I used Kris Kowal's Q, but now I'm trying to lighten the number of libraries, so I'm switching to native Promises (but yes, I'm using a polyfill to support internet explorer).
Most of my functions return promises, but there was a place where I wanted to expose Q.all as being supplied by my own code. When I did:
MyLibrary.prototype.all = Promise.all;
..., and used it (myLibrary.all([...]).then(...)), I got "Non-constructor value passed to NewPromiseCapability." What does that mean?
MyLibrary never properly inherited from Promise, so the context ("this") was lost.
To fix, instead of doing myLibrary.all([...]), I'm just using Promise.all([...]).
I suppose another option could have been to bind .all() to Promise by MyLibrary.prototype.all = Promise.all.bind(Promise)
Related
i am using underscore function in my JavaScript Code but after deploying my site in production. I realized, normal JavaScript function take less time than underscore library`s function
What is the main difference between two of them if they are using same source(JavaScript)
1.Underscore library function
var value= _.find(array, function(elementInArray) {
return elementInArray === ListOfArray;
});
2.Normal JavaScript function
var value= array.find(function(elementInArray) {
return elementInArray === ListOfArray;
});
Underscore was written with wide browser compatibility in mind. At the time they wrote the _.find() method, Array.find() was by far not available in all browsers. It is, for example, not available in most IE versions.
Hence, there's some overhead involved in building a method that's running in all major browsers, compared to directly implementing Array.find in a way that's optimized for each browser's JS engine.
In addition to #fjc answer there is also another big difference between those two functions:
Native Array.find only can be used with Arrays returning a TypeError when you try to call it for instance:
con myString = 'a';
myString.find(e => e === 'a');
Whereas you can use underscore find with this same example and it will return undefined instead of throwing an error. So as first consequence you would have to be more cautious using native Array.find and adding the proper guards in your code checking that you use it calling with an Array especially with variables that are going to be dynamically instantiated
Often, we are presented with an array (IEnumerable) property that specific values need to be extracted. in c# we can do something similar to:
public AssetModel PromoImage {
get
{
return Assets.FirstOrDefault(x => x.AssetTypeCd == "promoimage");
}
private set { }
}
Is there a way to easily to this within Angular 2?
Lodash provides similar functionality to LINQ for JavaScript programs (and then some), though not deferred execution -- LINQ queries are deferred until they are enumerated, while lodash (usually) performs the query immediately and returns an array/object of results. (Though in this case LINQ wouldn't even defer it since FirstOrDefault returns a scalar and not a queryable/enumerable.)
In your case, you would do something like this:
let obj = {
get promoImage() {
return _.find(assets, a => a.assetTypeCd === 'promoimage');
},
// ...
};
Then accessing obj.promoImage will execute the function to obtain the attribute's value.
(Here I assume this is where we are creating the new object, and assets is the assets list in the lexical scope of the constructor function. You can change it to reference this if you are storing data on the object itself and not in constructor upvalues.)
Notes:
Lodash does not depend on Angular at all.
ES6 provides a find() method on the Array prototype, so this feature will be built-in to browsers once ES6 is adopted. Sadly, IE is (as usual) the outlier without any support for it. However, Lodash is still a very useful library to have in your toolkit, and note that Lodash's find() works on objects too, not just arrays.
I have a call that returns promise. At this moment, I do this:
Something( ... )
.then(()=>{console.log("Done.");});
This would be more practical:
Something( ... )
.then(console.log, "Done.");
For example, setTimeout works like that:
setTimeout(console.log, 1000, "Done.");
Does Bluebird have any method for this? My aim is to have this practical option to reduce the already ridiculous amount of code that Promises generate.
At this moment, I do this:
Something(…).then(()=>{console.log("Done.");});
This is the correct approach. Arrow functions already shorten this a lot. Notice that you can drop the "{"…";}" parts.
This would be more practical:
Something(…).then(console.log, "Done.");
No it would not. The second parameter of then is the onRejected callback, not a string. You can't do that.
My aim is to reduce the already ridiculous amount of code that
Promises generate.
Then use async/await syntax and a transpiler. It's as simple as
await Something(…);
console.log("Done");
Does Bluebird have any method for this?
If you don't like to use a transpiler but are in an ES6 environment (like a recent Node.js), you can use generator functions to imitate async/await with Promise.coroutine.
That feature is pretty much exclusive to setTimeout. IE9 and below requires a polyfill for that anyway https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/WindowTimers/setTimeout
The following would is a workaround for your example case using console.log. Be cautious using it with any function that references this. You can use bind to set the value of this or leave it undefined. Also, it will log the resolved value of the promise after "Done" due to the value being automatically passed as the last argument to bind.
Something( ... )
.then(console.log.bind(undefined, "Done."));
#Bergi gave an excellent answer to your question. Just to add, if you use () => console.log("Done.") or some other general callback a lot, make it a separate function:
function afterSomething() {
console.log("Done.");
}
Something( ... )
.then(afterSomething);
I started using Twisted in a project that require asynchronous programming and the docs are pretty good.
So my question is, is a Deferred in Twisted the same as a Promise in Javascript? If not, what are the differences?
The answer to your question is both Yes and No depending on why you're asking.
Yes:
Both a Twisted Deferred and a Javascript Promise implement a mechanism for queuing synchronous blocks of code to be run in a given order while being decoupled from other synchronous blocks of code.
No:
So Javascript's Promise is actually more similar to Python's Future, and the airy-fairy way to explain this is to talk about the Promise and the Resolver being combined to make a Deferred, and to state that this affects what you can do with the callbacks.
This is all very well and good in that it's accurate, however it doesn't really make anything any clearer, and without typing thousands of words where I'm almost guaranteed to make a mistake, I'm probably better quoting someone who knows a little something about Python.
Guido van Rossum on Deferreds:
Here's my attempt to explain Deferred's big ideas (and there are a lot
of them) to advanced Python users with no previous Twisted experience.
I also assume you have thought about asynchronous calls before. Just
to annoy Glyph, I am using a 5-star system to indicate the importance
of ideas, where 1 star is "good idea but pretty obvious" and 5 stars
is "brilliant".
I am showing a lot of code snippets, because some ideas are just best
expressed that way -- but I intentionally leave out lots of details,
and sometimes I show code that has bugs, if fixing them would reduce
understanding the idea behind the code. (I will point out such bugs.)
I am using Python 3.
Notes specifically for Glyph: (a) Consider this a draft for a blog
post. I'd be more than happy to take corrections and suggestions for
improvements. (b) This does not mean I am going to change Tulip to a
more Deferred-like model; but that's for a different thread.
Idea 1: Return a special object instead of taking a callback argument
When designing APIs that produce results asynchronously, you find that
you need a system for callbacks. Usually the first design that comes
to mind is to pass in a callback function that will be called when the
async operation is complete. I've even seen designs where if you don't
pass in a callback the operation is synchronous -- that's bad enough
I'd give it zero stars. But even the one-star version pollutes all
APIs with extra arguments that have to be passed around tediously.
Twisted's first big idea then is that it's better to return a special
object to which the caller can add a callback after receiving it. I
give this three stars because from it sprout so many of the other good
ideas. It is of course similar to the idea underlying the Futures and
Promises found in many languages and libraries, e.g. Python's
concurrent.futures (PEP 3148, closely following Java Futures, both of
which are meant for a threaded world) and now Tulip (PEP 3156, using a
similar design adapted for thread-less async operation).
Idea 2: Pass results from callback to callback
I think it's best to show some code first:
class Deferred:
def __init__(self):
self.callbacks = []
def addCallback(self, callback):
self.callbacks.append(callback) # Bug here
def callback(self, result):
for cb in self.callbacks:
result = cb(result)
The most interesting bits are the last two lines: the result of each
callback is passed to the next. This is different from how things work
in concurrent.futures and Tulip, where the result (once set) is fixed
as an attribute of the Future. Here the result can be modified by each
callback.
This enables a new pattern when one function returning a Deferred
calls another one and transforms its result, and this is what earns
this idea three stars. For example, suppose we have an async function
that reads a set of bookmarks, and we want to write an async function
that calls this and then sorts the bookmarks. Instead of inventing a
mechanism whereby one async function can wait for another (which we
will do later anyway :-), the second async function can simply add a
new callback to the Deferred returned by the first one:
def read_bookmarks_sorted():
d = read_bookmarks()
d.addCallback(sorted)
return d
The Deferred returned by this function represents a sorted list of
bookmarks. If its caller wants to print those bookmarks, it must add
another callback:
d = read_bookmarks_sorted()
d.addCallback(print)
In a world where async results are represented by Futures, this same
example would require two separate Futures: one returned by
read_bookmarks() representing the unsorted list, and a separate Future
returned by read_bookmarks_sorted() representing the sorted list.
There is one non-obvious bug in this version of the class: if
addCallback() is called after the Deferred has already fired (i.e. its
callback() method was called) then the callback added by addCallback()
will never be called. It's easy enough to fix this, but tedious, and
you can look it up in the Twisted source code. I'll carry this bug
through successive examples -- just pretend that you live in a world
where the result is never ready too soon. There are other problems
with this design too, but I'd rather call the solutions improvements
than bugfixes.
Aside: Twisted's poor choices of terminology
I don't know why, but, starting with the project's own name, Twisted
often rubs me the wrong way with its choice of names for things. For
example, I really like the guideline that class names should be nouns.
But 'Deferred' is an adjective, and not just any adjective, it's a
verb's past participle (and an overly long one at that :-). And why is
it in a module named twisted.internet?
Then there is 'callback', which is used for two related but distinct
purposes: it is the preferred term used for a function that will be
called when a result is ready, but it is also the name of the method
you call to "fire" the Deferred, i.e. set the (initial) result.
Don't get me started on the neologism/portmanteau that is 'errback',
which leads us to...
Idea 3: Integrated error handling
This idea gets only two stars (which I'm sure will disappoint many
Twisted fans) because it confused me a lot. I've also noted that the
Twisted docs have some trouble explaining how it works -- In this case
particularly I found that reading the code was more helpful than the
docs.
The basic idea is simple enough: what if the promise of firing the
Deferred with a result can't be fulfilled? When we write
d = pod_bay_doors.open()
d.addCallback(lambda _: pod.launch())
how is HAL 9000 supposed to say "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't
do that" ?
And even if we don't care for that answer, what should we do if one of
the callbacks raises an exception?
Twisted's solution is to bifurcate each callback into a callback and
an 'errback'. But that's not all -- in order to deal with exceptions
raised by callbacks, it also introduces a new class, 'Failure'. I'd
actually like to introduce the latter first, without introducing
errbacks:
class Failure:
def __init__(self):
self.exception = sys.exc_info()[1]
(By the way, great class name. And I mean this, I'm not being
sarcastic.)
Now we can rewrite the callback() method as follows:
def callback(self, result):
for cb in self.callbacks:
try:
result = cb(result)
except:
result = Failure()
This in itself I'd give two stars; the callback can use
isinstance(result, Failure) to tell regular results apart from
failures.
By the way, in Python 3 it might be possible to do away with the
separate Failure class encapsulating exceptions, and just use the
built-in BaseException class. From reading the comments in the code,
Twisted's Failure class mostly exists so that it can hold all the
information returned by sys.exc_info(), i.e. exception class/type,
exception instance, and traceback but in Python 3, exception objects
already hold a reference to the traceback.There is some debug stuff
that Twisted's Failure class does which standard exceptions don't, but
still, I think most reasons for introducing a separate class have been
addressed.
But let's not forget about the errbacks. We change the list of
callbacks to a list of pairs of callback functions, and we rewrite the
callback() method again, as follows:
def callback(self, result):
for (cb, eb) in self.callbacks:
if isinstance(result, Failure):
cb = eb # Use errback
try:
result = cb(result)
except:
result = Failure()
For convenience we also add an errback() method:
def errback(self, fail=None):
if fail is None:
fail = Failure()
self.callback(fail)
(The real errback() function has a few more special cases, it can be
called with either an exception or a Failure as argument, and the
Failure class takes an optional exception argument to prevent it from
using sys.exc_info(). But none of that is essential and it makes the
code snippets more complicated.)
In order to ensure that self.callbacks is a list of pairs we must also
update addCallback() (it still doesn't work right when called after
the Deferred has fired):
def addCallback(self, callback, errback=None):
if errback is None:
errback = lambda r: r
self.callbacks.append((callback, errback))
If this is called with just a callback function, the errback will be a
dummy that passes the result (i.e. a Failure instance) through
unchanged. This preserves the error condition for a subsequent error
handler. To make it easy to add an error handler without also handling
a regular resullt, we add addErrback(), as follows:
def addErrback(self, errback):
self.addCallback(lambda r: r, errback)
Here, the callback half of the pair will pass the (non-Failure) result
through unchanged to the next callback.
If you want the full motivation, read Twisted's Introduction to
Deferreds; I'll just end by noting that an errback and substitute a
regular result for a Failure just by returning a non-Failure value
(including None).
Before I move on to the next idea, let me point out that there are
more niceties in the real Deferred class. For example, you can specify
additional arguments to be passed to the callback and errback. But in
a pinch you can do this with lambdas, so I'm leaving it out, because
the extra code for doing the administration doesn't elucidate the
basic ideas.
Idea 4: Chaining Deferreds
This is a five-star idea! Sometimes it really is necessary for a
callback to wait for an additional async event before it can produce
the desired result. For example, suppose we have two basic async
operations, read_bookmarks() and sync_bookmarks(), and we want a
combined operation. If this was synchronous code, we could write:
def sync_and_read_bookmarks():
sync_bookmarks()
return read_bookmarks()
But how do we write this if all operations return Deferreds? With the
idea of chaining, we can do it as follows:
def sync_and_read_bookmarks():
d = sync_bookmarks()
d.addCallback(lambda unused_result: read_bookmarks())
return d
The lambda is needed because all callbacks are called with a result
value, but read_bookmarks() takes no arguments.
async vs. Q generally
I'm learning Node.js development, and trying to wrap my brain around strategies for managing asynchronous "callback hell". The two main strategies I've explored are Caolan McMahon's async module, and Kris Kowal's promise-based Q module.
Like many other people, I'm still struggling to understand when you should use one vs. the other. However, generally speaking I have found promises and Q-based code to be slightly more intuitive, so I have been moving in that direction.
Mapping/Concatenating collections generally
However, I'm still stuck using the async module's functions for managing collections. Coming from a Java and Python background, most of the time when I work with a collection, the logic looks like this:
Initialize a new empty collection, in which to store results.
Perform a for-each loop with the old collection, applying some logic to each element and pushing its result into the new empty collection.
When the for-each loop ends, proceed to use the new collection.
In client-side JavaScript, I've grown accustomed to using jQuery's map() function... passing in that step #2 logic, and getting the step #3 result as a return value. Feels like the same basic approach.
Mapping/Concatenating collections with async and Q
The Node-side async module has similar map and concat functions, but they don't return the concatenated result back at the original scope level. You must instead descend into the callback hell to use the result. Example:
var deferred = Q.defer();
...
var entries = [???]; // some array of objects with "id" attributes
async.concat(entries, function (entry, callback) {
callback(null, entry.id);
}, function (err, ids) {
// We now have the "ids" array, holding the "id" attributes of all items in the "entries" array.
...
// Optionaly, perhaps do some sorting or other post-processing on "ids".
...
deferred.resolve(ids);
});
...
return deferred.promise;
Since my other functions are becoming promise-based, I have this code returning a promise object so it can be easily included in a then() chain.
Do I really need both?
The ultimate question that I'm struggling to articulate is: do I really need both async and Q in the code example above? I'm learning how to replace the async module's control flow with Q-style promise chains generally... but it hasn't yet "clicked" for me how to do mapping or concatenation of collections with a promise-based approach. Alternatively, I'd like to understand why you can't, or why it's not a good idea.
If async and Q are meant to work together as I am using them in the example above, then so be it. But I would prefer not to require the extra library dependency if I could cleanly use Q alone.
(Sorry if I'm missing something outrageously obvious. The asynchronous event-driven model is a very different world, and my head is still swimming.)
Do I really need both?
No. Mapping asynchronous iterators over a collection is quite simple with promises, but it requires two steps instead of one function call. First, the collection is mapped to an array of promises for the parallel iteration. Then, those promises are fed into Q.all to make one promise for the mapped collection. In contrast to async, the order of the result is guaranteed.
var entries = […]; // some array of objects with "id" attributes
var promises = entries.map(function(object) {
return asyncPromiseReturingFunction(object);
}); // the anonymous wrapper might be omitted
return Q.all(promises);
For concat, you would have to append a
.then(function(results) {
return Array.prototype.concat.apply([], results);
});