I have a problem with promises and have no idea how resolve this:
My idea is to have two methods that are a "dispatcher". In testFetchFaceCharacter() call all promises that I need to resolved first. Need all data from state: {Body:{}, TopA:{}, eyes:{}} When testFetchCharacter() finished, immediately start testFetchTopCharacter(), only if all previous promises executed successfully.
However, at this point (with this code) have a errors. The promises aren't executed "Synchronously". still retrieved "asynchronously". Which "should not happen". Since it "reduce" (from what I read in several articles) avoided that behavior.
const buildCharacter = (state) => {
try {
testFetchFaceCharacter(state);
testFetchTopCharacter(state);
} catch (e) {
console.error(e + "En buildCharacter");
}
const testFetchCharacter = (state) => {
const promises = [
fetchCustom(state.Body.id, state.Body.file),
fetchCustom(state.TopA.id, state.TopA.file),
fetchCustom(state.eyes.id, state.eyes.file),
fetchCustom(state.mouth.id, state.mouth.file),
fetchCustom(state.nose.id, state.nose.file),
fetchCustom(state.eyebrow.id, state.eyebrow.file),
fetchCustom(state.Clothing.id, state.Clothing.file),
];
promises.reduce(async (previousPromise, nextPromise) => {
await previousPromise
return nextPromise
}, Promise.resolve());
}
const testFetchTopCharacter = (state) => {
const promises = [
fetchCustom(state.beard.id, state.beard.file),
fetchCustom(state.hat.id, state.hat.file),
fetchCustom(state.hair.id, state.hair.file),
fetchCustom(state.glass.id, state.glass.file)
];
promises.reduce(async (previousPromise, nextPromise) => {
await previousPromise
return nextPromise
}, Promise.resolve());
}
Y try this:
Execute -> Body
Execute -> TopA
Execute -> [eyes, mouth, nose, Clothing, eyebrow] //No matter the order
then
Execute [beard, hat, hair, glass] //not matter the order
First of all, there is a mistake in your code. You need to understand that as soon as you called a function, you triggered a logic that does something, even if you don't listen to the promise right away, the logic is executing.
So what happened, is that you launched all actions in "parallel" when you are doing function calls in the promises array.
Solution A
You need to "postpone" the actual call of a function until the previous function was successful, you can either do it manually, e.g.
const testFetchTopCharacter = async (state) => {
await fetchCustom(state.beard.id, state.beard.file),
await fetchCustom(state.hat.id, state.hat.file),
await fetchCustom(state.hair.id, state.hair.file),
await fetchCustom(state.glass.id, state.glass.file)
}
Solution B
If you want to use reducer you need to use callback in that array, so that when promise is completed you call the next callback in the chain.
const testFetchTopCharacter = (state) => {
const promises = [
() => fetchCustom(state.beard.id, state.beard.file),
() => fetchCustom(state.hat.id, state.hat.file),
() => fetchCustom(state.hair.id, state.hair.file),
() => fetchCustom(state.glass.id, state.glass.file)
];
promises.reduce((promise, callback) => promise.then(callback), Promise.resolve());
}
Solution C
If an order doesn't matter to you just do Promise.all
const testFetchTopCharacter = (state) => {
return Promise.all([
fetchCustom(state.beard.id, state.beard.file),
fetchCustom(state.hat.id, state.hat.file),
fetchCustom(state.hair.id, state.hair.file),
fetchCustom(state.glass.id, state.glass.file)
]);
}
In Promise.race the promise returns as soon that the primary promise returns. In Promise.all returns when all promises resolves, but lasts one problem. If any of all promises rejects all others will be rejected.
Instead of it, exists a proposal for a Promise.any, the returns every promise alone, independent of each other, short-circuiting on a rejection.
const logAfterWait = (seconds) => new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
return setTimeout(() => resolve(console.log(`${time} time passed`)), seconds)
})
const watingList = [
logAfterWait(convertToSeconds(10)),
logAfterWait(convertToSeconds(30)),
logAfterWait(convertToSeconds(5))
]
const logReading = async (fn) => {
console.log(`${time}: reading file`)
await fn()
}
const readFiles = (files) => Promise.all(watingList.map(logReading))
.catch((error) => new Error(error))
The problem here is the block of event loop on the maping cause block on event loop on Promise.all, returning every results on the same time, differ from the expected result, that is, 5, 10, 30 seconds.
Can I avoid this situation on waitingList.map?
You can leverage the fact that Promise.race forms a monoid by creating a Promise that never settles:
const empty = x => new Promise((res, rej) => x); // never settling promise
const ps = [
Promise.reject(1).catch(empty),
Promise.resolve(2).catch(empty),
Promise.resolve(3).catch(empty)];
Promise.race(ps)
.then(console.log); // 2
You need to attach a catch handler to each Promise in the array though. You can probably create a utility function that does this for you.
You could think of something like this:
// a solution might just be not using async/await
const any = (promises) => new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
let errors = [];
let resolved;
const onFulfill = (value) => {
// skip if already resolved
if (resolved) { return; }
resolved = true;
// resolve with the first available value
resolve(value);
};
const onError = (error) => {
// skip if already resolved
if (resolved) { return; }
// collect error
errors = errors.concat(error);
// reject promise combinator if all promises are failed
if (errors.length === promises.length) {
reject(errors);
}
};
return promises.forEach((promise) => promise.then(
onFulfill,
onError,
));
});
const sleep = (ms) => new Promise(r => setTimeout(() => r(ms), ms));
const err = (ms) => sleep(ms).then(() => Promise.reject(ms));
// it would log 2000, since it is the first to resolve
any([sleep(3000), err(100), sleep(2000)]).then(console.info)
// it would an array of 2 failures
any([err(50), err(60)]).catch(console.error)
the block of IO
Note that there isn't any block of IO in javascript, the thread is just free to tackle any other task while waiting for the promises to be resolved.
Consequently, I came to a conclusion. We create a resolver that is an Either monad(not a pure implementation of the Either monad) that returns [err, response] over a map function.
The catch blocks are necessary to avoid the Unhandled Promise Rejection Warning.
const time = () => `${new Date().getHours()}:${new Date().getMinutes()}:${new Date().getSeconds()}`;
const sleep = (ms, pNumber) => new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
return pNumber < 3
? setTimeout(() => resolve(console.log(`${time()} time passed`)), ms)
: reject(null)
}).catch(null)
Promise.prototype.resolver = async (promise) => {
this._result = await Promise.all([promise])[0];
return this._result == null
? ["The time flies", promise]
: [null, promise]
}
const watingList = [
Promise.resolver(sleep(0, 0).catch(console.error)),
Promise.resolver(sleep(3000, 1).catch(console.error)),
Promise.resolver(sleep(5000, 2).catch(console.error)),
Promise.resolver(sleep(5000, 3).catch(console.error))
]
const logReading = (list) => {
return list.map(p => p.then(console.log(`${time()}: reading file`))
.catch(console.log))
}
((read) => logReading(read))(watingList)
PS: time function differs from the expected because of the evaluate time.
Resources can be found here:
1 - https://frontendmasters.com/courses/hardcore-js-v2/either-monad/
I'm trying to generate an array of Promises to run sequentially. I've seen lots of tips on this but can't get it to run in my use case.
export default function generateIcons(){
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
const containers = document.querySelectorAll('.html2CanvasTarget')
const promises = containers.map(child => processIcon(child))
promises.reduce((p, fn) => p.then(fn), Promise.resolve())
resolve()
})
}
function processIcon(child){
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => html2canvas(child).
then(canvas => uploadFromCanvas(canvas,
child.childNodes[0].className.split(' ')[1] + '.png'))
.then(resolve).catch(reject))
}
Any tips? This just rejects and I can't see why
Looks like you want to resolve the main promise when the canvases are available for all the child elements. You can use Promise.All() for this.
It should also be noted that the querySelectorAll doesn't return anything you can call the .map on. You will have to create an array from what the querySelectorAll returns - which is a NodeList.
export default function generateIcons(){
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
const containers = document.querySelectorAll('.html2CanvasTarget');
const promises = Array.from(containers).map(child => processIcon(child))
Promises.All(promises).then(() => resolve());
})
}
containers is a NodeList, and NodeLists don't have a .map method, which is why your code is throwing an error.
Because processIcon already returns a Promise, there's no need to use the Promise constructor again. html2canvas already returns a Promise too, so there's no need for any Promise constructor anywhere (see What is the explicit promise construction antipattern and how do I avoid it?)
If possible, just await each call of it in a for loop. Because uploadFromCanvas returns a Promise too, and you want to wait for it, return it (or await it) as well:
export default async function generateIcons() {
const containers = document.querySelectorAll('.html2CanvasTarget');
for (const container of containers) {
await processIcon(container);
}
}
function processIcon(child) {
return html2canvas(child, {backgroundColor:null})
.then(canvas => uploadFromCanvas(canvas, child.className.split(' ')[1] + '.png'))
.catch(console.log);
}
As per your question, you can use Q module module for that
You need to take an empty array and push promises into it, and just pass this array in Q method (Q.allSettled), Take a look with an example
const Q = require('q');
const promiseHolder = [];
for (let i = 0; i < 10; i += 1) {
promiseHolder.push('Your Promises');
}
Q.allSettled(promises)
.then((results) => {
results.forEach((result) => {
if (result.state === 'fulfilled') {
const value = result.value;
return value;
}
const reason = result.reason;
throw reason;
});
});
In Q.allSettled() The method you always get the result in .then(). There are 2 states. One for success and one for failure.
Success => state === 'fulfilled', value: 'Whatever your promise return'
Failure => state === 'rejected', reason: 'Whatever your promise thrown'
In this case, you have a number of successful and unsuccessful promises.
There is the second approach which is Promise.all() do the same but the issue is whenever any of promise rejected further promise never called.
const promiseHolder = [];
for (let i = 0; i < 10; i += 1) {
promiseHolder.push('Your Promises');
}
Promise.all(promiseHolder)
.then((results) => {
return results;
})
.catch((err) => {
throw err;
});
In the second approach ( Promise.all()), It consists of all your promises pushed from for loop. If any of promise rejected no more promise called and suddenly you got the state of promise rejection in Promise.all().
Promise.all(promiseHolder)
.then((results) => {
return results;
})
.catch((err) => {
console.log('Promise will reject here', err);
throw err;
});
I hope it helps, Happy Coding :)
Let's say I have a set of Promises that are making network requests, of which one will fail:
// http://does-not-exist will throw a TypeError
var arr = [ fetch('index.html'), fetch('http://does-not-exist') ]
Promise.all(arr)
.then(res => console.log('success', res))
.catch(err => console.log('error', err)) // This is executed
Let's say I want to wait until all of these have finished, regardless of if one has failed. There might be a network error for a resource that I can live without, but which if I can get, I want before I proceed. I want to handle network failures gracefully.
Since Promise.all doesn't leave any room for this, what is the recommended pattern for handling this, without using a promises library?
Update, you probably want to use the built-in native Promise.allSettled:
Promise.allSettled([promise]).then(([result]) => {
//reach here regardless
// {status: "fulfilled", value: 33}
});
As a fun fact, this answer below was prior art in adding that method to the language :]
Sure, you just need a reflect:
const reflect = p => p.then(v => ({v, status: "fulfilled" }),
e => ({e, status: "rejected" }));
reflect(promise).then((v) => {
console.log(v.status);
});
Or with ES5:
function reflect(promise){
return promise.then(function(v){ return {v:v, status: "fulfilled" }},
function(e){ return {e:e, status: "rejected" }});
}
reflect(promise).then(function(v){
console.log(v.status);
});
Or in your example:
var arr = [ fetch('index.html'), fetch('http://does-not-exist') ]
Promise.all(arr.map(reflect)).then(function(results){
var success = results.filter(x => x.status === "fulfilled");
});
Similar answer, but more idiomatic for ES6 perhaps:
const a = Promise.resolve(1);
const b = Promise.reject(new Error(2));
const c = Promise.resolve(3);
Promise.all([a, b, c].map(p => p.catch(e => e)))
.then(results => console.log(results)) // 1,Error: 2,3
.catch(e => console.log(e));
const console = { log: msg => div.innerHTML += msg + "<br>"};
<div id="div"></div>
Depending on the type(s) of values returned, errors can often be distinguished easily enough (e.g. use undefined for "don't care", typeof for plain non-object values, result.message, result.toString().startsWith("Error:") etc.)
Benjamin's answer offers a great abstraction for solving this issue, but I was hoping for a less abstracted solution. The explicit way to to resolve this issue is to simply call .catch on the internal promises, and return the error from their callback.
let a = new Promise((res, rej) => res('Resolved!')),
b = new Promise((res, rej) => rej('Rejected!')),
c = a.catch(e => { console.log('"a" failed.'); return e; }),
d = b.catch(e => { console.log('"b" failed.'); return e; });
Promise.all([c, d])
.then(result => console.log('Then', result)) // Then ["Resolved!", "Rejected!"]
.catch(err => console.log('Catch', err));
Promise.all([a.catch(e => e), b.catch(e => e)])
.then(result => console.log('Then', result)) // Then ["Resolved!", "Rejected!"]
.catch(err => console.log('Catch', err));
Taking this one step further, you could write a generic catch handler that looks like this:
const catchHandler = error => ({ payload: error, resolved: false });
then you can do
> Promise.all([a, b].map(promise => promise.catch(catchHandler))
.then(results => console.log(results))
.catch(() => console.log('Promise.all failed'))
< [ 'Resolved!', { payload: Promise, resolved: false } ]
The problem with this is that the caught values will have a different interface than the non-caught values, so to clean this up you might do something like:
const successHandler = result => ({ payload: result, resolved: true });
So now you can do this:
> Promise.all([a, b].map(result => result.then(successHandler).catch(catchHandler))
.then(results => console.log(results.filter(result => result.resolved))
.catch(() => console.log('Promise.all failed'))
< [ 'Resolved!' ]
Then to keep it DRY, you get to Benjamin's answer:
const reflect = promise => promise
.then(successHandler)
.catch(catchHander)
where it now looks like
> Promise.all([a, b].map(result => result.then(successHandler).catch(catchHandler))
.then(results => console.log(results.filter(result => result.resolved))
.catch(() => console.log('Promise.all failed'))
< [ 'Resolved!' ]
The benefits of the second solution are that its abstracted and DRY. The downside is you have more code, and you have to remember to reflect all your promises to make things consistent.
I would characterize my solution as explicit and KISS, but indeed less robust. The interface doesn't guarantee that you know exactly whether the promise succeeded or failed.
For example you might have this:
const a = Promise.resolve(new Error('Not beaking, just bad'));
const b = Promise.reject(new Error('This actually didnt work'));
This won't get caught by a.catch, so
> Promise.all([a, b].map(promise => promise.catch(e => e))
.then(results => console.log(results))
< [ Error, Error ]
There's no way to tell which one was fatal and which was wasn't. If that's important then you're going to want to enforce and interface that tracks whether it was successful or not (which reflect does).
If you just want to handle errors gracefully, then you can just treat errors as undefined values:
> Promise.all([a.catch(() => undefined), b.catch(() => undefined)])
.then((results) => console.log('Known values: ', results.filter(x => typeof x !== 'undefined')))
< [ 'Resolved!' ]
In my case, I don't need to know the error or how it failed--I just care whether I have the value or not. I'll let the function that generates the promise worry about logging the specific error.
const apiMethod = () => fetch()
.catch(error => {
console.log(error.message);
throw error;
});
That way, the rest of the application can ignore its error if it wants, and treat it as an undefined value if it wants.
I want my high level functions to fail safely and not worry about the details on why its dependencies failed, and I also prefer KISS to DRY when I have to make that tradeoff--which is ultimately why I opted to not use reflect.
There is a finished proposal for a function which can accomplish this natively, in vanilla Javascript: Promise.allSettled, which has made it to stage 4, is officialized in ES2020, and is implemented in all modern environments. It is very similar to the reflect function in this other answer. Here's an example, from the proposal page. Before, you would have had to do:
function reflect(promise) {
return promise.then(
(v) => {
return { status: 'fulfilled', value: v };
},
(error) => {
return { status: 'rejected', reason: error };
}
);
}
const promises = [ fetch('index.html'), fetch('https://does-not-exist/') ];
const results = await Promise.all(promises.map(reflect));
const successfulPromises = results.filter(p => p.status === 'fulfilled');
Using Promise.allSettled instead, the above will be equivalent to:
const promises = [ fetch('index.html'), fetch('https://does-not-exist/') ];
const results = await Promise.allSettled(promises);
const successfulPromises = results.filter(p => p.status === 'fulfilled');
Those using modern environments will be able to use this method without any libraries. In those, the following snippet should run without problems:
Promise.allSettled([
Promise.resolve('a'),
Promise.reject('b')
])
.then(console.log);
Output:
[
{
"status": "fulfilled",
"value": "a"
},
{
"status": "rejected",
"reason": "b"
}
]
For older browsers, there is a spec-compliant polyfill here.
I really like Benjamin's answer, and how he basically turns all promises into always-resolving-but-sometimes-with-error-as-a-result ones. :)
Here's my attempt at your request just in case you were looking for alternatives. This method simply treats errors as valid results, and is coded similar to Promise.all otherwise:
Promise.settle = function(promises) {
var results = [];
var done = promises.length;
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
function tryResolve(i, v) {
results[i] = v;
done = done - 1;
if (done == 0)
resolve(results);
}
for (var i=0; i<promises.length; i++)
promises[i].then(tryResolve.bind(null, i), tryResolve.bind(null, i));
if (done == 0)
resolve(results);
});
}
var err;
Promise.all([
promiseOne().catch(function(error) { err = error;}),
promiseTwo().catch(function(error) { err = error;})
]).then(function() {
if (err) {
throw err;
}
});
The Promise.all will swallow any rejected promise and store the error in a variable, so it will return when all of the promises have resolved. Then you can re-throw the error out, or do whatever. In this way, I guess you would get out the last rejection instead of the first one.
I had the same problem and have solved it in the following way:
const fetch = (url) => {
return node-fetch(url)
.then(result => result.json())
.catch((e) => {
return new Promise((resolve) => setTimeout(() => resolve(fetch(url)), timeout));
});
};
tasks = [fetch(url1), fetch(url2) ....];
Promise.all(tasks).then(......)
In that case Promise.all will wait for every Promise will come into resolved or rejected state.
And having this solution we are "stopping catch execution" in a non-blocking way. In fact, we're not stopping anything, we just returning back the Promise in a pending state which returns another Promise when it's resolved after the timeout.
This should be consistent with how Q does it:
if(!Promise.allSettled) {
Promise.allSettled = function (promises) {
return Promise.all(promises.map(p => Promise.resolve(p).then(v => ({
state: 'fulfilled',
value: v,
}), r => ({
state: 'rejected',
reason: r,
}))));
};
}
Instead of rejecting, resolve it with a object.
You could do something like this when you are implementing promise
const promise = arg => {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
setTimeout(() => {
try{
if(arg != 2)
return resolve({success: true, data: arg});
else
throw new Error(arg)
}catch(e){
return resolve({success: false, error: e, data: arg})
}
}, 1000);
})
}
Promise.all([1,2,3,4,5].map(e => promise(e))).then(d => console.log(d))
Benjamin Gruenbaum answer is of course great,. But I can also see were Nathan Hagen point of view with the level of abstraction seem vague. Having short object properties like e & v don't help either, but of course that could be changed.
In Javascript there is standard Error object, called Error,. Ideally you always throw an instance / descendant of this. The advantage is that you can do instanceof Error, and you know something is an error.
So using this idea, here is my take on the problem.
Basically catch the error, if the error is not of type Error, wrap the error inside an Error object. The resulting array will have either resolved values, or Error objects you can check on.
The instanceof inside the catch, is in case you use some external library that maybe did reject("error"), instead of reject(new Error("error")).
Of course you could have promises were you resolve an error, but in that case it would most likely make sense to treat as an error anyway, like the last example shows.
Another advantage of doing it this, array destructing is kept simple.
const [value1, value2] = PromiseAllCatch(promises);
if (!(value1 instanceof Error)) console.log(value1);
Instead of
const [{v: value1, e: error1}, {v: value2, e: error2}] = Promise.all(reflect..
if (!error1) { console.log(value1); }
You could argue that the !error1 check is simpler than an instanceof, but your also having to destruct both v & e.
function PromiseAllCatch(promises) {
return Promise.all(promises.map(async m => {
try {
return await m;
} catch(e) {
if (e instanceof Error) return e;
return new Error(e);
}
}));
}
async function test() {
const ret = await PromiseAllCatch([
(async () => "this is fine")(),
(async () => {throw new Error("oops")})(),
(async () => "this is ok")(),
(async () => {throw "Still an error";})(),
(async () => new Error("resolved Error"))(),
]);
console.log(ret);
console.log(ret.map(r =>
r instanceof Error ? "error" : "ok"
).join(" : "));
}
test();
I think the following offers a slightly different approach... compare fn_fast_fail() with fn_slow_fail()... though the latter doesn't fail as such... you can check if one or both of a and b is an instance of Error and throw that Error if you want it to reach the catch block (e.g. if (b instanceof Error) { throw b; }) . See the jsfiddle.
var p1 = new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
setTimeout(() => resolve('p1_delayed_resolvement'), 2000);
});
var p2 = new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
reject(new Error('p2_immediate_rejection'));
});
var fn_fast_fail = async function () {
try {
var [a, b] = await Promise.all([p1, p2]);
console.log(a); // "p1_delayed_resolvement"
console.log(b); // "Error: p2_immediate_rejection"
} catch (err) {
console.log('ERROR:', err);
}
}
var fn_slow_fail = async function () {
try {
var [a, b] = await Promise.all([
p1.catch(error => { return error }),
p2.catch(error => { return error })
]);
console.log(a); // "p1_delayed_resolvement"
console.log(b); // "Error: p2_immediate_rejection"
} catch (err) {
// we don't reach here unless you throw the error from the `try` block
console.log('ERROR:', err);
}
}
fn_fast_fail(); // fails immediately
fn_slow_fail(); // waits for delayed promise to resolve
I just wanted a polyfill that exactly replicated ES2020 behaviour since I'm locked into node versions a lot earlier than 12.9 (when Promise.allSettled appeared), unfortunately. So for what it's worth, this is my version:
const settle = (promise) => (promise instanceof Promise) ?
promise.then(val => ({ value: val, status: "fulfilled" }),
err => ({ reason: err, status: "rejected" })) :
{ value: promise, status: 'fulfilled' };
const allSettled = async (parr) => Promise.all(parr.map(settle));
This handles a mixed array of promise and non-promise values, as does the ES version. It hands back the same array of { status, value/reason } objects as the native version.
Here's my custom settledPromiseAll()
const settledPromiseAll = function(promisesArray) {
var savedError;
const saveFirstError = function(error) {
if (!savedError) savedError = error;
};
const handleErrors = function(value) {
return Promise.resolve(value).catch(saveFirstError);
};
const allSettled = Promise.all(promisesArray.map(handleErrors));
return allSettled.then(function(resolvedPromises) {
if (savedError) throw savedError;
return resolvedPromises;
});
};
Compared to Promise.all
If all promises are resolved, it performs exactly as the standard one.
If one of more promises are rejected, it returns the first one rejected much the same as the standard one but unlike it waits for all promises to resolve/reject.
For the brave we could change Promise.all():
(function() {
var stdAll = Promise.all;
Promise.all = function(values, wait) {
if(!wait)
return stdAll.call(Promise, values);
return settledPromiseAll(values);
}
})();
CAREFUL. In general we never change built-ins, as it might break other unrelated JS libraries or clash with future changes to JS standards.
My settledPromiseall is backward compatible with Promise.all and extends its functionality.
People who are developing standards -- why not include this to a new Promise standard?
I recently built a library that allows what you need. it executes promises in parallel, and if one fails, the process continues, at the end it returns an array with all the results, including errors.
https://www.npmjs.com/package/promise-ax
I hope and it is helpful for someone.
const { createPromise } = require('promise-ax');
const promiseAx = createPromise();
const promise1 = Promise.resolve(4);
const promise2 = new Promise((resolve, reject) => setTimeout(reject, 100, new Error("error")));
const promise3 = Promise.reject("error");
const promise4 = promiseAx.resolve(8);
const promise5 = promiseAx.reject("errorAx");
const asyncOperation = (time) => {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
if (time < 0) {
reject("reject");
}
setTimeout(() => {
resolve(time);
}, time);
});
};
const promisesToMake = [promise1, promise2, promise3, promise4, promise5, asyncOperation(100)];
promiseAx.allSettled(promisesToMake).then((results) => results.forEach((result) => console.log(result)));
// Salida esperada:
// 4
// Error: error
// error
// 8
// errorAx
// 100
I would do:
var err = [fetch('index.html').then((success) => { return Promise.resolve(success); }).catch((e) => { return Promise.resolve(e); }),
fetch('http://does-not-exist').then((success) => { return Promise.resolve(success); }).catch((e) => { return Promise.resolve(e); })];
Promise.all(err)
.then(function (res) { console.log('success', res) })
.catch(function (err) { console.log('error', err) }) //never executed
I've been using following codes since ES5.
Promise.wait = function(promiseQueue){
if( !Array.isArray(promiseQueue) ){
return Promise.reject('Given parameter is not an array!');
}
if( promiseQueue.length === 0 ){
return Promise.resolve([]);
}
return new Promise((resolve, reject) =>{
let _pQueue=[], _rQueue=[], _readyCount=false;
promiseQueue.forEach((_promise, idx) =>{
// Create a status info object
_rQueue.push({rejected:false, seq:idx, result:null});
_pQueue.push(Promise.resolve(_promise));
});
_pQueue.forEach((_promise, idx)=>{
let item = _rQueue[idx];
_promise.then(
(result)=>{
item.resolved = true;
item.result = result;
},
(error)=>{
item.resolved = false;
item.result = error;
}
).then(()=>{
_readyCount++;
if ( _rQueue.length === _readyCount ) {
let result = true;
_rQueue.forEach((item)=>{result=result&&item.resolved;});
(result?resolve:reject)(_rQueue);
}
});
});
});
};
The usage signature is just like Promise.all. The major difference is that Promise.wait will wait for all the promises to finish their jobs.
I know that this question has a lot of answers, and I'm sure must (if not all) are correct.
However it was very hard for me to understand the logic/flow of these answers.
So I looked at the Original Implementation on Promise.all(), and I tried to imitate that logic - with the exception of not stopping the execution if one Promise failed.
public promiseExecuteAll(promisesList: Promise<any>[] = []): Promise<{ data: any, isSuccess: boolean }[]>
{
let promise: Promise<{ data: any, isSuccess: boolean }[]>;
if (promisesList.length)
{
const result: { data: any, isSuccess: boolean }[] = [];
let count: number = 0;
promise = new Promise<{ data: any, isSuccess: boolean }[]>((resolve, reject) =>
{
promisesList.forEach((currentPromise: Promise<any>, index: number) =>
{
currentPromise.then(
(data) => // Success
{
result[index] = { data, isSuccess: true };
if (promisesList.length <= ++count) { resolve(result); }
},
(data) => // Error
{
result[index] = { data, isSuccess: false };
if (promisesList.length <= ++count) { resolve(result); }
});
});
});
}
else
{
promise = Promise.resolve([]);
}
return promise;
}
Explanation:
- Loop over the input promisesList and execute each Promise.
- No matter if the Promise resolved or rejected: save the Promise's result in a result array according to the index. Save also the resolve/reject status (isSuccess).
- Once all Promises completed, return one Promise with the result of all others.
Example of use:
const p1 = Promise.resolve("OK");
const p2 = Promise.reject(new Error(":-("));
const p3 = Promise.resolve(1000);
promiseExecuteAll([p1, p2, p3]).then((data) => {
data.forEach(value => console.log(`${ value.isSuccess ? 'Resolve' : 'Reject' } >> ${ value.data }`));
});
/* Output:
Resolve >> OK
Reject >> :-(
Resolve >> 1000
*/
You can execute your logic sequentially via synchronous executor nsynjs. It will pause on each promise, wait for resolution/rejection, and either assign resolve's result to data property, or throw an exception (for handling that you will need try/catch block). Here is an example:
function synchronousCode() {
function myFetch(url) {
try {
return window.fetch(url).data;
}
catch (e) {
return {status: 'failed:'+e};
};
};
var arr=[
myFetch("https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.0.0/jquery.min.js"),
myFetch("https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.0.0/NONEXISTANT.js"),
myFetch("https://ajax.NONEXISTANT123.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.0.0/NONEXISTANT.js")
];
console.log('array is ready:',arr[0].status,arr[1].status,arr[2].status);
};
nsynjs.run(synchronousCode,{},function(){
console.log('done');
});
<script src="https://rawgit.com/amaksr/nsynjs/master/nsynjs.js"></script>
Promise.all with using modern async/await approach
const promise1 = //...
const promise2 = //...
const data = await Promise.all([promise1, promise2])
const dataFromPromise1 = data[0]
const dataFromPromise2 = data[1]
I don't know which promise library you are using, but most have something like allSettled.
Edit: Ok since you want to use plain ES6 without external libraries, there is no such method.
In other words: You have to loop over your promises manually and resolve a new combined promise as soon as all promises are settled.
How do i pass additional arguments to next "step" of promise?
new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
const a = // do stuff and return a string
return Promise.all([
// execute another promise,
// execute yet another promise
])
})
.then(([resultFromPromise_1, resultFromPromise_2]) => {
// how do i pass `const a` here?
})
I can add something like new Promise(resolve => resolve(a)) into Promise.all array, but this looks ugly. Is there better way to pass data in such cases?
I can add something like new Promise(resolve => resolve(a)) into Promise.all array, but this looks ugly. Is there better way to pass data in such cases?
Yes: Use then. If you already have a promise, using new Promise is never needed. then creates a promise, which waits for the resolution of the one you called it on, and then gets resolved with what you return from the then callback or gets rejected if you throw an exception. One of the keys of promises is how using then (and catch) transforms things at each link in the chain.
In that specific case, you'd use then on the original promise and use its callback to transform the result using a (although if you want to wait until they're all done, you can do that too; covered later).
Side note: The new Promise line at the beginning of the code of your question shouldn't be there, you don't return a promise out of the promise executor (the callback you pass to new Promise).
Example:
const a = "some string";
Promise.all([
getPromise("one").then(result => result + " - " + a), // ***
getPromise("two")
])
.then(results => {
console.log(results);
});
function getPromise(str) {
// (Could use Promise.resolve here; emphasizing asynchronousness)
return new Promise(resolve => {
setTimeout(() => {
resolve(str);
}, 250);
});
}
Alternately, if you really only want to use a when all of the promises you're passing to Promise.all have resolved, you can do that, too:
const a = "some string";
Promise.all([
getPromise("one"),
getPromise("two")
])
.then(([result1, result2]) => {
return [result1 + " - " + a, result2]; // ***
})
.then(results => {
console.log(results);
});
function getPromise(str) {
// (Could use Promise.resolve here; emphasizing asynchronousness)
return new Promise(resolve => {
setTimeout(() => {
resolve(str);
}, 250);
});
}
First off, your first promise has an error, you're not resolving it. You should do something like this:
new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
const a = 1;
resolve(Promise.all([
...
]))
})
And as for your question, instead of new Promise(resolve => resolve(a)) you can just pass a directly to the all array. ie:
new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
const a = 1;
resolve(Promise.all([
Promise.resolve("a"),
Promise.resolve("b"),
a,
]))
})
.then(([resultFromPromise_1, resultFromPromise_2, a]) => {
console.log(a);
})