For the past 2 days I have been struggling on this thing. I want to watch for changes on particular collection. All of the logic for these changes is in asynchronous way. I tried to make the EventEmitter callback function to be asynchronous but still works in synchronous manner.
Pseudo code example:
const someLogicFunction1 = async () => {
// some logic here
}
const someLogicFunction2 = async () => {
// some logic here
}
const collectionEventEmitter = Collection.watch();
collectionEventEmitter.on('change', async (change) => {
await someLogicFunction1();
await someLogicFunction2(); // has to wait for first function to finish
});
As I explained above I tried this approach but still runs synchronously. The second function usually has to wait for the first function to finish its task in order for the whole code to be properly working.
EDIT:
From what I have found it seems that the callback function firstly gets all this "change" parameter event objects and then executes the code. What I need actually is to execute the code for every "change" event parameter - not for all of them at once.
One solution is to make someLogicFunction1() returning a promise and calling someLogicFunction2(); in then of first function, like this:
await someLogicFunction1()
.then(function(){
someLogicFunction2();
});
You just need to modify someLogicFunction1(); like this:
someLogicFunction1( )
{
return new Promise( async function( resolve, reject ) {
// Do your stuff here
}); // eo promise
}
Don't forget to resolve() in someLogicFunction1 function.
resolve();
You can also reject() in someLogicFunction1 and catch the error when you call this function.
reject();
You can pass an argument to resolve and reject and get it in your call.
Related
I would like to run this code with babel:
redisClientAsync.delAsync('key');
return await someOtherAsyncFunction();
inside an async function without await the first line. is this OK?
how else can I run something that I don't care?
Can I just fire the non-promisified function del('key',null) without a callback?
Yes, you can do that, and it will run the two asynchronous functions in parallel. You've just created a promise and thrown it away.
However, this means that when the promise is rejected you won't notice. You'll just get an unhandledRejection eventually which will crash your process if not handled.
Is this OK? How can I run something that I don't care?
Probably it's not OK. If you truly wouldn't care, you hadn't run it in the first place. So you should be clear and explicit what you care about (and what not):
do you want to wait? (for side effects)
do you need the result?
do you want to catch exceptions?
If you only want to wait and don't care for the result value, you can easily throw away the result:
void (await someAsyncFunction()); // or omit the void keyword,
// doesn't make a difference in an expression statement
If you don't care about exceptions, you can ignore them using
… someAsyncFunction().catch(function ignore() {}) …
You can throw that away, await it, do anything with it.
If you want the result, you have to await it. If you care about exceptions, but don't really want to wait, you may want to execute it in parallel with the following functions:
var [_, res] = await Promise.all([
someAsyncFunction(), // result is ignored, exceptions aren't
someOtherAsyncFunction()
]);
return res;
inside an async function without await the first line. is this OK?
Yes, there are cases where you'd want to do this which are perfectly reasonable. Especially where you don't care about the result - one example is an analytics tracking operation that should not interfere with business critical code.
how else can I run something that I don't care?
In many ways, however simply calling the promise function works. Your del without a callback would probably work in this case but some functions don't guard against not passing callbacks, so you can pass an empty function instead (.del('key', () => {})).
You do want to however make sure that you know about it failing, even if you don't want to disrupt the operation of code - so please consider adding a process.on("unhandledRejection', event handler to explicitly ignore these particular exceptions or suppress them via:
redisClient.delAsync('key').catch(()=>{});
Or preferably, something like:
redisClient.delAsync('key').catch(logErr);
From all the research I've made so far, I think it's fine to do it, as long as you guarantee that the function you are not awaiting for guarantees a way to handle its own errors in case that happens. For example, a try-catch wrapping the whole function body, like you see in the following snippet for the asyncFunction.
It doesn't matter if the function throws synchronously or asynchronously. It guarantees the your mainFunction will complete no matter what. That's the key point here.
If you don't guarantee that, you have to risks:
If it throws synchronously, your main function will not complete.
If it throws asynchronously, you'll get an unhandled excepction
// THIS IS SOME API CALL YOU DON'T WANT TO WAIT FOR
const mockAPI = () => {
console.log("From mockAPI");
return new Promise((resolve,reject) => {
setTimeout(() => reject("LATE THROW: API ERROR"), 500);
});
};
// THIS IS THE SOME ASYNC FUNCTION YOU CALL BUT NOT AWAIT FOR
const asyncFunction = async (syncThrow) => {
try {
console.log("Async function START");
if (syncThrow) throw new Error("EARLY THROW");
await mockAPI();
console.log("Async function DONE");
}
catch(err) {
console.log("From async function catch");
console.log(err.message || err);
return;
}
};
// THIS IS YOUR MAIN FUNCTION
const mainFunction = async (syncThrow) => {
try {
console.clear();
console.log("Main function START");
asyncFunction(syncThrow);
console.log("Main function DONE <<< THAT'S THE IMPORTANT PART");
}
catch(err) {
console.log("THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN");
console.log(err);
}
};
<div>
<button onClick="mainFunction(true)">Sync throw</button>
<button onClick="mainFunction(false)">Async throw</button>
</div>
Not in Node.js.
Node does not wait for ever-pending Promises. If other tasks are already completed and there is nothing left in the event loop, the Node process will be terminated even though there exists pending promise.
For the following script, if someOtherAsyncFunction() get resolved in 5 seconds, but redisClientAsync.delAsync('key') takes 10 seconds to execute, the Node process will be terminated after 5 seconds in theory, before the first line is resolved.
async function doSomething() {
redisClientAsync.delAsync('key');
return await someOtherAsyncFunction();
}
await doSomething();
Hello I need to call a REST function with an ID, that returns a promise in React.js. This function will at some point contain a certain value in its response when called . Until another service has processed an initial request this value will be null.
This is what I have done so far:
while(myVariable){
myfunction(myID).then( (response) => {
if(response['value'] != null
myVariable = false;
}
});
}
The problem with this code is that the while loop is called as fast as possible and thus completely utilises the computer. So I need a function that allows me to poll for a result by an ID until the response of one of the function calls contains a valid response.
I have tried the following method but without success, because I don't have a fixed number of runs:
Wait promise inside for loop
Thanks in regards.
As you state, the problem is that the while loop runs eagerly, not waiting for each promise to resolve.
One way to solve that is to use recursion. Recursion gives you more control over when exactly you want to 'loop' next:
let getValue = () => {
myFunction(myID).then(response => {
if (response['value'] === null) {
setTimeout(getValue);
} else {
// here you know the other service has processed the initial request
}
});
};
First I wrapped the whole thing in a function called getValue. Note that this function is only called again after the promise resolves. (The call to setTimeout is a trick to use recursion without consuming the stack.) If this still runs too quickly, pass an additional parameter of 100 or so to the setTimeout invocation.
Alternatively, you may be able to use async/await similarly to the link you shared. I'm no expert on async/await but it should work the same with while loops as with for loops, judging by this and this.
You can use the async function with await.
I also use a delay function to delay each call to the myfunction().
While you get a response, you can break the while loop.
const delay = ms => new Promise((resolve, reject) => setTimeout(resolve, ms));
async function main() {
const myID = 1;
let response;
while (true) {
response = await myfunction(myID);
if (response["value"] != null) {
break;
}
await delay(5000);
}
//do Something once you get the response here below:
}
main();
I would like to run this code with babel:
redisClientAsync.delAsync('key');
return await someOtherAsyncFunction();
inside an async function without await the first line. is this OK?
how else can I run something that I don't care?
Can I just fire the non-promisified function del('key',null) without a callback?
Yes, you can do that, and it will run the two asynchronous functions in parallel. You've just created a promise and thrown it away.
However, this means that when the promise is rejected you won't notice. You'll just get an unhandledRejection eventually which will crash your process if not handled.
Is this OK? How can I run something that I don't care?
Probably it's not OK. If you truly wouldn't care, you hadn't run it in the first place. So you should be clear and explicit what you care about (and what not):
do you want to wait? (for side effects)
do you need the result?
do you want to catch exceptions?
If you only want to wait and don't care for the result value, you can easily throw away the result:
void (await someAsyncFunction()); // or omit the void keyword,
// doesn't make a difference in an expression statement
If you don't care about exceptions, you can ignore them using
… someAsyncFunction().catch(function ignore() {}) …
You can throw that away, await it, do anything with it.
If you want the result, you have to await it. If you care about exceptions, but don't really want to wait, you may want to execute it in parallel with the following functions:
var [_, res] = await Promise.all([
someAsyncFunction(), // result is ignored, exceptions aren't
someOtherAsyncFunction()
]);
return res;
inside an async function without await the first line. is this OK?
Yes, there are cases where you'd want to do this which are perfectly reasonable. Especially where you don't care about the result - one example is an analytics tracking operation that should not interfere with business critical code.
how else can I run something that I don't care?
In many ways, however simply calling the promise function works. Your del without a callback would probably work in this case but some functions don't guard against not passing callbacks, so you can pass an empty function instead (.del('key', () => {})).
You do want to however make sure that you know about it failing, even if you don't want to disrupt the operation of code - so please consider adding a process.on("unhandledRejection', event handler to explicitly ignore these particular exceptions or suppress them via:
redisClient.delAsync('key').catch(()=>{});
Or preferably, something like:
redisClient.delAsync('key').catch(logErr);
From all the research I've made so far, I think it's fine to do it, as long as you guarantee that the function you are not awaiting for guarantees a way to handle its own errors in case that happens. For example, a try-catch wrapping the whole function body, like you see in the following snippet for the asyncFunction.
It doesn't matter if the function throws synchronously or asynchronously. It guarantees the your mainFunction will complete no matter what. That's the key point here.
If you don't guarantee that, you have to risks:
If it throws synchronously, your main function will not complete.
If it throws asynchronously, you'll get an unhandled excepction
// THIS IS SOME API CALL YOU DON'T WANT TO WAIT FOR
const mockAPI = () => {
console.log("From mockAPI");
return new Promise((resolve,reject) => {
setTimeout(() => reject("LATE THROW: API ERROR"), 500);
});
};
// THIS IS THE SOME ASYNC FUNCTION YOU CALL BUT NOT AWAIT FOR
const asyncFunction = async (syncThrow) => {
try {
console.log("Async function START");
if (syncThrow) throw new Error("EARLY THROW");
await mockAPI();
console.log("Async function DONE");
}
catch(err) {
console.log("From async function catch");
console.log(err.message || err);
return;
}
};
// THIS IS YOUR MAIN FUNCTION
const mainFunction = async (syncThrow) => {
try {
console.clear();
console.log("Main function START");
asyncFunction(syncThrow);
console.log("Main function DONE <<< THAT'S THE IMPORTANT PART");
}
catch(err) {
console.log("THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN");
console.log(err);
}
};
<div>
<button onClick="mainFunction(true)">Sync throw</button>
<button onClick="mainFunction(false)">Async throw</button>
</div>
Not in Node.js.
Node does not wait for ever-pending Promises. If other tasks are already completed and there is nothing left in the event loop, the Node process will be terminated even though there exists pending promise.
For the following script, if someOtherAsyncFunction() get resolved in 5 seconds, but redisClientAsync.delAsync('key') takes 10 seconds to execute, the Node process will be terminated after 5 seconds in theory, before the first line is resolved.
async function doSomething() {
redisClientAsync.delAsync('key');
return await someOtherAsyncFunction();
}
await doSomething();
This question is theoretical - I have no concrete problem to solve.
With that said, why does the async keyword wrap the return value of an async function in a promise? What's the point? Is it ONLY because the await expression expects a promise? Or is there some meaning / use behind this decision?
I thought i'd answer this primarily because async in Javascript used to confuse the hell out of me, and all of a sudden it snapped, so i hope this analogy may help this happen for you.
You have an async event. This could be anything, getting something from a server, doing something in the browser that takes time, training a machine learning model (!), executing a function or method that uses a setTimeout etc.
The beauty of Javascript and a key reason it works so well for the browser is that it uses the processor thread it runs on in a very clever way that stops the thread from getting blocked by processes that take time (like the ones mentioned above)
Many other languages, for example Ruby run on more than one thread. It is possible to use service workers to run processes on multiple threads in javascript but that is outside the scope of this answer!
The async nature of the JS event loop allows the thread to 'go off' and do something else while it is waiting for a process to finish.
The problem with this from a programming point of view is that it is possible for something in the code that relies on the result of a blocking event to get 'undefined' as a result of the event if it doesn't wait for the event to finish before it tries to use the result of it. Take this piece of code below
let scopedVariable
console.log('the code has started')
setTimeout(() => {
scopedVariable="I am the result of some async process"
}, 5000);
console.log(scopedVariable)
When the code reaches the console log, the setTimeout hasn't yet completed. As the setTimeout sets the scopedVariable only when it completes, the variable is undefined when we log it
if however
We wrap the timeout in a promise we can await it's resolve callback (first argument of promise) and the code will 'pause' until the promise reaches the resolve callback before continuing.
When we await the promise and the setTimeout completes, the resolve function sets the variable, so that when we console log it it holds the value from the promise
let scopedVariable
const asyncEvent = new Promise ((resolve,fail) => {
setTimeout(() => {
resolve(scopedVariable="I have resolved")
}, 5000);
})
const container = async () => {
const result = await asyncEvent
console.log(scopedVariable)
}
container()
You can use await and .then interchangably
For example we could go:
let scopedVariable
const asyncEvent = new Promise ((resolve,fail) => {
setTimeout(() => {
resolve(scopedVariable="I have resolved")
}, 5000);
})
const container = async () => {
asyncEvent.then(() => console.log(scopedVariable))
}
container()
once again the code will pause at .then and then continue when the asyncEvent promise has resolved.
In fact if we use .then we don't need to enclose it in an async function so we can rewrite it like this
let scopedVariable
const asyncEvent = new Promise ((resolve,fail) => {
setTimeout(() => {
resolve(scopedVariable="I have resolved")
}, 5000);
})
asyncEvent.then(() => console.log(scopedVariable))
The great thing about .then is that the accompanying .catch allows you to catch any errors thrown by the async event (for example if retrieving something from a server when there is an error). For async await you need to wrap potentially dangerous functions in a try catch.
In order to use await you need to be inside an async function (hence the async container function above). This is not necessary with .then, but .then and .catch chains can make your code messy.
I hope this helps!
The async and await operators are just syntactic sugar that hide the underlying use of promises to implement asynchronous code.
Using async before a function definition makes the function return a promise that resolves to the function's return value, rather than returning normally.
Using await before an asynchronous function call suspends the current function until the promise that it returns is resolved. It's basically equivalent to wrapping the remainder of the function in an anonymous function, and using that as the .then() callback of the promise.
For more information between the relationship, see How to translate Promise code to async await
I have some websocket code in JS. I have a message-handling loop like this:
socket.addEventListener('message', function (event) {
payload = JSON.parse(event.data)
method = payload.method
// Dispatch messages
if (method == 'cmd1') {
handle_cmd1(payload); // trigger event/semaphore here to wait up waiter
}
else if (method == 'cmd2') { ... }
});
And elsewhere, I have a button callback like this:
$('#my-button').change(function() {
handle_button();
});
async function handle_button() {
send_msg('msg1', 'hi');
// wait for server to reply with cmd1
cmd1_data = await something(); // what?
alert(`cmd1 data: $(cmd1_data)`);
}
The idea is that the button sends 'msg1' and the server is supposed to reply with 'cmd1' and some info. I want to wait for that reply and then do some more stuff.
So my question is how to interlock these? In C++ I'd use a semaphore. I'd rather not spin-loop; is there something in Javascript/JQuery I can use to trigger and then wait for a user-defined event like this? I'm sort of new to JS, and very new to JS async/await.
EDIT: I've made a simple jsfiddle to show what I'm after.
http://jsfiddle.net/xpvt214o/484700/
Now that I understand how promises in Javascript work, here's a working example of a promise that can get woken up from anywhere by calling a function:
wakeup = null;
// returns a promise that will be resolved by calling wakeup()
// (could be a list of these or whatever, this is just a simple demo)
function wakeable() {
return new Promise( (resolve) => {
wakeup = () => { resolve(true); }
});
}
// demo of waiting and getting woken up:
async function handle_event() {
while (true) {
console.log("waiting...")
await wakeable(); // returns to event loop here
console.log("handle event woke up!");
}
}
handle_event(); // start in "background"
wakeup(); // wake it up
setTimeout(_ => { wakeup(); }, 500); // wake it up again after a delay
What's happening here is that when you call wakeable(), it returns a promise. That promise is constructed with an anonymous function (the one taking resolve as arg); the promise constructor synchronously calls that function, passing it the promise's resolve method. In our case, the function sets wakeup to another anonymous function that calls the original resolve; it's a closure so it has access to that resolve function even when it's called later. Then it returns the new promise.
In this demo, we then await on that promise; that puts the pending promise on a queue, saves the current function state, and returns, like a generator calling yield.
A promise is resolved when its resolve function is called; in this case calling wakeup() calls the promise's internal resolve() method, which triggers any .then methods on the next tick of the Javascript event loop (using the promise queue mentioned above). Here we use await, but .then(...) would work the same way'
So there's no magic; I/O and timeout promises work the same way. They keep a private registry of functions to call when the I/O event or timeout happens, and those functions call the promise's resolve() which triggers the .then() or satisfies the await.
By the way, unlike async in python, leaving a pending promise "open" when the process exits is perfectly fine in Javascript, and in fact this demo does that. It exits when there's no more code to run; the fact that the while loop is still "awaiting" doesn't keep the process running, because it's really just some closures stored in a queue. The event loop is empty, so the process exits (assuming it's in node.js -- in a browser it just goes back to waiting for events).
something() should be a method that returns a promise() or should be another method that is also notated with async.
function something(){
return new Promise(resolve,reject) {
//... call your database
// then
resolve(theResult)
// or
reject(theError)
}
}
The async and await for the most part are really just wrappers around promises. The await returns when the promise calls resolve, and throws an exception when the promise calls reject.
Your async function can return another promise; If it returns another value, it gets turned into a resolved promise with that value.