I am confused with the use of promise, specifically of its way of data manipulation (passing values from block to block) and exception handling (bubbling up the error). I am trying to learn a right way to use promise and to handle error, something like
Error: A caught error.
at promiseTwo()
at promiseOne()
at subprocess()
at mainprocess()
Here are my two attempts in implementing them:
Attempt 1: Clumsy, deeply nested, and errors are uncaught.
var subprocess = () => {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
promiseOne().then(data1 => {
// Some code with data1, throw some error
promiseTwo().then(data2 => {
// Some code with data1n2, throw some error
promiseThree().then(data3 => {
// Data manipulation with data1, data2, and data3
return resolve(<...>)
}).catch(err3 => { throw err3 })
}.catch(err2n3 => { throw err2n3 }) // >>> ERR: Cannot get err3.
}.catch(err1n2n3 => { return reject(err1n2n3) }) // >>> ERR: Cannot get err3 or err2.
}
}
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
subprocess().then(data => {
// TODO
}).catch(allErr => { return reject(allErr) }
}
Attempt 2: Unable to use data from previous promise block.
var subprocess = () => {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
promiseOne()
.then(data1 => {
// Some code with data1, throw some error
return promiseTwo()
})
.then(data2 => {
// Some code with data1n2, throw some error
// >>> ERR: Cannot get data1
return promiseThree()
})
.then(data3 => {
// Data manipulation with data1, data2, and data3
// >>> ERR: Cannot get data1 and data2
return resolve(<...>)
})
.catch(err1n2n3 => {
return reject(err1n2n3)
})
}
}
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
subprocess().then(data => {
// Some code, throw some error
}).catch(allErr => { return reject(allErr) }
}
Note: Some of the promise block (i.e. promiseOne, promiseTwo, etc.) are pre-defined so I do not have control over what data they will return. I am sure there are more errors in the attempts (e.g. if returning a function is a right way to do it).
Please help. Thanks.
for this kind of situation, you can combine promises and async-await together.
From the question, it seems we have three promises and one function that executes and handle them.
You can try something like this -
const subProcess = () => {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
// Using IIFE ( You shouldn't put async keyword on promise callbac )
(async () => {
// Use of try catch to handle the errors
try {
await promiseOne()
await promiseTwo()
await promiseThree()
// Additional code if need after them
} catch(err){
// Handle error ( all three promise error will be transferred here )
}
})()
})
}
The above code waits for the promises to execute one by one and also catch error from all three promises if any.
And as #samuei mentioned, you can also use Promise.all() in this.
const subProcess = () => {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
// Using IIFE ( You shouldn't put async keyword on promise callbac )
(async () => {
// Use of try catch to handle the errors
try {
const myPromises = [promiseOne, promiseTwo, promiseThree];
const res = await Promise.all(myPromises);
// Additional code if need after them
} catch(err){
// Handle error ( all three promise error will be transferred here )
}
})()
})
}
And if you don't want to use async-await then you can do something like this as well
const subProcess = () => {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
const myPromises = [];
const myPromises = [promiseOne, promiseTwo, promiseThree];
Promise.all(myPromises)
.then(res => {
// Handle the response
})
.catch(err => {
// Handle the error
})
})
}
It sounds like you're looking for Promise.all, which lets you set a series of promises in motion, then deal with the results when they are all resolved.
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 wrap this routine inside a Promise so that I only resolve when I get all the data?
var accounts = [];
getAccounts(userId, accs => {
accs.forEach(acc => {
getAccountTx(acc.id, tx => {
accounts.push({
'id': acc.id,
'tx': tx
});
});
})
});
EDIT: Any issues if I do it like this?
function getAccountsAllAtOnce() {
var accounts = [];
var required = 0;
var done = 0;
getAccounts(userId, accs => {
required = accs.length;
accs.forEach(acc => {
getAccountTx(acc.id, tx => {
accounts.push({
'id': acc.id,
'tx': tx
});
done = done + 1;
});
})
});
while(done < required) {
// wait
}
return accounts;
}
Let's put this routine into a separate function, so it is easier to re-use it later. This function should return a promise, which will be resolved with array of accounts (also I'll modify your code as small as possible):
function getAccountsWithTx(userId) {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
var accounts = [];
getAccounts(userId, accs => {
accs.forEach(acc => {
getAccountTx(acc.id, tx => {
accounts.push({
'id': acc.id,
'tx': tx
});
// resolve after we fetched all accounts
if (accs.length === accounts.length) {
resolve(accounts);
}
});
});
});
});
}
The single difference is just returning a promise and resolving after all accounts were fetched. However, callbacks tend your codebase to have this "callback hell" style, when you have a lot of nested callbacks, and it makes it hard to reason about it. You can workaround it using good discipline, but you can simplify it greatly switching to returning promises from all async functions. For example your func will look like the following:
function getAccountsWithTx(userId) {
getAccounts(userId)
.then(accs => {
const transformTx = acc => getAccountTx(acc.id)
.then(tx => ({ tx, id: acc.id }));
return Promise.all(accs.map(transformTx));
});
}
Both of them are absolutely equivalent, and there are plently of libraries to "promisify" your current callback-style functions (for example, bluebird or even native Node util.promisify). Also, with new async/await syntax it becomes even easier, because it allows to think in sync flow:
async function getAccountsWithTx(userId) {
const accs = await getUserAccounts(userId);
const transformTx = async (acc) => {
const tx = getAccountTx(acc.id);
return { tx, id: acc.id };
};
return Promise.all(accs.map(transformTx));
}
As you can see, we eliminate any nesting! It makes reasoning about code much easier, because you can read code as it will be actually executed. However, all these three options are equivalent, so it is up to you, what makes the most sense in your project and environment.
I'd split every step into its own function, and return a promise or promise array from each one. For example, getAccounts becomes:
function getAccountsAndReturnPromise(userId) {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
getAccounts(userId, accounts => {
return resolve(accounts);
});
});
};
And getAccountTx resolves to an array of { id, tx } objects:
function getAccountTransactionsAndReturnPromise(accountId) {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
getAccountTx(account.id, (transactions) => {
var accountWithTransactions = {
id: account.id,
transactions
};
return resolve(accountWithTransactions);
});
});
};
Then you can use Promise.all() and map() to resolve the last step to an array of values in the format you desire:
function getDataForUser(userId) {
return getAccountsAndReturnPromise(userId)
.then(accounts=>{
var accountTransactionPromises = accounts.map(account =>
getAccountTransactionsAndReturnPromise(account.id)
);
return Promise.all(accountTransactionPromises);
})
.then(allAccountsWithTransactions => {
return allAccountsWithTransactions.map(account =>{
return {
id: account.id,
tx: tx
}
});
});
}