This is more of a conceptual question. I understand the Promise design pattern, but couldn't find a reliable source to answer my question about promise.all():
What is(are) the correct scenario(s) to use promise.all()
OR
Are there any best practices to use promise.all()? Should it be ideally used only if all of the promise objects are of the same or similar types?
The only one I could think of is:
Use promise.all() if you want to resolve the promise only if all of the promise objects resolve and reject if even one rejects.
I'm not sure anyone has really given the most general purpose explanation for when to use Promise.all() (and when not to use it):
What is(are) the correct scenario(s) to use promise.all()
Promise.all() is useful anytime you have more than one promise and your code wants to know when all the operations that those promises represent have finished successfully. It does not matter what the individual async operations are. If they are async, are represented by promises and your code wants to know when they have all completed successfully, then Promise.all() is built to do exactly that.
For example, suppose you need to gather information from three separate remote API calls and when you have the results from all three API calls, you then need to run some further code using all three results. That situation would be perfect for Promise.all(). You could so something like this:
Promise.all([apiRequest(...), apiRequest(...), apiRequest(...)]).then(function(results) {
// API results in the results array here
// processing can continue using the results of all three API requests
}, function(err) {
// an error occurred, process the error here
});
Promise.all() is probably most commonly used with similar types of requests (as in the above example), but there is no reason that it needs to be. If you had a different case where you needed to make a remote API request, read a local file and read a local temperature probe and then when you had data from all three async operations, you wanted to then do some processing with the data from all three, you would again use Promise.all():
Promise.all([apiRequest(...), fs.promises.readFile(...), readTemperature(...)]).then(function(results) {
// all results in the results array here
// processing can continue using the results of all three async operations
}, function(err) {
// an error occurred, process the error here
});
On the flip side, if you don't need to coordinate among them and can just handle each async operation individually, then you don't need Promise.all(). You can just fire each of your separate async operations with their own .then() handlers and no coordination between them is needed.
In addition Promise.all() has what is called a "fast fail" implementation. It returns a master promise that will reject as soon as the first promise you passed it rejects or it will resolve when all the promises have resolved. So, to use Promise.all() that type of implementation needs to work for your situation. There are other situations where you want to run multiple async operations and you need all the results, even if some of them failed. Promise.all() will not do that for you directly. Instead, you would likely use something like Promise.settle() for that situation. You can see an implementation of .settle() here which gives you access to all the results, even if some failed. This is particularly useful when you expect that some operations might fail and you have a useful task to pursue with the results from whatever operations succeeded or you want to examine the failure reasons for all the operations that failed to make decisions based on that.
Are there any best practices to use promise.all()? Should it be
ideally used only if all of the promise objects are of the same or
similar types?
As explained above, it does not matter what the individual async operations are or if they are the same type. It only matters whether your code needs to coordinate them and know when they all succeed.
It's also useful to list some situations when you would not use Promise.all():
When you only have one async operation. With only one operation, you can just use a .then() handler on the one promise and there is no reason for Promise.all().
When you don't need to coordinate among multiple async operations.
When a fast fail implementation is not appropriate. If you need all results, even if some fail, then Promise.all() will not do that by itself. You will probably want something like Promise.allSettled() instead.
If your async operations do not all return promises, Promise.all() cannot track an async operation that is not managed through a promise.
Promise.all is for waiting for several Promises to resolve in parallel (at the same time). It returns a Promise that resolves when all of the input Promises have resolved:
// p1, p2, p3 are Promises
Promise.all([p1, p2, p3])
.then(([p1Result, p2Result, p3Result]) => {
// This function is called when p1, p2 and p3 have all resolved.
// The arguments are the resolved values.
})
If any of the input Promises is rejected, the Promise returned by Promise.all is also rejected.
A common scenario is waiting for several API requests to finish so you can combine their results:
const contentPromise = requestUser();
const commentsPromise = requestComments();
const combinedContent = Promise.all([contentPromise, commentsPromise])
.then(([content, comments]) => {
// content and comments have both finished loading.
})
You can use Promise.all with Promise instance.
It's hard to answer these questions as they are the type that tend to answer themselves as one uses the available APIs of a language feature. Basically, it's fine to use Promises any way that suits your use case, so long as you avoid their anti-patterns.
What is(are) the correct scenario(s) to use promise.all()
Any situation in which an operation depends on the successful resolution of multiple promises.
Are there any best practices to use promise.all()? Should it be ideally used only if all of the promise objects are of the same or similar types?
Generally, no and no.
I use promise.all() when I have to do some requests to my API and I don't want to display something before the application loads all the data requested, so I delay the execution flow until I have all the data I need.
Example:
What I want to do I want to load the users of my app and their products (imagine that you have to do multiple requests) before displaying a table in my app with the user emails and the product names of each user.
What I do next I send the requests to my API creating the promises and using promise.all()
What I do when all the data has been loaded Once the data arrives to my app, I can execute the callback of promises.all() and then make visible the table with the users.
I hope it helps you to see in which scenario makes sense to use promises.all()
As #joews mentioned, probably one of the important features of Promise.all that should be explicitly indicated is that it makes your async code much faster.
This makes it ideal in any code that contains independent calls (that we want to return/finish before the rest of the code continues), but especially when we make frontend calls and want the user's experience to be as smooth as possible.
async function waitSecond() {
return new Promise((res, rej) => {
setTimeout(res, 1000);
});
}
function runSeries() {
console.time('series');
waitSecond().then(() => {
waitSecond().then(() => {
waitSecond().then(() => {
console.timeEnd('series');
});
});
});
}
function runParallel() {
console.time('parallel');
Promise.all([
waitSecond(),
waitSecond(),
waitSecond(),
]).then(() => {
console.timeEnd('parallel');
});
}
runSeries();
runParallel();
I tend to use promise all for something like this:
myService.getUsers()
.then(users => {
this.users = users;
var profileRequests = users.map(user => {
return myService.getProfile(user.Id); // returns a promise
});
return Promise.all(profileRequests);
})
.then(userProfilesRequest => {
// do something here with all the user profiles, like assign them back to the users.
this.users.forEach((user, index) => {
user.profile = userProfilesRequest[index];
});
});
Here, for each user we're going off and getting their profile. I don't want my promise chain to get out of hand now that i have x amount of promises to resolve.
So Promise.all() will basically aggregate all my promises back into one, and I can manage that through the next then. I can keep doing this for as long as a like, say for each profile I want to get related settings etc. etc. Each time I create tonnes more promises, I can aggregate them all back into one.
Promise.all-This method is useful for when you want to wait for more than one promise to complete or The Promise.all(iterable) method returns a promise that resolves when all of the promises in the iterable argument have resolved, or rejects with the reason of the first passed promise that rejects.
2.Just use Promise.all(files).catch(err => { })
This throws an error if ANY of the promises are rejected.
3.Use .reflect on the promises before .all if you want to wait for all
promises to reject or fulfill
Syntax -Promise.all(iterable);
Promise.all passes an array of values from all the promises in the iterable object that it was passed.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Promise/all
var isCallFailed = false;
function myEndpoint1() {
return isCallFailed ? Promise.reject("Bohoo!") :Promise.resolve({"a":"a"});
}
function myEndpoint2() {
return Promise.resolve({"b":"b"});
}
Promise.all([myEndpoint1(), myEndpoint2()])
.then(values => {
var data1 = values[0];
var data2 = values[1];
alert("SUCCESS... data1: " + JSON.stringify(data1) + "; data2: " + JSON.stringify(data2));
})
.catch(error => {
alert("ERROR... " + error);
});
you can try another case by making isCallFailed = true.
Use Promise.all only when you need to run a code according to the result of more than one asynchronous operations using promises.
For example:
You have a scenario like, You need to download 2000 mb file from server, and at the same time you are going to free the user storage to make sure it can save the downloaded file.
And you need to save only in case if the file is downloaded successfully and the storage space is created successfully.
you will do like this.
your first asynchronous operation
var p1 = new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
// you need to download 2000mb file and return resolve if
// you successfully downloaded the file
})
and your second asynchronous operation
var p2 = new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
// you need to clear the user storage for 2000 mb
// which can take some time
})
Now you want to save only when both of the promises resolved successfully, otherwise not.
You will use promise.all like this.
Promise.all([p1,p2]).then((result)=>{
// you will be here only if your both p1 and p2 are resolved successfully.
// you code to save the downloaded file here
})
.catch((error)=>{
// you will be here if at-least one promise in p1,p2 is rejected.
// show error to user
// take some other action
})
Promise.all can be used in a scenario when there is a routine which is validating multiplerules based on particular criteria and you have to execute them all in parallel and need to see the results of those rules at one point. Promise.all returns the results as an array which were resolved in your rule vaidator routine.
E.g.
const results = await Promise.all([validateRule1, validateRule2, validateRule3, ...]);
then results array may look like (depending upon the conditions) as for example: [true, false, false]
Now you can reject/accept the results you have based on return values. Using this way you won't have to apply multiple conditions with if-then-else.
If you are interested only Promise.all then read below Promise.all
Promise (usually they are called "Promise") - provide a convenient way to organize asynchronous code.
Promise - is a special object that contains your state. Initially, pending ( «waiting"), and then - one of: fulfilled ( «was successful") or rejected ( «done with error").
On the promise to hang callbacks can be of two types:
unFulfilled - triggered when the promise in a state of "completed
successfully."
Rejected - triggered when the promise in the "made in error."
The syntax for creating the Promise:
var promise = new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
// This function will be called automatically
// It is possible to make any asynchronous operations,
// And when they will end - you need to call one of:
// resolve(result) on success
// reject(error) on error
})
Universal method for hanging handlers:
promise.then(onFulfilled, onRejected)
onFulfilled - a function that will be called with the result with
resolve.
onRejected - a function that will be called when an error reject.
With its help you can assign both the handler once, and only one:
// onFulfilled It works on success
promise.then(onFulfilled)
// onRejected It works on error
promise.then(null, onRejected)
Synchronous throw - the same that reject
'use strict';
let p = new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
// то же что reject(new Error("o_O"))
throw new Error("o_O");
});
p.catch(alert); // Error: o_O
Promisification
Promisification - When taking asynchronous functionality and make it a wrapper for returning PROMIS.
After Promisification functional use often becomes much more convenient.
As an example, make a wrapper for using XMLHttpRequest requests
httpGet function (url) will return PROMIS, which upon successful data loading with the url will go into fulfilled with these data, and in case of error - in rejected with an error information:
function httpGet(url) {
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
var xhr = new XMLHttpRequest();
xhr.open('GET', url, true);
xhr.onload = function() {
if (this.status == 200) {
resolve(this.response);
} else {
var error = new Error(this.statusText);
error.code = this.status;
reject(error);
}
};
xhr.onerror = function() {
reject(new Error("Network Error"));
};
xhr.send();
});
}
As you can see, inside the function XMLHttpRequest object is created and sent as usual, when onload / onerror are called, respectively, resolve (at the status 200) or reject.
Using:
httpGet("/article/promise/user.json")
.then(
response => alert(`Fulfilled: ${response}`),
error => alert(`Rejected: ${error}`)
);
Parallel execution
What if we want to implement multiple asynchronous processes simultaneously and to process their results?
The Promise class has the following static methods.
Promise.all(iterable)
Call Promise.all (iterable) receives an array (or other iterable object) and returns PROMIS PROMIS, which waits until all transferred PROMIS completed, and changes to the state "done" with an array of results.
For example:
Promise.all([
httpGet('/article/promise/user.json'),
httpGet('/article/promise/guest.json')
]).then(results => {
alert(results);
});
Let's say we have an array of URL.
let urls = [
'/article/promise/user.json',
'/article/promise/guest.json'
];
To download them in parallel, you need to:
Create for each URL corresponding to PROMIS.
Wrap an array of PROMIS in Promise.all.
We obtain this:
'use strict';
let urls = [
'/article/promise/user.json',
'/article/promise/guest.json'
];
Promise.all( urls.map(httpGet) )
.then(results => {
alert(results);
});
Note that if any of Promise ended with an error, the result will
Promise.all this error.
At the same time the rest of PROMIS ignored.
For example:
Promise.all([
httpGet('/article/promise/user.json'),
httpGet('/article/promise/guest.json'),
httpGet('/article/promise/no-such-page.json') // (нет такой страницы)
]).then(
result => alert("не сработает"),
error => alert("Ошибка: " + error.message) // Ошибка: Not Found
)
In total:
Promise - is a special object that stores its state, the current
result (if any), and callbacks.
When you create a new Promise ((resolve, reject) => ...) function
argument starts automatically, which should call resolve (result) on
success, and reject (error) - error.
Argument resolve / reject (only the first, and the rest are ignored)
is passed to handlers on this Promise.
Handlers are appointed by calling .then / catch.
To transfer the results from one processor to another using Channing.
https://www.promisejs.org/patterns/
Related
I got a piece of code that would submit several set of reports which they are independent each other, currently wrote in promise.allSettled, but I was told that the team standard would require async await instead of promise
"Never use multiple await for two or more independent async parallel tasks, because you will not be able to handle errors correctly. Always use Promise.all() for this use case."
1
"In comparison, the Promise returned by Promise.all() may be more appropriate if the tasks are dependent on each other / if you'd like to immediately reject upon any of them rejecting."
2
"Using for await...of, you have more granular control of the promises. So if the order in which promises complete is important to you, for await...of is your preferred choice. However, the increased control isn’t free. The fact that for await...of handles promises one by one, makes it a lot slower."
"To sum up, the three methods are all capable of handling iterables of promises, but differ slightly in their functioning. Use for await of if the order in which promises are resolved is important to you. Use Promise.all() if the order isn’t important and you need all calls to succeed. Use Promise.allSettled() if the order isn’t important and you don’t absolutely need all individual calls to be successful."
3
After some research, I found it is not possible to rewrite it in async await with the same efficiency (request execute in parallel) and simplicity (promise.allSettled is a built-in function), am I correct?
That piece of code
const recordInsertErrors:Object[] = [];
await Promise.allSettled(
jsonArray.map((eachPositionReport) => {
return PositionReport.query().insert(eachPositionReport).catch((err) => {
const error = { vessel_ownership_id: eachPositionReport.vessel_ownership_id, error: err.nativeError };
recordInsertErrors.push(error);
throw err;
});
}),
);
First of all JavaScript code does not run in parallel. The most we can say is that it executes asynchronously, i.e. it gets executed by the engine while monitoring its job queues. The "only" thing that might execute in parallel is lower-level, non-JavaScript logic, such as provided by some APIs that make asynchronous HTTP requests.
Secondly, whether an asynchronous operation starts while another is still underway, is not determined by the use of Promise.all, Promise.allSettled, for await ... of, ...etc, but by whether or not all involved promises are created immediately or not. That is part of the code that is not orchestrated by any of the mentioned constructs.
So surely you can use async and await keywords to achieve that asynchronous requests are made without waiting that a previous one has completed.
For instance:
const recordInsertErrors = [];
const promises = jsonArray.map(async (eachPositionReport) => {
let value;
try {
value = await PositionReport.query().insert(eachPositionReport);
} catch(err) {
value = {
vessel_ownership_id: eachPositionReport.vessel_ownership_id,
error: err.nativeError
};
}
return value;
});
// All promises will now fulfill, as errors are converted to
// fulfillments with an error property
(async () => {
for (const promise of promises) {
const value = await promise;
if (value.error) recordInsertErrors.push(value);
console.log(value);
}
})();
The for loop with await expressions will not delay the moment at which all promises have resolved. It will potentially report sooner on some results than Promise.allSettled, as the latter is designed to first wait until all promises have settled, and only then resolve its own promise.
I have some asynchronous function:
async global(){
return 'Test success'
}
I call this in my hook and it must be fulfilled:
const Controller = use('App/Controllers/Http/Controller')
View.global('ShowGlobal', async () => {
const call = new Controller()
const info = await call.global()
console.log(info)
return info
})
At the same time i am getting correct console.log with result 'Test success', but return gives me constantly [object Promise]
What am I doing wrong?
(This is an answer I found)
The code you write in JavaScript is run on one thread, that means that if your code could actually wait for something it will block any of your other code from getting executed. The event loop of JavaScript is explained very well in this video and if you like to read in this page.
A good example of blocking code in the browser is alert("cannot do anything until you click ok");. Alert blocks everything, the user can't even scroll or click on anything in the page and your code also blocks from executing.
Promise.resolve(22)
.then(x=>alert("blocking")||"Hello World")
.then(
x=>console.log(
"does not resolve untill you click ok on the alert:",
x
)
);
Run that in a console and you see what I mean by blocking.
This creates a problem when you want to do something that takes time. In other frameworks you'd use a thread or processes but there is no such thing in JavaScript (technically there is with web worker and fork in node but that's another story and usually far more complicated than using async api's).
So when you want to make a http request you can use fetch but fetch takes some time to finish and your function should not block (has to return something as fast as possible). This is why fetch returns a promise.
Note that fetch is implemented by browser/node and does run in another thread, only code you write runs in one thread so starting a lot of promises that only run code you write will not speed up anything but calling native async api's in parallel will.
Before promises async code used callbacks or would return an observable object (like XmlHttpRequest) but let's cover promises since you can convert the more traditional code to a promise anyway.
A promise is an object that has a then function (and a bunch of stuff that is sugar for then but does the same), this function takes 2 parameters.
Resolve handler: A function that will be called by the promise when the promise resolves (has no errors and is finished). The function will be passed one argument with the resolve value (for http requests this usually is the response).
Reject handler: A function that will be called by the promise when the promise rejects (has an error). This function will be passed one argument, this is usually the error or reason for rejection (can be a string, number or anything).
Converting callback to promise.
The traditional api's (especially nodejs api's) use callbacks:
traditionalApi(
arg
,function callback(err,value){
err ? handleFail(err) : processValue(value);
}
);
This makes it difficult for the programmer to catch errors or handle the return value in a linear way (from top to bottom). It gets even more impossible to try and do things parallel or throttled parallel with error handling (impossible to read).
You can convert traditional api's to promises with new Promise
const apiAsPromise = arg =>
new Promise(
(resolve,reject)=>
traditionalApi(
arg,
(err,val) => (err) ? reject(err) : resolve(val)
)
)
async await
This is what's called syntax sugar for promises. It makes promise consuming functions look more traditional and easier to read. That is if you like to write traditional code, I would argue that composing small functions is much easier to read. For example, can you guess what this does?:
const handleSearch = search =>
compose([
showLoading,
makeSearchRequest,
processRespose,
hideLoading
])(search)
.then(
undefined,//don't care about the resolve
compose([
showError,
hideLoading
])
);
Anayway; enough ranting. The important part is to understand that async await doesn't actually start another thread, async functions always return a promise and await doesn't actually block or wait. It's syntax sugar for someFn().then(result=>...,error=>...) and looks like:
async someMethod = () =>
//syntax sugar for:
//return someFn().then(result=>...,error=>...)
try{
const result = await someFn();
...
}catch(error){
...
}
}
The examples allways show try catch but you don't need to do that, for example:
var alwaysReject = async () => { throw "Always returns rejected promise"; };
alwaysReject()
.then(
x=>console.log("never happens, doesn't resolve")
,err=>console.warn("got rejected:",err)
);
Any error thrown or await returning a rejected promise will cause the async function to return a rejected promise (unless you try and catch it). Many times it is desirable to just let it fail and have the caller handle errors.
Catching errors could be needed when you want the promise to succeed with a special value for rejected promises so you can handle it later but the promise does not technically reject so will always resolve.
An example is Promise.all, this takes an array of promises and returns a new promise that resolves to an array of resolved values or reject when any one of them rejects. You may just want to get the results of all promises back and filter out the rejected ones:
const Fail = function(details){this.details=details;},
isFail = item => (item && item.constructor)===Fail;
Promise.all(
urls.map(//map array of urls to array of promises that don't reject
url =>
fetch(url)
.then(
undefined,//do not handle resolve yet
//when you handle the reject this ".then" will return
// a promise that RESOLVES to the value returned below (new Fail([url,err]))
err=>new Fail([url,err])
)
)
)
.then(
responses => {
console.log("failed requests:");
console.log(
responses.filter(//only Fail type
isFail
)
);
console.log("resolved requests:");
console.log(
responses.filter(//anything not Fail type
response=>!isFail(response)
)
);
}
);
I've been developing JavaScript for a few years and I don't understand the fuss about promises at all.
It seems like all I do is change:
api(function(result){
api2(function(result2){
api3(function(result3){
// do work
});
});
});
Which I could use a library like async for anyway, with something like:
api().then(function(result){
api2().then(function(result2){
api3().then(function(result3){
// do work
});
});
});
Which is more code and less readable. I didn't gain anything here, it's not suddenly magically 'flat' either. Not to mention having to convert things to promises.
So, what's the big fuss about promises here?
Promises are not callbacks. A promise represents the future result of an asynchronous operation. Of course, writing them the way you do, you get little benefit. But if you write them the way they are meant to be used, you can write asynchronous code in a way that resembles synchronous code and is much more easy to follow:
api().then(function(result){
return api2();
}).then(function(result2){
return api3();
}).then(function(result3){
// do work
});
Certainly, not much less code, but much more readable.
But this is not the end. Let's discover the true benefits: What if you wanted to check for any error in any of the steps? It would be hell to do it with callbacks, but with promises, is a piece of cake:
api().then(function(result){
return api2();
}).then(function(result2){
return api3();
}).then(function(result3){
// do work
}).catch(function(error) {
//handle any error that may occur before this point
});
Pretty much the same as a try { ... } catch block.
Even better:
api().then(function(result){
return api2();
}).then(function(result2){
return api3();
}).then(function(result3){
// do work
}).catch(function(error) {
//handle any error that may occur before this point
}).then(function() {
//do something whether there was an error or not
//like hiding an spinner if you were performing an AJAX request.
});
And even better: What if those 3 calls to api, api2, api3 could run simultaneously (e.g. if they were AJAX calls) but you needed to wait for the three? Without promises, you should have to create some sort of counter. With promises, using the ES6 notation, is another piece of cake and pretty neat:
Promise.all([api(), api2(), api3()]).then(function(result) {
//do work. result is an array contains the values of the three fulfilled promises.
}).catch(function(error) {
//handle the error. At least one of the promises rejected.
});
Hope you see Promises in a new light now.
Yes, Promises are asynchronous callbacks. They can't do anything that callbacks can't do, and you face the same problems with asynchrony as with plain callbacks.
However, Promises are more than just callbacks. They are a very mighty abstraction, allow cleaner and better, functional code with less error-prone boilerplate.
So what's the main idea?
Promises are objects representing the result of a single (asynchronous) computation. They resolve to that result only once. There's a few things what this means:
Promises implement an observer pattern:
You don't need to know the callbacks that will use the value before the task completes.
Instead of expecting callbacks as arguments to your functions, you can easily return a Promise object
The promise will store the value, and you can transparently add a callback whenever you want. It will be called when the result is available. "Transparency" implies that when you have a promise and add a callback to it, it doesn't make a difference to your code whether the result has arrived yet - the API and contracts are the same, simplifying caching/memoisation a lot.
You can add multiple callbacks easily
Promises are chainable (monadic, if you want):
If you need to transform the value that a promise represents, you map a transform function over the promise and get back a new promise that represents the transformed result. You cannot synchronously get the value to use it somehow, but you can easily lift the transformation in the promise context. No boilerplate callbacks.
If you want to chain two asynchronous tasks, you can use the .then() method. It will take a callback to be called with the first result, and returns a promise for the result of the promise that the callback returns.
Sounds complicated? Time for a code example.
var p1 = api1(); // returning a promise
var p3 = p1.then(function(api1Result) {
var p2 = api2(); // returning a promise
return p2; // The result of p2 …
}); // … becomes the result of p3
// So it does not make a difference whether you write
api1().then(function(api1Result) {
return api2().then(console.log)
})
// or the flattened version
api1().then(function(api1Result) {
return api2();
}).then(console.log)
Flattening does not come magically, but you can easily do it. For your heavily nested example, the (near) equivalent would be
api1().then(api2).then(api3).then(/* do-work-callback */);
If seeing the code of these methods helps understanding, here's a most basic promise lib in a few lines.
What's the big fuss about promises?
The Promise abstraction allows much better composability of functions. For example, next to then for chaining, the all function creates a promise for the combined result of multiple parallel-waiting promises.
Last but not least Promises come with integrated error handling. The result of the computation might be that either the promise is fulfilled with a value, or it is rejected with a reason. All the composition functions handle this automatically and propagate errors in promise chains, so that you don't need to care about it explicitly everywhere - in contrast to a plain-callback implementation. In the end, you can add a dedicated error callback for all occurred exceptions.
Not to mention having to convert things to promises.
That's quite trivial actually with good promise libraries, see How do I convert an existing callback API to promises?
In addition to the already established answers, with ES6 arrow functions Promises turn from a modestly shining small blue dwarf straight into a red giant. That is about to collapse into a supernova:
api().then(result => api2()).then(result2 => api3()).then(result3 => console.log(result3))
As oligofren pointed out, without arguments between api calls you don't need the anonymous wrapper functions at all:
api().then(api2).then(api3).then(r3 => console.log(r3))
And finally, if you want to reach a supermassive black hole level, Promises can be awaited:
async function callApis() {
let api1Result = await api();
let api2Result = await api2(api1Result);
let api3Result = await api3(api2Result);
return api3Result;
}
In addition to the awesome answers above, 2 more points may be added:
1. Semantic difference:
Promises may be already resolved upon creation. This means they guarantee conditions rather than events. If they are resolved already, the resolved function passed to it is still called.
Conversely, callbacks handle events. So, if the event you are interested in has happened before the callback has been registered, the callback is not called.
2. Inversion of control
Callbacks involve inversion of control. When you register a callback function with any API, the Javascript runtime stores the callback function and calls it from the event loop once it is ready to be run.
Refer The Javascript Event loop for an explanation.
With Promises, control resides with the calling program. The .then() method may be called at any time if we store the promise object.
In addition to the other answers, the ES2015 syntax blends seamlessly with promises, reducing even more boilerplate code:
// Sequentially:
api1()
.then(r1 => api2(r1))
.then(r2 => api3(r2))
.then(r3 => {
// Done
});
// Parallel:
Promise.all([
api1(),
api2(),
api3()
]).then(([r1, r2, r3]) => {
// Done
});
Promises are not callbacks, both are programming idioms that facilitate async programming. Using an async/await-style of programming using coroutines or generators that return promises could be considered a 3rd such idiom. A comparison of these idioms across different programming languages (including Javascript) is here: https://github.com/KjellSchubert/promise-future-task
No, Not at all.
Callbacks are simply Functions In JavaScript which are to be called and then executed after the execution of another function has finished. So how it happens?
Actually, In JavaScript, functions are itself considered as objects and hence as all other objects, even functions can be sent as arguments to other functions. The most common and generic use case one can think of is setTimeout() function in JavaScript.
Promises are nothing but a much more improvised approach of handling and structuring asynchronous code in comparison to doing the same with callbacks.
The Promise receives two Callbacks in constructor function: resolve and reject. These callbacks inside promises provide us with fine-grained control over error handling and success cases. The resolve callback is used when the execution of promise performed successfully and the reject callback is used to handle the error cases.
No promises are just wrapper on callbacks
example
You can use javascript native promises with node js
my cloud 9 code link : https://ide.c9.io/adx2803/native-promises-in-node
/**
* Created by dixit-lab on 20/6/16.
*/
var express = require('express');
var request = require('request'); //Simplified HTTP request client.
var app = express();
function promisify(url) {
return new Promise(function (resolve, reject) {
request.get(url, function (error, response, body) {
if (!error && response.statusCode == 200) {
resolve(body);
}
else {
reject(error);
}
})
});
}
//get all the albums of a user who have posted post 100
app.get('/listAlbums', function (req, res) {
//get the post with post id 100
promisify('http://jsonplaceholder.typicode.com/posts/100').then(function (result) {
var obj = JSON.parse(result);
return promisify('http://jsonplaceholder.typicode.com/users/' + obj.userId + '/albums')
})
.catch(function (e) {
console.log(e);
})
.then(function (result) {
res.end(result);
}
)
})
var server = app.listen(8081, function () {
var host = server.address().address
var port = server.address().port
console.log("Example app listening at http://%s:%s", host, port)
})
//run webservice on browser : http://localhost:8081/listAlbums
JavaScript Promises actually use callback functions to determine what to do after a Promise has been resolved or rejected, therefore both are not fundamentally different. The main idea behind Promises is to take callbacks - especially nested callbacks where you want to perform a sort of actions, but it would be more readable.
Promises overview:
In JS we can wrap asynchronous operations (e.g database calls, AJAX calls) in promises. Usually we want to run some additional logic on the retrieved data. JS promises have handler functions which process the result of the asynchronous operations. The handler functions can even have other asynchronous operations within them which could rely on the value of the previous asynchronous operations.
A promise always has of the 3 following states:
pending: starting state of every promise, neither fulfilled nor rejected.
fulfilled: The operation completed successfully.
rejected: The operation failed.
A pending promise can be resolved/fullfilled or rejected with a value. Then the following handler methods which take callbacks as arguments are called:
Promise.prototype.then() : When the promise is resolved the callback argument of this function will be called.
Promise.prototype.catch() : When the promise is rejected the callback argument of this function will be called.
Although the above methods skill get callback arguments they are far superior than using
only callbacks here is an example that will clarify a lot:
Example
function createProm(resolveVal, rejectVal) {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
setTimeout(() => {
if (Math.random() > 0.5) {
console.log("Resolved");
resolve(resolveVal);
} else {
console.log("Rejected");
reject(rejectVal);
}
}, 1000);
});
}
createProm(1, 2)
.then((resVal) => {
console.log(resVal);
return resVal + 1;
})
.then((resVal) => {
console.log(resVal);
return resVal + 2;
})
.catch((rejectVal) => {
console.log(rejectVal);
return rejectVal + 1;
})
.then((resVal) => {
console.log(resVal);
})
.finally(() => {
console.log("Promise done");
});
The createProm function creates a promises which is resolved or rejected based on a random Nr after 1 second
If the promise is resolved the first then method is called and the resolved value is passed in as an argument of the callback
If the promise is rejected the first catch method is called and the rejected value is passed in as an argument
The catch and then methods return promises that's why we can chain them. They wrap any returned value in Promise.resolve and any thrown value (using the throw keyword) in Promise.reject. So any value returned is transformed into a promise and on this promise we can again call a handler function.
Promise chains give us more fine tuned control and better overview than nested callbacks. For example the catch method handles all the errors which have occurred before the catch handler.
Promises allows programmers to write simpler and far more readable code than by using callbacks.
In a program, there are steps want to do in series.
function f() {
step_a();
step_b();
step_c();
...
}
There's usually information carried between each step.
function f() {
const a = step_a( );
const b = step_b( a );
const c = step_c( b );
...
}
Some of these steps can take a (relatively) long time, so sometimes you want to do them in parallel with other things. One way to do that is using threads. Another is asynchronous programming. (Both approaches has pros and cons, which won't be discussed here.) Here, we're talking about asynchronous programming.
The simple way to achieve the above when using asynchronous programming would be to provide a callback which is called once a step is complete.
// step_* calls the provided function with the returned value once complete.
function f() {
step_a(
function( a )
step_b(
function( b )
step_c(
...
)
},
)
},
)
}
That's quite hard to read. Promises offer a way to flatten the code.
// step_* returns a promise.
function f() {
step_a()
.then( step_b )
.then( step_c )
...
}
The object returned is called a promise because it represents the future result (i.e. promised result) of the function (which could be a value or an exception).
As much as promises help, it's still a bit complicated to use promises. This is where async and await come in. In a function declared as async, await can be used in lieu of then.
// step_* returns a promise.
async function f()
const a = await step_a( );
const b = await step_b( a );
const c = await step_c( b );
...
}
This is undeniably much much more readable than using callbacks.
If I have an array of elements and I want to do parallel operations on them.
I would use promise.all().
I knew promise.all() accepts array of promises. Correct me if I am wrong, I don't think so.
Here, it clearly says.
The Promise.all() method returns a single Promise that fulfills when all of the promises passed as an iterable have been fulfilled or when the iterable contains no promises or when the iterable contains promises that have been fulfilled and non-promises that have been returned. It rejects with the reason of the first promise that rejects, or with the error caught by the first argument if that argument has caught an error inside it using try/catch/throw blocks.
So, yes we can pass simple functions to promise.all(), and it resolves if they return and rejects if they throw an error.
Now look at the below code.
const promises = todayAssignedJobs.map(async todayAssigned => {
const [leaderboard, created] = await Leaderboard.findOrCreate({...});
if (!created) {
const rating = (todayAssigned.rating + leaderboard.rating * leaderboard.jobs_completed) / (leaderboard.jobs_completed + 1);
const commission = todayAssigned.commission + leaderboard.commission;
const jobsCompleted = leaderboard.jobs_completed + 1;
await Leaderboard.update({
rating,
commission,
jobs_completed: jobsCompleted,
updated_by: 'system',
}, {
where: {
id: leaderboard.id,
},
});
}
await AssignedJob.update({
is_leaderboard_generated: true,
}, {
where: {
id: todayAssigned.id,
},
});
});
await Promise.all(promises);
Here, I have a doubt.
We are iterating on each element of the array and doing operation on them asyncrhonously. They don't return anything explicitly.
So, I think map is doing parallel operations here too.
Why shuold then use promise.all() here?
.map() is not promise-aware. So, when you pass it an async callback like you are, it does not pay any attention to that returned promise. So, it just runs the loop one after another, not waiting for any of the returning promises. Thus, all the asynchronous operations started in the .map() loop will be in-flight at the same time.
If that's what you want and you want to collect all the returned promises so you can later see when they are all done with Promise.all(), then this pattern works well:
Promise.all(someArray.map(callbackThatReturnsAPromiseHere))
And, this is a common design pattern for it. In fact, the Bluebird promise library has a special function that combined these two called Promise.map(). It also offered another nice feature that let you control how many concurrent async operations could run at once (because it's map() operation is promise-aware).
It sounds like you're trying to figure out if you should only use .map() and not use Promise.all(). If you do that, you will run your asynchronous operations in parallel, but you will not have any idea when they are all done or any ability to collect all the results. You would use Promise.all() on the array of returned promises to know when they are all done and/or to collect their resolved results.
FYI, .map() is JUST a plain loop. It doesn't have any special asynchronous features or any special run-in-parallel features. You can do the same thing with a for loop if you want. It does NOT pause for your async callback to wait for it to be done so a side effect of running it is that you launch a bunch of parallel asynchronous operations.
The purpose of Promise.all here is to be able to await all the promises before continuing.
If you added a console.log immediately before the await Promise.all(promises); it would run synchronously before any promises have resolved, whereas a console.log immediately after that line will only appear after all the promises have resolved.
You only need Promise.all if you want to do something when all operations are complete. For example:
const promises = todayAssignedJobs.map(async todayAssigned => {
// lots of async stuff
});
await Promise.all(promises);
// now, all Promises have resolved
// alert the user that the leaderboard is completely updated
If you don't need anything to occur once you've determined that all Promises have completed, then there's no point to the Promise.all - you may as well just create the Promises in a loop and leave them as-is. In that case, since you wouldn't be using the resulting array of Promises, it would be more appropriate to use forEach (which is the array method to use for side-effects).
There's one issue, though - you aren't handling errors, but errors should be handled, otherwise they'll give warnings or exit the Node process:
const processJob = async (todayAssigned) => {
const [leaderboard, created] = await Leaderboard.findOrCreate({...});
if (!created) {
// ...
// ...
todayAssignedJobs.forEach(async todayAssigned => {
try {
await processJob(todayAssigned);
} catch(e) {
// handle errors
}
});
I'm doing some reading up on JS Promises to up-skill.
Here's my quandry:
Say you want to console.log('we done, bruh!') AFTER your data's come back.
so with a Promise, you might say:
let iWantToLogOut = function() {
let data = fetch('https://jsonplaceholder.typicode.com/users')
return new Promise((resolve) => {
resolve(data)
})
}
And then resolve that promise like:
iWantToLogOut().then((dataBack)
=> databack.json())
.then((json) => {
console.log('We done, bruh! Look: ', json)
})
So that's great. You get your API data back and then we log our msg out.
But isn't it just way easier to go:
let data = fetch('https://jsonplaceholder.typicode.com/users');
data ? console.log('we done, bruh!') : null;
I'm probably over-simplifying/missing something (because... well... i'm retarded) but I just want to make sure i'm really understanding Promises first before i move onto Async/Await.
But isn't it just way easier to go:
let data = fetch('https://jsonplaceholder.typicode.com/users');
data ? console.log('we done, bruh!') : null;
It would be, but it doesn't work. What fetch returns is a promise, not the result of the operation. You can't return the result of an asynchronous process. More: How do I return the response from an asynchronous call?
In the upcoming ES2017 spec, though, we have syntactic sugar around promise consumption which will let you write this:
let data = await fetch('https://jsonplaceholder.typicode.com/users');
// --------^^^^^
console.log('we done, bruh!');
Note we don't even need the conditional, because await converts a promise rejection into an exception.
That code would need to be in an async function, e.g.:
(async function() {
let data = await fetch(/*...*/);
// use data here
})();
The JavaScript engines in some browsers already support async/await, but to use it in the wild, you'll want to transpile with Babel or similar.
Note: You've shown
so with a Promise, you might say:
let iWantToLogOut = function() {
let data = fetch('https://jsonplaceholder.typicode.com/users')
return new Promise((resolve) => {
resolve(data)
})
}
There are a couple of problems with that code:
It never settles the promise you created if the fetch fails.
It calls something data which is not data, it's a promise of data (that's mostly style, but it's misleading).
It exhibits the promise creation anti-pattern. You already have a promise (from fetch), no need to create another.
iWantToLogOut should be simply:
let iWantToLogOut = function() {
return fetch('https://jsonplaceholder.typicode.com/users');
};
That returns a promise that will be resolved with the data, or of course rejected. Which you'd then consume with promise methods or await (within an async function).
It is not a matter of easy.
Usually network calls should be handle asynchronously(I don't want to the anti-pattern of synchronous AJAX calls). At that point you have few options to handle it:
Callbacks
Promises
Observables
In you code above, when it's synchronous, the fetch should return immediately with a promise that will be resolve to the data only when the server has responded. Only then you can check the data for it's content. Further. Because every promise can be fulfilled or failed, in your then you can have a handler for each instead of using the ternary.
From the latest spec:
Synchronous XMLHttpRequest outside of workers is in the process of being removed from the web platform as it has detrimental effects to the end user’s experience. (This is a long process that takes many years.) Developers must not pass false for the async argument when current global object is a Window object. User agents are strongly encouraged to warn about such usage in developer tools and may experiment with throwing an InvalidAccessError exception when it occurs.