I have a promise chain with a recursive promise doAsyncRecursive() in the middle like so:
doAsync().then(function() {
return doAsyncRecursive();
}).then(function() {
return doSomethingElseAsync();
}).then(function(result) {
console.log(result);
}).catch(errorHandler);
doAsyncRecursive() has to do something and if it at first does not succeed, i then after want to try every 5 seconds until it does. This is what my promise function looks like:
function doAsyncRecursive() {
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
//do async thing
if (success) {
resolve();
} else {
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
setTimeout(function() {
doAsyncRecursive();
}, 5000);
});
}
});
}
But when I execute, the chain does not continue after doAsyncRecursive() is successful on the 2nd try and resolve() is called (it continues if the attempt is successful on the 1st try however).
What pattern do I need to make this work?
Catch the failure, wait five seconds, then try again.
function doAsyncRecursive() {
return doAsyncThing().catch(function() {
return Promise.delay(5000).then(doAsyncRecursive);
});
}
Here doAsyncThing is a function corresponding to the //do async thing comment in the OP's code, defined as returning a promise. In the original code, the success or failure of the "do async thing" is tested using a success flag, but by definition asynchronous routines do not deliver such a flag; they deliver their results either via a callback or a promise. The code above assumes that doAsyncThing returns a promise. It also assumes that "failure", in the sense of "does not return the response i want", is represented by that promise rejecting. If instead "success" or "failure" is to be defined as some particular value of a fulfilled promise, then you'd want to do
function doAsyncRecursive() {
return doAsyncThing().then(function(success) {
if (success) return success;
else return Promise.delay(5000).then(doAsyncRecursive);
});
}
Related
I have a function called "test_sheet" that is supposed to return a value. that value will then be passed to a tester function which will tell me if I passed or failed the test.
inside my "test_sheet" I have a few async operations which are handled by promises.
now, how can I return a (non-promise) value from my test_sheet function.
function test_sheet()
{
//all my logic will go here
new Promise(function(resolve, reject)
{
//simulating an async operation
setTimeout(() => resolve(true), 1000);
})
.then(function(res){return res});
}
function tester()
{
//not allowed to change this function in any way
if(test_sheet() == true)
console.log("pass!");
else
console.log("fail!");
}
tester();
Is there any better way of doing this?
Well, technically it is possible, tester() may reamain intact:
var test_sheet=false;
function start_test()
{
//all my logic will go here
new Promise(function(resolve, reject)
{
//simulating an async operation
setTimeout(() => resolve(true), 1000);
})
.then(res => {
test_sheet=true;
tester();
});
}
function tester()
{
//not allowed to change this function in any way
test_sheet == true ? console.log("pass!") : console.log("fail!");
}
//tester();
start_test();
But the test starts with start_test() now, and test_sheet became a variable, with the sole purpose of acting as an argument - which could not be added to testing() without modifying it.
A nonworking bad design is transformed to working bad desing this way.
test_sheet() always returns a promise so try to get it resolved using async await or .then which feeds into the tester() function.
call you function this way:
test_sheet().then(function(test_sheet){
tester(test_sheet)})
for this you need to pass the boolean return value from test_sheet() to tester(test_sheet)
If you handle asynchronous code you have to use promise or callback and handle with async/await to change them to synchronous code
For example
function test_sheet()
{
//all my logic will go here
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
//simulating an async operation
setTimeout(() => resolve(true), 2000);
})
}
async function tester()
{
//not allowed to change this function in any way
await test_sheet() == true ? console.log("pass!") : console.log("fail!");
}
tester();
As I understand it, resolve and reject are specified in the callback provided to the promise constructor and invoked within the callback. But resolve and reject (I think) always do the same thing, so why do they even have to be specified?
EDIT: I should clarify: I do not think that resolve does the same thing as reject; I mean resolve seems to always resolve and reject always reject -- is there a way to pass in a function instead of resolve that does something else?
EDIT: To further clarify as I did in a comment below: if a Promise constructor takes a function which in turn takes resolve and reject and these are always to be called in the function, why must resolve and reject be specified as arguments at all?
Final Edit: I tried with foo instead of resolve and it still worked. How can that be? I did not define foo at all?? I probably am not understanding something about javascript beyond promises. code snippet where i changed resolve to foo
When you create a JS Promise, you expect some task to happen asynchronously. It is possible, that this task can succeed or fail. The success and failure are defined based on what the task is.
When you create a new Promise, you as the creator must specify what to do when the task is successful or is a failure. To communicate the same to the consumer of the promise resolve/reject come handy.
So when the consumer uses a then to check the output of the promise. what ever is returned by resolve is given to the consumer.
When the consumer uses a catch to check the output of the promise. whatever is returned by the reject is given to the consumer.
import {Promise} from 'es6-promise'
const foo = true;
const bar = new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
if (foo) {
resolve(4);
} else {
reject(2);
}
})
bar.then((value) => console.log(value)).catch((value) => console.log(value));
you can run the above sample by changing the value of foo to true/false and see for yourself what the output is.
I assume you are referring to the then() function which takes two callbacks, one when the promise is resolved and one when it is resolved. The pattern often looks like this:
myPromise.then(result => {
// do something here
},
error => {
}
);
If the promise is resolved everything went as expected and the first callback should proceed as normal. If the promise is rejected the second callback should perform error handling, possibly displaying an appropriate message to the user. These never do the same thing.
If you have logic that should always occur, whether there is an error or not, you should chain another call to then():
myPromise.then(result => {
// do something here
},
error => {
// do something here
}
).then(result => {
// do something here
}
);
This is conceptually the same as try...catch...finally from many programming languages.
Resolve and reject do not "do the same thing".
When you resolve a promise you are saying "this is the successful response of this promise".
When you reject a promise you are saying "this promise failed because...".
For example:
Imagine in the following examples accountApiRequest() actually does an API request to fetch an account. If there is no account it will most likely return null or throw an exception.
When a promise is successful you will resolve it. When a promise is not successful it will be rejected.
Successful promise
function accountApiRequest() {
return {
id: 1234,
username: 'Jim',
}
}
function getAccount() {
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
account = accountApiRequest()
if (!account) {
return reject('Unable to fetch account')
}
return resolve(account)
});
}
getAccount().then(console.log).catch(console.log)
Failed promise
function accountApiRequest() {
return null
}
function getAccount() {
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
account = accountApiRequest()
if (!account) {
return reject('Unable to fetch account')
}
return resolve(account)
});
}
getAccount().then(console.log).catch(console.log)
In the Promise constructor we have a callback which takes the resolve and reject methods as its arguments. After a Promise is created using the constructor a Promise can have three states:
Pending
Resolved
Rejected
When a promise is resolved then the callback which is passed in the then() method is called. If the promise is rejected the callback which is passed in the catch() method is called. For example:
const prom = new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
setTimeout(() => {
if(Math.random() > 0.5) {
resolve('resolved');
} else {
reject('rejected');
}
}
, 2000)
});
prom.then((val) => console.log('succes: ' + val))
.catch((val) => console.log('fail: ' + val))
In our example the resolve or reject is called in a setTimeout, therefore the status of the promise is the first 2 seconds pending. After the setTimeout is expired the Promise is either resolved or rejected based on the value of Math.random(). Then either the then or the catch callback is executed to handle the result of the promise.
When the promise is rejected the callback passed in the catch method is called
When the promise is resolved the callback passed in the then method is called
I had the same question when I read about Promises. And I came to understanding that you don't need to define resolve and reject functions by yourself (they will be ignored and standard resolve/reject functions will be called anyway): I think of them as special functions which let you indicate whether to resolve or reject the promise by calling one of them; and what value to return in each case by passing arguments to these functions. It doesn't matter how you name them in promise constructor - first argument is resolve function and the second - reject.
I have spent a ton of time trying to figure this out. Unfortunately, for anyone well versed with JS syntax, won't really understand the question...
For me, it was clear, after unraveling the concise JS syntactic sugar:
function promise_executor(resolve_callback_provided_by_promise_instance, reject_callback_provided_by_promise_instance) {
if (<some_condition>) {
// success
var response='bla';
resolve_callback_provided_by_promise_instance(response);
} else {
// fail
var error=new Error('failed');
reject_callback_provided_by_promise_instance(error);
}
}
var promise_instance = new Promise(promise_executor);
So the reject and resolve are just random names for callbacks that the promise instance will call.
They have proper interfaces, like both will take 1 param of type object. That param will be passed to either the Promise.then() or the Promise.catch().
resolve
reject
Then, when you use them, it is like this:
function success_callback(param_from_resolve) {
console.log('success() ', param_from_resolve);
}
function fail_callback(param_from_reject) {
console.log('fail(): ', param_from_reject);
}
promise_instance
.then(success_callback) // this will be the var 'resolve' from above
.catch(fail_callback); // this will be the var 'error' from above
The whole code flow is like this:
<at some point, your promise_executor() code is called with 2 functions, as parameters>
// obviously, the promise_executor() function has its own name in the Promise object
promise_executor(Promise.reject, Promise.resolve);
<promise_executor() will -hopefully- call either the resolve or the reject callback, which will in turn trigger either the callback of then() or catch()>
<say we have then()>
<the Promise code will take the response param from resolve_callback_provided_by_promise_instance(response) and give it to the callback from then()>
param_from_resolve(response)
It will go down something like this (THIS IS NOT what actually happens, as in reality, the micro-queue, the eventloop, etc. gets involved - this is a linearized version of the gist of what is happening):
What you see:
var promise = new Promise(promise_executor);
What is executed:
function Promise.constructor(exec_callback_fnc) {
var this = object();
this.exec_callback_fnc = exec_callback_fnc; // this is "promise_executor"
return this;
}
What you see:
// at some point in "this.exec_callback_fnc":
resolve_callback_provided_by_promise_instance(response)
What is executed:
function promise_instance.resolve(param) {
this.param_from_resolve = param;
promise_instance.resolved = true;
}
What you see:
promise_instance
.then(success_callback)
What is executed:
promise_instance.exec_callback_fnc(promise_instance.resolve, promise_instance.reject);
if (promise_instance.resolved) {
function promise_instance.then(callback_fnc) {
callback_fnc(this.param_from_resolve); // this is "success_callback"
}
}
Finally, let's see, how the syntax makes this whole thing more concise:
function promise_executor(resolve_callback_provided_by_promise_instance,
reject_callback_provided_by_promise_instance) {
if (<some_condition>) {
// success
var response='bla';
resolve_callback_provided_by_promise_instance(response);
} else {
// fail
var error=new Error('failed');
reject_callback_provided_by_promise_instance(error);
}
}
var promise_instance = new Promise(promise_executor);
function success_callback(param_from_resolve) {
console.log('success() ', param_from_resolve);
}
function fail_callback(param_from_reject) {
console.log('fail(): ', param_from_reject);
}
promise_instance
.then(success_callback)
.catch(fail_callback);
Will become:
new Promise((resolve_callback_provided_by_promise_instance,
reject_callback_provided_by_promise_instance) => {
if (<some_condition>) {
// success
var response='bla';
resolve_callback_provided_by_promise_instance(response);
} else {
// fail
var error=new Error('failed');
reject_callback_provided_by_promise_instance(error);
}})
// "response" -> "param_from_resolve"
.then((param_from_resolve) => { console.log('success() ', param_from_resolve); })
// "error" -> "param_from_reject"
.catch((param_from_reject) => { console.log('fail(): ', param_from_reject); });
Could someone help me why the promise within the promise.all i.e ( suggestRC and suggestGL) are not getting called? I would like to make sure the suggestRC and suggestGL are executed concurrently. That was the reason, I had written like this. extractIdeas is getting called but suggestRC and suggestGL are not getting called.
function suggestValues(editIdeaPanel) {
Requests.deckreposvc({searchIdeas: {searchString: searchReq}})
.then(extractIdeas)
.then(Promise.all([suggestRC, suggestGL]))
.catch(handleError);
}
function extractIdeas(searchRes) {
return searchRes.searchIdeas.data;
}
function suggestRC(ideas) {
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
//do something
}
resolve(ideas);
});
}
function suggestGL(ideas) {
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
if(!editIdeaPanel.wdGLeaderCombo.propertyValue.uuid) {
//do something
}
resolve(ideas);
});
}
You need to call those two functions (add parentheses) in a callback that you pass to then:
.then(data => Promise.all([suggestRC(data), suggestGL(data)]))
Also, you will want suggestValues to return the promise:
return Requests.deckreposvc( //...etc
I use the following code and there is something that a bit confuse me
if I put in the timeout 1000ms I see that the promise called in the right order
but if I change it to the following
This is step 3
This is step 2
This is step 1
I guess that this happen since when the function is resolved then he proceed to the next function am I correct ? if this is true how can I do this chain that when the first is finished then he proceed to the second etc but without using the promise hell :-)
https://jsfiddle.net/2yym400j/
var step1 = function(ms) {
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("This is step 1");
resolve();
}, ms);
})
}
var step2 = function(ms) {
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("This is step 2");
resolve();
}, ms);
})
};
var step3 = function(ms) {
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("This is step 3");
resolve();
}, ms);
})
};
step1(500)
.then(step2(300))
.then(step3(200))
.catch(function(err) {
console.log(err);
});
Just pass a function instead of the result of the steps.
step1(500)
.then(function() { return step2(300); })
.then(function() { return step3(200); })
.catch(function(err) {
console.log(err);
});
Without this, you are just calling each step without "blocking" for the previous step to resolve.
I know you've already gotten an answer as to why your original code didn't work, but I thought I'd show another way to approach it that is a bit more DRY than what you were doing. You can create a single function that returns a function and then you can use that in the fashion you were using because it returns a function that will be called later which is what .then() wants. So, you can do something like this:
function delay(t, msg) {
return function() {
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
setTimeout(function() {
console.log(msg);
resolve();
}, t);
});
}
}
delay(500, "This is step 1")()
.then(delay(300,"This is step 2"))
.then(delay(200, "This is step 3"))
.catch(function(err) {
console.log(err);
});
Working demo here: https://jsfiddle.net/jfriend00/mbpq4g8m/
Daniel White's comment and answer are correct, but I thought an additional explanation might help.
Your original code broke two rules:
then can't take a Promise, but it can take a function that returns a Promise. If you pass in anything except a function, it will be ignored, just like you passed in null instead.
As soon as you call new Promise(someFunction), the someFunction executes asynchronously without waiting for anything. This means you can call new Promise from within a then function, but if you call it early then it won't have the delayed behavior you're expecting.
So given that each call to stepN returns a newly-constructed promise, I've inlined everything that happens synchronously and renamed the results constructAndReturnPromiseN and constructedPromiseThatStepNReturns. That makes your original code looks like this so all the promises happen at once:
constructedPromise1ThatStep1Returns
.then(constructedPromise2ThatStep2Returns) // BAD: Don't pass promises into then.
.then(constructedPromise3ThatStep3Returns) // BAD: Don't pass promises into then.
.catch(function(err) {
console.log(err);
});
...where Daniel White's code does this:
constructedPromise1ThatStep1Returns
// GOOD: The then function returns a promise that is *constructed inside* the function.
.then(function() { return constructAndReturnPromise2(300); })
.then(function() { return constructAndReturnPromise3(200); })
.catch(function(err) {
console.log(err);
});
I am really hoping someone can help me with this issue despite my inability (confidentiality issues) to share too much information. Basically, I wrote this function to retry failed promises:
function retryOnFailure(func) {
return func().then(function(resp) {
return resp
}, function(err) {
return setTimeout(function() {
return retryOnFailure(func)
}, 5000)
}
)}
And then I have this code to utilize it:
function getStuff() {
return $.get('/some/endpoint')
}
retryOnFailure(getStuff).then(function(res) { console.log(res) })
Now the recursive retry function works fine, but my then in the last line of code doesn't fire in the event that an error case is reached in retryOnFailure. I know that the reason is because each recursive call creates a new promise so the promise that I'm listening to in my last line is not the same one that gets resolved, but I'm having difficulty figuring out how to remedy this. I want this function to be a generic retry function and as such don't want to handle the actual success in the method, but I'm not seeing any other way. Any help would be greatly appreciated!
return setTimeout(function() {
return retryOnFailure(func)
}, 5000)
looks like you're trying to do the right thing - return the next result from your .catch callback. However, setTimeout does not return a promise, so retryOnFailure() will be resolved immediately (with the timeout cancellation id).
Instead, you need to make sure that for all asynchronous functions that you use a promise is produced, so let's start by promisifying setTimeout:
function delay(ms) {
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
setTimeout(resolve, ms);
});
}
Now we can use that to chain the retry after a delay, and get a promise from it:
function retryOnFailure(func) {
return func().then(null, function(err) {
return delay(5000).then(function() {
return retryOnFailure(func);
});
});
}
Notice that instead of .then(null, …) you can also use .catch(…).
This is the first way that came to mind, there is probably a more elegant solution:
function retryOnFailure(func, onSuccess) {
return func().then(function(resp) {
onSuccess(resp);
}, function(err) {
return setTimeout(function() {
return retryOnFailure(func, onSuccess)
}, 5000)
}
)}
retryOnFailure(getStuff, function(res) { console.log(res) });
The problem is your call to setTimeout, it breaks the flow of your promise. Try something like this instead:
function retryOnFailure(func) {
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
func().then(function(resp) {
resolve(resp);
}).catch(function(err) {
setTimeout(function() {
retryOnFailure(func).then(resolve);
}, 5000)
});
});
};
retryOnFailure(getStuff).then(function(res) { console.log(res) });
Note how I've created a new promise inside the function which never throws an error, but instead will simply attempt to process the func() and recurse itself on failure.
It also may be a good idea to put some kind of retry-limit as well.
Good luck!