We Keep Coding

Order of promise wrong

I would like to return a list of promises with Promise.all, but the result is always empty.
Here is my theoric code:
function myFunction() {
const pSqlLines = sql.openDatabase().then(mdb => {
const query = `SELECT data FROM database`
return mdb.prepare(query).all()
})
const globalPromise = new Promise( resolve => {
const promises = []
pSqlLines.then( sqlLines => {
sqlLines.forEach(line => {
promiseA()
.then(res1 => { if (res1 == 1) return promiseB() })
.then(res2 => { if (res2 == 1) return promiseC() })
.then(res3 => { if (res3 == 1) promises.push( new Promise(resolve => resolve(line) ) ) })
}) // The promises chaining is correct as the 'promises' array is correctly fulfilled, but later
resolve( Promise.all(promises) ); // It is always called before the foreach loop. Why?
})
})
return globalPromise.then( result => console.log(result) )
}
Someone can help me please?
Thanks a lot.

You should not need to create a new promise with new Promise when you already have a promise to work with -- in your case: pSqlLines. Wrapping pSqlLines inside a new Promise wrapper is an example of the promise constructor antipattern.
Secondly, this code:
new Promise(resolve => resolve(line) )
...can be replaced with:
Promise.resolve(line)
...and since it is to serve as the return value for a then callback, it can be just:
line
As to your question: you are indeed calling Promise.all(promises) at a moment that the promises array is still empty, as the forEach loop has only executed Promise() and its then chain, but none of the asynchronous callbacks that are passed to those then calls have executed yet. You didn't await the resolution of these promises.
I get from your code that you want to exclude some line values depending on conditions. In that case the promise will resolve to undefined. I suppose you would want to exclude those undefined values, and so maybe a filter(Boolean) is appropriate.
Here is a theoretical solution for your theoretical code:
function myFunction() {
const pSqlLines = sql.openDatabase().then(mdb => {
const query = `SELECT data FROM database`;
return mdb.prepare(query).all();
});
return pSqlLines.then( sqlLines => {
const promises = sqlLines.map(line => {
return promiseA()
.then(res1 => { if (res1 == 1) return promiseB(); })
.then(res2 => { if (res2 == 1) return promiseC(); })
.then(res3 => { if (res3 == 1) return line; });
}));
return Promise.all(promises);
}).then(result => result.filter(Boolean));
}

javascript promise after foreach loop with multiple mongoose find

I'm trying to have a loop with some db calls, and once their all done ill send the result. - Using a promise, but if i have my promise after the callback it dosent work.
let notuser = [];
let promise = new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
users.forEach((x) => {
User.find({
/* query here */
}, function(err, results) {
if(err) throw err
if(results.length) {
notuser.push(x);
/* resolve(notuser) works here - but were not done yet*/
}
})
});
resolve(notuser); /*not giving me the array */
}).then((notuser) => {
return res.json(notuser)
})
how can i handle this ?

Below is a function called findManyUsers which does what you're looking for. Mongo find will return a promise to you, so just collect those promises in a loop and run them together with Promise.all(). So you can see it in action, I've added a mock User class with a promise-returning find method...
// User class pretends to be the mongo user. The find() method
// returns a promise to 'find" a user with a given id
class User {
static find(id) {
return new Promise(r => {
setTimeout(() => r({ id: `user-${id}` }), 500);
});
}
}
// return a promise to find all of the users with the given ids
async function findManyUsers(ids) {
let promises = ids.map(id => User.find(id));
return Promise.all(promises);
}
findManyUsers(['A', 'B', 'C']).then(result => console.log(result));

I suggest you take a look at async it's a great library for this sort of things and more, I really think you should get used to implement it.
I would solve your problem using the following
const async = require('async')
let notuser = [];
async.forEach(users, (user, callback)=>{
User.find({}, (err, results) => {
if (err) callback(err)
if(results.length) {
notUser.push(x)
callback(null)
}
})
}, (err) => {
err ? throw err : return(notuser)
})
However, if you don't want to use a 3rd party library, you are better off using promise.all and await for it to finish.
EDIT: Remember to install async using npm or yarn something similar to yarn add async -- npm install async

I used #danh solution for the basis of fixing in my scenario (so credit goes there), but thought my code may be relevant to someone else, looking to use standard mongoose without async. I want to gets a summary of how many reports for a certain status and return the last 5 for each, combined into one response.
const { Report } = require('../../models/report');
const Workspace = require('../../models/workspace');
// GET request to return page of items from users report
module.exports = (req, res, next) => {
const workspaceId = req.params.workspaceId || req.workspaceId;
let summary = [];
// returns a mongoose like promise
function addStatusSummary(status) {
let totalItems;
let $regex = `^${status}$`;
let query = {
$and: [{ workspace: workspaceId }, { status: { $regex, $options: 'i' } }],
};
return Report.find(query)
.countDocuments()
.then((numberOfItems) => {
totalItems = numberOfItems;
return Report.find(query)
.sort({ updatedAt: -1 })
.skip(0)
.limit(5);
})
.then((reports) => {
const items = reports.map((r) => r.displayForMember());
summary.push({
status,
items,
totalItems,
});
})
.catch((err) => {
if (!err.statusCode) {
err.statusCode = 500;
}
next(err);
});
}
Workspace.findById(workspaceId)
.then((workspace) => {
let promises = workspace.custom.statusList.map((status) =>
addStatusSummary(status)
);
return Promise.all(promises);
})
.then(() => {
res.status(200).json({
summary,
});
})
.catch((err) => {
if (!err.statusCode) {
err.statusCode = 500;
}
next(err);
});
};

Javascript Promise.all() method to fire after all errors and success – surprised that finally() doesnt do this [duplicate]

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.

Error: You must return a Promise in your transaction()-callback

My script is throwing the following error when returning the result of the assync firestore set function:
You must return a Promise in your transaction()-callback.
According to firebase documentation about transactions, set function return a transaction itself.
Here a simplified copy of my code.
var myDoc = {
field1: "v1"
};
var docRef = db
.collection("docs")
.doc("1");
return db
.runTransaction(t => {
return t
.set(docRef, chat, {merge:false}); //has i understand, this should return a transaction object but the error says otherwise.
})
.then( doc => {
response.send();
})
.catch(err => {
...;
})
I am still new to Nodejs and not very familiar with chaining assyncs methods, so i must be doing some obvious error here.

Haven't used firestore transaction but I have used firebase transactions. You can try following
return db
.runTransaction(t => {
return t.set(docRef, chat, {merge:false})
.then(data => {
return Promise.resolve('transaction complete');
})
.then( doc => {
response.send();
})
.catch(err => {
...;
})
and the method that encloses your whole code must be returning promise as you have written return db.runTransaction(t => {....})
so if that is not needed then use
var transaction = db.runTransaction(t => {...});

Just do this:
return db
.runTransaction(t => {
t.set(docRef, chat, {merge:false});
return Promise.resolve(); // Add this line.
})
.then( doc => {
response.send();
})
.catch(err => {
...;
})
If the t.set() failed, it won't go to the resolve() anyway.

How do I flatten a nested promise dependency?

I'm using mondora/asteroid through a node app to use Meteor DDP via a promise pattern.
I have the following code I am rewriting from callback style, into a promise style, but am stuck on how to flatten it.
asteroid.call('Pony.search', { params })
.then(res => {
if (res.length === 1) {
// something
asteroid.call('Pony.finish', { params })
// this part feels wrong
.then(res => {
// something else
});
} else {
// nope
}
})
.catch(err => {
console.error(err);
});
There is a second asteroid.call & then inside the first promise response which is a promise. This part feels wrong, like it should be flat and not nested but I'm not sure how to get there.
edit:
Ended up using something like this (still not decided on whether to have the first then check for if length === 1 and potentially immediately reject it. Anyone know what is best practice on that?
asteroid.call('Pony.search', { params })
.then(res => res.length === 1 ? res : Promise.reject())
.then(res => asteroid.call('Pony.finish', { res[0].something }))
.then(res => {
// do something
})
.catch(err => {
// handle the no found
console.error(err);
});

Instead of nesting callbacks, chain promises together with .then()
A note:
I'm not sure what Promise library you are using, but the idea is to return a rejected promise from the first .then() if there is an error, otherwise you return a successful promise. The promise library will then handle the error handling for you, going to the catch block if there is a rejected promise.
asteroid.call('Pony.search', { params })
.then(res => {
res.length === 1 ? return asteroid.call('Pony.finish', { params }) : Promise.reject();
})
.then(res => {
//do stuff here
})
.catch(err => {
console.error(err);
});
edit:
The only issue is when you need to access both of the return values from the promises at the same time. When you flatten out a promise chain you lose access to the results from the previous promises.
You have a few options:
If you don't need the previous result then flatten out the promise chain like I did here
If you do need the previous value
2a. And you don't care about the ordering of execution then use Promise.all([promise1, promise2])
2b. And you do care about the ordering of the execution then you must use nested promises like you originally did.

If promises are nested, there is no difference between promises and callback.
Try changing your code to use promise chain:
asteroid.call('Pony.search', { params })
.then(res => {
if (res.length === 1) {
// something
let p1 = asteroid.call('Pony.finish', { params });
return p1;
}
else {
// nope
}
})
.then (function SomeThingElse(res2){
// something else
// res2 is return value from nested asteroid.call
})
.catch(err => {
console.error(err);
});
Since the first resolve handler returns a Promise p1, the invocation of the next functions in the chain (function SomeThingElse) is deferred until p1 is resolved.
Now expanding this example:
asteroid.call('Pony.search', { params })
.then(res => {
if (res.length === 1) {
// something
let p1 = asteroid.call('Pony.finish', { params });
return p1;
}
else {
// nope
}
})
.then (function SomeThingElse(res2){
// something else
// res2 is return value from nested asteroid.call
})
.then (function AnotherFunc(res3){
})
.catch(err => {
console.error(err);
});
If SomeThingElse returns a Promise, invocation of AnotherFunc is delayed until that promise is resolved.
If SomeThingElse does not return a Promise, AnotherFunc would be invoked immediately with the same parameters as 'SomeThingElse' received. In other words, both SomeThingElse and AnotherFunc are invoked when p1 is resolved.