Related
I'm struggling with callbacks in Node.js. I simply want playerNumber to be set to the number of players in my collection of Players. The console.log works, but I can't get the variable out of the function and into the playerNumber variable.
And if there's a simpler way get this value for use in the rest of my backend code, I'm all ears. I'm clearly new at Node.js, but the code always seems more involved than I'm expecting.
Thanks in advance!
var playerNumber = function countPlayers(callback){
Player.count(function(err, numOfDocs) {
console.log('I have '+numOfDocs+' documents in my collection');
callback(err, numOfDocs);
});
}
It's probably async, and it's a typical first-timer experience to want to "get back to normal" on the call chain on the way back from async call. This can't be done, but it's not so bad to live with it. Here's how...
Step 1: Promises are better than callbacks. I'll leave the long story
to others.
Step 2: Callbacks can be made into promises
In the OP case...
// The promise constructor takes a function that has two functions as params
// one to call on success, and one to call on error. Instead of a callback
// call the 'resolve' param with the data and the 'reject' param with any error
// mark the function 'async' so callers know it can be 'await'-ed
const playerNumber = async function countPlayers() {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
Player.count(function(err, numOfDocs) {
err ? reject(err) : resolve(numOfDocs);
});
});
}
Step 3: Yes, the callers must deal with this, and the callers of the callers, and so on. It's not so bad.
In the OP case (in the most modern syntax)...
// this has to be async because it 'awaits' the first function
// think of await as stopping serial execution until the async function finishes
// (it's not that at all, but that's an okay starting simplification)
async function printPlayerCount() {
const count = await playerNumber();
console.log(count);
}
// as long as we're calling something async (something that must be awaited)
// we mark the function as async
async function printPlayerCountAndPrintSomethingElse() {
await printPlayerCount();
console.log('do something else');
}
Step 4: Enjoy it, and do some further study. It's actually great that we can do such a complex thing so simply. Here's good reading to start with: MDN on Promises.
I'm coming from a java background so a bit of a newbie on Javascript conventions needed for Lambda.
I've got a lambda function which is meant to do several AWS tasks in a particular order, depending on the result of the previous task.
Given that each task reports its results asynchronously, I'm wondering if the right way make sure they all happen in the right sequence, and the results of one operation are available to the invocation of the next function.
It seems like I have to invoike each function in the callback of the prior function, but seems like that will some kind of deep nesting and wondering if that is the proper way to do this.
For example on of these functions requires a DynamoDB getItem, following by a call to SNS to get an endpoint, followed by a SNS call to send a message, followed by a DynamoDB write.
What's the right way to do that in lambda javascript, accounting for all that asynchronicity?
I like the answer from #jonathanbaraldi but I think it would be better if you manage control flow with Promises. The Q library has some convenience functions like nbind which help convert node style callback API's like the aws-sdk into promises.
So in this example I'll send an email, and then as soon as the email response comes back I'll send a second email. This is essentially what was asked, calling multiple services in sequence. I'm using the then method of promises to manage that in a vertically readable way. Also using catch to handle errors. I think it reads much better just simply nesting callback functions.
var Q = require('q');
var AWS = require('aws-sdk');
AWS.config.credentials = { "accessKeyId": "AAAA","secretAccessKey": "BBBB"};
AWS.config.region = 'us-east-1';
// Use a promised version of sendEmail
var ses = new AWS.SES({apiVersion: '2010-12-01'});
var sendEmail = Q.nbind(ses.sendEmail, ses);
exports.handler = function(event, context) {
console.log(event.nome);
console.log(event.email);
console.log(event.mensagem);
var nome = event.nome;
var email = event.email;
var mensagem = event.mensagem;
var to = ['email#company.com.br'];
var from = 'site#company.com.br';
// Send email
mensagem = ""+nome+"||"+email+"||"+mensagem+"";
console.log(mensagem);
var params = {
Source: from,
Destination: { ToAddresses: to },
Message: {
Subject: {
Data: 'Form contact our Site'
},
Body: {
Text: {
Data: mensagem,
}
}
};
// Here is the white-meat of the program right here.
sendEmail(params)
.then(sendAnotherEmail)
.then(success)
.catch(logErrors);
function sendAnotherEmail(data) {
console.log("FIRST EMAIL SENT="+data);
// send a second one.
return sendEmail(params);
}
function logErrors(err) {
console.log("ERROR="+err, err.stack);
context.done();
}
function success(data) {
console.log("SECOND EMAIL SENT="+data);
context.done();
}
}
Short answer:
Use Async / Await — and Call the AWS service (SNS for example) with a .promise() extension to tell aws-sdk to use the promise-ified version of that service function instead of the call back based version.
Since you want to execute them in a specific order you can use Async / Await assuming that the parent function you are calling them from is itself async.
For example:
let snsResult = await sns.publish({
Message: snsPayload,
MessageStructure: 'json',
TargetArn: endPointArn
}, async function (err, data) {
if (err) {
console.log("SNS Push Failed:");
console.log(err.stack);
return;
}
console.log('SNS push suceeded: ' + data);
return data;
}).promise();
The important part is the .promise() on the end there. Full docs on using aws-sdk in an async / promise based manner can be found here: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/sdk-for-javascript/v2/developer-guide/using-promises.html
In order to run another aws-sdk task you would similarly add await and the .promise() extension to that function (assuming that is available).
For anyone who runs into this thread and is actually looking to simply push promises to an array and wait for that WHOLE array to finish (without regard to which promise executes first) I ended up with something like this:
let snsPromises = [] // declare array to hold promises
let snsResult = await sns.publish({
Message: snsPayload,
MessageStructure: 'json',
TargetArn: endPointArn
}, async function (err, data) {
if (err) {
console.log("Search Push Failed:");
console.log(err.stack);
return;
}
console.log('Search push suceeded: ' + data);
return data;
}).promise();
snsPromises.push(snsResult)
await Promise.all(snsPromises)
Hope that helps someone that randomly stumbles on this via google like I did!
I don't know Lambda but you should look into the node async library as a way to sequence asynchronous functions.
async has made my life a lot easier and my code much more orderly without the deep nesting issue you mentioned in your question.
Typical async code might look like:
async.waterfall([
function doTheFirstThing(callback) {
db.somecollection.find({}).toArray(callback);
},
function useresult(dbFindResult, callback) {
do some other stuff (could be synch or async)
etc etc etc
callback(null);
],
function (err) {
//this last function runs anytime any callback has an error, or if no error
// then when the last function in the array above invokes callback.
if (err) { sendForTheCodeDoctor(); }
});
Have a look at the async doco at the link above. There are many useful functions for serial, parallel, waterfall, and many more. Async is actively maintained and seems very reliable.
good luck!
A very specific solution that comes to mind is cascading Lambda calls. For example, you could write:
A Lambda function gets something from DynamoDB, then invokes…
…a Lambda function that calls SNS to get an endpoint, then invokes…
…a Lambda function that sends a message through SNS, then invokes…
…a Lambda function that writes to DynamoDB
All of those functions take the output from the previous function as input. This is of course very fine-grained, and you might decide to group certain calls. Doing it this way avoids callback hell in your JS code at least.
(As a side note, I'm not sure how well DynamoDB integrates with Lambda. AWS might emit change events for records that can then be processed through Lambda.)
Just saw this old thread. Note that future versions of JS will improve that. Take a look at the ES2017 async/await syntax that streamlines an async nested callback mess into a clean sync like code.
Now there are some polyfills that can provide you this functionality based on ES2016 syntax.
As a last FYI - AWS Lambda now supports .Net Core which provides this clean async syntax out of the box.
I would like to offer the following solution, which simply creates a nested function structure.
// start with the last action
var next = function() { context.succeed(); };
// for every new function, pass it the old one
next = (function(param1, param2, next) {
return function() { serviceCall(param1, param2, next); };
})("x", "y", next);
What this does is to copy all of the variables for the function call you want to make, then nests them inside the previous call. You'll want to schedule your events backwards. This is really just the same as making a pyramid of callbacks, but works when you don't know ahead of time the structure or quantity of function calls. You have to wrap the function in a closure so that the correct value is copied over.
In this way I am able to sequence AWS service calls such that they go 1-2-3 and end with closing the context. Presumably you could also structure it as a stack instead of this pseudo-recursion.
I found this article which seems to have the answer in native javascript.
Five patterns to help you tame asynchronis javascript.
By default Javascript is asynchronous.
So, everything that you have to do, it's not to use those libraries, you can, but there's simple ways to solve this. In this code, I sent the email, with the data that comes from the event, but if you want, you just need to add more functions inside functions.
What is important is the place where your context.done(); is going to be, he is going to end your Lambda function. You need to put him in the end of the last function.
var AWS = require('aws-sdk');
AWS.config.credentials = { "accessKeyId": "AAAA","secretAccessKey": "BBBB"};
AWS.config.region = 'us-east-1';
var ses = new AWS.SES({apiVersion: '2010-12-01'});
exports.handler = function(event, context) {
console.log(event.nome);
console.log(event.email);
console.log(event.mensagem);
nome = event.nome;
email = event.email;
mensagem = event.mensagem;
var to = ['email#company.com.br'];
var from = 'site#company.com.br';
// Send email
mensagem = ""+nome+"||"+email+"||"+mensagem+"";
console.log(mensagem);
ses.sendEmail( {
Source: from,
Destination: { ToAddresses: to },
Message: {
Subject: {
Data: 'Form contact our Site'
},
Body: {
Text: {
Data: mensagem,
}
}
}
},
function(err, data) {
if (err) {
console.log("ERROR="+err, err.stack);
context.done();
} else {
console.log("EMAIL SENT="+data);
context.done();
}
});
}
While coding in Node.js, I encountered many situations when it is so hard to implement some elaborated logic mixed with database queries (I/O).
Consider an example written in python. We need to iterate over an array of values, for each value we query the database, then, based on the results, we need to compute the average.
def foo:
a = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
result = 0
for i in a:
record = find_from_db(i) # I/O operation
if not record:
raise Error('No record exist for %d' % i)
result += record.value
return result / len(a)
The same task in Node.js
function foo(callback) {
var a = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
var result = 0;
var itemProcessed = 0;
var error;
function final() {
if (itemProcessed == a.length) {
if (error) {
callback(error);
} else {
callback(null, result / a.length);
}
}
}
a.forEach(function(i) {
// I/O operation
findFromDb(function(err, record) {
itemProcessed++;
if (err) {
error = err;
} else if (!record) {
error = 'No record exist for ' + i;
} else {
result += record.value;
}
final();
});
});
}
You can see that such code much harder to write/read, and it is more prone to errors.
My questions:
Is there a way to make above Node.js code cleaner?
Imagine more sophisticated logic. For example, when we obtained a record from the db, we might need do another db query based on some conditions. In Node.js that becomes a nightmare. What are common patterns for dealing with such tasks?
Based on your experience, does the performance gain deserves the productivity loss when you code with Node.js?
Is there other asynchronous I/O framework/language that is easier to work with?
To answer your questions:
There are libraries such as async which provide a variety of solutions for common scenarios when working with asynchronous tasks. For "callback hell" concerns, there are many ways to avoid that as well, including (but not limited to) naming your functions and pulling them out, modularizing your code, and using promises.
More or less what you currently have is a fairly common pattern: having counter and function index variables with an array of functions to call. Again, async can help here because it reduces this kind of boilerplate that you will probably find yourself repeating often. async currently doesn't have methods that really allow for skipping individual tasks, but you could easily do this yourself if you are writing the boilerplate (just increment the function index variable by 2 for example).
From my own experience, if you properly design your javascript code with asynchronous in mind and use a lot of tools like async, you will find it easier to develop with node. Writing for asynchronous vs synchronous in node is typically always going to be more complicated (although less so with generators, fibers, etc. as compared to callbacks/promises).
I personally think that deciding on a language based upon that single aspect is not worthwhile. You have to consider much much more than just the design of the language, for example the size of the community, availability of third party libraries, performance, technical support options, ease of code debugging, etc.
Just write your code more compactly:
// parallel version
function foo (cb) {
var items = [ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ];
var pending = items.length;
var result = 0;
items.forEach(function (item) {
findFromDb(item, function (err, record) {
if (err) return cb(err);
if (!record) return cb(new Error('No record for: ' + item))
result += record.value / items.length;
if (-- pending === 0) cb(null, result);
});
});
}
That clocks in at 13 source lines of code compared to the 9 sloc for python that you posted. However, unlike the python that you posted, this code runs all the jobs in parallel.
To do the same thing in series, a trick I usually do is a next() function defined inline that invokes itself and pops a job off of an array:
// sequential version
function foo (cb) {
var items = [ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ];
var len = items.length;
var result = 0;
(function next () {
if (items.length === 0) return cb(null, result);
var item = items.shift();
findFromDb(item, function (err, record) {
if (err) return cb(err);
if (!record) return cb(new Error('No record for: ' + item))
result += record.value / len;
next();
});
})();
}
This time, 15 lines. The nice thing is that you can easily control whether the actions should happen in parallel or sequentially or somewhere in between. That is not so easy in a language like python where everything is synchronous and you've got to do lots of work-arounds like threads or evented libraries to get things back up to asynchronous. Try implementing a parallel version of what you have in python! It would most certainly be longer than the node version.
As for the promise/async route: it's not actually all that hard or bad to use ordinary functions for these relatively simple kinds of tasks. In the future (or in node 0.11+ with --harmony) you can use generators and a library like co, but that feature isn't widely deployed yet.
Everyone here seems to be suggesting async, which is a great library. But to give another suggestion, you should take a look at Promises , which is a new built-in being introduced to the language (and currently has several very good polyfills). It allows you to write asynchronous code in a way that looks much more structured. For example, take a look at this code:
var items = [ 1, 2, 3, 4 ];
var processItem = function(item, callback) {
// do something async ...
};
var values = [ ];
items.forEach(function(item) {
processItem(item, function(err, value) {
if (err) {
// something went wrong
}
values.push(value);
// all of the items have been processed, move on
if (values.length === items.length) {
doSomethingWithValues(values, function(err) {
if (err) {
// something went wrong
}
// and we're done
});
}
});
});
function doSomethingWithValues(values, callback) {
// do something async ...
}
Using promises, it would be written something like this:
var items = [ 1, 2, 3, 4 ];
var processItem = function(item) {
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
// do something async ...
});
};
var doSomethingWithValues = function(values) {
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
// do something async ...
});
};
// promise.all returns a new promise that will resolve when all of the promises passed to it have resolved
Promise.all(items.map(processItem))
.then(doSomethingWithValues)
.then(function() {
// and we're done
})
.catch(function(err) {
// something went wrong
});
The second version is much cleaner and simpler, and that barely even scratches the surface of promises real power. And, like I said, Promises are in es6 as a new language built-in, so (eventually) you won't even need to load in a library, it will just be available.
don't use anonymous (un-named) functions they make the code ugly and they make debugging much harder, so always name your functions and define them outside the function scope not inline.
that is a real issue with Node.js (it is called callback hell or pyramid of doom ,..) you can solve this issue by using promises or using async.js which have so many functions for handling different situations (waterfall, parallel, series, auto, ...)
well the performance gain is absolutely a good thing and it is not that much loss (when you start to master it) and also the Node.js community is great.
Check async.js, q.
The more I work with async the more I love it and I like node more. Let me give you a simple example of what I have for a server initialization.
async.parallel ({
"job1": loadFromCollection1,
"job2": loadFromCollection2,
},
function (initError, results) {
if (initError) {
console.log ("[INIT] Server initialization error occurred: " + JSON.stringify(initError, null, 3));
return callback (initError);
}
// Do more stuff with the results
});
In fact, this very same approach can be followed and one can pass different arguments to the different functions that correspond to the various jobs; see for example Passing arguments to async.parallel in node.js.
To be perfectly honest with you, I prefer the node-way which is also non-blocking. I think node forces someone to have a better design and sometimes you spend time creating more definitions and grouping functions and objects in arrays so that you can write better code. The reason I think is that in the end you want to exploit some variant of async and mix and merge stuff accordingly. In my opinion, spending some extra time and thinking about the code a bit more is well worth it when you also take into account that node is asynchronous.
Other than that, I think it is a habit. The more one writes code for node, the more one improves and writes better asynchronous code. What is good on node is that it really forces someone to write more robust code since one starts respecting all the error codes from all the functions much more. For example, how often do people check, say if malloc or new have succeeded and one does not have an error handler for a NULL pointer after the command has been issued? Writing asynchronous code though forces one to respect the events and the error codes that the events have. I guess one obvious reason is that one respects the code that one writes and in the end we have to write code that returns errors so that caller knows what happened.
I really think that you need to give it more time and start working with async more. That's all.
"If you try to code bussiness db login using pure node.js, you go straight to callback hell"
I've recently created a simple abstraction named WaitFor to call async functions in sync mode (based on Fibers): https://github.com/luciotato/waitfor
check the database example:
Database example (pseudocode)
pure node.js (mild callback hell):
var db = require("some-db-abstraction");
function handleWithdrawal(req,res){
try {
var amount=req.param("amount");
db.select("* from sessions where session_id=?",req.param("session_id"),function(err,sessiondata) {
if (err) throw err;
db.select("* from accounts where user_id=?",sessiondata.user_ID),function(err,accountdata) {
if (err) throw err;
if (accountdata.balance < amount) throw new Error('insufficient funds');
db.execute("withdrawal(?,?),accountdata.ID,req.param("amount"), function(err,data) {
if (err) throw err;
res.write("withdrawal OK, amount: "+ req.param("amount"));
db.select("balance from accounts where account_id=?", accountdata.ID,function(err,balance) {
if (err) throw err;
res.end("your current balance is " + balance.amount);
});
});
});
});
}
catch(err) {
res.end("Withdrawal error: " + err.message);
}
Note: The above code, although it looks like it will catch the exceptions, it will not.
Catching exceptions with callback hell adds a lot of pain, and i'm not sure if you will have the 'res' parameter
to respond to the user. If somebody like to fix this example... be my guest.
using wait.for:
var db = require("some-db-abstraction"), wait=require('wait.for');
function handleWithdrawal(req,res){
try {
var amount=req.param("amount");
sessiondata = wait.forMethod(db,"select","* from session where session_id=?",req.param("session_id"));
accountdata= wait.forMethod(db,"select","* from accounts where user_id=?",sessiondata.user_ID);
if (accountdata.balance < amount) throw new Error('insufficient funds');
wait.forMethod(db,"execute","withdrawal(?,?)",accountdata.ID,req.param("amount"));
res.write("withdrawal OK, amount: "+ req.param("amount"));
balance=wait.forMethod(db,"select","balance from accounts where account_id=?", accountdata.ID);
res.end("your current balance is " + balance.amount);
}
catch(err) {
res.end("Withdrawal error: " + err.message);
}
Note: Exceptions will be catched as expected.
db methods (db.select, db.execute) will be called with this=db
Your Code
In order to use wait.for, you'll have to STANDARDIZE YOUR CALLBACKS to function(err,data)
If you STANDARDIZE YOUR CALLBACKS, your code might look like:
var wait = require('wait.for');
//run in a Fiber
function process() {
var a = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
var result = 0;
a.forEach(function(i) {
// I/O operation
var record = wait.for(findFromDb,i); //call & wait for async function findFromDb(i,callback)
if (!record) throw new Error('No record exist for ' + i);
result += record.value;
});
return result/a.length;
}
function inAFiber(){
console.log('result is: ',process());
}
// run the loop in a Fiber (keep node spinning)
wait.launchFiber(inAFiber);
see? closer to python and no callback hell
Short explanation:
I'm attempting to write a simple game in Node.js that needs to wait for user input every turn. How do I avoid callback hell (e.g. messy code) internal to a turn loop where each turn loop iteration needs to block and wait for input from stdin?
Long explanation:
All the explanations I have read on StackOverflow when someone asks about blocking for stdin input seem to be "that's not what Node.js is about!"
I understand that Node.js is designed to be non-blocking and I also understand why. However I feel that it has me stuck between a rock and a hard place on how to solve this. I feel like I have three options:
Find a way to block for stdin and retain my while loop
Ditch the while loop and instead recursively call a method (like nextTurn) whenever the previous turn ends.
Ditch the while loop and instead use setTimeout(0, ...) or something similar to call a method (like nextTurn) whenever a turn ends.
With option (1) I am going against Node.js principles of non-blocking IO.
With option (2) I will eventually reach a stack overflow as each call adds another turn to the call stack.
With option (3) my code ends up being a mess to follow.
Internal to Node.js there are default functions that are marked **Sync (e.g. see the fs library or the sleep function) and I'm wondering why there is no Sync method for getting user input? And if I were to write something similar to fs.readSync how would I go about doing it and still follow best practices?
Just found this:
https://www.npmjs.com/package/readline-sync
Example code (after doing an npm install readline-sync)
var readlineSync = require('readline-sync');
while(true) {
var yn = readlineSync.question("Do you like having tools that let you code how you want, rather than how their authors wanted?");
if(yn === 'y') {
console.log("Hooray!");
} else {
console.log("Back to callback world, I guess...");
process.exit();
}
}
Only problem so far is the wailing of the "That's not how node is meant to be used!" chorus, but I have earplugs :)
I agree with the comment about moving towards an event based system and would ditch the loops. I've thrown together a quick example of text based processing which can be used for simple text games.
var fs = require('fs'),
es = require('event-stream');
process.stdin
.pipe(es.split())
.on('data', parseCommand);
var actionHandlers = {};
function parseCommand(command) {
var words = command.split(' '),
action = '';
if(words.length > 1) {
action = words.shift();
}
if(actionHandlers[action]) {
actionHandlers[action](words);
} else {
invalidAction(action);
}
}
function invalidAction(action) {
console.log('Unknown Action:', action);
}
actionHandlers['move'] = function(words) {
console.log('You move', words);
}
actionHandlers['attack'] = function(words) {
console.log('You attack', words);
}
You can now break up your actions into discrete functions which you can register with a central actionHandlers variable. This makes adding new commands almost trivial. If you can add some details on why the above approach wouldn't work well for you, let me know and I'll revise the answer.
ArtHare's solution, at least for my use case, blocks background execution, including those started by a promise. While this code isn't elegant, it did block execution of the current function, until the read from stdin completed.
While this code must run from inside an async function, keep in mind that running an async function from a top-level context (directly from a script, not contained within any other function) will block that function until it completes.
Below is a full .js script demonstrating usage, tested with node v8.12.0:
const readline = require('readline');
const sleep = (waitTimeInMs) => new Promise(resolve => setTimeout(resolve, waitTimeInMs));
async function blockReadLine() {
var rl = readline.createInterface({
input: process.stdin,
output: process.stdout,
terminal: false
});
let result = undefined;
rl.on('line', function(line){
result = line;
})
while(!result) await sleep(100);
return result;
}
async function run() {
new Promise(async () => {
while(true) {
console.log("Won't be silenced! Won't be censored!");
await sleep(1000);
}
});
let result = await blockReadLine();
console.log("The result was:" + result);
process.exit(0);
}
run();
mongoosejs async code .
userSchema.static('alreadyExists',function(name){
var isPresent;
this.count({alias : name },function(err,count){
isPresent = !!count
});
console.log('Value of flag '+isPresent);
return isPresent;
});
I know isPresent is returned before the this.count async function calls the callback , so its value is undefined . But how do i wait for callback to change value of isPresent and then safely return ?
what effect does
(function(){ asynccalls() asynccall() })(); has in the async flow .
What happens if var foo = asynccall() or (function(){})()
Will the above two make return wait ?
can process.nextTick() help?
I know there are lot of questions like these , but nothing explained about problem of returning before async completion
There is no way to do that. You need to change the signature of your function to take a callback rather than returning a value.
Making IO async is one of the main motivation of Node.js, and waiting for an async call to be completed defeats the purpose.
If you give me more context on what you are trying to achieve, I can give you pointers on how to implement it with callbacks.
Edit: You need something like the following:
userSchema.static('alreadyExists',function (name, callback) {
this.count({alias : name}, function (err, count) {
callback(err, err ? null : !!count);
console.log('Value of flag ' + !!count);
});
});
Then, you can use it like:
User.alreadyExists('username', function (err, exists) {
if (err) {
// Handle error
return;
}
if (exists) {
// Pick another username.
} else {
// Continue with this username.
}
}
Had the same problem. I wanted my mocha tests to run very fast (as they originally did), but at the same time to have a anti-DOS layer present and operational in my app. Running those tests just as they originally worked was crazy fast and ddos module I'm using started to response with Too Many Requests error, making the tests fail. I didn't want to disable it just for test purposes (I actually wanted to have automated tests to verify Too Many Requests cases to be there as well).
I had one place used by all the tests that prepared client for HTTPS requests (filled with proper headers, authenticated, with cookies, etc.). It looked like this more or less:
var agent = thiz.getAgent();
thiz.log('preReq for user ' + thiz.username);
thiz.log('preReq for ' + req.url + ' for agent ' + agent.mochaname);
if(thiz.headers) {
Object.keys(thiz.headers).map(function(header) {
thiz.log('preReq header ' + header);
req.set(header, thiz.headers[header]);
});
}
agent.attachCookies(req);
So I wanted to inject there a sleep that would kick in every 5 times this client was requested by a test to perform a request - so the entire suite would run quickly and every 5-th request would wait to make ddos module consider my request unpunishable by Too Many Requests error.
I searched most of the entries here about Async and other libs or practices. All of them required going for callback - which meant I would have to re-write a couple of hundreds of test cases.
Finally I gave up with any elegant solution and fell to the one that worked for me. Which was adding a for loop trying to check status of non-existing file. It caused a operation to be performed long enough I could calibrate it to last for around 6500 ms.
for(var i = 0; i < 200000; ++i) {
try {
fs.statSync('/path' + i);
} catch(err) {
}
};