I'm writing an API where I'm having a bit of trouble with the error handling. What I'm unsure about is whether the first code snippet is sufficient or if I should mix it with promises as in the second code snippet. Any help would be much appreciated!
try {
var decoded = jwt.verify(req.params.token, config.keys.secret);
var user = await models.user.findById(decoded.userId);
user.active = true;
await user.save();
res.status(201).json({user, 'stuff': decoded.jti});
} catch (error) {
next(error);
}
Second code snippet:
try {
var decoded = jwt.verify(req.params.token, config.keys.secret);
var user = models.user.findById(decoded.userId).then(() => {
}).catch((error) => {
});
user.active = true;
await user.save().then(() => {
}).catch((error) => {
})
res.status(201).json({user, 'stuff': decoded.jti});
} catch (error) {
next(error);
}
The answer is: it depends.
Catch every error
Makes sense if you want to react differently on every error.
e.g.:
try {
let decoded;
try {
decoded = jwt.verify(req.params.token, config.keys.secret);
} catch (error) {
return response
.status(401)
.json({ error: 'Unauthorized..' });
}
...
However, the code can get quite messy, and you'd want to split the error handling a bit differently (e.g.: do the JWT validation on some pre request hook and allow only valid requests to the handlers and/or do the findById and save part in a service, and throw once per operation).
You might want to throw a 404 if no entity was found with the given ID.
Catch all at once
If you want to react in the same way if a) or b) or c) goes wrong, then the first example looks just fine.
a) var decoded = jwt.verify(req.params.token, config.keys.secret);
b) var user = await models.user.findById(decoded.userId);
user.active = true;
c) await user.save();
res.status(201).json({user, 'stuff': decoded.jti});
I read some articles that suggested the need of a try/catch block for each request. Is there any truth to that?
No, that is not required. try/catch with await works conceptually like try/catch works with regular synchronous exceptions. If you just want to handle all errors in one place and want all your code to just abort to one error handler no matter where the error occurs and don't need to catch one specific error so you can do something special for that particular error, then a single try/catch is all you need.
But, if you need to handle one particular error specifically, perhaps even allowing the rest of the code to continue, then you may need a more local error handler which can be either a local try/catch or a .catch() on the local asynchronous operation that returns a promise.
or if I should mix it with promises as in the second code snippet.
The phrasing of this suggests that you may not quite understand what is going on with await because promises are involved in both your code blocks.
In both your code blocks models.user.findById(decoded.userId); returns a promise. You have two ways you can use that promise.
You can use await with it to "pause" the internal execution of the function until that promise resolves or rejects.
You can use .then() or .catch() to see when the promise resolves or rejects.
Both are using the promise returns from your models.user.findById(decoded.userId); function call. So, your phrasing would have been better to say "or if I should use a local .catch() handler on a specific promise rather than catching all the rejections in one place.
Doing this:
// skip second async operation if there's an error in the first one
async function someFunc() {
try {
let a = await someFunc():
let b = await someFunc2(a);
return b + something;
} catch(e) {
return "";
}
}
Is analogous to chaining your promise with one .catch() handler at the end:
// skip second async operation if there's an error in the first one
function someFunc() {
return someFunc().then(someFunc2).catch(e => "");
}
No matter which async function rejects, the same error handler is applied. If the first one rejects, the second one is not executed as flow goes directly to the error handler. This is perfectly fine IF that's how you want the flow to go when there's an error in the first asynchronous operation.
But, suppose you wanted an error in the first function to be turned into a default value so that the second asynchronous operation is always executed. Then, this flow of control would not be able to accomplish that. Instead, you'd have to capture the first error right at the source so you could supply the default value and continue processing with the second asynchronous operation:
// always run second async operation, supply default value if error in the first
async function someFunc() {
let a;
try {
a = await someFunc():
} catch(e) {
a = myDefaultValue;
}
try {
let b = await someFunc2(a);
return b + something;
} catch(e) {
return "";
}
}
Is analogous to chaining your promise with one .catch() handler at the end:
// always run second async operation, supply default value if error in the first
function someFunc() {
return someFunc()
.catch(err => myDefaultValue)
.then(someFunc2)
.catch(e => "");
}
Note: This is an example that never rejects the promise that someFunc() returns, but rather supplies a default value (empty string in this example) rather than reject to show you the different ways of handling errors in this function. That is certainly not required. In many cases, just returning the rejected promise is the right thing and that caller can then decide what to do with the rejection error.
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=
As a relative beginning in Javascript development, I'm trying to understand this problem I'm encountering in a function I've built that will be a part of the code to connect to a postgreSQL database.
In this function, I'm using the knex query builder method to check if a table exists in a remote database, and this method resolves to a boolean that indicates whether the string you specified matches with a table of the same name in the database. I've a provided a sample example of the knex syntax so people better understand the function.
knex.schema.hasTable('users').then(function(exists) {
if (!exists) {
return knex.schema.createTable('users', function(t) {
t.increments('id').primary();
t.string('first_name', 100);
t.string('last_name', 100);
t.text('bio');
});
}
});
I am trying to make my function return a boolean by using the .every Array method, which checks each array and should every index pass the condition defined, the .every method should return a true value, otherwise false. I've built a function which takes an array of schema keys, or names of tables, and passes it to the .every method. The .every method then uses the knex.schema.hasTable method to return a true or false.
My concern is that through many different configurations of the function, I have not been able to get it to return a correct value. Not only does it return an incorrect value, which may have something to do with .every, which I believe can return "truthey" values, but after defining the function, I will often get a "Function undefined" error when calling it later in the file. Here is a sample of my function - again I think it is moreso my poor understanding of how returns, promises and closures are working together, but if anyone has insight, it would be much appreciated.
var schemaTables = ['posts','users', 'misc'];
// should return Boolean
function checkTable() {
schemaTables.every(function(key) {
return dbInstance.schema.hasTable(key)
.then(function(exists) {
return exists;
});
});
}
console.log(checkTable(), 'checkTable function outside');
// console.log is returning undefined here, although in other situations,
I've seen it return true or false incorrectly.
Your function is not working properly for two reasons:
You are not returning the in the checkTable function declaration, so it will always return undefined.
You should write:
function checkTable() {
return schemaTables.every(function(key) {
return dbInstance.schema.hasTable(key)
.then(function(exists) {
return exists;
});
});
}
Anyway you will not get what you want just adding return. I'll explain why in the second point.
Array.prototype.every is expecting a truthy or falsey value syncronously but what the dbInstance.schema.hasTable returns is a Promise object (and an object, even if empty, is always truthy).
What you have to do now is checking if the tables exist asynchronously, i'll show you how:
var Promise = require("bluebird");
var schemaTables = ['posts', 'users', 'misc'];
function checkTable(tables, callback) {
// I'm mapping every table into a Promise
asyncTables = tables.map(function(table) {
return dbInstance.schema.hasTable(table)
.then(function(exists) {
if (!exists)
return Promise.reject("The table does not exists");
return Promise.resolve("The table exists");
});
});
// If all the tables exist, Promise.all return a promise that is fulfilled
// when all the items in the array are fulfilled.
// If any promise in the array rejects, the returned promise
// is rejected with the rejection reason.
Promise.all(asyncTables)
.then(function(result) {
// i pass a TRUE value to the callback if all the tables exist,
// if not i'm passing FALSE
callback(result.isFulfilled());
});
}
checkTable(schemaTables, function (result) {
// here result will be true or false, you can do whatever you want
// inside the callback with result, but it will be called ASYNCHRONOUSLY
console.log(result);
});
Notice that as i said before, you can't have a function that returns a true or false value synchronously, so the only thing you can do is passing a callback to checkTable that will execute as soon as the result is ready (when all the promises fulfill or when one of them rejects).
Or you can return Promise.all(asyncTables) and call then on checkTable it self, but i'll leave you this as exercise.
For more info about promises check:
The bluebird website
This wonderful article from Nolan Lawson
Thanks Cluk3 for the very comprehensive answer. I actually solved it myself by using the .every method in the async library. But yes, it was primarily due to both my misunderstanding regarding returns and asynchronous vs synchronous.
var checkTablesExist = function () {
// make sure that all tables exist
function checkTable(key, done) {
dbInstance.schema.hasTable(key)
.then(function(exists) {
return done(exists);
});
}
async.every(schemaTables, checkTable,
function(result) {
return result;
});
};
console.log(checkTablesExist());
// will now print true or false correctly