We Keep Coding

Aggregate multiple calls then separate result with Promise

Currently I have many concurrent identical calls to my backend, differing only on an ID field:
getData(1).then(...) // Each from a React component in a UI framework, so difficult to aggregate here
getData(2).then(...)
getData(3).then(...)
// creates n HTTP requests... inefficient
function getData(id: number): Promise<Data> {
return backend.getData(id);
}
This is wasteful as I make more calls. I'd like to keep my getData() calls, but then aggregate them into a single getDatas() call to my backend, then return all the results to the callers. I have more control over my backend than the UI framework, so I can easily add a getDatas() call on it. The question is how to "mux" the JS calls into one backend call, the "demux" the result into the caller's promises.
const cache = Map<number, Promise<Data>>()
let requestedIds = []
let timeout = null;
// creates just 1 http request (per 100ms)... efficient!
function getData(id: number): Promise<Data> {
if (cache.has(id)) {
return cache;
}
requestedIds.push(id)
if (timeout == null) {
timeout = setTimeout(() => {
backend.getDatas(requestedIds).then((datas: Data[]) => {
// TODO: somehow populate many different promises in cache??? but how?
requestedIds = []
timeout = null
}
}, 100)
}
return ???
}
In Java I would create a Map<int, CompletableFuture> and upon finishing my backend request, I would look up the CompletableFuture and call complete(data) on it. But I think in JS Promises can't be created without an explicit result being passed in.
Can I do this in JS with Promises?

A little unclear on what your end goal looks like. I imagine you could loop through your calls as needed; Perhaps something like:
for (let x in cache){
if (x.has(id))
return x;
}
//OR
for (let x=0; x<id.length;x++){
getData(id[x])
}
Might work. You may be able to add a timing method into the mix if needed.
Not sure what your backend consists of, but I do know GraphQL is a good system for making multiple calls.
It may be ultimately better to handle them all in one request, rather than multiple calls.

The cache can be a regular object mapping ids to promise resolution functions and the promise to which they belong.
// cache maps ids to { resolve, reject, promise, requested }
// resolve and reject belong to the promise, requested is a bool for bookkeeping
const cache = {};
You might need to fire only once, but here I suggest setInterval to regularly check the cache for unresolved requests:
// keep the return value, and stop polling with clearInterval()
// if you really only need one batch, change setInterval to setTimeout
function startGetBatch() {
return setInterval(getBatch, 100);
}
The business logic calls only getData() which just hands out (and caches) promises, like this:
function getData(id) {
if (cache[id]) return cache[id].promise;
cache[id] = {};
const promise = new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
Object.assign(cache[id], { resolve, reject });
});
cache[id].promise = promise;
cache[id].requested = false;
return cache[id].promise;
}
By saving the promise along with the resolver and rejecter, we're also implementing the cache, since the resolved promise will provide the thing it resolved to via its then() method.
getBatch() asks the server in a batch for the not-yet-requested getData() ids, and invokes the corresponding resolve/reject functions:
function getBatch() {
// for any
const ids = [];
Object.keys(cache).forEach(id => {
if (!cache[id].requested) {
cache[id].requested = true;
ids.push(id);
}
});
return backend.getDatas(ids).then(datas => {
Object.keys(datas).forEach(id => {
cache[id].resolve(datas[id]);
})
}).catch(error => {
Object.keys(datas).forEach(id => {
cache[id].reject(error);
delete cache[id]; // so we can retry
})
})
}
The caller side looks like this:
// start polling
const interval = startGetBatch();
// in the business logic
getData(5).then(result => console.log('the result of 5 is:', result));
getData(6).then(result => console.log('the result of 6 is:', result));
// sometime later...
getData(5).then(result => {
// if the promise for an id has resolved, then-ing it still works, resolving again to the -- now cached -- result
console.log('the result of 5 is:', result)
});
// later, whenever we're done
// (no need for this if you change setInterval to setTimeout)
clearInterval(interval);

I think I've found a solution:
interface PromiseContainer {
resolve;
reject;
}
const requests: Map<number, PromiseContainer<Data>> = new Map();
let timeout: number | null = null;
function getData(id: number) {
const promise = new Promise<Data>((resolve, reject) => requests.set(id, { resolve, reject }))
if (timeout == null) {
timeout = setTimeout(() => {
backend.getDatas([...requests.keys()]).then(datas => {
for (let [id, data] of Object.entries(datas)) {
requests.get(Number(id)).resolve(data)
requests.delete(Number(id))
}
}).catch(e => {
Object.values(requests).map(promise => promise.reject(e))
})
timeout = null
}, 100)
}
return promise;
}
The key was figuring out I could extract the (resolve, reject) from a promise, store them, then retrieve and call them later.

Array of filtered axios results from paginated API is empty

In my code below I get an empty array on my console.log(response) but the console.log(filterdIds) inside the getIds function is showing my desired data. I think my resolve is not right.
Note that I run do..while once for testing. The API is paged. If the records are from yesterday it will keep going, if not then the do..while is stopped.
Can somebody point me to the right direction?
const axios = require("axios");
function getToken() {
// Get the token
}
function getIds(jwt) {
return new Promise((resolve) => {
let pageNumber = 1;
const filterdIds = [];
const config = {
//Config stuff
};
do {
axios(config)
.then((response) => {
response.forEach(element => {
//Some logic, if true then:
filterdIds.push(element.id);
console.log(filterdIds);
});
})
.catch(error => {
console.log(error);
});
} while (pageNumber != 1)
resolve(filterdIds);
});
}
getToken()
.then(token => {
return token;
})
.then(jwt => {
return getIds(jwt);
})
.then(response => {
console.log(response);
})
.catch(error => {
console.log(error);
});
I'm also not sure where to put the reject inside the getIds function because of the do..while.

The fundamental problem is that resolve(filterdIds); runs synchronously before the requests fire, so it's guaranteed to be empty.
Promise.all or Promise.allSettled can help if you know how many pages you want up front (or if you're using a chunk size to make multiple requests--more on that later). These methods run in parallel. Here's a runnable proof-of-concept example:
const pages = 10; // some page value you're using to run your loop
axios
.get("https://httpbin.org") // some initial request like getToken
.then(response => // response has the token, ignored for simplicity
Promise.all(
Array(pages).fill().map((_, i) => // make an array of request promisess
axios.get(`https://jsonplaceholder.typicode.com/comments?postId=${i + 1}`)
)
)
)
.then(responses => {
// perform your filter/reduce on the response data
const results = responses.flatMap(response =>
response.data
.filter(e => e.id % 2 === 0) // some silly filter
.map(({id, name}) => ({id, name}))
);
// use the results
console.log(results);
})
.catch(err => console.error(err))
;
<script src="https://unpkg.com/axios/dist/axios.min.js"></script>
The network tab shows the requests happening in parallel:
If the number of pages is unknown and you intend to fire requests one at a time until your API informs you of the end of the pages, a sequential loop is slow but can be used. Async/await is cleaner for this strategy:
(async () => {
// like getToken; should handle err
const tokenStub = await axios.get("https://httpbin.org");
const results = [];
// page += 10 to make the snippet run faster; you'd probably use page++
for (let page = 1;; page += 10) {
try {
const url = `https://jsonplaceholder.typicode.com/comments?postId=${page}`;
const response = await axios.get(url);
// check whatever condition your API sends to tell you no more pages
if (response.data.length === 0) {
break;
}
for (const comment of response.data) {
if (comment.id % 2 === 0) { // some silly filter
const {name, id} = comment;
results.push({name, id});
}
}
}
catch (err) { // hit the end of the pages or some other error
break;
}
}
// use the results
console.log(results);
})();
<script src="https://unpkg.com/axios/dist/axios.min.js"></script>
Here's the sequential request waterfall:
A task queue or chunked loop can be used if you want to increase parallelization. A chunked loop would combine the two techniques to request n records at a time and check each result in the chunk for the termination condition. Here's a simple example that strips out the filtering operation, which is sort of incidental to the asynchronous request issue and can be done synchronously after the responses arrive:
(async () => {
const results = [];
const chunk = 5;
for (let page = 1;; page += chunk) {
try {
const responses = await Promise.all(
Array(chunk).fill().map((_, i) =>
axios.get(`https://jsonplaceholder.typicode.com/comments?postId=${page + i}`)
)
);
for (const response of responses) {
for (const comment of response.data) {
const {name, id} = comment;
results.push({name, id});
}
}
// check end condition
if (responses.some(e => e.data.length === 0)) {
break;
}
}
catch (err) {
break;
}
}
// use the results
console.log(results);
})();
<script src="https://unpkg.com/axios/dist/axios.min.js"></script>
(above image is an except of the 100 requests, but the chunk size of 5 at once is visible)
Note that these snippets are proofs-of-concept and could stand to be less indiscriminate with catching errors, ensure all throws are caught, etc. When breaking it into sub-functions, make sure to .then and await all promises in the caller--don't try to turn it into synchronous code.
See also
How do I return the response from an asynchronous call? and Why is my variable unaltered after I modify it inside of a function? - Asynchronous code reference which explain why the array is empty.
What is the explicit promise construction antipattern and how do I avoid it?, which warns against adding a new Promise to help resolve code that already returns promises.

To take a step back and think about why you ran into this issue, we have to think about how synchronous and asynchronous javascript code works together. Your
synchronous getIds function is going to run to completion, stepping through each line until it gets to the end.
The axios function invocation is returning a Promise, which is an object that represents some future fulfillment or rejection value. That Promise isn't going to resolve until the next cycle of the event loop (at the earliest), and your code is telling it to do some stuff when that pending value is returned (which is the callback in the .then() method).
But your main getIds function isn't going to wait around... it invokes the axios function, gives the Promise that is returned something to do in the future, and keeps going, moving past the do/while loop and onto the resolve method which returns a value from the Promise you created at the beginning of the function... but the axios Promise hasn't resolved by that point and therefore filterIds hasn't been populated.
When you moved the resolve method for the promise you're creating into the callback that the axios resolved Promise will invoke, it started working because now your Promise waits for axios to resolve before resolving itself.
Hopefully that sheds some light on what you can do to get your multi-page goal to work.
I couldn't help thinking there was a cleaner way to allow you to fetch multiple pages at once, and then recursively keep fetching if the last page indicated there were additional pages to fetch. You may still need to add some additional logic to filter out any pages that you batch fetch that don't meet whatever criteria you're looking for, but this should get you most of the way:
async function getIds(startingPage, pages) {
const pagePromises = Array(pages).fill(null).map((_, index) => {
const page = startingPage + index;
// set the page however you do it with axios query params
config.page = page;
return axios(config);
});
// get the last page you attempted, and if it doesn't meet whatever
// criteria you have to finish the query, submit another batch query
const lastPage = await pagePromises[pagePromises.length - 1];
// the result from getIds is an array of ids, so we recursively get the rest of the pages here
// and have a single level array of ids (or an empty array if there were no more pages to fetch)
const additionalIds = !lastPage.done ? [] : await getIds(startingPage + pages, pages);
// now we wait for all page queries to resolve and extract the ids
const resolvedPages = await Promise.all(pagePromises);
const resolvedIds = [].concat(...resolvedPages).map(elem => elem.id);
// and finally merge the ids fetched in this methods invocation, with any fetched recursively
return [...resolvedIds, ...additionalIds];
}

JS: what's a use-case of Promise.resolve()

I am looking at https://www.promisejs.org/patterns/ and it mentions it can be used if you need a value in the form of a promise like:
var value = 10;
var promiseForValue = Promise.resolve(value);
What would be the use of a value in promise form though since it would run synchronously anyway?
If I had:
var value = 10;
var promiseForValue = Promise.resolve(value);
promiseForValue.then(resp => {
myFunction(resp)
})
wouldn't just using value without it being a Promise achieve the same thing:
var value = 10;
myFunction(10);

Say if you write a function that sometimes fetches something from a server, but other times immediately returns, you will probably want that function to always return a promise:
function myThingy() {
if (someCondition) {
return fetch('https://foo');
} else {
return Promise.resolve(true);
}
}
It's also useful if you receive some value that may or may not be a promise. You can wrap it in other promise, and now you are sure it's a promise:
const myValue = someStrangeFunction();
// Guarantee that myValue is a promise
Promise.resolve(myValue).then( ... );

In your examples, yes, there's no point in calling Promise.resolve(value). The use case is when you do want to wrap your already existing value in a Promise, for example to maintain the same API from a function. Let's say I have a function that conditionally does something that would return a promise — the caller of that function shouldn't be the one figuring out what the function returned, the function itself should just make that uniform. For example:
const conditionallyDoAsyncWork = (something) => {
if (something == somethingElse) {
return Promise.resolve(false)
}
return fetch(`/foo/${something}`)
.then((res) => res.json())
}
Then users of this function don't need to check if what they got back was a Promise or not:
const doSomethingWithData = () => {
conditionallyDoAsyncWork(someValue)
.then((result) => result && processData(result))
}
As a side node, using async/await syntax both hides that and makes it a bit easier to read, because any value you return from an async function is automatically wrapped in a Promise:
const conditionallyDoAsyncWork = async (something) => {
if (something == somethingElse) {
return false
}
const res = await fetch(`/foo/${something}`)
return res.json()
}
const doSomethingWithData = async () => {
const result = await conditionallyDoAsyncWork(someValue)
if (result) processData(result)
}

Another use case: dead simple async queue using Promise.resolve() as starting point.
let current = Promise.resolve();
function enqueue(fn) {
current = current.then(fn);
}
enqueue(async () => { console.log("async task") });
Edit, in response to OP's question.
Explanation
Let me break it down for you step by step.
enqueue(task) add the task function as a callback to promise.then, and replace the original current promise reference with the newly returned thenPromise.
current = Promise.resolve()
thenPromise = current.then(task)
current = thenPromise
As per promise spec, if task function in turn returns yet another promise, let's call it task() -> taskPromise, well then the thenPromise will only resolve when taskPromise resolves. thenPromise is practically equivalent to taskPromise, it's just a wrapper. Let's rewrite above code into:
current = Promise.resolve()
taskPromise = current.then(task)
current = taskPromise
So if you go like:
enqueue(task_1)
enqueue(task_2)
enqueue(task_3)
it expands into
current = Promise.resolve()
task_1_promise = current.then(task_1)
task_2_promise = task_1_promise.then(task_2)
task_3_promise = task_2_promise.then(task_3)
current = task_3_promise
effectively forms a linked-list-like struct of promises that'll execute task callbacks in sequential order.
Usage
Let's study a concrete scenario. Imaging you need to handle websocket messages in sequential order.
Let's say you need to do some heavy computation upon receiving messages, so you decide to send it off to a worker thread pool. Then you write the processed result to another message queue (MQ).
But here's the requirement, that MQ is expecting the writing order of messages to match with the order they come in from the websocket stream. What do you do?
Suppose you cannot pause the websocket stream, you can only handle them locally ASAP.
Take One:
websocket.on('message', (msg) => {
sendToWorkerThreadPool(msg).then(result => {
writeToMessageQueue(result)
})
})
This may violate the requirement, cus sendToWorkerThreadPool may not return the result in the original order since it's a pool, some threads may return faster if the workload is light.
Take Two:
websocket.on('message', (msg) => {
const task = () => sendToWorkerThreadPool(msg).then(result => {
writeToMessageQueue(result)
})
enqueue(task)
})
This time we enqueue (defer) the whole process, thus we can ensure the task execution order stays sequential. But there's a drawback, we lost the benefit of using a thread pool, cus each sendToWorkerThreadPool will only fire after last one complete. This model is equivalent to using a single worker thread.
Take Three:
websocket.on('message', (msg) => {
const promise = sendToWorkerThreadPool(msg)
const task = () => promise.then(result => {
writeToMessageQueue(result)
})
enqueue(task)
})
Improvement over take two is, we call sendToWorkerThreadPool ASAP, without deferring, but we still enqueue/defer the writeToMessageQueue part. This way we can make full use of thread pool for computation, but still ensure the sequential writing order to MQ.
I rest my case.

How to resolve Promises in recursive JSON

I need to recursively go through JSON and in some cases call remote API. I need to return the whole JSON modified at the end but I cannot figure out how to wait until all promises are fulfilled
const getObjectsOfRelated = (xmlAsJson, token) => {
if (testIfIwantCallApi()) {
const jsonToReturn = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(xmlAsJson))
jsonToReturn.elements = callApi(xmlAsJson.text).then(result => {
return result.data
})
return jsonToReturn
}
if (xmlAsJson.elements) {
const jsonToReturn = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(xmlAsJson))
jsonToReturn.elements = xmlAsJson.elements.map(res => getObjectsOfRelated(res, token))
return jsonToReturn
}
return xmlAsJson
}
Even if I try to hack it using setTimeout the result does not include parts that were created using external API.
This way the code returns correct structure with promises instead of values I want it either return completed promises or be able to wait until the promises are fulfilled.

Wrap plain return values in Promise's using Promise.resolve:
const getObjectsOfRelated = (xmlAsJson, token) => {
if (testIfIwantCallApi()) {
const jsonToReturn = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(xmlAsJson))
return callApi(xmlAsJson.text).then(result => {
jsonToReturn.elements = result.data;
return jsonToReturn;
})
}
if (xmlAsJson.elements) {
const jsonToReturn = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(xmlAsJson))
Promise.all(xmlAsJson.elements.map(res => getObjectsOfRelated(res,
token)).then((results) => {
jsonToReturn.elements = results.map(result => result.data);
return jsonToReturn;
});
}
return Promise.resolve(xmlAsJson);
}
This way you will consistently return promises and you can use your function like this:
getObjectsOfRelated(xmlAsJson, token).then(result => console.log(result))

You can use "Promise.all"...
For a simple array, you map a function over the array:
The function returns a promise for the "new value" of each element.
If you use Bluebird promises, you can even return a mixture of Promises and plain values.
( without having to wrap plain values in "Promise.resolve" )
Then you pass the array of promises to "Promise.all()", which waits for all of them to complete.
To transform a tree-shaped data structure (like JSON), you do the same sort of thing, but recursively. Each node in the tree would use "Promise.all" to wait for all its child-nodes=, and the root node would only "resolve" when every node in the tree has resolved.
Note that "Promise.all" is going to run all of your ASYNC functions at the same time. If you don't want that, you can instead use "Promise.mapSeries", which does the same thing, but it waits for each async function before starting the next. This can be better if you have large data and don't want to start too many simultaneous async functions at the same time.

Promises with angularJS and Typescript

I have the following function, my goal is to push to the items list, when the components can identify their parent item.
The problem that I have is that when I am pushing to the list console.log() shows me that the object is in there, but when I return the list and catch it in another function, there is nothing in the list.
I think that the items list is returned before the code above it is done.
private get_items_for_request() {
return this.Item.forRequest(this.request.id, ['group'])
.then((_items) => {
var items = [];
for (var item of _items) {
return this.ItemComponent.forItem(item.id, ['type'])
.then((_components) => {
for (var component of _components) {
if (component.type.can_identify_item) {
items.push({
group_id: item.group.reference,
identifier_code: this.remove_check_digit_if_necessary(
component.identifier_code),
quantity: 1
});
break;
}
}
}, (reason) => {
this.Toast.error(
this.gettextCatalog.getString('components.load_failed'));
return [];
});
}
return items;
}, (reason) => {
this.Toast.error(
this.gettextCatalog.getString('items.failed_load'));
return [];
});
}

I'm afraid the trouble is with your approach, not with the code itself. A promise is just that - a promise of data some time in future. So, when you function returns (immediately), the promise is not resolved yet and the data your caller function captures is still empty. I don't see console.log() in your code, but would suspect you put it somewhere inside then(), which will be called once data has been received. So you will see data being logged. Trouble is by that time get_items_for_request() has already returned and your caller function has already moved on.
If you want to use a promise, you have to use a callback to be called once promise is resolved. But if you want actual data returned to the caller you need to fetch data synchronously.
For the synchronous fetch, check this response. But beware that synchronous fetch will hurt responsiveness of your script.
For an asynchronous fetch (using promises), you need to define a callback called once all data has been fetched. I won't try to fix your code, but it should go along the following sketch in javascript. Though keep in mind it's just a sketch.
function get_items_for_request(onSuccess) {
var items = []
var total = -1
var sofar = 0;
this.Item.forRequest(this.request.id, ['group'])
.then(function (_items) {
var items = [];
total = _items.length // remember how many nested calls will be made
for (var item of _items) {
this.ItemComponent.forItem(item.id, ['type'])
.then(function (_components) {
// push received data to the items array here
sofar++
if (sofar == total) { // all done
onSuccess(items)
}
}
}
}
}

In the first promise callback, you have two returns, only the first one runs. You return a promise after the first for, which you resolve to undefined. You should wait for an array of promises, each corresponding to a this.ItemComponent.forItem call.
Promise.all helps with this: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Promise/all
You should do something like this:
return this.Item.forRequest(this.request.id, ['group']).then((_items) => {
return Promise.all(_items.map(function (item) {
return this.ItemComponent.forItem(item.id, ['type']).then((_components) => {
for (var component of _components) {
if (component.type.can_identify_item) {
return {
group_id: item.group.reference,
identifier_code: this.remove_check_digit_if_necessary(
component.identifier_code),
quantity: 1
};
}
}
}, (reason) => {
this.Toast.error(
this.gettextCatalog.getString('components.load_failed'));
return [];
});
}));
}, (reason) => {
this.Toast.error(
this.gettextCatalog.getString('items.failed_load'));
return [];
} )
If you only want one item, find the first non-falsy element in the resulting array