I'm using svn-spawn library to update/commit files to svn. Problem is my app calls svn up/commit in a loop, and because of the async nature of the call, svn-up is called from the next iteration of the loop before the previous svn-up can finish.
How to handle this issue? Is there any way to prevent the next call from happening until the previous one is complete?
Figured out a way to do it using async module.
async.series can be used to execute async tasks in a serial fashion.
This is how I did it.
function commitFile(arg, callback) {
svnClient.getStatus(filePath, function(err, data) {
//...
svnClient.commit(['Commit msg', filePath], callback);
//...
});
}
var toCommit = [];
for (var i = 0, len = requests.length; i < len; i++) {
//Adding files to commit, async.apply enables adding arguments to the anonymous function
toCommit.push(async.apply(function(arg, cb) {
commitFile(arg, cb);
}, 'arg1'));
}
async.series(toCommit,function (err, result) {
console.log('Final callback');
if(err) {
console.log('error', err);
} else {
console.log('result of this run: ' + result);
}
});
async.series needs an array of functions which must call a callback once they are done. It uses the callback to determine that the current function in done executing and only then it will pick the next function to execute.
Related
So I am doing a nodejs tutorial and it asks me to use modules to filter all the files in a directory. And I'm supposed to use the idiomatic approach to handle errors. Below is my modules.js and my main program.js, however, the program said that
Your additional module file [module.js] does not appear to pass back an
error received from fs.readdir(). Use the following idiomatic Node.js
pattern inside your callback to fs.readdir():
if (err) return
callback(err)
but I did handle the error on the first line using if (err)return callback(err);
Can someone please point out what I am doing wrong or what best practice I'm not following? Thanks
module.exports = function filterList(dirName, extName, callback) {
fs.readdir(dirName, function callback(err, list) {
if (err)
return callback(err);
for (var i = 0; i < list.length; i++) {
if (path.extname(list[i]) == '.' + extName) {
callback(null, list[i]);
}
};
});
}
my program.js is as follows
var myMod = require('./module');
function printOut(err, result) {
if (err) {
console.log(err);
};
console.log(result);
}
myMod(process.argv[2], process.argv[3], printOut);
You have two functions named callback here which is causing unexpected behavior.
Your main exported function takes an argument name callback. Then inside that you define another function named `callback':
function filterList(dirName, extName, callback){ // <-- callback as arg
fs.readdir(dirName, function callback(err, list) { // <-- callback defined again
if (err)
return callback(err); // <-- which function is this calling?
/* etc. */
}
When you finally return callback(err) you are calling the wrong function. You want to call the first one -- the one passed into filterList(), but the second one is in scope.
You could instead pass an anonymous function to fs.readdir since you never need to call it:
fs.readdir(dirName, function(err, list) {
if (err)
return callback(err); // <-- now there's only one call back
Now it's clear that you are calling the correct callback and it's more idiomatic.
You're shadowing your callback by naming the function the same as the argument. Try this:
module.exports = function filterList(dirName, extName, callback) {
fs.readdir(dirName, function cb(err, list) {
if (err) return callback(err);
for (var i = 0; i < list.length; i++) {
if (path.extname(list[i]) == '.' + extName) {
callback(null, list[i]);
}
};
});
}
Notice the rename of the second paramerter to fs.readdir is now named cb, you don't actually need to name it, but it does help for stack traces and logging.
One other thing, you are going to have an issue calling callback inside a loop. There are ways to break out of it and also ways to avoid having it in the loop.
I have several files that I need to write to remote server. As you can see in my code, I'm reading those files inside async scope and writing them to remote server as they become available. Instead of all files, only the last file is successfully transfer to remote server. I put console output statement inside readfile callback function and check path variable value. It outputs the last filename three times. So I'm suspecting that the last readfile call is overwriting the previous ones. Shouldn't async wait for the callback function call before it moves onto next iteration?
var attachments = ['1.jpg','2.jpg','3.jpg'];
var request = require('request');
var option = {
url: "http://www.xxxxxxx.xxxx",
headers: {"content-type": "multipart/form-data"}
};
async.each(attachments, function(att, callback){
path = imagePath + "\\" + att;
fstat = fs.statSync(path);
fsize = fstat["size"];
fs.readFile(path, function(err, data){
if(err)
{
return callback(err);
}
else{
option.body = data;
request.post(option,function(err,response,body) {
if (err) {
return callback(err);
}
else{
console.log(option);
callback();
}
});
}
});
}, function(err){
if (err) {
console.log(err);
}
else
{
console.log("finish");
}
});
Shouldn't async wait for the callback function call before it moves onto next iteration?
No, you're describing what async.eachSeries does. async.each runs each all tasks in parallel.
Your problem is that here is only one option object here. You perform console.log(option) inside of a function asynchronously run by request.post. That callback function runs after every request.post has been run. Since you only have on option object, it will have the final body value it was assigned by the last fs.readFile callback.
The solution here is to have every each function call create its own option object:
async.each(attachments, function(att, callback){
var option = {
url: "http://www.xxxxxxx.xxxx",
headers: {"content-type": "multipart/form-data"}
};
Sorry, just starting with node. This might be a very novice question.
Let's say I have some code which reads some files from a directory in the file system:
var fs = require('fs');
fs.readdir(__dirname + '/myfiles', function (err, files) {
if (err) throw err;
files.forEach(function (fileName) {
fs.readFile(__dirname + '/myfiles/' + fileName, function (err, data) {
if (err) throw err;
console.log('finished reading file ' + fileName + ': ' + data);
module.exports.files.push(data);
});
});
});
Note that all of this occurs asynchronously. Let's also say I have a Mocha test which executes this code:
describe('fileProvider', function () {
describe('#files', function () {
it.only('files array not empty', function () {
assert(fileProvider.files.length > 0, 'files.length is zero');
});
});
});
The mocha test runs before the files are finished being read. I know this because I see the console.log statement after I see the little dot that indicates a mocha test being run (at least I think that is what is being indicated). Also, if I surround the assert with a setTimeout, the assert passes.
How should I structure my code so that I can ensure the async file operations are completed? Note that this is not just a problem with testing - I need the files to be loaded fully before I can do real work in my app as well.
I don't think the right answer is to read files synchronously, because that will block the Node request / response loop, right?
Bonus question:
Even if I put the assert in a setTimeout with a 0 timeout value, the test still passes. Is this because just putting it in a setTimeout kicks it to the end of the processing chain or something so the filesystem work finishes first?
You can implement a complete callback after all files have been read.
exports.files = [];
exports.initialize = initialize;
function initialize(callback) {
var fs = require('fs');
fs.readdir(__dirname + '/myfiles', function (err, files) {
if (err) throw err;
files.forEach(function (fileName) {
fs.readFile(__dirname + '/myfiles/' + fileName, function (err, data) {
if (err) throw err;
console.log('finished reading file ' + fileName + ': ' + data);
exports.files.push(data);
if (exports.files.length == files.length) {
callback();
}
});
});
}
You can call the file operation method by doing something like:
var f = require('./files.js');
if (f.files.length < 1) {
console.log('initializing');
f.initialize(function () {
console.log('After: ' + f.files.length);
var another = require('./files.js');
console.log('Another module: ' + another.files.length);
});
}
EDIT: Since you want to only have to call this once, you could initialize it once when the application loads. According to Node.js documentation, modules are cached after the first time they are loaded. The two above examples have been edited as well.
To avoid being caught up in nested callbacks. You might want to use async's each that will allow you to do the tasks asynchronously in a non-blocking manner:
https://github.com/caolan/async#each
I think that's a good test, the same thing would happen in any app that used your module, i.e. it's code could be run before files is set. What you need to do is create a callback like #making3 suggests, or use promises. I haven't used mocha, but there's a section on ascynchronous calls. You could export the promise itself:
module.exports.getFiles = new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
datas = [];
fs.readdir(__dirname + '/myfiles', function (err, files) {
if (err) {
reject(err);
return;
}
files.forEach(function (fileName) {
fs.readFile(__dirname + '/myfiles/' + fileName, function (err, data) {
if (err) {
reject(err);
return;
}
console.log('finished reading file ' + fileName + ': ' + data);
datas.push(data);
if (datas.length == files.length) {
resolve(datas);
}
});
});
});
}
chai-as-promissed lets you work directly with promises using eventually, or you can use the callback passed to your test I think:
describe('fileProvider', function () {
describe('#files', function () {
it.only('files array not empty', function (done) {
fileProvider.getFiles.then(function(value) {
assert(value.length > 0, 'files.length is zero');
done();
}, function(err) {
done(err);
})
});
});
});
I have folowing script
var email_list = ['email1#email.com', 'email2#email.com',....'email100#email.com'];
for(i=0;i<email_list.length;i++){
if(checkEmail(email_list[i])){
//do processing save in db and email to email addresses.
}
}
This code will be blocking in nodejs how to make this non blocking?
You can do this without blocking the event loop at all, by using a recursive loop. This way what you end up with is only launching one database worker per call, at a give time. Assuming the database work you were doing was asynchronous, your code didn't really block the event loop. But the foor loop still launched a bunch of workers simultaneously, which will tend to clog the event loop(not block it). And you are right in that it is blocking the event loop while your for loop is counting from 0, to whatever the size of your array is. The following does exactly the same thing, but you only launch one database worker at a time(good), and you never count from 0 to length. Each worker is popped off the list after the work on the current email is done, and your global event loop is left to process other things, not email_list.length database requests simultaneously.
var email_list = ['email1#email.com', 'email2#email.com', 'email100#email.com'];
function checkEmailList(emails, emailCallBack, completionCallback) {
var someDataCollectdOverAllEmails = '';
function checkEmailAsync(email) {
db.doSomeDBWorkAsync(email, function (data) {
someDataCollectdOverAllEmails += data;
if (email_list.length) {
checkEmail(email_list.pop()); //If there are still emails to be checked, check the next one ine line
} else {
completionCallback(someDataCollectdOverAllEmails);//IF not, call the completionCallBack
}
emailCallBack(data);
});
}
checkEmailAsync(emails.pop());
}
function logIndividualEmailData(data) {
console.log('Sningle Email: ' + data);
}
function logGlobalEmailData(data) {
console.log('All Email Data: ' + data);
}
checkEmailList(email_list, logIndividualEmailData, logGlobalEmailData);
Process.nextTick example
process.nextTick(function () {
'use strict';
console.log('printed second');
while (true);
});
process.nextTick(function () {
'use strict';
console.log('never printed');
});
console.log('printed first');
Note however that in the example below, despite the fact that loopForever will run forever, it still allows both of our files to be read out. If we just had while(true) it would of course block and not allow this and one of our files data would not be printed out.
var files = ['blah.js', 'file.js'];
for(var i = 0; i < files.length; i++) {
fs.readFile(files[i], function (err, data) {
console.log('File data' + data);
function loopForver(loop) {//asynchronously loop forever, pretty cool, but only useful for really specific situations!
process.nextTick(function () {
if(loop) {
console.log('looping');
loopForver(true);
}
});
}
loopForver(true);
});
}
If I need to do stuff after the emails all send, I use the async library (docs), which provides some useful functions for control flow.
You will still need to rewrite checkEmail(email) into checkEmail(email, callback) as #S.D. suggests. In checkEmail you will want to call callback after everything is completed. This probably means that you will nest callbacks, calling the second async thing (sending the email) only after the first (db query) has completed successfully.
I also suggest that you follow convention by using the first callback argument as an err parameter. If you callback(null) you are explicitly saying 'there was no error'. #S.D.'s solution suggests instead callback(ok) which is the opposite of convention.
Here is an example showing a couple nested asynchronous functions and the async library.
edit - use async.eachLimit instead of async.each so you don't execute all 100 calls simultaneously
(function main(){
var emails = ["a#b", "c#d"];
var async = require('async');
async.eachLimit(
emails // array to iterate across
,10 // max simultaneous iterations
,checkEmail // an asynchronous iterator function
,function(err){ // executed on any error or every item successful
console.log('Callback of async.eachLimit');
if(err){
console.log('Error: '+err)
} else {
console.log('All emails succeeded');
};
}
);
console.log('Code below the async.eachLimit call will continue executing after starting the asynchronous jobs');
})();
function checkEmail(email, callback){
fetchFromDb(email, function(err, obj){
if(err){ return callback(err) };
sendEmail(email, function(err, obj){
if(err){ return callback(err)};
console.log('Both fetchFromDb and sendEmail have completed successfully for '+email);
callback(null);
});
});
};
function fetchFromDb(email, callback){
process.nextTick(function(){ // placeholder, insert real async function here
callback(null);
});
};
function checkEmail(email, callback){
process.nextTick(function(){ // placeholder, insert real async function here
callback(null);
});
};
I know node.js run asynchronously, so outer functions execute earlier than the inner. But what is the way to access the notification array outside the for loop? I would like to access all the values in array at once, is this feasible?
var notification=[];
for(var j=0;j<6; j++)
{
getNotification(response[j].sender_id,function(results) // a function called
{
notification[j] =results;
console.log(notification); // output: correct
});
}
console.log(notification); // output: [], need notification array values here
EDIT: If you don't want to use third party libs, this is how to do this in your own code.
/* jshint node:true*/
function getNotifications(responses, callbackToMainProgramLogic) {
'use strict';
var results = [];
function getNotificationAsync(response) {
getNotification(response.sender_id, function (data) {
results.push(data);
if (responses.length) {
getNotificationAsync(responses.pop());//If there are still responses, launch another async getNotification.
} else {
callbackToMainProgramLogic(results);//IF there aren't we're done, and we return to main program flow
}
});
}
getNotificationAsync(responses.pop());
}
getNotifications(someArrayOfResonses, function (dataFromNotifications) {
console.log('The collected data: ' + JSON.stringify(dataFromNotifications, 0, 4));
});
If you absolutely must, you could do something ridiculous like this. Your logic in the loopUntilDatReceived would be waiting for array sizes, not waiting for a non-empty string, but the idea is similar, and you shouldn't be using this anyway! :)
var fileData = '';
fs.readFile('blah.js', function (err, data) { //Async operation, similar to your issue.
'use strict';
fileData = data;
console.log('The Data: ' + data);
});
function loopUntilDataReceived() {
'use strict';
process.nextTick(function () {//A straight while loop would block the event loop, so we do this once per loop around the event loop.
if (fileData === '') {
console.log('No Data Yet');
loopUntilDataReceived();
} else {
console.log('Finally: ' + fileData);
}
});
}
loopUntilDataReceived();
Did I mention this is ridiculous? Honestly, this is an awful idea, but it may help you understand what is going on and how the Node event loop works, and why what you want is not possible. AND why the other posts about callbacks, and flow control libraries are the way to go.
First off, you're having a closure issue in your code (please see the details here)
Then, you simply can't have the array values just next to the loop, because the values are not ready at this point.
You need to wait until all 6 of your getNotification calls get resolved. You can do that with the async library. Something like:
var notification = [];
function createRequest (index) {
return function (callback) {
getNotification(response[index].sender_id, function(results) {
notification[index] = results;
callback(results);
});
}
}
var requests = [];
for(var j=0;j<6; j++) {
requests.push(createRequest(j));
}
async.parallel(requests, function (allResults) {
// notifications array is ready at this point
// the data should also be available in the allResults array
console.log(notifications);
});
Send a callback to the notification loop like this:
var notification=[];
getNotificationArray( function() {
console.log(notification);
});
function getNotificationArray (callback)
{
for(var j=0;j<6; j++)
{
getNotification(response[j].sender_id,function(results) // a function called
{
notification[j] =results;
console.log(notification); // output: correct
});
}
callback();
}