ASP.NET Web method with asynchronous call on server side [duplicate] - javascript

I've tried to read up on async methods and am now trying to create my own async method. The method is a webservice call that returns a list of error logs. I'm not sure that I've understood correctly so I thought I'd share my code to see if I should do anything different.
All I want the code to do is return a list of errorlogs by calling a method GetAllErrorLogs(), that is a synchronized method. Since it can take a second to fetch all the error logs I want to have the opportunity to do other stuff once I called the GetAllErrorLogs() method. Here is the code.
[WebMethod]
public async Task<List<ErrorLog>> GetAllErrorLogs()
{
List<ErrorLog> errorLogs = new List<ErrorLog>();
await System.Threading.Tasks.Task.Run(() => {
errorLogs = ErrorLogRepository.GetAllErrorLogs();
});
if (errorLogs == null)
return new List<ErrorLog>();
return errorLogs;
}
Thanks!

I recently gave a talk at ThatConference on async on the server side, and I address this issue in the slides.
On the server side, you want to avoid the use of Task.Run and other constructs that queue work to the thread pool. As much as possible, keep thread pool threads available for handling requests.
So, ideally your repository would have an asynchronous method GetAllErrorLogsAsync, which would itself be asynchronous. If GetAllErrorLogs cannot be asynchronous, then you may as well just call it directly (removing the await Task.Run).
Since it can take a second to fetch all the error logs I want to have the opportunity to do other stuff once I called the GetAllErrorLogs() method.
If you have a GetAllErrorLogsAsync available, then this can easily be done using Task.WhenAll. However, if GetAllErrorLogs is synchronous, then you can only do this by doing parallel work in your request (e.g., multiple calls to Task.Run followed by Task.WhenAll).
Parallel code on the server must be approached with great trepidation. It is only acceptable in a very limited set of scenarios. The entire point of async on the server side is to use fewer threads per request, and when you start parallelizing, you're doing the opposite: multiple threads per request. This is only appropriate if you know your user base is very small; otherwise, you'll kill your server scalability.

I found this great codeproject detailed article about how to achieve that
http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/600926/Asynchronous-web-services-call-in-ASP-NET

**This is potentially wrong, read comments or spinoff question at HttpContext.Current after an await
If ErrorLogRepository.GetAllErrorLogs() is not thread-safe, it will cause weird bugs and potentially exception out. Make sure your code is ready for multi-threaded operation before switching to async methods, this is obviously very trivial advice but often overlooked. For example, if you reference HttpContext.Current in your methods, your code will die in the async method, and sometimes even AFTER the await. The reason is that the code within the async block will potentially be run on a separate thread, which will not have access to the same HttpContext.Current thread-static property, and await gets compiled into two methods. All code before an await gets run on one thread, and then calls the code after an await keyword as a continuation, but potentially on yet another thread. So sometimes your code will even work in an async block, only to choke unexpectedly after it gets "out" of the async back to what you think is a synchronous part of your code (but in reality everything after an await keyword is already not guaranteed to be the original thread).

Here is some production code...
using System.Web.Http;
using AysncTask = System.Threading.Tasks.Task;
public class myController : ApiControllerBase
{
[HttpPut]
[Route("api/cleardata/{id}/{requestId}/")]
public async AysncTask ClearData(Guid id, Guid requestId)
{
try
{
await AysncTask.Run(() => DoClearData(id, requestId));
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
throw new Exception("Exception in myController.ClearData", ex);
}
}
}

Handling Async exceptions is also VERY VERY important.. although this is for a windows console app, the same principles should apply.
source: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/ptorr/2014/12/10/async-exceptions-in-c/
using System;
using System.Runtime.CompilerServices;
using System.Threading;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace AsyncAndExceptions
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
AppDomain.CurrentDomain.UnhandledException += (s, e) => Log("*** Crash! ***", "UnhandledException");
TaskScheduler.UnobservedTaskException += (s, e) => Log("*** Crash! ***", "UnobservedTaskException");
RunTests();
// Let async tasks complete...
Thread.Sleep(500);
GC.Collect(3, GCCollectionMode.Forced, true);
}
private static async Task RunTests()
{
try
{
// crash
// _1_VoidNoWait();
// crash
// _2_AsyncVoidAwait();
// OK
// _3_AsyncVoidAwaitWithTry();
// crash - no await
// _4_TaskNoWait();
// crash - no await
// _5_TaskAwait();
// OK
// await _4_TaskNoWait();
// OK
// await _5_TaskAwait();
}
catch (Exception ex) { Log("Exception handled OK"); }
// crash - no try
// await _4_TaskNoWait();
// crash - no try
// await _5_TaskAwait();
}
// Unsafe
static void _1_VoidNoWait()
{
ThrowAsync();
}
// Unsafe
static async void _2_AsyncVoidAwait()
{
await ThrowAsync();
}
// Safe
static async void _3_AsyncVoidAwaitWithTry()
{
try { await ThrowAsync(); }
catch (Exception ex) { Log("Exception handled OK"); }
}
// Safe only if caller uses await (or Result) inside a try
static Task _4_TaskNoWait()
{
return ThrowAsync();
}
// Safe only if caller uses await (or Result) inside a try
static async Task _5_TaskAwait()
{
await ThrowAsync();
}
// Helper that sets an exception asnychronously
static Task ThrowAsync()
{
TaskCompletionSource tcs = new TaskCompletionSource();
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(_ => tcs.SetException(new Exception("ThrowAsync")));
return tcs.Task;
}
internal static void Log(string message, [CallerMemberName] string caller = "")
{
Console.WriteLine("{0}: {1}", caller, message);
}
}
}

Related

Blazor server side application throwing "System.InvalidOperationException: JavaScript interop calls cannot be issued at this time. ..." during reload

I have a file drop zone implemented in one of the pages of my blazor application, which is handled using the javascript runtime interface. In order to avoid memory leaks, I have a javascript method, which removes all the event listeners. This is called from the dispose function as follows:
public ValueTask DisposeAsync()
{
ViewModel.PropertyChanged -= OnPropertyChangedHandler;
GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
return JSRuntime.InvokeVoidAsync("deInitializeDropZone");
}
This works, however if I reload the page in my browser (F5, or reload button), I get the following exceptions:
fail: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Server.Kestrel[13]
Connection id "0HMI59N5RRGP7", Request id "0HMI59N5RRGP7:0000000E": An unhandled exception was thrown by the application.
System.InvalidOperationException: JavaScript interop calls cannot be issued at this time. This is because the component is being statically rendered. When prerendering is enabled, JavaScript interop calls can only be performed during the OnAfterRenderAsync lifecycle method.
at Microsoft.AspNetCore.Components.Server.Circuits.RemoteJSRuntime.BeginInvokeJS(Int64 asyncHandle, String identifier, String argsJson, JSCallResultType resultType, Int64 targetInstanceId)
at Microsoft.JSInterop.JSRuntime.InvokeAsync[TValue](Int64 targetInstanceId, String identifier, CancellationToken cancellationToken, Object[] args)
at Microsoft.JSInterop.JSRuntime.InvokeAsync[TValue](Int64 targetInstanceId, String identifier, Object[] args)
at Microsoft.JSInterop.JSRuntimeExtensions.InvokeVoidAsync(IJSRuntime jsRuntime, String identifier, Object[] args)
at Microsoft.AspNetCore.Components.RenderTree.Renderer.<>c__DisplayClass69_0.<<Dispose>g__HandleAsyncExceptions|1>d.MoveNext()
--- End of stack trace from previous location ---
at Microsoft.AspNetCore.Components.Rendering.HtmlRenderer.HandleException(Exception exception)
at Microsoft.AspNetCore.Components.RenderTree.Renderer.<>c__DisplayClass69_0.<Dispose>g__NotifyExceptions|2(List`1 exceptions)
at Microsoft.AspNetCore.Components.RenderTree.Renderer.<>c__DisplayClass69_0.<<Dispose>g__HandleAsyncExceptions|1>d.MoveNext()
--- End of stack trace from previous location ---
at Microsoft.AspNetCore.Components.RenderTree.Renderer.DisposeAsync()
at Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.ServiceLookup.ServiceProviderEngineScope.<DisposeAsync>g__Await|22_0(Int32 i, ValueTask vt, List`1 toDispose)
at Microsoft.AspNetCore.Http.Features.RequestServicesFeature.<DisposeAsync>g__Awaited|9_0(RequestServicesFeature servicesFeature, ValueTask vt)
at Microsoft.AspNetCore.Server.Kestrel.Core.Internal.Http.HttpProtocol.<FireOnCompleted>g__ProcessEvents|227_0(HttpProtocol protocol, Stack`1 events)
warn: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Components.Server.Circuits.RemoteRenderer[100]
Unhandled exception rendering component: JavaScript interop calls cannot be issued at this time. This is because the circuit has disconnected and is being disposed.
Microsoft.JSInterop.JSDisconnectedException: JavaScript interop calls cannot be issued at this time. This is because the circuit has disconnected and is being disposed.
at Microsoft.AspNetCore.Components.Server.Circuits.RemoteJSRuntime.BeginInvokeJS(Int64 asyncHandle, String identifier, String argsJson, JSCallResultType resultType, Int64 targetInstanceId)
at Microsoft.JSInterop.JSRuntime.InvokeAsync[TValue](Int64 targetInstanceId, String identifier, CancellationToken cancellationToken, Object[] args)
at Microsoft.JSInterop.JSRuntime.InvokeAsync[TValue](Int64 targetInstanceId, String identifier, Object[] args)
at Microsoft.JSInterop.JSRuntimeExtensions.InvokeVoidAsync(IJSRuntime jsRuntime, String identifier, Object[] args)
at Microsoft.AspNetCore.Components.RenderTree.Renderer.<>c__DisplayClass69_0.<<Dispose>g__HandleAsyncExceptions|1>d.MoveNext()
fail: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Components.Server.Circuits.CircuitHost[111]
Unhandled exception in circuit 'blLlOrw1UtfEHUoPBbO_N3peh7u3Or5Uk51p5RbR5xA'.
Microsoft.JSInterop.JSDisconnectedException: JavaScript interop calls cannot be issued at this time. This is because the circuit has disconnected and is being disposed.
at Microsoft.AspNetCore.Components.Server.Circuits.RemoteJSRuntime.BeginInvokeJS(Int64 asyncHandle, String identifier, String argsJson, JSCallResultType resultType, Int64 targetInstanceId)
at Microsoft.JSInterop.JSRuntime.InvokeAsync[TValue](Int64 targetInstanceId, String identifier, CancellationToken cancellationToken, Object[] args)
at Microsoft.JSInterop.JSRuntime.InvokeAsync[TValue](Int64 targetInstanceId, String identifier, Object[] args)
at Microsoft.JSInterop.JSRuntimeExtensions.InvokeVoidAsync(IJSRuntime jsRuntime, String identifier, Object[] args)
at Microsoft.AspNetCore.Components.RenderTree.Renderer.<>c__DisplayClass69_0.<<Dispose>g__HandleAsyncExceptions|1>d.MoveNext()
This will only happen on reload, if I switch to another page, the dispose function is called as well, but no exception.
I'm not entirely sure what the reason for this problem is. Maybe it could relate to the initialization as well, which happens after first render:
protected override async Task OnAfterRenderAsync(bool firstRender)
{
if (firstRender)
{
var authState = await AuthenticationStateTask;
var user = authState.User;
if (user.Identity.IsAuthenticated)
{
if (await ViewModel.LoadSelectedDatabase(DatasetID))
{
await JSRuntime.InvokeVoidAsync("initializeDropZone");
}
else
{
await JSRuntime.InvokeVoidAsync("alert", "The selected Dataset does not exist!");
NavigationManager.NavigateTo($"datasets");
}
}
}
await base.OnAfterRenderAsync(firstRender);
return;
}
Edit: Some more testing, exception is thrown before the await JSRuntime.InvokeVoidAsync("initializeDropZone"); is called after reload.
Edit#2: I also switched up the JS function:
public ValueTask DisposeAsync()
{
ViewModel.PropertyChanged -= OnPropertyChangedHandler;
GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
return JSRuntime.InvokeVoidAsync("console.log", "testilein");
//return JSRuntime.InvokeVoidAsync("deInitializeDropZone");
}
This will result in the same errors on reload.
Since it is impossible to call JavaScript when the SignalR connection is disconnected, I believe the recommended way is to wrap it in a try-catch and catch the JSDisconnectedException as shown below.
Since event listeners stop existing after a page reload there are no memory leaks.
Having said that, I agree this isn't very "elegant" though...
async ValueTask IAsyncDisposable.DisposeAsync()
{
try
{
ViewModel.PropertyChanged -= OnPropertyChangedHandler;
GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
await JSRuntime.InvokeVoidAsync("deInitializeDropZone");
}
catch (JSDisconnectedException ex)
{
// Ignore
}
}
Side note I made the implementation explicit since it is only accessed on an instance of the interface.
Adding to Jesse's answer:
I'm having the same issue as OP and currently looking for a proper solution. Seems there's a statement in the official docs, that confirm Jesse's answer:
Basically:
try-catch pattern
MutationObserver on client
JavaScript interop calls without a circuit
This section only applies to Blazor Server apps.
JavaScript (JS) interop calls can't be issued after a SignalR circuit
is disconnected. Without a circuit during component disposal or at any
other time that a circuit doesn't exist, the following method calls
fail and log a message that the circuit is disconnected as a
JSDisconnectedException:
JS interop method calls
IJSRuntime.InvokeAsync
JSRuntimeExtensions.InvokeAsync
JSRuntimeExtensions.InvokeVoidAsync)
Dispose/DisposeAsync calls on any IJSObjectReference.
In order to avoid logging JSDisconnectedException or to log custom
information, catch the exception in a try-catch statement.
For the following component disposal example:
The component implements IAsyncDisposable.
objInstance is an IJSObjectReference.
JSDisconnectedException is caught and not logged.
Optionally, you can log custom information in the catch statement at whatever log level you prefer. The following example doesn't log
custom information because it assumes the developer doesn't care about
when or where circuits are disconnected during component disposal.
C#
async ValueTask IAsyncDisposable.DisposeAsync()
{
try
{
if (objInstance is not null)
{
await objInstance.DisposeAsync();
}
}
catch (JSDisconnectedException)
{
}
}
If you must clean up your own JS objects or execute other JS code on
the client after a circuit is lost, use the MutationObserver pattern
in JS on the client.

should I add .then() after the async function call even when i don't need anything back from that function? [duplicate]

I would like to run this code with babel:
redisClientAsync.delAsync('key');
return await someOtherAsyncFunction();
inside an async function without await the first line. is this OK?
how else can I run something that I don't care?
Can I just fire the non-promisified function del('key',null) without a callback?
Yes, you can do that, and it will run the two asynchronous functions in parallel. You've just created a promise and thrown it away.
However, this means that when the promise is rejected you won't notice. You'll just get an unhandledRejection eventually which will crash your process if not handled.
Is this OK? How can I run something that I don't care?
Probably it's not OK. If you truly wouldn't care, you hadn't run it in the first place. So you should be clear and explicit what you care about (and what not):
do you want to wait? (for side effects)
do you need the result?
do you want to catch exceptions?
If you only want to wait and don't care for the result value, you can easily throw away the result:
void (await someAsyncFunction()); // or omit the void keyword,
// doesn't make a difference in an expression statement
If you don't care about exceptions, you can ignore them using
… someAsyncFunction().catch(function ignore() {}) …
You can throw that away, await it, do anything with it.
If you want the result, you have to await it. If you care about exceptions, but don't really want to wait, you may want to execute it in parallel with the following functions:
var [_, res] = await Promise.all([
someAsyncFunction(), // result is ignored, exceptions aren't
someOtherAsyncFunction()
]);
return res;
inside an async function without await the first line. is this OK?
Yes, there are cases where you'd want to do this which are perfectly reasonable. Especially where you don't care about the result - one example is an analytics tracking operation that should not interfere with business critical code.
how else can I run something that I don't care?
In many ways, however simply calling the promise function works. Your del without a callback would probably work in this case but some functions don't guard against not passing callbacks, so you can pass an empty function instead (.del('key', () => {})).
You do want to however make sure that you know about it failing, even if you don't want to disrupt the operation of code - so please consider adding a process.on("unhandledRejection', event handler to explicitly ignore these particular exceptions or suppress them via:
redisClient.delAsync('key').catch(()=>{});
Or preferably, something like:
redisClient.delAsync('key').catch(logErr);
From all the research I've made so far, I think it's fine to do it, as long as you guarantee that the function you are not awaiting for guarantees a way to handle its own errors in case that happens. For example, a try-catch wrapping the whole function body, like you see in the following snippet for the asyncFunction.
It doesn't matter if the function throws synchronously or asynchronously. It guarantees the your mainFunction will complete no matter what. That's the key point here.
If you don't guarantee that, you have to risks:
If it throws synchronously, your main function will not complete.
If it throws asynchronously, you'll get an unhandled excepction
// THIS IS SOME API CALL YOU DON'T WANT TO WAIT FOR
const mockAPI = () => {
console.log("From mockAPI");
return new Promise((resolve,reject) => {
setTimeout(() => reject("LATE THROW: API ERROR"), 500);
});
};
// THIS IS THE SOME ASYNC FUNCTION YOU CALL BUT NOT AWAIT FOR
const asyncFunction = async (syncThrow) => {
try {
console.log("Async function START");
if (syncThrow) throw new Error("EARLY THROW");
await mockAPI();
console.log("Async function DONE");
}
catch(err) {
console.log("From async function catch");
console.log(err.message || err);
return;
}
};
// THIS IS YOUR MAIN FUNCTION
const mainFunction = async (syncThrow) => {
try {
console.clear();
console.log("Main function START");
asyncFunction(syncThrow);
console.log("Main function DONE <<< THAT'S THE IMPORTANT PART");
}
catch(err) {
console.log("THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN");
console.log(err);
}
};
<div>
<button onClick="mainFunction(true)">Sync throw</button>
<button onClick="mainFunction(false)">Async throw</button>
</div>
Not in Node.js.
Node does not wait for ever-pending Promises. If other tasks are already completed and there is nothing left in the event loop, the Node process will be terminated even though there exists pending promise.
For the following script, if someOtherAsyncFunction() get resolved in 5 seconds, but redisClientAsync.delAsync('key') takes 10 seconds to execute, the Node process will be terminated after 5 seconds in theory, before the first line is resolved.
async function doSomething() {
redisClientAsync.delAsync('key');
return await someOtherAsyncFunction();
}
await doSomething();

Response from queue

I create a simple queue-job system with using BullQueue in TypeScript and NestJS like below:
async addToQueue(): Promise<void> {
try {
await this.reportQueue.add('generate_report', {
//some data
})
this.logger.log(`Added to queue.`)
} catch (error) {
this.logger.error(`Not added to Queue.`);
}
}
#Process('generate_report')
async generateReport(job: Job<{options: ReportFilterDto, context: CustomContext, reportType: Type, worktime?: WorktimeDto}>): Promise<any> {
try {
//some working code
} catch (error) {
//
}
}
#OnQueueActive()
async onActive(job: Job): Promise<void> {
//
}
#OnQueueCompleted()
async onCompleted(job: Job): Promise<void> {
//
}
#OnQueueWaiting()
async onWaiting(job: Job): Promise<void> {
//
}
#OnQueueFailed()
onError(job: Job<any>, error: BadRequestException): void {
//
}
i run my function addToQueue() from my controller where i provide a parameters, buuuuuut
it is possible to return any response to the client from the queue about sucessfull or failed job?
If it is possible can someone show how to do it?
thanks for any help
.////////////////////////.
Immediately, there isn't really any way. A queue is there so you can run asynchronous tasks without blocking your main thread or holding up your server in any way. If you were to want to return the result, depending on the job the queue is running, you could be waiting for a few seconds to a few days (a bit of an exaggeration, but it gets the point across). What you could do instead is one of two things (at least that come immediately to mind)
return an Id that you create that relates back to this job. When the job finishes, save the result with that Id to the database. Then, the user can request the status at any time.
Take note of the user who sent in the request, and send an email to that user once the job completes. This will require more integrations, but can get more accurate results over "Ping every so often and we'll tell you if it's done".
Both approaches are valid, and you could even make a combination of the two (probably the best of both worlds so you can save the results and alert the user when it's done).

Should we wait for promises to return before responding to web request? [duplicate]

I would like to run this code with babel:
redisClientAsync.delAsync('key');
return await someOtherAsyncFunction();
inside an async function without await the first line. is this OK?
how else can I run something that I don't care?
Can I just fire the non-promisified function del('key',null) without a callback?
Yes, you can do that, and it will run the two asynchronous functions in parallel. You've just created a promise and thrown it away.
However, this means that when the promise is rejected you won't notice. You'll just get an unhandledRejection eventually which will crash your process if not handled.
Is this OK? How can I run something that I don't care?
Probably it's not OK. If you truly wouldn't care, you hadn't run it in the first place. So you should be clear and explicit what you care about (and what not):
do you want to wait? (for side effects)
do you need the result?
do you want to catch exceptions?
If you only want to wait and don't care for the result value, you can easily throw away the result:
void (await someAsyncFunction()); // or omit the void keyword,
// doesn't make a difference in an expression statement
If you don't care about exceptions, you can ignore them using
… someAsyncFunction().catch(function ignore() {}) …
You can throw that away, await it, do anything with it.
If you want the result, you have to await it. If you care about exceptions, but don't really want to wait, you may want to execute it in parallel with the following functions:
var [_, res] = await Promise.all([
someAsyncFunction(), // result is ignored, exceptions aren't
someOtherAsyncFunction()
]);
return res;
inside an async function without await the first line. is this OK?
Yes, there are cases where you'd want to do this which are perfectly reasonable. Especially where you don't care about the result - one example is an analytics tracking operation that should not interfere with business critical code.
how else can I run something that I don't care?
In many ways, however simply calling the promise function works. Your del without a callback would probably work in this case but some functions don't guard against not passing callbacks, so you can pass an empty function instead (.del('key', () => {})).
You do want to however make sure that you know about it failing, even if you don't want to disrupt the operation of code - so please consider adding a process.on("unhandledRejection', event handler to explicitly ignore these particular exceptions or suppress them via:
redisClient.delAsync('key').catch(()=>{});
Or preferably, something like:
redisClient.delAsync('key').catch(logErr);
From all the research I've made so far, I think it's fine to do it, as long as you guarantee that the function you are not awaiting for guarantees a way to handle its own errors in case that happens. For example, a try-catch wrapping the whole function body, like you see in the following snippet for the asyncFunction.
It doesn't matter if the function throws synchronously or asynchronously. It guarantees the your mainFunction will complete no matter what. That's the key point here.
If you don't guarantee that, you have to risks:
If it throws synchronously, your main function will not complete.
If it throws asynchronously, you'll get an unhandled excepction
// THIS IS SOME API CALL YOU DON'T WANT TO WAIT FOR
const mockAPI = () => {
console.log("From mockAPI");
return new Promise((resolve,reject) => {
setTimeout(() => reject("LATE THROW: API ERROR"), 500);
});
};
// THIS IS THE SOME ASYNC FUNCTION YOU CALL BUT NOT AWAIT FOR
const asyncFunction = async (syncThrow) => {
try {
console.log("Async function START");
if (syncThrow) throw new Error("EARLY THROW");
await mockAPI();
console.log("Async function DONE");
}
catch(err) {
console.log("From async function catch");
console.log(err.message || err);
return;
}
};
// THIS IS YOUR MAIN FUNCTION
const mainFunction = async (syncThrow) => {
try {
console.clear();
console.log("Main function START");
asyncFunction(syncThrow);
console.log("Main function DONE <<< THAT'S THE IMPORTANT PART");
}
catch(err) {
console.log("THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN");
console.log(err);
}
};
<div>
<button onClick="mainFunction(true)">Sync throw</button>
<button onClick="mainFunction(false)">Async throw</button>
</div>
Not in Node.js.
Node does not wait for ever-pending Promises. If other tasks are already completed and there is nothing left in the event loop, the Node process will be terminated even though there exists pending promise.
For the following script, if someOtherAsyncFunction() get resolved in 5 seconds, but redisClientAsync.delAsync('key') takes 10 seconds to execute, the Node process will be terminated after 5 seconds in theory, before the first line is resolved.
async function doSomething() {
redisClientAsync.delAsync('key');
return await someOtherAsyncFunction();
}
await doSomething();

Can I fire and forget a promise in nodejs (ES7)?

I would like to run this code with babel:
redisClientAsync.delAsync('key');
return await someOtherAsyncFunction();
inside an async function without await the first line. is this OK?
how else can I run something that I don't care?
Can I just fire the non-promisified function del('key',null) without a callback?
Yes, you can do that, and it will run the two asynchronous functions in parallel. You've just created a promise and thrown it away.
However, this means that when the promise is rejected you won't notice. You'll just get an unhandledRejection eventually which will crash your process if not handled.
Is this OK? How can I run something that I don't care?
Probably it's not OK. If you truly wouldn't care, you hadn't run it in the first place. So you should be clear and explicit what you care about (and what not):
do you want to wait? (for side effects)
do you need the result?
do you want to catch exceptions?
If you only want to wait and don't care for the result value, you can easily throw away the result:
void (await someAsyncFunction()); // or omit the void keyword,
// doesn't make a difference in an expression statement
If you don't care about exceptions, you can ignore them using
… someAsyncFunction().catch(function ignore() {}) …
You can throw that away, await it, do anything with it.
If you want the result, you have to await it. If you care about exceptions, but don't really want to wait, you may want to execute it in parallel with the following functions:
var [_, res] = await Promise.all([
someAsyncFunction(), // result is ignored, exceptions aren't
someOtherAsyncFunction()
]);
return res;
inside an async function without await the first line. is this OK?
Yes, there are cases where you'd want to do this which are perfectly reasonable. Especially where you don't care about the result - one example is an analytics tracking operation that should not interfere with business critical code.
how else can I run something that I don't care?
In many ways, however simply calling the promise function works. Your del without a callback would probably work in this case but some functions don't guard against not passing callbacks, so you can pass an empty function instead (.del('key', () => {})).
You do want to however make sure that you know about it failing, even if you don't want to disrupt the operation of code - so please consider adding a process.on("unhandledRejection', event handler to explicitly ignore these particular exceptions or suppress them via:
redisClient.delAsync('key').catch(()=>{});
Or preferably, something like:
redisClient.delAsync('key').catch(logErr);
From all the research I've made so far, I think it's fine to do it, as long as you guarantee that the function you are not awaiting for guarantees a way to handle its own errors in case that happens. For example, a try-catch wrapping the whole function body, like you see in the following snippet for the asyncFunction.
It doesn't matter if the function throws synchronously or asynchronously. It guarantees the your mainFunction will complete no matter what. That's the key point here.
If you don't guarantee that, you have to risks:
If it throws synchronously, your main function will not complete.
If it throws asynchronously, you'll get an unhandled excepction
// THIS IS SOME API CALL YOU DON'T WANT TO WAIT FOR
const mockAPI = () => {
console.log("From mockAPI");
return new Promise((resolve,reject) => {
setTimeout(() => reject("LATE THROW: API ERROR"), 500);
});
};
// THIS IS THE SOME ASYNC FUNCTION YOU CALL BUT NOT AWAIT FOR
const asyncFunction = async (syncThrow) => {
try {
console.log("Async function START");
if (syncThrow) throw new Error("EARLY THROW");
await mockAPI();
console.log("Async function DONE");
}
catch(err) {
console.log("From async function catch");
console.log(err.message || err);
return;
}
};
// THIS IS YOUR MAIN FUNCTION
const mainFunction = async (syncThrow) => {
try {
console.clear();
console.log("Main function START");
asyncFunction(syncThrow);
console.log("Main function DONE <<< THAT'S THE IMPORTANT PART");
}
catch(err) {
console.log("THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN");
console.log(err);
}
};
<div>
<button onClick="mainFunction(true)">Sync throw</button>
<button onClick="mainFunction(false)">Async throw</button>
</div>
Not in Node.js.
Node does not wait for ever-pending Promises. If other tasks are already completed and there is nothing left in the event loop, the Node process will be terminated even though there exists pending promise.
For the following script, if someOtherAsyncFunction() get resolved in 5 seconds, but redisClientAsync.delAsync('key') takes 10 seconds to execute, the Node process will be terminated after 5 seconds in theory, before the first line is resolved.
async function doSomething() {
redisClientAsync.delAsync('key');
return await someOtherAsyncFunction();
}
await doSomething();

Categories