We Keep Coding

Asynchronous finding highest number

im looking for a way to asynchronous iterate over an array and update a variable and in the end return this variable.
export const test = async(
...
): Promise<number> => {
let highestAmount = 0;
for (const entry of entries) {
const check = async () => {
let amount = 0
try {
newAmount = await getAmount(entry);
} catch (e) {
return;
}
if (newAmount > amount ) {
highestAmount = newAmount;
}
}
check()
}
return highestAmount;
}
In this current state i only get 0's back because the function doesnt wait for its finish.
Is there a way that the function only returns if all processes inside the for are finished ?
Lets say the getAmount(entry) function takes 1 second to finish then i have to wait around entries.length seconds. Im trying to find a way to execute this in 1 second so getAmount is called for every entry asynchronously => function returns highest number

Lets say the getAmount(entry) function takes 1 second to finish then i have to wait around entries.length seconds. I'm trying to find a way to execute this in 1 second
If you have five calls that take one second you can't execute and return a value from the function in one second.
Is there a way that the function only returns if all processes inside the for are finished?
Yes. This, however, is possible.
If you map over your array to produce an array of promises that you can await with Promise.all, you can then use Math.max to get the highest number from that array.
// Generate a random number
function rnd() {
return Math.floor(Math.random() * (100 - 0) + 0);
}
// Mock API call which returns the number passed into
// multiplied by an erratic method of
// creating a new random number
function getAmount(el) {
return new Promise(res => {
setTimeout(() => res((el - rnd()) + rnd()), 500);
});
}
// Create an array of promises, await them to resolve
// and then return the highest number
async function getHighest(entries) {
const promises = entries.map(el => getAmount(el));
const data = await Promise.all(promises);
console.log(data);
return Math.max(...data);
}
// Await the promise that `getData` returns
// and log the result
async function main(entries) {
console.log(await getHighest(entries));
}
const entries = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
main(entries);

There are a couple of things missing to make this wait:
Put an async in the parent function
Put an await in the check function call
For example:
export const test = async (
...
): Promise<number> => {
//...
await check();
};
There might also be ways to make these async calls run in parallel.

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

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

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

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

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

Using Async / Awaits within promise

I have a certain promise chain in my code that looks like this:
myPromise()
.then(getStuffFromDb)
.then(manipulateResultSet)
.then(manipulateWithAsync)
.then(returnStuffToCaller)
Now, in my manipulateWithAsync I'm trying to enhance my result set by calling the DB again, but it's not working as I expected, since while debugging i figured out the control moves to the next function which is the returnStuffToCaller
here's an idea of what's into my manipulateWithAsync function:
function manipulateWithAsync(rs) {
return rs.map( async function whoCares(singleRecord) {
let smthUseful = await getMoreData(singleRecord.someField);
singleRecord.enhancedField = smthUseful;
return singleRecord;
})
}
I get the point of this behaviour: the map function does work as expected and the promise chain doesn't give a duck about it since it's not working with the awaits.
Is there a way to allow my returnStuffToCaller function to wait till the async function did his job?
I also use bluebird and i tried to use coo-routine, so if you thing that it's a good solution I'll post my bluebird coo-routine failing code :)
Thanks!

The problem is in using async/await with Array.map
This answer should help: https://stackoverflow.com/a/40140562/5783272

rs.map iterator jumps to the next element without waiting in each separate iteration.
You need something like asyncMap
You can use - https://github.com/caolan/async
or either implement yourself
async function asyncMap(array, cb) {
for (let index = 0; index < array.length; index++) {
return await cb(array[index], index, array);
}
}
*cb function must be async one

Wrap your map with Promise.all return the Promise then await for the results wherever you call the manipulateWithAsync.
// MOCKS FOR DEMO
// Test data used as input for manipulateWithAsync
const testData = [
{ recordNumber: 1 },
{ recordNumber: 2 },
{ recordNumber: 3 }
];
// Mock function which returns Promises which resolve after random delay ranging from 1 - 3 seconds
const getMoreData = () =>
new Promise(resolve => {
const calledAt = Date.now();
setTimeout(() => {
resolve({
usefulData: `Promise called at ${calledAt}`
});
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 3000) + 1000);
});
// SOLUTION / ANSWER
const manipulateWithAsync = async rs =>
Promise.all(
rs.map(async singleRecord => {
const smthUseful = await getMoreData(singleRecord.someField);
// Instead of manipulating original data,
// which might cause some unwanted side effects going forward,
// instead return new objects
return { ...singleRecord, enhancedField: smthUseful };
})
);
await manipulateWithAsync(testData);

Add a resolved Promise to an object as a property

I'm developing a Dapp based on Ethereum and I got stuck with Promises.
In the for loop, the elements of the array have to be verified one by one. This happens at the validateRow() function, which returns a Promise at first. The Promise will be resolved to a number (0, when the element is valid; 1, 2 or 3, when it is not valid).
In the end, I would like to return a resultList[], which is an array of objects. Each object should have two properties:
row, containing the element (a string),
and result, which tells whether it is valid.
However, the resultList[] only contains the rows in the end, while the 'then' branch only holds the results ({"row":"","result":"0"}). I added the logs which are printed in the console as comments. Unfortunately, I can't figure out, how I could put the two together.
var resultList = [];
for (var i = 0; i < App.resultArray.length; i++) {
var promiseReturned = contractInstance.validateRow.call(App.resultId, App.resultArray[i]);
console.log(promiseReturned); //Promise {<pending>}
var rowObject = new Object();
console.log(App.resultArray[i]); //row1string
rowObject.row = App.resultArray[i];
promiseReturned.then(function(returnVal) {
console.log("the returnVal: " + returnVal); //the returnVal: 1
rowObject.result = returnVal;
console.log("the rowObject :" + JSON.stringify(rowObject)); //{"row":"","result":"0"}
return returnVal;
});
resultList.push(rowObject);
};
console.log(resultList); //[{"row":"row1string"},{"row": "row2string"}]
return resultList;

In Javascript, use forward slashes to denote comments, not backslashes, else you'll get syntax errors.
Use Promise.all to wait for all promises to be resolved before returning the object:
async function getResultList() {
const allPromises = App.resultArray.map((row) => (
contractInstance.validateRow.call(App.resultId, row)
.then(result => ({ result, row }))
));
const resultList = await Promise.all(allPromises);
return resultList; // This will return a Promise to the caller of getResultList
}
Note that you'll have to consume getResultList as a promise, since it doesn't run synchronously. eg
const resultList = await getResultList();

For completeness, CertainPerformance's answer but using async/await, and rewritten more concisely:
async function getResultList() {
return await Promise.all(
App.resultArray.map(async (row) => {
const result = await contractInstance.validateRow.call(App.resultId, row);
return {
row,
result,
};
})
);
}

sequential call using promise inside loop

i want to perform synchronous operation of functions using promise. I have loop that passes the data to be inserted to insert function and after inserting one row i want to check the no. of rows exists in table hence i am performing select operation.
But the issue is if there are 3 records then it inserts all 3 records and after that my select function gets executed. what i want is after insertion of one record select function gets called.
here is my pseudo code as entire code involves lot of operations
for(var i=0; data.length ; i++){
self.executeFeedbackTrack(data);
}
executeFeedbackTrack:function(callInfo){
var self=this;
return self.insertFeedbackTrack(callInfo).then(function(data){
console.log("insertFeedbackTrack status "+status);
return self.getFeedbackTrack();
});
},
getFeedbackTrack :function(){
return new Promise(function(resolve,reject){
var objDBFeedbackTrack = new DBFeedbackTrack();
objDBFeedbackTrack.selectFeedbackTrack(function(arrayCallRegisters){
if(arrayCallRegisters){
console.log("notification.js no. of feedbacks "+arrayCallRegisters.length);
resolve(arrayCallRegisters.length);
}
});
});
},
insertFeedbackTrack :function(callInfo){
return new Promise(function(resolve,reject){
var objDBFeedbackTrack = new DBFeedbackTrack();
objDBFeedbackTrack.insertFeedbackTrack(callInfo.callNumber,callInfo.callServiceType,function(status){
resolve(status);
$('#loader').hide();
});
});
}

The previous answer is good, but if you are using nodejs, or babel, or you are using only modern browsers. You can use an async-await pair, it is es8 stuff.
let insertFeedbackTrack = function(){ return new Promise(/***/)};
let getFeedbackTrack = function(){ return new Promise(/***/)};
let processResult = async function(data){
let feedbacks = [];
for(let i=0;i<data.length;i++){
let insertedResult = await insertFeedbackTrack(data[i]);//perhaps you will return an id;
let feedbackTrack = await getFeedbackTrack(insertedResult.id);
feedbacks.push(feedbackTrack);
}
return feedbacks;
}
processResult(data).then(/** do stuff */)

It looks to me like this is caused by executing a series of asynchronous inserts, and assuming that the get of insert n (inside of a .then()) is called before insert n+1 is executed. However, I'm not aware of any such guarantee, in JavaScript; all that I'm familiar with is that then n will be called after insert n, not that it would be called before insert n+1.
What I'd suggest is avoiding this mix of traditional and callback-based code, and instead put the iteration step inside getFeedbackTrack().then. Assuming this understanding of the issue is correct, then something like the following should work:
function iterate(i) {
if (i < data.length) {
obj.insertFeedbackTrack(data[i]).then(function(insertResult) {
self.getFeedbackTrack().then(function(getResult) {
// this line is the important one, replacing the `for` loop earlier
iterate(i+1);
});
});
}
}
iterate(0);
By doing that, you would guarantee that insert for the next element does not occur until the current select executes successfully.
Naturally, you may also want to restructure that to use chained .then instead of nested; I used nested rather than chained to emphasize the ordering of callbacks.

This can be solved by using a very handy JS library Ramda. Concept is to use two methods, one is R.partial and another is R.pipeP.
First create a promises array from your data array, like following.
var promises = data.map(function(i) {
return R.partial(sample, [i])
});
Then you can pass this promise to R.pipeP, so that it can be executed one after another. like below.
var doOperation = R.pipeP.apply(this, promises)
Please execute following snippet attached.
// Sample promise returning function
function sample(d) {
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject){
setTimeout(function() {
console.log('resolved for:' + d);
resolve(d);
}, 1000)
})
}
// Sample data
var data = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
// Converting data array to promise array
var promises = data.map(function(i) {
return R.partial(sample, [i])
});
var doOperation = R.pipeP.apply(this, promises)
doOperation();
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.25.0/ramda.min.js"></script>
So in your case, the code will look like this
var promises = data.map(function(i) {
return R.partial(self.executeFeedbackTrack, [i])
});
var doOperation = R.pipeP.apply(this, promises)
doOperation();

I use yield for such cases if using generator functions.
for(var i = 0; i < order.tasks.length; i++){
if(order.tasks[i].customer_id === 0){
var name = order.tasks[i].customer_name.split(" ")
const customers = yield db.queryAsync(
`INSERT INTO customers(
business_id)
VALUES(?)
`,[order.business_id])
}
}
Or else I use self-calling functions in case of callbacks.
var i = 0;
(function loop() {
if (i < data.length) {
task_ids1.push([order.tasks[i].task_id])
i++;
loop();
}
}());

Here's how I would sequentially call promises in a loop (I'm using ES7).
First, let's define some basic data:
const data = [0,1,2,3];
Then, let's simulate some long running process, so let's create a function that returns a Promise (you can think of this as a simulated network request, or whatever suits your needs)
const promiseExample = (item) =>
new Promise((res) => {
setTimeout(() => {
console.log('resolved ', item);
res(item);
}, 1000);
});
Now, let's create an array of promises. What the next line of code does is: for every item in the array data, return a promise factory. A promise factory is a function that wraps a certain promise without running it.
const funcs = data.map(item => async () => await promiseExample(item));
Now, the actual code starts here. We need a function that does the actual serialization. Since it has to handle an array of promiseFactories, I split it in two functions, one for the serialization of a single promise, and one for handling an array of promiseFactories.
const serializePromise = promiseFactoryList =>
promiseFactoryList.reduce(serialize, Promise.resolve([]));
const serialize = async (promise, promiseFactory) => {
const promiseResult = await promise;
const res = await promiseFactory();
return [...promiseResult, res];
};
Now, you can simply call it like this:
serializePromise(funcs).then(res => {
console.log('res', res);
});
As you can see, the code is pretty simple, elegant, functional, and doesn't need any external dependency. I hope this answers your question and helps you!
const serializePromise = promiseFactoryList =>
promiseFactoryList.reduce(serialize, Promise.resolve([]));
const serialize = async (promise, promiseFactory) => {
const promiseResult = await promise;
const res = await promiseFactory();
return [...promiseResult, res];
};
const data = [0,1,2,3];
const promiseExample = (item) =>
new Promise((res) => {
setTimeout(() => {
console.log('resolved ', item);
res(item);
}, 1000);
});
const funcs = data.map(item => async () => await promiseExample(item))
serializePromise(funcs).then(res => {
console.log('res', res);
});

I ran into this problem recently and solved it as shown below. This is very similar to the answer by #Ethan Kaminsky, but only uses callbacks. This may be useful for people avoiding promises for whatever reason.
In my application the asynchronous function may fail and can safely be retried; I included this logic because it's useful and doesn't overly complicate the routine, but it is not exercised in the example.
// Some callback when the task is complete
function cb(...rest) { window.alert( `${rest.join(', ')}` ) }
// The data and the function operating on the data
// The function calls "callback(err)" on completion
const data = [ 'dataset1', 'dataset2', 'dataset3' ]
const doTheThing = (thingDone) => setTimeout( thingDone, 1000 )
let i = -1 // counter/interator for data[]
let retries = 20 // everything fails; total retry #
// The do-async-synchronously (with max retries) loop
function next( err ) {
if( err ) {
if( ! --retries ) return cb( 'too many retries' )
} else if( ! data[++i] ) return cb( undefined, 'done-data' )
console.log( 'i is', i, data[i] )
doTheThing( next, data[i] ) // callback is first here
}
// start the process
next()