I have a function with multiple forEach loops:
async insertKpbDocument(jsonFile) {
jsonFile.doc.annotations.forEach((annotation) => {
annotation.entities.forEach(async (entity) => {
await this.addVertex(entity);
});
annotation.relations.forEach(async (relation) => {
await this.addRelation(relation);
});
});
return jsonFile;
}
I need to make sure that the async code in the forEach loop calling the this.addVertex function is really done before executing the next one.
But when I log variables, It seems that the this.addRelation function is called before the first loop is really over.
So I tried adding await terms before every loops like so :
await jsonFile.doc.annotations.forEach(async (annotation) => {
await annotation.entities.forEach(async (entity) => {
await this.addVertex(entity);
});
await annotation.relations.forEach(async (relation) => {
await this.addRelation(relation);
});
});
But same behavior.
Maybe it is the log function that have a latency? Any ideas?
As we've discussed, await does not pause a .forEach() loop and does not make the 2nd item of the iteration wait for the first item to be processed. So, if you're really trying to do asynchronous sequencing of items, you can't really accomplish it with a .forEach() loop.
For this type of problem, async/await works really well with a plain for loop because they do pause the execution of the actual for statement to give you sequencing of asynchronous operations which it appears is what you want. Plus, it even works with nested for loops because they are all in the same function scope:
To show you how much simpler this can be using for/of and await, it could be done like this:
async insertKpbDocument(jsonFile) {
for (let annotation of jsonFile.doc.annotations) {
for (let entity of annotation.entities) {
await this.addVertex(entity);
}
for (let relation of annotation.relations) {
await this.addRelation(relation);
}
}
return jsonFile;
}
You get to write synchronous-like code that is actually sequencing asynchronous operations.
If you are really avoiding any for loop, and your real requirement is only that all calls to addVertex() come before any calls to addRelation(), then you can do this where you use .map() instead of .forEach() and you collect an array of promises that you then use Promise.all() to wait on the whole array of promises:
insertKpbDocument(jsonFile) {
return Promise.all(jsonFile.doc.annotations.map(async annotation => {
await Promise.all(annotation.entities.map(entity => this.addVertex(entity)));
await Promise.all(annotation.relations.map(relation => this.addRelation(relation)));
})).then(() => jsonFile);
}
To fully understand how this works, this runs all addVertex() calls in parallel for one annotation, waits for them all to finish, then runs all the addRelation() calls in parallel for one annotation, then waits for them all to finish. It runs all the annotations themselves in parallel. So, this isn't very much actual sequencing except within an annotation, but you accepted an answer that has this same sequencing and said it works so I show a little simpler version of this for completeness.
If you really need to sequence each individual addVertex() call so you don't call the next one until the previous one is done and you're still not going to use a for loop, then you can use the .reduce() promise pattern put into a helper function to manually sequence asynchronous access to an array:
// helper function to sequence asynchronous iteration of an array
// fn returns a promise and is passed an array item as an argument
function sequence(array, fn) {
return array.reduce((p, item) => {
return p.then(() => {
return fn(item);
});
}, Promise.resolve());
}
insertKpbDocument(jsonFile) {
return sequence(jsonFile.doc.annotations, async (annotation) => {
await sequence(annotation.entities, entity => this.addVertex(entity));
await sequence(annotation.relations, relation => this.addRelation(relation));
}).then(() => jsonFile);
}
This will completely sequence everything. It will do this type of order:
addVertex(annotation1)
addRelation(relation1);
addVertex(annotation2)
addRelation(relation2);
....
addVertex(annotationN);
addRelation(relationN);
where it waits for each operation to finish before going onto the next one.
foreach will return void so awaiting it will not do much. You can use map to return all the promises you create now in the forEach, and use Promise.all to await all:
async insertKpbDocument(jsonFile: { doc: { annotations: Array<{ entities: Array<{}>, relations: Array<{}> }> } }) {
await Promise.all(jsonFile.doc.annotations.map(async(annotation) => {
await Promise.all(annotation.entities.map(async (entity) => {
await this.addVertex(entity);
}));
await Promise.all(annotation.relations.map(async (relation) => {
await this.addRelation(relation);
}));
}));
return jsonFile;
}
I understand you can run all the addVertex concurrently. Combining reduce with map splitted into two different set of promises you can do it. My idea:
const first = jsonFile.doc.annotations.reduce((acc, annotation) => {
acc = acc.concat(annotation.entities.map(this.addVertex));
return acc;
}, []);
await Promise.all(first);
const second = jsonFile.doc.annotations.reduce((acc, annotation) => {
acc = acc.concat(annotation.relations.map(this.addRelation));
return acc;
}, []);
await Promise.all(second);
You have more loops, but it does what you need I think
forEach executes the callback against each element in the array and does not wait for anything. Using await is basically sugar for writing promise.then() and nesting everything that follows in the then() callback. But forEach doesn't return a promise, so await arr.forEach() is meaningless. The only reason it isn't a compile error is because the async/await spec says you can await anything, and if it isn't a promise you just get its value... forEach just gives you void.
If you want something to happen in sequence you can await in a for loop:
for (let i = 0; i < jsonFile.doc.annotations.length; i++) {
const annotation = jsonFile.doc.annotations[i];
for (let j = 0; j < annotation.entities.length; j++) {
const entity = annotation.entities[j];
await this.addVertex(entity);
});
// code here executes after all vertix have been added in order
Edit: While typing this a couple other answers and comments happened... you don't want to use a for loop, you can use Promise.all but there's still maybe some confusion, so I'll leave the above explanation in case it helps.
async/await does not within forEach.
A simple solution: Replace .forEach() with for(.. of ..) instead.
Details in this similar question.
If no-iterator linting rule is enabled, you will get a linting warning/error for using for(.. of ..). There are lots of discussion/opinions on this topic.
IMHO, this is a scenario where we can suppress the warning with eslint-disable-next-line or for the method/class.
Example:
const insertKpbDocument = async (jsonFile) => {
// eslint-disable-next-line no-iterator
for (let entity of annotation.entities) {
await this.addVertex(entity)
}
// eslint-disable-next-line no-iterator
for (let relation of annotation.relations) {
await this.addRelation(relation)
}
return jsonFile
}
The code is very readable and works as expected. To get similar functionality with .forEach(), we need some promises/observables acrobatics that i think is a waste of effort.
I'm writing a Windows Node.js server app (using ES6 btw).
The first thing I want to do - in the top-level code - is sit in a while loop, calling an async function which searches for a particular registry key/value. This function is 'proven' - it returns the value data if found, or else throws:
async GetRegValue(): Promise<string> { ... }
I need to sit in a while loop until the registry item exists, and then grab the value data. (With a delay between retries).
I think I know how to wait for an async call to complete (one way or the other) before progressing with the rest of the start-up, but I can't figure out how to sit in a loop waiting for it to succeed.
Any advice please on how to achieve this?
(I'm fairly new to typescript, and still struggling to get my head round all async/await scenarios!)
Thanks
EDIT
Thanks guys. I know I was 'vague' about my code - I didn't want to put my real/psuedo code attempts, since they have all probably overlooked the points you can hopefully help me understand.
So I just kept it as a textual description... I'll try though:
async GetRegValue(): Promise<string> {
const val: RegistryItem = await this.GetKeyValue(this.KEY_SW, this.VAL_CONN);
return val.value
}
private async GetKeyValue(key: string, name: string): Promise<RegistryItem> {
return await new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
new this.Registry({
hive: this.Hive, key
}).get(name, (err, items) => {
if (err) {
reject(new Error('Registry get failed'));
}
else {
resolve( items );
}
});
})
.catch(err => { throw err });
}
So I want to do something like:
let keyObtained = false
let val
while (keyObtained == false)
{
// Call GetRegValue until val returned, in which case break from loop
// If exception then pause (e.g. ~100ms), then loop again
}
}
// Don't execute here till while loop has exited
// Then use 'val' for the subsequent statements
As I say, GetRegValue() works fine in other places I use it, but here I'm trying to pause further execution (and retry) until it does come back with a value
You can probably just use recursion. Here is an example on how you can keep calling the GetRegValue function until is resolves using the retryReg function below.
If the catch case is hit, it will just call GetRegValue over and over until it resolves successfully.
you should add a counter in the catch() where if you tried x amount of times you give up.
Keep in mind I mocked the whole GetRegValue function, but given what you stated this would still work for you.
let test = 0;
function GetRegValue() {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
setTimeout(function() {
test++;
if (test === 4) {
return resolve({
reg: "reg value"
});
}
reject({
msg: "not ready"
});
}, 1000);
});
}
function retryReg() {
GetRegValue()
.then(registryObj => {
console.log(`got registry obj: ${JSON.stringify(registryObj)}`)
})
.catch(fail => {
console.log(`registry object is not ready: ${JSON.stringify(fail)}`);
retryReg();
});
}
retryReg();
I don't see why you need this line:
.catch(err => { throw err });
The loop condition of while isn't much use in this case, as you don't really need a state variable or expression to determine if the loop should continue:
let val;
while (true)
{
try {
val = await GetRegValue(/* args */);
break;
} catch (x) {
console.log(x); // or something better
}
await delay(100);
}
If the assignment to val succeeds, we make it to the break; statement and so we leave the loop successfully. Otherwise we jump to the catch block and log the error, wait 100 ms and try again.
It might be better to use a for loop and so set a sensible limit on how many times to retry.
Note that delay is available in an npm package of the same name. It's roughly the same as:
await new Promise(res => setTimeout(res, 100));
I've got a function.
function async extractTars (tarList) {
try {
for (let i = 0; i < tarList.length; i ++) {
// I need this loop to be sync but it isn't hitting the next iteration
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
fs.createReadStream(`${PATHS.TAR}/${tarList[i]}`)
.pipe(tar.extract(PATHS.GZ))
.on('error', err => reject(err))
.on('finish', () => resolve())
})
}
// What is the correct way to resolve this async fn? Should i just return or will it resolve anyway after the loop?
} catch (e) {
// handle error
}
}
For some reason it never hits the next iteration of the loop. What am i missing here? How can i make these type of loops synchronous. In this particular project i've got many many loops that need to complete before the next. I've tried several methods that i've see here on SO but i'm obviously missing something.
Any help would be much appreciated!
You're using return, that's why you're not hitting the next iteration, use await instead to wait until the promise is done before going to the next iteration.
return inside a for will stop the loop & end the function returning the new Promise
function async extractTars (tarList) {
try {
for (let i = 0; i < tarList.length; i ++) {
// I need this loop to be sync but it isn't hitting the next iteration
await new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
fs.createReadStream(`${PATHS.TAR}/${tarList[i]}`)
.pipe(tar.extract(PATHS.GZ))
.on('error', err => reject(err))
.on('finish', () => resolve())
})
}
// What is the correct way to resolve this async fn? Should i just return or will it resolve anyway after the loop?
} catch (e) {
// handle error
}
}
And just to clear things up:
I need this loop to be sync but it isn't hitting the next iteration
That loop won't be sync, it will look like it's sync, when using async/await but you can't make asynchronous code be synchronous. And createReadStream is asnychronous.
And regarding:
What is the correct way to resolve this async fn? Should i just
return or will it resolve anyway after the loop?
When all iterations are done or an error is thrown (since you're catching it and not rejecting), meaning that you read all the files in tarList, the function will be resolved. Since you are not returning anything, undefined will be the resolved value.
From MDN:
When a return statement is used in a function body, the execution of the function is stopped. If specified, a given value is returned to the function caller. For example, the following function returns the square of its argument, x, where x is a number.
I am adding user validation an data modification page on a node.js application.
In a synchronous universe, in a single function I would:
Lookup the original record in the database
Lookup the user in LDAP to see if they are the owner or admin
Do the logic and write the record.
In an asynchronous universe that won't work. To solve it I've built a series of hand-off functions:
router.post('/writeRecord', jsonParser, function(req, res) {
post = req.post;
var smdb = new AWS.DynamoDB.DocumentClient();
var params = { ... }
smdb.query(params, function(err,data){
if( err == null ) writeRecordStep2(post,data);
}
});
function writeRecord2( ru, post, data ){
var conn = new LDAP();
conn.search(
'ou=groups,o=amazon.com',
{ ... },
function(err,resp){
if( err == null ){
writeRecordStep3( ru, post, data, ldap1 )
}
}
}
function writeRecord3( ru, post, data ){
var conn = new LDAP();
conn.search(
'ou=groups,o=amazon.com',
{ ... },
function(err,resp){
if( err == null ){
writeRecordStep4( ru, post, data, ldap1, ldap2 )
}
}
}
function writeRecordStep4( ru, post, data, ldap1, ldap2 ){
// Do stuff with collected data
}
Additionally, because the LDAP and Dynamo logic are in their own source documents, these functions are scattered tragically around the code.
This strikes me as inefficient, as well as inelegant. I'm eager to find a more natural asynchronous pattern to achieve the same result.
Any promise library should sort your issue out. My preferred choice is bluebird. In summary they help you in performing blocking operations.
If you haven't heard about bluebird then just use it. It converts all function of a module and return promise which is then-able. Simply put, it promisifies all functions.
Here is the mechanism:
Module1.someFunction() \\do your job and finally pass the return object to next call
.then() \\Use that object which is return from the first call, do your job and return the updated value
.then() \\same goes on
.catch() \\do your job when any error occurs.
Hope you understand. Here is an example:
var readFile = Promise.promisify(require("fs").readFile);
readFile("myfile.js",
"utf8").then(function(contents) {
return eval(contents);
}).then(function(result) {
console.log("The result of evaluating
myfile.js", result);
}).catch(SyntaxError, function(e) {
console.log("File had syntax error", e);
//Catch any other error
}).catch(function(e) {
console.log("Error reading file", e);
});
I could not tell from your pseudo-code exactly which async operations depend upon results from with other ones and knowing that is key to the most efficient way to code a series of asynchronous operations. If two operations do not depend upon one another, they can run in parallel which generally gets to an end result faster. I also can't tell exactly what data needs to be passed on to later parts of the async requests (too much pseudo-code and not enough real code to show us what you're really attempting to do).
So, without that level of detail, I'll show you two ways to approach this. The first runs each operation sequentially. Run the first async operation, when it's done, run the next one and accumulates all the results into an object that is passed along to the next link in the chain. This is general purpose since all async operations have access to all the prior results.
This makes use of promises built into the AWS.DynamboDB interface and makes our own promise for conn.search() (though if I knew more about that interface, it may already have a promise interface).
Here's the sequential version:
// promisify the search method
const util = require('util');
LDAP.prototype.searchAsync = util.promisify(LDAP.prototype.search);
// utility function that does a search and adds the result to the object passed in
// returns a promise that resolves to the object
function ldapSearch(data, key) {
var conn = new LDAP();
return conn.searchAsync('ou=groups,o=amazon.com', { ... }).then(results => {
// put our results onto the passed in object
data[key] = results;
// resolve with the original object (so we can collect data here in a promise chain)
return data;
});
}
router.post('/writeRecord', jsonParser, function(req, res) {
let post = req.post;
let smdb = new AWS.DynamoDB.DocumentClient();
let params = { ... }
// The latest AWS interface gets a promise with the .promise() method
smdb.query(params).promise().then(dbresult => {
return ldapSearch({post, dbresult}, "ldap1");
}).then(result => {
// result.dbresult
// result.ldap1
return ldapSearch(result, "ldap2")
}).then(result => {
// result.dbresult
// result.ldap1
// result.ldap2
// doSomething with all the collected data here
}).catch(err => {
console.log(err);
res.status(500).send("Internal Error");
});
});
And, here's a parallel version that runs all three async operations at once and then waits for all three of the to be done and then has all the results at once:
// if the three async operations you show can be done in parallel
// first promisify things
const util = require('util');
LDAP.prototype.searchAsync = util.promisify(LDAP.prototype.search);
function ldapSearch(params) {
var conn = new LDAP();
return conn.searchAsync('ou=groups,o=amazon.com', { ... });
}
router.post('/writeRecord', jsonParser, function(req, res) {
let post = req.post;
let smdb = new AWS.DynamoDB.DocumentClient();
let params = { ... }
Promise.all([
ldapSearch(...),
ldapSearch(...),
smdb.query(params).promise()
]).then(([ldap1Result, ldap2Result, queryResult]) => {
// process ldap1Result, ldap2Result and queryResult here
}).catch(err => {
console.log(err);
res.status(500).send("Internal Error");
});
});
Keep in mind that due to the pseudo-code nature of the code in your question, this is also pseudo-code where implementation details (exactly what parameters you're searching for, what response you're sending, etc...) have to be filled in. This should be illustrative of promise chaining to serialize operations and the use of Promise.all() for parallelizing operations and promisifying a method that didn't have promises built in.
I have restructured my code to promises, and built a wonderful long flat promise chain, consisting of multiple .then() callbacks. In the end I want to return some composite value, and need to access multiple intermediate promise results. However the resolution values from the middle of the sequence are not in scope in the last callback, how do I access them?
function getExample() {
return promiseA(…).then(function(resultA) {
// Some processing
return promiseB(…);
}).then(function(resultB) {
// More processing
return // How do I gain access to resultA here?
});
}
Break the chain
When you need to access the intermediate values in your chain, you should split your chain apart in those single pieces that you need. Instead of attaching one callback and somehow trying to use its parameter multiple times, attach multiple callbacks to the same promise - wherever you need the result value. Don't forget, a promise just represents (proxies) a future value! Next to deriving one promise from the other in a linear chain, use the promise combinators that are given to you by your library to build the result value.
This will result in a very straightforward control flow, clear composition of functionalities and therefore easy modularisation.
function getExample() {
var a = promiseA(…);
var b = a.then(function(resultA) {
// some processing
return promiseB(…);
});
return Promise.all([a, b]).then(function([resultA, resultB]) {
// more processing
return // something using both resultA and resultB
});
}
Instead of the parameter destructuring in the callback after Promise.all that only became available with ES6, in ES5 the then call would be replaced by a nifty helper method that was provided by many promise libraries (Q, Bluebird, when, …): .spread(function(resultA, resultB) { ….
Bluebird also features a dedicated join function to replace that Promise.all+spread combination with a simpler (and more efficient) construct:
…
return Promise.join(a, b, function(resultA, resultB) { … });
ECMAScript Harmony
Of course, this problem was recognized by the language designers as well. They did a lot of work and the async functions proposal finally made it into
ECMAScript 8
You don't need a single then invocation or callback function anymore, as in an asynchronous function (that returns a promise when being called) you can simply wait for promises to resolve directly. It also features arbitrary control structures like conditions, loops and try-catch-clauses, but for the sake of convenience we don't need them here:
async function getExample() {
var resultA = await promiseA(…);
// some processing
var resultB = await promiseB(…);
// more processing
return // something using both resultA and resultB
}
ECMAScript 6
While we were waiting for ES8, we already did use a very similar kind of syntax. ES6 came with generator functions, which allow breaking the execution apart in pieces at arbitrarily placed yield keywords. Those slices can be run after each other, independently, even asynchronously - and that's just what we do when we want to wait for a promise resolution before running the next step.
There are dedicated libraries (like co or task.js), but also many promise libraries have helper functions (Q, Bluebird, when, …) that do this async step-by-step execution for you when you give them a generator function that yields promises.
var getExample = Promise.coroutine(function* () {
// ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Bluebird syntax
var resultA = yield promiseA(…);
// some processing
var resultB = yield promiseB(…);
// more processing
return // something using both resultA and resultB
});
This did work in Node.js since version 4.0, also a few browsers (or their dev editions) did support generator syntax relatively early.
ECMAScript 5
However, if you want/need to be backward-compatible you cannot use those without a transpiler. Both generator functions and async functions are supported by the current tooling, see for example the documentation of Babel on generators and async functions.
And then, there are also many other compile-to-JS languages
that are dedicated to easing asynchronous programming. They usually use a syntax similar to await, (e.g. Iced CoffeeScript), but there are also others that feature a Haskell-like do-notation (e.g. LatteJs, monadic, PureScript or LispyScript).
Synchronous inspection
Assigning promises-for-later-needed-values to variables and then getting their value via synchronous inspection. The example uses bluebird's .value() method but many libraries provide similar method.
function getExample() {
var a = promiseA(…);
return a.then(function() {
// some processing
return promiseB(…);
}).then(function(resultB) {
// a is guaranteed to be fulfilled here so we can just retrieve its
// value synchronously
var aValue = a.value();
});
}
This can be used for as many values as you like:
function getExample() {
var a = promiseA(…);
var b = a.then(function() {
return promiseB(…)
});
var c = b.then(function() {
return promiseC(…);
});
var d = c.then(function() {
return promiseD(…);
});
return d.then(function() {
return a.value() + b.value() + c.value() + d.value();
});
}
Nesting (and) closures
Using closures for maintaining the scope of variables (in our case, the success callback function parameters) is the natural JavaScript solution. With promises, we can arbitrarily nest and flatten .then() callbacks - they are semantically equivalent, except for the scope of the inner one.
function getExample() {
return promiseA(…).then(function(resultA) {
// some processing
return promiseB(…).then(function(resultB) {
// more processing
return // something using both resultA and resultB;
});
});
}
Of course, this is building an indentation pyramid. If indentation is getting too large, you still can apply the old tools to counter the pyramid of doom: modularize, use extra named functions, and flatten the promise chain as soon as you don't need a variable any more.
In theory, you can always avoid more than two levels of nesting (by making all closures explicit), in practise use as many as are reasonable.
function getExample() {
// preprocessing
return promiseA(…).then(makeAhandler(…));
}
function makeAhandler(…)
return function(resultA) {
// some processing
return promiseB(…).then(makeBhandler(resultA, …));
};
}
function makeBhandler(resultA, …) {
return function(resultB) {
// more processing
return // anything that uses the variables in scope
};
}
You can also use helper functions for this kind of partial application, like _.partial from Underscore/lodash or the native .bind() method, to further decrease indentation:
function getExample() {
// preprocessing
return promiseA(…).then(handlerA);
}
function handlerA(resultA) {
// some processing
return promiseB(…).then(handlerB.bind(null, resultA));
}
function handlerB(resultA, resultB) {
// more processing
return // anything that uses resultA and resultB
}
Explicit pass-through
Similar to nesting the callbacks, this technique relies on closures. Yet, the chain stays flat - instead of passing only the latest result, some state object is passed for every step. These state objects accumulate the results of the previous actions, handing down all values that will be needed later again plus the result of the current task.
function getExample() {
return promiseA(…).then(function(resultA) {
// some processing
return promiseB(…).then(b => [resultA, b]); // function(b) { return [resultA, b] }
}).then(function([resultA, resultB]) {
// more processing
return // something using both resultA and resultB
});
}
Here, that little arrow b => [resultA, b] is the function that closes over resultA, and passes an array of both results to the next step. Which uses parameter destructuring syntax to break it up in single variables again.
Before destructuring became available with ES6, a nifty helper method called .spread() was provided by many promise libraries (Q, Bluebird, when, …). It takes a function with multiple parameters - one for each array element - to be used as .spread(function(resultA, resultB) { ….
Of course, that closure needed here can be further simplified by some helper functions, e.g.
function addTo(x) {
// imagine complex `arguments` fiddling or anything that helps usability
// but you get the idea with this simple one:
return res => [x, res];
}
…
return promiseB(…).then(addTo(resultA));
Alternatively, you can employ Promise.all to produce the promise for the array:
function getExample() {
return promiseA(…).then(function(resultA) {
// some processing
return Promise.all([resultA, promiseB(…)]); // resultA will implicitly be wrapped
// as if passed to Promise.resolve()
}).then(function([resultA, resultB]) {
// more processing
return // something using both resultA and resultB
});
}
And you might not only use arrays, but arbitrarily complex objects. For example, with _.extend or Object.assign in a different helper function:
function augment(obj, name) {
return function (res) { var r = Object.assign({}, obj); r[name] = res; return r; };
}
function getExample() {
return promiseA(…).then(function(resultA) {
// some processing
return promiseB(…).then(augment({resultA}, "resultB"));
}).then(function(obj) {
// more processing
return // something using both obj.resultA and obj.resultB
});
}
While this pattern guarantees a flat chain and explicit state objects can improve clarity, it will become tedious for a long chain. Especially when you need the state only sporadically, you still have to pass it through every step. With this fixed interface, the single callbacks in the chain are rather tightly coupled and inflexible to change. It makes factoring out single steps harder, and callbacks cannot be supplied directly from other modules - they always need to be wrapped in boilerplate code that cares about the state. Abstract helper functions like the above can ease the pain a bit, but it will always be present.
Mutable contextual state
The trivial (but inelegant and rather errorprone) solution is to just use higher-scope variables (to which all callbacks in the chain have access) and write result values to them when you get them:
function getExample() {
var resultA;
return promiseA(…).then(function(_resultA) {
resultA = _resultA;
// some processing
return promiseB(…);
}).then(function(resultB) {
// more processing
return // something using both resultA and resultB
});
}
Instead of many variables one might also use an (initially empty) object, on which the results are stored as dynamically created properties.
This solution has several drawbacks:
Mutable state is ugly, and global variables are evil.
This pattern doesn't work across function boundaries, modularising the functions is harder as their declarations must not leave the shared scope
The scope of the variables does not prevent to access them before they are initialized. This is especially likely for complex promise constructions (loops, branching, excptions) where race conditions might happen. Passing state explicitly, a declarative design that promises encourage, forces a cleaner coding style which can prevent this.
One must choose the scope for those shared variables correctly. It needs to be local to the executed function to prevent race conditions between multiple parallel invocations, as would be the case if, for example, state was stored on an instance.
The Bluebird library encourages the use of an object that is passed along, using their bind() method to assign a context object to a promise chain. It will be accessible from each callback function via the otherwise unusable this keyword. While object properties are more prone to undetected typos than variables, the pattern is quite clever:
function getExample() {
return promiseA(…)
.bind({}) // Bluebird only!
.then(function(resultA) {
this.resultA = resultA;
// some processing
return promiseB(…);
}).then(function(resultB) {
// more processing
return // something using both this.resultA and resultB
}).bind(); // don't forget to unbind the object if you don't want the
// caller to access it
}
This approach can be easily simulated in promise libraries that do not support .bind (although in a somewhat more verbose way and cannot be used in an expression):
function getExample() {
var ctx = {};
return promiseA(…)
.then(function(resultA) {
this.resultA = resultA;
// some processing
return promiseB(…);
}.bind(ctx)).then(function(resultB) {
// more processing
return // something using both this.resultA and resultB
}.bind(ctx));
}
A less harsh spin on "Mutable contextual state"
Using a locally scoped object to collect the intermediate results in a promise chain is a reasonable approach to the question you posed. Consider the following snippet:
function getExample(){
//locally scoped
const results = {};
return promiseA(paramsA).then(function(resultA){
results.a = resultA;
return promiseB(paramsB);
}).then(function(resultB){
results.b = resultB;
return promiseC(paramsC);
}).then(function(resultC){
//Resolve with composite of all promises
return Promise.resolve(results.a + results.b + resultC);
}).catch(function(error){
return Promise.reject(error);
});
}
Global variables are bad, so this solution uses a locally scoped variable which causes no harm. It is only accessible within the function.
Mutable state is ugly, but this does not mutate state in an ugly manner. The ugly mutable state traditionally refers to modifying the state of function arguments or global variables, but this approach simply modifies the state of a locally scoped variable that exists for the sole purpose of aggregating promise results...a variable that will die a simple death once the promise resolves.
Intermediate promises are not prevented from accessing the state of the results object, but this does not introduce some scary scenario where one of the promises in the chain will go rogue and sabotage your results. The responsibility of setting the values in each step of the promise is confined to this function and the overall result will either be correct or incorrect...it will not be some bug that will crop up years later in production (unless you intend it to!)
This does not introduce a race condition scenario that would arise from parallel invocation because a new instance of the results variable is created for every invocation of the getExample function.
Example is available on jsfiddle
Node 7.4 now supports async/await calls with the harmony flag.
Try this:
async function getExample(){
let response = await returnPromise();
let response2 = await returnPromise2();
console.log(response, response2)
}
getExample()
and run the file with:
node --harmony-async-await getExample.js
Simple as can be!
Another answer, using babel-node version <6
Using async - await
npm install -g babel#5.6.14
example.js:
async function getExample(){
let response = await returnPromise();
let response2 = await returnPromise2();
console.log(response, response2)
}
getExample()
Then, run babel-node example.js and voila!
This days, I also hava meet some questions like you. At last, I find a good solution with the quesition, it's simple and good to read. I hope this can help you.
According to how-to-chain-javascript-promises
ok, let's look at the code:
const firstPromise = () => {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
setTimeout(() => {
console.log('first promise is completed');
resolve({data: '123'});
}, 2000);
});
};
const secondPromise = (someStuff) => {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
setTimeout(() => {
console.log('second promise is completed');
resolve({newData: `${someStuff.data} some more data`});
}, 2000);
});
};
const thirdPromise = (someStuff) => {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
setTimeout(() => {
console.log('third promise is completed');
resolve({result: someStuff});
}, 2000);
});
};
firstPromise()
.then(secondPromise)
.then(thirdPromise)
.then(data => {
console.log(data);
});
I am not going to use this pattern in my own code since I'm not a big fan of using global variables. However, in a pinch it will work.
User is a promisified Mongoose model.
var globalVar = '';
User.findAsync({}).then(function(users){
globalVar = users;
}).then(function(){
console.log(globalVar);
});
Another answer, using sequential executor nsynjs:
function getExample(){
var response1 = returnPromise1().data;
// promise1 is resolved at this point, '.data' has the result from resolve(result)
var response2 = returnPromise2().data;
// promise2 is resolved at this point, '.data' has the result from resolve(result)
console.log(response, response2);
}
nynjs.run(getExample,{},function(){
console.log('all done');
})
Update: added working example
function synchronousCode() {
var urls=[
"https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.7.0/jquery.min.js",
"https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.8.0/jquery.min.js",
"https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.9.0/jquery.min.js"
];
for(var i=0; i<urls.length; i++) {
var len=window.fetch(urls[i]).data.text().data.length;
// ^ ^
// | +- 2-nd promise result
// | assigned to 'data'
// |
// +-- 1-st promise result assigned to 'data'
//
console.log('URL #'+i+' : '+urls[i]+", length: "+len);
}
}
nsynjs.run(synchronousCode,{},function(){
console.log('all done');
})
<script src="https://rawgit.com/amaksr/nsynjs/master/nsynjs.js"></script>
When using bluebird, you can use .bind method to share variables in promise chain:
somethingAsync().bind({})
.spread(function (aValue, bValue) {
this.aValue = aValue;
this.bValue = bValue;
return somethingElseAsync(aValue, bValue);
})
.then(function (cValue) {
return this.aValue + this.bValue + cValue;
});
please check this link for further information:
http://bluebirdjs.com/docs/api/promise.bind.html
function getExample() {
var retA, retB;
return promiseA(…).then(function(resultA) {
retA = resultA;
// Some processing
return promiseB(…);
}).then(function(resultB) {
// More processing
//retA is value of promiseA
return // How do I gain access to resultA here?
});
}
easy way :D
I think you can use hash of RSVP.
Something like as below :
const mainPromise = () => {
const promise1 = new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
setTimeout(() => {
console.log('first promise is completed');
resolve({data: '123'});
}, 2000);
});
const promise2 = new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
setTimeout(() => {
console.log('second promise is completed');
resolve({data: '456'});
}, 2000);
});
return new RSVP.hash({
prom1: promise1,
prom2: promise2
});
};
mainPromise()
.then(data => {
console.log(data.prom1);
console.log(data.prom2);
});
Solution:
You can put intermediate values in scope in any later 'then' function explicitly, by using 'bind'. It is a nice solution that doesn't require changing how Promises work, and only requires a line or two of code to propagate the values just like errors are already propagated.
Here is a complete example:
// Get info asynchronously from a server
function pGetServerInfo()
{
// then value: "server info"
} // pGetServerInfo
// Write into a file asynchronously
function pWriteFile(path,string)
{
// no then value
} // pWriteFile
// The heart of the solution: Write formatted info into a log file asynchronously,
// using the pGetServerInfo and pWriteFile operations
function pLogInfo(localInfo)
{
var scope={localInfo:localInfo}; // Create an explicit scope object
var thenFunc=p2.bind(scope); // Create a temporary function with this scope
return (pGetServerInfo().then(thenFunc)); // Do the next 'then' in the chain
} // pLogInfo
// Scope of this 'then' function is {localInfo:localInfo}
function p2(serverInfo)
{
// Do the final 'then' in the chain: Writes "local info, server info"
return pWriteFile('log',this.localInfo+','+serverInfo);
} // p2
This solution can be invoked as follows:
pLogInfo("local info").then().catch(err);
(Note: a more complex and complete version of this solution has been tested, but not this example version, so it could have a bug.)
What I learn about promises is to use it only as return values avoid referencing them if possible. async/await syntax is particularly practical for that. Today all latest browsers and node support it: https://caniuse.com/#feat=async-functions , is a simple behavior and the code is like reading synchronous code, forget about callbacks...
In cases I do need to reference a promises is when creation and resolution happen at independent/not-related places. So instead an artificial association and probably an event listener just to resolve the "distant" promise, I prefer to expose the promise as a Deferred, which the following code implements it in valid es5
/**
* Promise like object that allows to resolve it promise from outside code. Example:
*
```
class Api {
fooReady = new Deferred<Data>()
private knower() {
inOtherMoment(data=>{
this.fooReady.resolve(data)
})
}
}
```
*/
var Deferred = /** #class */ (function () {
function Deferred(callback) {
var instance = this;
this.resolve = null;
this.reject = null;
this.status = 'pending';
this.promise = new Promise(function (resolve, reject) {
instance.resolve = function () { this.status = 'resolved'; resolve.apply(this, arguments); };
instance.reject = function () { this.status = 'rejected'; reject.apply(this, arguments); };
});
if (typeof callback === 'function') {
callback.call(this, this.resolve, this.reject);
}
}
Deferred.prototype.then = function (resolve) {
return this.promise.then(resolve);
};
Deferred.prototype.catch = function (r) {
return this.promise.catch(r);
};
return Deferred;
}());
transpiled form a typescript project of mine:
https://github.com/cancerberoSgx/misc-utils-of-mine/blob/2927c2477839f7b36247d054e7e50abe8a41358b/misc-utils-of-mine-generic/src/promise.ts#L31
For more complex cases I often use these guy small promise utilities without dependencies tested and typed. p-map has been useful several times. I think he covered most use cases:
https://github.com/sindresorhus?utf8=%E2%9C%93&tab=repositories&q=promise&type=source&language=