(err) {
return reject(err);
});
})
.then(function(result) {
console.log("here");
results.push(result);
return serial(arr, index + 1, results);
})
.catch(function(err) {
throw err;
});
}
const a = [5000, 5000, 5000];
serial(a.map(x => () => sleep(x)));
})();
Here the key is how you call the sleep function. You need to pass an array of functions which itself returns a promise instead of an array of promises.

Run parallel promises and discard rest when two of them resolved

I want to collect data from 10 different servers at the same time and when i got response 2 of them, i want to ignore/skip others. I solved this with promise.all() When i got 2 response, i call reject instead of resolve and do my job in catch(). But this seems a bit tricky to me, is there any better way to do this?
Here is something similar to the BlueBird Promise.some method suggested by #Neverever
function awaitSome(promises, count) {
if (!Array.isArray(promises) || promises.length < count) {
return Promise.reject();
}
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
const results = [];
const errors = [];
let completed = false;
promises.forEach((p) => {
p.then((result) => {
if (!completed) {
results.push(result);
if (results.length === count) {
completed = true;
resolve(results);
}
}
}).catch((err) => {
if (!completed) {
errors.push(err);
if (promises.length - errors.length < count) {
completed = true;
reject(errors);
}
}
});
});
});
}
And the usage whould be
awaitSome(
[
Promise.resolve(1),
Promise.reject(1),
Promise.resolve(1),
Promise.resolve(1)
],
2
)
.then((results) => {
console.log(results);
})
.catch((errors) => {
console.error(errors);
});
You should take a look at the BlueBird Promise.some
http://bluebirdjs.com/docs/api/promise.some.html
Given an Iterable(arrays are Iterable), or a promise of an Iterable, which produces promises (or a mix of promises and values), iterate over all the values in the Iterable into an array and return a promise that is fulfilled as soon as count promises are fulfilled in the array. The fulfillment value is an array with count values in the order they were fulfilled.
This example pings 4 nameservers, and logs the fastest 2 on console:
Promise.some([
ping("ns1.example.com"),
ping("ns2.example.com"),
ping("ns3.example.com"),
ping("ns4.example.com")
], 2).spread(function(first, second) {
console.log(first, second);
});
You can construct two Promises and put their resolves into an array. When one response comes back, pop() one of the resolves and call it. Repeat for the second response. Further responses can be ignored because the array is now empty.
Then, you can call Promise.all on the two constructed Promises, which will resolve when both resolves have been called.
const api = () => new Promise(res => {
const timeout = Math.random() * 3000;
setTimeout(() => {
console.log('resolving ' + timeout);
res(timeout);
}, timeout)
});
const resolves = [];
const prom1 = new Promise(resolve => resolves.push(resolve));
const prom2 = new Promise(resolve => resolves.push(resolve));
for (let i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
api().then(res => {
if (!resolves.length) return;
resolves.pop()(res);
});
}
Promise.all([prom1, prom2])
.then(([res1, res2]) => {
console.log('got 2 responses', res1, res2);
});
As you can see in the code above, although the latest 3rd to 10th API calls resolve, the Promise.all resolves as soon as the first and second quickest resolve.

async await with setInterval

function first(){
console.log('first')
}
function second(){
console.log('second')
}
let interval = async ()=>{
await setInterval(first,2000)
await setInterval(second,2000)
}
interval();
Imagine that I have this code above.
When I run it, first() and second() will be called at the same time; how do I call second() after first)() returns some data, for example, if first() is done, only then call second()?
Because first() in my code will be working with a big amount of data and if this 2 functions will be calling at the same time, it will be hard for the server.
How do I call second() each time when first() will return some data?
As mentioned above setInterval does not play well with promises if you do not stop it. In case you clear the interval you can use it like:
async function waitUntil(condition) {
return await new Promise(resolve => {
const interval = setInterval(() => {
if (condition) {
resolve('foo');
clearInterval(interval);
};
}, 1000);
});
}
Later you can use it like
const bar = waitUntil(someConditionHere)
You have a few problems:
Promises may only ever resolve once, setInterval() is meant to call the callback multiple times, Promises do not support this case well.
Neither setInterval(), nor the more appropriate setTimeout() return Promises, therefore, awaiting on them is pointless in this context.
You're looking for a function that returns a Promise which resolves after some times (using setTimeout(), probably, not setInterval()).
Luckily, creating such a function is rather trivial:
async function delay(ms) {
// return await for better async stack trace support in case of errors.
return await new Promise(resolve => setTimeout(resolve, ms));
}
With this new delay function, you can implement your desired flow:
function first(){
console.log('first')
}
function second(){
console.log('second')
}
let run = async ()=>{
await delay(2000);
first();
await delay(2000)
second();
}
run();
setInterval doesn't play well with promises because it triggers a callback multiple times, while promise resolves once.
It seems that it's setTimeout that fits the case. It should be promisified in order to be used with async..await:
async () => {
await new Promise(resolve => setTimeout(() => resolve(first()), 2000));
await new Promise(resolve => setTimeout(() => resolve(second()), 2000));
}
await expression causes async to pause until a Promise is settled
so you can directly get the promise's result without await
for me, I want to initiate Http request every 1s
let intervalid
async function testFunction() {
intervalid = setInterval(() => {
// I use axios like: axios.get('/user?ID=12345').then
new Promise(function(resolve, reject){
resolve('something')
}).then(res => {
if (condition) {
// do something
} else {
clearInterval(intervalid)
}
})
}, 1000)
}
// you can use this function like
testFunction()
// or stop the setInterval in any place by
clearInterval(intervalid)
You could use an IFFE. This way you could escape the issue of myInterval not accepting Promise as a return type.
There are cases where you need setInterval, because you want to call some function unknown amount of times with some interval in between.
When I faced this problem this turned out to be the most straight-forward solution for me. I hope it help someone :)
For me the use case was that I wanted to send logs to CloudWatch but try not to face the Throttle exception for sending more than 5 logs per second. So I needed to keep my logs and send them as a batch in an interval of 1 second. The solution I'm posting here is what I ended up using.
async function myAsyncFunc(): Promise<string> {
return new Promise<string>((resolve) => {
resolve("hello world");
});
}
function myInterval(): void {
setInterval(() => {
void (async () => {
await myAsyncFunc();
})();
}, 5_000);
}
// then call like so
myInterval();
Looked through all the answers but still didn't find the correct one that would work exactly how the OP is asked. This is what I used for the same purpose:
async function waitInterval(callback, ms) {
return new Promise(resolve => {
let iteration = 0;
const interval = setInterval(async () => {
if (await callback(iteration, interval)) {
resolve();
clearInterval(interval);
}
iteration++;
}, ms);
});
}
function first(i) {
console.log(`first: ${i}`);
// If the condition below is true the timer finishes
return i === 5;
}
function second(i) {
console.log(`second: ${i}`);
// If the condition below is true the timer finishes
return i === 5;
}
(async () => {
console.log('start');
await waitInterval(first, 1000);
await waitInterval(second, 1000);
console.log('finish');
})()
In my example, I also put interval iteration count and the timer itself, just in case the caller would need to do something with it. However, it's not necessary
In my case, I needed to iterate through a list of images, pausing in between each, and then a longer pause at the end before re-looping through.
I accomplished this by combining several techniques from above, calling my function recursively and awaiting a timeout.
If at any point another trigger changes my animationPaused:boolean, my recursive function will exit.
const loopThroughImages = async() => {
for (let i=0; i<numberOfImages; i++){
if (animationPaused) {
return;
}
this.updateImage(i);
await timeout(700);
}
await timeout(1000);
loopThroughImages();
}
loopThroughImages();
Async/await do not make the promises synchronous.
To my knowledge, it's just a different syntax for return Promise and .then().
Here i rewrote the async function and left both versions, so you can see what it really does and compare.
It's in fact a cascade of Promises.
// by the way no need for async there. the callback does not return a promise, so no need for await.
function waitInterval(callback, ms) {
return new Promise(resolve => {
let iteration = 0;
const interval = setInterval(async () => {
if (callback(iteration, interval)) {
resolve();
clearInterval(interval);
}
iteration++;
}, ms);
});
}
function first(i) {
console.log(`first: ${i}`);
// If the condition below is true the timer finishes
return i === 5;
}
function second(i) {
console.log(`second: ${i}`);
// If the condition below is true the timer finishes
return i === 5;
}
// async function with async/await, this code ...
(async () => {
console.log('start');
await waitInterval(first, 1000);
await waitInterval(second, 1000);
console.log('finish');
})() //... returns a pending Promise and ...
console.log('i do not wait');
// ... is kinda identical to this code.
// still asynchronous but return Promise statements with then cascade.
(() => {
console.log('start again');
return waitInterval(first, 1000).then(() => {
return waitInterval(second, 1000).then(() => {
console.log('finish again');
});
});
})(); // returns a pending Promise...
console.log('i do not wait either');
You can see the two async functions both execute at the same time.
So using promises around intervals here is not very useful, as it's still just intervals, and promises changes nothing, and make things confusing...
As the code is calling callbacks repeatedly into an interval, this is, i think, a cleaner way:
function first(i) {
console.log(`first: ${i}`);
// If the condition below is true the timer finishes
return i === 5;
}
function second(i) {
console.log(`second: ${i}`);
// If the condition below is true the timer finishes
return i === 5;
}
function executeThroughTime(...callbacks){
console.log('start');
let callbackIndex = 0; // to track current callback.
let timerIndex = 0; // index given to callbacks
let interval = setInterval(() =>{
if (callbacks[callbackIndex](timerIndex++)){ // callback return true when it finishes.
timerIndex = 0; // resets for next callback
if (++callbackIndex>=callbacks.length){ // if no next callback finish.
clearInterval(interval);
console.log('finish');
}
}
},1000)
}
executeThroughTime(first,second);
console.log('and i still do not wait ;)');
Also, this solution execute a callback every secondes.
if the callbacks are async requests that takes more than one sec to resolve, and i can't afford for them to overlap, then, instead of doing iterative call with repetitive interval, i would get the request resolution to call the next request (through a timer if i don't want to harass the server).
Here the "recursive" task is called lTask, does pretty much the same as before, except that, as i do not have an interval anymore, i need a new timer each iteration.
// slow internet request simulation. with a Promise, could be a callback.
function simulateAsync1(i) {
console.log(`first pending: ${i}`);
return new Promise((resolve) =>{
setTimeout(() => resolve('got that first big data'), Math.floor(Math.random()*1000)+ 1000);//simulate request that last between 1 and 2 sec.
}).then((result) =>{
console.log(`first solved: ${i} ->`, result);
return i==2;
});
}
// slow internet request simulation. with a Promise, could be a callback.
function simulateAsync2(i) {
console.log(`second pending: ${i}`);
return new Promise((resolve) =>{
setTimeout(() => resolve('got that second big data'), Math.floor(Math.random()*1000) + 1000);//simulate request that last between 1 and 2 sec.
}).then((result) =>{ // promise is resolved
console.log(`second solved: ${i} ->`,result);
return i==4; // return a promise
});
}
function executeThroughTime(...asyncCallbacks){
console.log('start');
let callbackIndex = 0;
let timerIndex = 0;
let lPreviousTime = Date.now();
let lTask = () => { // timeout callback.
asyncCallbacks[callbackIndex](timerIndex++).then((result) => { // the setTimeout for the next task is set when the promise is solved.
console.log('result',result)
if (result) { // current callback is done.
timerIndex = 0;
if (++callbackIndex>=asyncCallbacks.length){//are all callbacks done ?
console.log('finish');
return;// its over
}
}
console.log('time elapsed since previous call',Date.now() - lPreviousTime);
lPreviousTime = Date.now();
//console.log('"wait" 1 sec (but not realy)');
setTimeout(lTask,1000);//redo task after 1 sec.
//console.log('i do not wait');
});
}
lTask();// no need to set a timer for first call.
}
executeThroughTime(simulateAsync1,simulateAsync2);
console.log('i do not wait');
Next step would be to empty a fifo with the interval, and fill it with web request promises...

Using promises to control flow is not working properly

I am trying to control the flow of the execution in my code below, meaning I want it to be serial.
I am reading and updating data from and to my DB, and ofc I want that to happen in the correct order. Below is the function I am calling my DB from, the queries functions are wrapped in callbacks.
I am pretty new to promises so perhaps the error might be something silly I am overlooking. If you need anything to ask please do so.
function my_function(array, array2)
{
var array3 = [];
return Promise.resolve(true)
.then(function()
{
console.log("1")
for(var i=0; i< array.length; i++)
{
get(array[i], function(results){
console.log("2")
array3.push(..);
});
}
return array3;
}).then(function()
{
console.log("3")
for(var i=0; i< array2.length; i+=2)
{
//...
get(array2[i], function(results){
console.log("4")
return array3.push(...);
});
}
return array3;
}).then(function(array3)
{
console.log("5")
for(var i=0; i<array3.length; i++)
{
get(array3[i], function(results){
console.log("6")
update(.., function(callb_result){
return;
});
});
}
});
}
And here is the way I am calling the queries.
function get(array, callback)
{
db.get(`SELECT .. FROM .. WHERE ..;`, function(error, row) {
...
return callback(something);
});
}
function update(.., callback)
{
db.run(`UPDATE .. SET ...`);
return callback("updated"); //I dont want to return anything
}
Whats printed in the log
1
3
5
2
4
6
I was thinking perhaps the way I ma calling the queries is async and that's messing up everything.
You're using for loops to run asynchronous tasks and return an array that is modified by them. But because they are asynchronous the return happens before they are finished. Instead you can create an array of promises where each promise is one of the asynchronous tasks that resolves once the task is done. To wait until every task is done you can call Promise.all with the array of promises, which returns a promise that resolves with an array of the resolved results.
For the first .then you can use Array.prototype.map to easily create an array of promises. Each item in the array needs to return a new Promise that resolves with the result from the callback of get.
.then(function() {
console.log("1");
const promiseArray = array.map(function(item) {
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
get(item, function(result) {
console.log("2");
resolve(result);
});
});
});
return Promise.all(promiseArray);
})
As you return Promise.all the next .then call be executed once all the promises in the promiseArray are fulfilled. It will receive the array of results as the first parameter to the function. That means you can use them there. The second .then is similar to the first one, except that you don't want to call get on every item. In this case map is not applicable, so the for loop will just create a promise and add it to the array of promises. Before you have used array3 to store the results that you want to update, but with promises you don't really need that. In this case you can simply concat the results of both arrays.
.then(function(resultsArray) {
console.log("3");
const promiseArray2 = [];
for (var i = 0; i < array2.length; i += 2) {
const promise = new Promise(function(resolve) {
get(array2[i], function(results) {
console.log("4");
resolve(results);
});
});
promiseArray2.push(promise);
}
// Wait for all promises to be resolved
// Then concatenate both arrays of results
return Promise.all(promiseArray2).then(function(resultsArray2) {
return resultsArray.concat(resultsArray2);
});
})
This returns a promise that resolves with the concatenated array, so you will have all the results (from both .then calls) as an array, which is passed to the next .then function. In the third and final .then you simply call update on each element of the array. You don't need to call get again, as you've already done this and you passed on the results.
.then(function(finalResults) {
console.log("5");
for (var i = 0; i < finalResults.length; i++) {
console.log("6");
update(finalResults[i], function(result) {
console.log(result);
});
}
});
Full runnable code (get uses a timeout to simulate asynchronous calls)
function myFunction(array, array2) {
return Promise.resolve(true)
.then(function() {
console.log("1");
const promiseArray = array.map(function(item) {
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
get(item, function(results) {
console.log("2");
resolve(results);
});
});
});
return Promise.all(promiseArray);
})
.then(function(resultsArray) {
console.log("3");
const promiseArray2 = [];
for (var i = 0; i < array2.length; i += 2) {
const promise = new Promise(function(resolve) {
get(array2[i], function(results) {
console.log("4");
resolve(results);
});
});
promiseArray2.push(promise);
}
return Promise.all(promiseArray2).then(function(resultsArray2) {
return resultsArray.concat(resultsArray2);
});
})
.then(function(finalResults) {
console.log("5");
for (var i = 0; i < finalResults.length; i++) {
console.log("6");
update(finalResults[i]);
}
});
}
function get(item, cb) {
// Simply call the callback with the item after 1 second
setTimeout(() => cb(item), 1000);
}
function update(item) {
// Log what item is being updated
console.log(`Updated ${item}`);
}
// Test data
const array = ["arr1item1", "arr1item2", "arr1item3"];
const array2 = ["arr2item1", "arr2item2", "arr2item3"];
myFunction(array, array2);
Improving the code
The code now works as expected, but there are many improvements that make it a lot easier to understand and conveniently also shorter.
To simplify the code you can change your get function to return a promise. This makes it a lot easier, since you don't need to create a promise in every step. And update doesn't need to be a promise, neither does it need a callback as it's synchronous.
function get(array) {
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
db.get(`SELECT .. FROM .. WHERE ..;`, function(error, row) {
if (err) {
return reject(error);
}
resolve(something);
});
});
}
Now you can use get everywhere you used to create a new promise. Note: I added the reject case when there is an error, and you'll have to take care of them with a .catch on the promise.
There are still too many unnecessary .then calls. First of all Promise.resolve(true) is useless since you can just return the promise of the first .then call directly. All it did in your example was to automatically wrap the result of it in a promise.
You're also using two .then calls to create an array of the results. Not only that, but they perform exactly the same call, namely get. Currently you also wait until the first set has finished until you execute the second set, but they can be all executed at the same time. Instead you can create an array of all the get promises and then wait for all of them to finish.
function myFunction(array, array2) {
// array.map(get) is equivalent to array.map(item => get(item))
// which in turn is equivalent to:
// array.map(function(item) {
// return get(item);
// })
const promiseArray = array.map(get);
for (let i = 0; i < array2.length; i += 2) {
promiseArray.push(get(array2[i]));
}
return Promise.all(promiseArray).then(results => results.forEach(update));
}
The myFunction body has been reduced from 32 lines of code (not counting the console.log("1") etc.) to 5.
Runnable Snippet
function myFunction(array, array2) {
const promiseArray = array.map(get);
for (let i = 0; i < array2.length; i += 2) {
promiseArray.push(get(array2[i]));
}
return Promise.all(promiseArray).then(results => results.forEach(update));
}
function get(item) {
console.log(`Starting get of ${item}`);
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
// Simply call the callback with the item after 1 second
setTimeout(() => resolve(item), 1000);
});
}
function update(item) {
// Log what item is being updated
console.log(`Updated ${item}`);
}
// Test data
const testArr1 = ["arr1item1", "arr1item2", "arr1item3"];
const testArr2 = ["arr2item1", "arr2item2", "arr2item3"];
myFunction(testArr1, testArr2).then(() => console.log("Updated all items"));

Resources