I am trying to write a firebase cloud function that runs a simple while loop every time a new user creates an account. For some reason, the update function only runs once and stops. The code i use is pasted below
const functions = require("firebase-functions");
const admin = require('firebase-admin');
admin.initializeApp();
const firestore = admin.firestore();
var data;
var counter = 0;
exports.onUserCreate = functions.firestore.document('testCollection/{docID}').onCreate(async(snapshot, context) =>{
data = snapshot.data();
while (counter < 5) {
setInterval(updateCounter(counter), 5000);
}
})
async function updateCounter(counter){
await firestore.collection('testCollection').doc(data['username']).update({
counter: admin.firestore.FieldValue.increment(1)
});
counter++;
}
Cloud Functions stops running your code when it hits the final } of your function, as otherwise it'd be billing your indefinitely for it.
If you want your code to continue running, you'll need to return a promise that resolves when your code is done with its work (up to 9 minutes).
exports.onUserCreate = functions.firestore.document('testCollection/{docID}').onCreate(async(snapshot, context) =>{
data = snapshot.data();
return Promise((resolve, reject) => {
while (counter < 5) {
setInterval(updateCounter(counter), 5000);
}
setInterval(() => {
if (counter >= 5) {
resolve()
}
}, 5000)
})
})
Note that the while (counter < 5) loop in the code still won't do what you expect it to do, but at least now the function will continue to run for a few moments and the counter will be incremented.
This is probably what you want:
exports.onUserCreate = functions.firestore.document('testCollection/{docID}').onCreate(async(snapshot, context) =>{
data = snapshot.data();
return Promise((resolve, reject) => {
setTimeout(updateCounter, 5000);
setTimeout(updateCounter, 10000);
setTimeout(updateCounter, 15000);
setTimeout(updateCounter, 20000);
setTimeout(updateCounter, 25000);
setInterval(() => {
if (counter >= 5) {
resolve()
}
}, 5000)
})
})
This calls updateCounter 5 times, each 5 seconds after the previous call. There is a chance that the final database update won't be completed before the call to resolve, so I strongly recommend learning more about asynchronous behavior by reading the documentation on sync, async, and promises and watching Doug's excellent promises and async behavior in Cloud Functions series.
if the requirement is to run this function 5 times, once every 5 seconds, this could work.
for (let i =0;i<5;i++){
await updateCounter();
await sleep (5000);
}
function sleep(ms) {
return new Promise(resolve => setTimeout(resolve, ms));
}
I saw that if a request has no response, it waits more then 60s.
In my case I have nested async loop, managed with callbacks and promise. Each element is a api call.
So I want to detect for example if an api don't respond after 10seconds to go ahead.
My code for the api requests :
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
var start = moment();
const req = adapterFor(url).request(options, (resp) => {
//console.log(`El pr ${options.path}`);
let data = '';
resp.on('data', (chunk) => {
data += chunk;
});
resp.on('end', () => {
try {
tmpData = JSON.parse(data.trim());
if(tmpData.length != 0 && tmpData.films.length > 0) {
data = tmpData.films.filter(v => {
return v.film_o.length > 0
})
resolve(data);
}else resolve({"Errore" : url,error:some error',error_type:'some error',duration: ((moment() - start) / 1000)+' s'});
}catch (e) {
resolve({"Errore" : url,'error':'HERE MAYBE',error_type:'?!',duration: ((moment() - start) / 1000)+' s'});
}
// console.log(colors.gray("EL: " + tmpData.DS.Scheduling.Events.length.length));
});
});
req.end();
})
If you can utilize ESnext then you can use Promise.race(). Consider the following example:
Promise.race([
new Promise((resolve, reject) => setTimeout(() => resolve(1), 5000)),
new Promise((resolve, reject) => setTimeout(() => resolve(2), 10000))
]).then(res => console.log(res))
You can provide multiple promises in an Array and Promise.race will always choose the fastest and resolve this one. So you can take your promise as one element and a timeout as shown above as the second. This promise will then always resolve after the timeout, or when your api call is done. Whatever is first will be resolved.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Promise/race
https://jsfiddle.net/yLv64zr5/
One option is to indicate a flag to reject after the time configured. In the example below you can see that the variable reqHasFinished is changed inside the request callback, so in case its keeps false you can reject the request:
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
let start = moment(),
reqHasFinished = false;
const req = adapterFor(url).request(options, (resp) => {
reqHasFinished = true;
let data = '';
// resp operations here
});
// if after 10 seconds the request has not finished, the promise is rejected.
setTimeout(() => {
if (!reqHasFinished) {
reject('Go ahead');
}
}, 10000)
req.end();
});
As far as I understand, in ES7/ES2016 putting multiple await's in code will work similar to chaining .then() with promises, meaning that they will execute one after the other rather than in parallel. So, for example, we have this code:
await someCall();
await anotherCall();
Do I understand it correctly that anotherCall() will be called only when someCall() is completed? What is the most elegant way of calling them in parallel?
I want to use it in Node, so maybe there's a solution with async library?
EDIT: I'm not satisfied with the solution provided in this question: Slowdown due to non-parallel awaiting of promises in async generators, because it uses generators and I'm asking about a more general use case.
You can await on Promise.all():
await Promise.all([someCall(), anotherCall()]);
To store the results:
let [someResult, anotherResult] = await Promise.all([someCall(), anotherCall()]);
Note that Promise.all fails fast, which means that as soon as one of the promises supplied to it rejects, then the entire thing rejects.
const happy = (v, ms) => new Promise((resolve) => setTimeout(() => resolve(v), ms))
const sad = (v, ms) => new Promise((_, reject) => setTimeout(() => reject(v), ms))
Promise.all([happy('happy', 100), sad('sad', 50)])
.then(console.log).catch(console.log) // 'sad'
If, instead, you want to wait for all the promises to either fulfill or reject, then you can use Promise.allSettled. Note that Internet Explorer does not natively support this method.
const happy = (v, ms) => new Promise((resolve) => setTimeout(() => resolve(v), ms))
const sad = (v, ms) => new Promise((_, reject) => setTimeout(() => reject(v), ms))
Promise.allSettled([happy('happy', 100), sad('sad', 50)])
.then(console.log) // [{ "status":"fulfilled", "value":"happy" }, { "status":"rejected", "reason":"sad" }]
Note: If you use Promise.all actions that managed to finish before rejection happen are not rolled back, so you may need to take care of such situation. For example
if you have 5 actions, 4 quick, 1 slow and slow rejects. Those 4
actions may be already executed so you may need to roll back. In such situation consider using Promise.allSettled while it will provide exact detail which action failed and which not.
TL;DR
Use Promise.all for the parallel function calls, the answer behaviors not correctly when the error occurs.
First, execute all the asynchronous calls at once and obtain all the Promise objects. Second, use await on the Promise objects. This way, while you wait for the first Promise to resolve the other asynchronous calls are still progressing. Overall, you will only wait for as long as the slowest asynchronous call. For example:
// Begin first call and store promise without waiting
const someResult = someCall();
// Begin second call and store promise without waiting
const anotherResult = anotherCall();
// Now we await for both results, whose async processes have already been started
const finalResult = [await someResult, await anotherResult];
// At this point all calls have been resolved
// Now when accessing someResult| anotherResult,
// you will have a value instead of a promise
JSbin example: http://jsbin.com/xerifanima/edit?js,console
Caveat: It doesn't matter if the await calls are on the same line or on different lines, so long as the first await call happens after all of the asynchronous calls. See JohnnyHK's comment.
Update: this answer has a different timing in error handling according to the #bergi's answer, it does NOT throw out the error as the error occurs but after all the promises are executed.
I compare the result with #jonny's tip: [result1, result2] = Promise.all([async1(), async2()]), check the following code snippet
const correctAsync500ms = () => {
return new Promise(resolve => {
setTimeout(resolve, 500, 'correct500msResult');
});
};
const correctAsync100ms = () => {
return new Promise(resolve => {
setTimeout(resolve, 100, 'correct100msResult');
});
};
const rejectAsync100ms = () => {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
setTimeout(reject, 100, 'reject100msError');
});
};
const asyncInArray = async (fun1, fun2) => {
const label = 'test async functions in array';
try {
console.time(label);
const p1 = fun1();
const p2 = fun2();
const result = [await p1, await p2];
console.timeEnd(label);
} catch (e) {
console.error('error is', e);
console.timeEnd(label);
}
};
const asyncInPromiseAll = async (fun1, fun2) => {
const label = 'test async functions with Promise.all';
try {
console.time(label);
let [value1, value2] = await Promise.all([fun1(), fun2()]);
console.timeEnd(label);
} catch (e) {
console.error('error is', e);
console.timeEnd(label);
}
};
(async () => {
console.group('async functions without error');
console.log('async functions without error: start')
await asyncInArray(correctAsync500ms, correctAsync100ms);
await asyncInPromiseAll(correctAsync500ms, correctAsync100ms);
console.groupEnd();
console.group('async functions with error');
console.log('async functions with error: start')
await asyncInArray(correctAsync500ms, rejectAsync100ms);
await asyncInPromiseAll(correctAsync500ms, rejectAsync100ms);
console.groupEnd();
})();
Update:
The original answer makes it difficult (and in some cases impossible) to correctly handle promise rejections. The correct solution is to use Promise.all:
const [someResult, anotherResult] = await Promise.all([someCall(), anotherCall()]);
Original answer:
Just make sure you call both functions before you await either one:
// Call both functions
const somePromise = someCall();
const anotherPromise = anotherCall();
// Await both promises
const someResult = await somePromise;
const anotherResult = await anotherPromise;
There is another way without Promise.all() to do it in parallel:
First, we have 2 functions to print numbers:
function printNumber1() {
return new Promise((resolve,reject) => {
setTimeout(() => {
console.log("Number1 is done");
resolve(10);
},1000);
});
}
function printNumber2() {
return new Promise((resolve,reject) => {
setTimeout(() => {
console.log("Number2 is done");
resolve(20);
},500);
});
}
This is sequential:
async function oneByOne() {
const number1 = await printNumber1();
const number2 = await printNumber2();
}
//Output: Number1 is done, Number2 is done
This is parallel:
async function inParallel() {
const promise1 = printNumber1();
const promise2 = printNumber2();
const number1 = await promise1;
const number2 = await promise2;
}
//Output: Number2 is done, Number1 is done
I've created a gist testing some different ways of resolving promises, with results. It may be helpful to see the options that work.
Edit: Gist content as per Jin Lee's comment
// Simple gist to test parallel promise resolution when using async / await
function promiseWait(time) {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
setTimeout(() => {
resolve(true);
}, time);
});
}
async function test() {
return [
await promiseWait(1000),
await promiseWait(5000),
await promiseWait(9000),
await promiseWait(3000),
]
}
async function test2() {
return {
'aa': await promiseWait(1000),
'bb': await promiseWait(5000),
'cc': await promiseWait(9000),
'dd': await promiseWait(3000),
}
}
async function test3() {
return await {
'aa': promiseWait(1000),
'bb': promiseWait(5000),
'cc': promiseWait(9000),
'dd': promiseWait(3000),
}
}
async function test4() {
const p1 = promiseWait(1000);
const p2 = promiseWait(5000);
const p3 = promiseWait(9000);
const p4 = promiseWait(3000);
return {
'aa': await p1,
'bb': await p2,
'cc': await p3,
'dd': await p4,
};
}
async function test5() {
return await Promise.all([
await promiseWait(1000),
await promiseWait(5000),
await promiseWait(9000),
await promiseWait(3000),
]);
}
async function test6() {
return await Promise.all([
promiseWait(1000),
promiseWait(5000),
promiseWait(9000),
promiseWait(3000),
]);
}
async function test7() {
const p1 = promiseWait(1000);
const p2 = promiseWait(5000);
const p3 = promiseWait(9000);
return {
'aa': await p1,
'bb': await p2,
'cc': await p3,
'dd': await promiseWait(3000),
};
}
let start = Date.now();
test().then((res) => {
console.log('Test Done, elapsed', (Date.now() - start) / 1000, res);
start = Date.now();
test2().then((res) => {
console.log('Test2 Done, elapsed', (Date.now() - start) / 1000, res);
start = Date.now();
test3().then((res) => {
console.log('Test3 Done, elapsed', (Date.now() - start) / 1000, res);
start = Date.now();
test4().then((res) => {
console.log('Test4 Done, elapsed', (Date.now() - start) / 1000, res);
start = Date.now();
test5().then((res) => {
console.log('Test5 Done, elapsed', (Date.now() - start) / 1000, res);
start = Date.now();
test6().then((res) => {
console.log('Test6 Done, elapsed', (Date.now() - start) / 1000, res);
});
start = Date.now();
test7().then((res) => {
console.log('Test7 Done, elapsed', (Date.now() - start) / 1000, res);
});
});
});
});
});
});
/*
Test Done, elapsed 18.006 [ true, true, true, true ]
Test2 Done, elapsed 18.009 { aa: true, bb: true, cc: true, dd: true }
Test3 Done, elapsed 0 { aa: Promise { <pending> },
bb: Promise { <pending> },
cc: Promise { <pending> },
dd: Promise { <pending> } }
Test4 Done, elapsed 9 { aa: true, bb: true, cc: true, dd: true }
Test5 Done, elapsed 18.008 [ true, true, true, true ]
Test6 Done, elapsed 9.003 [ true, true, true, true ]
Test7 Done, elapsed 12.007 { aa: true, bb: true, cc: true, dd: true }
*/
In my case, I have several tasks I want to execute in parallel, but I need to do something different with the result of those tasks.
function wait(ms, data) {
console.log('Starting task:', data, ms);
return new Promise(resolve => setTimeout(resolve, ms, data));
}
var tasks = [
async () => {
var result = await wait(1000, 'moose');
// do something with result
console.log(result);
},
async () => {
var result = await wait(500, 'taco');
// do something with result
console.log(result);
},
async () => {
var result = await wait(5000, 'burp');
// do something with result
console.log(result);
}
]
await Promise.all(tasks.map(p => p()));
console.log('done');
And the output:
Starting task: moose 1000
Starting task: taco 500
Starting task: burp 5000
taco
moose
burp
done
(async function(){
function wait(ms, data) {
console.log('Starting task:', data, ms);
return new Promise(resolve => setTimeout(resolve, ms, data));
}
var tasks = [
async () => {
var result = await wait(1000, 'moose');
// do something with result
console.log(result);
},
async () => {
var result = await wait(500, 'taco');
// do something with result
console.log(result);
},
async () => {
var result = await wait(5000, 'burp');
// do something with result
console.log(result);
}
]
await Promise.all(tasks.map(p => p()));
console.log('done');
})();
await Promise.all([someCall(), anotherCall()]); as already mention will act as a thread fence (very common in parallel code as CUDA), hence it will allow all the promises in it to run without blocking each other, but will prevent the execution to continue until ALL are resolved.
another approach that is worth to share is the Node.js async that will also allow you to easily control the amount of concurrency that is usually desirable if the task is directly linked to the use of limited resources as API call, I/O operations, etc.
// create a queue object with concurrency 2
var q = async.queue(function(task, callback) {
console.log('Hello ' + task.name);
callback();
}, 2);
// assign a callback
q.drain = function() {
console.log('All items have been processed');
};
// add some items to the queue
q.push({name: 'foo'}, function(err) {
console.log('Finished processing foo');
});
q.push({name: 'bar'}, function (err) {
console.log('Finished processing bar');
});
// add some items to the queue (batch-wise)
q.push([{name: 'baz'},{name: 'bay'},{name: 'bax'}], function(err) {
console.log('Finished processing item');
});
// add some items to the front of the queue
q.unshift({name: 'bar'}, function (err) {
console.log('Finished processing bar');
});
Credits to the Medium article autor (read more)
You can call multiple asynchronous functions without awaiting them. This will execute them in parallel. While doing so, save the returned promises in variables, and await them at some point either individually or using Promise.all() and process the results.
You can also wrap the function calls with try...catch to handle failures of individual asynchronous actions and provide fallback logic.
Here's an example:
Observe the logs, the logs printed at the beginning of execution of the individual asynchronous functions get printed immediately even though the first function takes 5 seconds to resolve.
function someLongFunc () {
return new Promise((resolve, reject)=> {
console.log('Executing function 1')
setTimeout(resolve, 5000)
})
}
function anotherLongFunc () {
return new Promise((resolve, reject)=> {
console.log('Executing function 2')
setTimeout(resolve, 5000)
})
}
async function main () {
let someLongFuncPromise, anotherLongFuncPromise
const start = Date.now()
try {
someLongFuncPromise = someLongFunc()
}
catch (ex) {
console.error('something went wrong during func 1')
}
try {
anotherLongFuncPromise = anotherLongFunc()
}
catch (ex) {
console.error('something went wrong during func 2')
}
await someLongFuncPromise
await anotherLongFuncPromise
const totalTime = Date.now() - start
console.log('Execution completed in ', totalTime)
}
main()
// A generic test function that can be configured
// with an arbitrary delay and to either resolve or reject
const test = (delay, resolveSuccessfully) => new Promise((resolve, reject) => setTimeout(() => {
console.log(`Done ${ delay }`);
resolveSuccessfully ? resolve(`Resolved ${ delay }`) : reject(`Reject ${ delay }`)
}, delay));
// Our async handler function
const handler = async () => {
// Promise 1 runs first, but resolves last
const p1 = test(10000, true);
// Promise 2 run second, and also resolves
const p2 = test(5000, true);
// Promise 3 runs last, but completes first (with a rejection)
// Note the catch to trap the error immediately
const p3 = test(1000, false).catch(e => console.log(e));
// Await all in parallel
const r = await Promise.all([p1, p2, p3]);
// Display the results
console.log(r);
};
// Run the handler
handler();
/*
Done 1000
Reject 1000
Done 5000
Done 10000
*/
Whilst setting p1, p2 and p3 is not strictly running them in parallel, they do not hold up any execution and you can trap contextual errors with a catch.
This can be accomplished with Promise.allSettled(), which is similar to Promise.all() but without the fail-fast behavior.
async function Promise1() {
throw "Failure!";
}
async function Promise2() {
return "Success!";
}
const [Promise1Result, Promise2Result] = await Promise.allSettled([Promise1(), Promise2()]);
console.log(Promise1Result); // {status: "rejected", reason: "Failure!"}
console.log(Promise2Result); // {status: "fulfilled", value: "Success!"}
Note: This is a bleeding edge feature with limited browser support, so I strongly recommend including a polyfill for this function.
I create a helper function waitAll, may be it can make it sweeter.
It only works in nodejs for now, not in browser chrome.
//const parallel = async (...items) => {
const waitAll = async (...items) => {
//this function does start execution the functions
//the execution has been started before running this code here
//instead it collects of the result of execution of the functions
const temp = [];
for (const item of items) {
//this is not
//temp.push(await item())
//it does wait for the result in series (not in parallel), but
//it doesn't affect the parallel execution of those functions
//because they haven started earlier
temp.push(await item);
}
return temp;
};
//the async functions are executed in parallel before passed
//in the waitAll function
//const finalResult = await waitAll(someResult(), anotherResult());
//const finalResult = await parallel(someResult(), anotherResult());
//or
const [result1, result2] = await waitAll(someResult(), anotherResult());
//const [result1, result2] = await parallel(someResult(), anotherResult());
I vote for:
await Promise.all([someCall(), anotherCall()]);
Be aware of the moment you call functions, it may cause unexpected result:
// Supposing anotherCall() will trigger a request to create a new User
if (callFirst) {
await someCall();
} else {
await Promise.all([someCall(), anotherCall()]); // --> create new User here
}
But following always triggers request to create new User
// Supposing anotherCall() will trigger a request to create a new User
const someResult = someCall();
const anotherResult = anotherCall(); // ->> This always creates new User
if (callFirst) {
await someCall();
} else {
const finalResult = [await someResult, await anotherResult]
}
I'd like to run my Jest tests concurrently, but I'm having issues with one scenario:
I'm testing the results on an endpoint, and I want to test multiple things about it. So in my beforeAll function, I make the request and store the response, and then I test the response in multiple tests. This works fine synchronously, but when I make the tests concurrent, it no longer lets you pass a variable into the test, so it's a no go. Alternatively, I can put the request in the test itself and then expect many things about the response, but then I don't have the granularity to see what went wrong if something fails.
Is there any solution for this scenario?
This works:
let data;
beforeAll(async () => {
data = await getDataFromRequest();
}
it('value1 should be truthy', () => {
expect(data.value1).toBeTruthy();
}
it('value2 should be truthy', () => {
expect(data.value2).toBeTruthy();
}
This also works:
it.concurrent('data should have correct values', async () => {
const data = await getDataFromRequest();
expect(data.value1).toBeTruthy();
expect(data.value2).toBeTruthy();
}
But what I want is:
let data;
beforeAll(async () => {
data = await getDataFromRequest();
}
it.concurrent('value1 should be truthy', () => {
expect(data.value1).toBeTruthy();
}
it.concurrent('value2 should be truthy', () => {
expect(data.value2).toBeTruthy();
}
Seems worth pointing out, that there is also a discussion about this in a jest issue: https://github.com/facebook/jest/issues/4281
Gist of it: It doesn't work that way and isn't planned. Possible workaround:
const dataPromise = getSomeDataPromise();
test.concurrent('one', async () => {
const data = await dataPromise;
});
test.concurrent('two', async () => {
const data = await dataPromise;
});
Was having same issue when doing browser testing with Playwright where one test suite only requires one instance of browser. Had to wrap it with a Promise with setInterval. In your case it should be like below:
let data;
beforeAll(async () => {
data = await getDataFromRequest();
}
test.concurrent('value1 should be truthy', async () => {
await waitForData();
expect(data.value1).toBeTruthy();
}
test.concurrent('value2 should be truthy', async () => {
await waitForData();
expect(data.value2).toBeTruthy();
}
/**
* #param {number} interval - the interval to check data availability
* #param {number} timeout - the overall timeout value
* #return Promise of your data OR reject if timeout.
*/
function waitForData(interval = 500, timeout = 5000){
let acc = 0; // time accumulation
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
const i = setInterval(() => {
acc += interval;
if (data) {
clearInterval(i);
resolve(data);
}
if (acc > timeout) {
clearInterval(i);
reject();
}
}, interval);
});
}
So you just need to assign the proper check interval and timeout which should be long enough for your data asycn call to come back.