I have a question about promises.
I am using Bluebird Promise library and build a small async library with it.
I am trying to waterfall promises with the use of a function.
Say I use promises like so:
Promise.resolve()
.then(function () {
console.log("called 1")
return 1;
}).then(function () {
return new Promise (function (res, rej) {
setTimeout(function () {
console.log("called 2")
res(2);
}, 1500);
});
}).then(function () {
console.log("called 3")
return 3;
});
This does in fact wait in a loop and return 1,2,3 in order.
How do I wrap it into a function so that I can do something like this:
a();b();c();, or a().b().c(); where a() puts something onto a chain, b() puts something onto a chain, and c() puts something onto a chain in order.
Since then() returns a new promise, it can all go out of order, so something like
does not work:
var promise = Promise.resolve();
function a () {
promise.then(function () {
// do sync/async
});
}
function b () {
promise.then(function () {
//do sync/async
});
}
function c ...
Thank you for your time :]
I'm not sure what the goal is here. Do you want to have an arbitrary number of things run in sequence where the sequence is known in advance? Or is this a case where the sequence is discovered as you go? The NodeJS streams interface is a lot better for processing an unknown number of things sequentially (#tadman)
Sequence is discoverable, goal is to have ability to call a().b().c() or b().a().d(). Async library on a client-side.
Update: If I do as #zerkms says it does not work as expected. My bad, should work ok, but with lack of context/code did not give me enough info to expand on. Still thank you for your answer, as it gave me more food for thought.
Update: See my answer
You could use a scoped prototype and just add those methods there
Promise.prototype.a = function() {
return this.then(function() {
console.log("called 1")
return 1;
});
};
Promise.prototype.b = function() {
return this.delay(1500).then(function() {
console.log("called 2")
return 1;
});
};
Promise.prototype.c = function() {
return this.then(function() {
console.log("called 3")
return 3;
});
};
I use this to create neat DSLs e.g. with git:
https://gist.github.com/petkaantonov/6a73bd1a35d471ddc586
Thanks to #tadman I came up with this so far, seems to work as I expect it to.
The problem was that I did not update the promise before calling then on it, and it was branching instead of calling it in sequence.
And this is what I wanted - to turn an object that has both sync/async into async to allow chaining. Petka (#Esailija) also shows great example of building DSLs above (semvar version bumping & git pushing) by extending bluebird library, but for my purposes this is enough.
var Sample = function () {
this.promise = Promise.resolve();
};
Sample.prototype.a = function () {
this.then(function () {
console.log("1");
});
return this;
};
Sample.prototype.b = function () {
this.then(function () {
return new Promise(function (res, rej) {
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("2");
res();
}, 500);
});
});
return this;
};
Sample.prototype.c = function () {
this.then(function () {
console.log("3");
})
return this;
};
Sample.prototype.chainPromise = function (func) {
this.promise = this.promise.then(func);
};
var s = new Sample();
s.a().b().c();
or even then instead of chainPromise?
Sample.prototype.then = function (func) {
this.promise = this.promise.then(func);
return this.promise;
};
Related
I was asked to create such an object called foo that can chain the function log and wait.
For example:
foo.log('breakfast').wait(3000).log('lunch').wait(3000).log('dinner');
In this scenario it prints breakfast first, waits 3 seconds, prints lunch, and then after 3 seconds it prints dinner.
I tried something like this, but it doesn't work. What did I miss?
var foo = {
log: function(text){
console.log(text);
return foo;
},
wait: function(time) {
setTimeout(function() {
return foo;
}, time);
}
}
foo.log('breakfast').wait(3000).log('lunch').wait(3000).log('dinner');
It's always better to use promises. An implementation of this functionality could be;
class Foo {
constructor(){
this.promise = Promise.resolve();
}
log(txt){
this.promise = this.promise.then(_ => console.log(txt))
return this;
}
wait(ms){
this.promise = this.promise.then(_ => new Promise(v => setTimeout(v,ms)));
return this;
}
}
var foo = new Foo();
foo.log("happy").wait(1000).log("new").wait(1000).log("year");
For the record, Redu's excellent answer without the class sugar.
See also
const foo = {
promise: Promise.resolve(),
log(txt) {
this.promise.then(_ => console.log(txt));
return this;
},
wait(ms) {
this.promise = this.promise.then(_ => new Promise(v => setTimeout(v, ms)));
return this;
}
};
// OR
const Foo = (defaultMs = 1000) => {
let promised = Promise.resolve();
return {
log(txt) {
promised.then(_ => console.log(txt));
return this;
},
wait: function(ms) {
promised = promised.then( _=>
new Promise( rs => setTimeout(rs, ms || defaultMs) ) );
return this;
}
};
};
foo.log("Happy").wait(1000).log("new").wait(1000).log("year");
Foo().wait(3000)
.log(`** From Foo ;)`).log(`Happy`).wait().log("new").wait().log("year");
Place the call to wait inside the previous one, and as the last item, like a recursive function.
meals=['breakfast','elevenses','lunch','afternoon tea','dinner','supper'];
c=0;
wait=t=>{setTimeout(function() {
if (c<meals.length) document.write(meals[c++],'<br>');wait(500);
}, t);}
wait(500);
I was inspired by #James 's solution, which is partially wrong because the log messages are in the reverse order, but he does not use Promises. I still think that #Redu 's solution should be the accepted one (after all if you can use Promises, that is perfect), but this one is interesting too in my opinion:
const foo1 = {
incrementalTimeout: 0,
nextActions: [],
log(text) {
const textLog = () => { console.log(text); };
if (this.incrementalTimeout == 0)
textLog();
else
this.nextActions.push(textLog);
return this;
},
wait(time) {
let newObj = {...this, incrementalTimeout: this.incrementalTimeout + time, nextActions: []};
setTimeout(() => { newObj.nextActions.forEach((action) => action()); } , newObj.incrementalTimeout);
return newObj;
}
}
foo1.log('breakfast').wait(1000).log('lunch').wait(3000).log('dinner');
The idea is that I do not immediately log text but I push a lambda with the console.log in an array that is going to be called after the correct timeout expires.
I run all the log and wait operations one after the other, but I keep track of the seconds to wait before executing the actions. Every time a new wait is called, the incrementalTimeout is increased by time. To keep the nextActions belonging to different time frames separated, I return a newObj every time, more or less like #James does.
Shorter, within Promise (not recommended).
Promise.prototype.log = function(txt) {
return this.then(() => console.log(txt))
}
Promise.prototype.wait = function(ms) {
return this.then(() => new Promise(res => setTimeout(res, ms)))
}
var foo = Promise.resolve()
foo.log('breakfast').wait(3000).log('lunch').wait(3000).log('dinner')
You can do it without promises:
const foo = {
log(text) {
return {...foo, start: () => {
this.start();
console.log(text);
}};
},
wait(time) {
return {...foo, start: () => {
setTimeout(this.start, time);
}};
},
start() {}
};
foo.log('breakfast').wait(3000).log('lunch').wait(3000).log('dinner').start();
The functions foo.log() and foo.wait() return immediately, returning a modified clone of foo. A clone is made using {...foo}, but with the start() function modified so that it calls the caller's this.start() followed by the new operation. When the chain is complete you call start() to start the actions.
You have a prototype object Foo with two async method calls, bar and baz.
var bob = new Foo()
Foo.prototype.bar = function land(callback) {
setTimeout(function() {
callback()
console.log('bar');
}, 3000);
};
Foo.prototype.baz = function land(callback) {
setTimeout(function() {
callback()
console.log('baz');
}, 3000);
};
We want to do bob.bar().baz() and have it log "bar" and "baz" sequentially.
If you cannot modify the method calls (including passing in your callback function), how can you pass a default callback into these method calls?
Some ideas:
Wrap "bob" with decorator (still fuzzy on how to implement, could use a small example)
Modify constructor to assign default callback if none assigned (have not considered if this is possible or not)
Use a generator wrapper that will continue to call next method until none are left?
The more recommended way instead is to use promises as this is the community-wide practice to do async work.
We want to do bob.bar().baz() and have it log "bar" and "baz"
sequentially.
Why would you want to do that just to achieve this bob.bar().baz() "syntax"? You could do it pretty neatly using the Promise API w/o additional efforts to make that syntax work that indeed increases code complexity reducing the actual readability.
So, you might want to consider using the promise-based approach like this. It offers much flexibility than what you would have achieved with your approach:
Foo.prototype.bar = function () {
return new Promise(function (resolve) {
setTimeout(function () {
resolve()
console.log('bar');
}, 3000);
};
};
Foo.prototype.baz = function () {
return new Promise(function (resolve) {
setTimeout(function () {
resolve()
console.log('baz');
}, 3000);
};
};
Now you'd do this to run them sequentially one after another:
var bob = new Foo();
bob.bar().then(function() {
return bob.baz();
});
// If you're using ES2015+ you could even do:
bob.bar().then(() => bob.baz());
If you need to chain more functions you could simply do it:
bob.bar()
.then(() => bob.baz())
.then(() => bob.anotherBaz())
.then(() => bob.somethingElse());
Anyway, if you're not used to using promises you might want to read this
Warning this isn't quite right yet. Ideally we'd subclass Promise and have proper then/catch functionality but there are some caveats with subclassing bluebird Promise. The idea is to store an internal array of promise generating functions, then when a Promise is waited on (then/await) serially wait on those promises.
const Promise = require('bluebird');
class Foo {
constructor() {
this.queue = [];
}
// promise generating function simply returns called pGen
pFunc(i,pGen) {
return pGen();
}
bar() {
const _bar = () => {
return new Promise( (resolve,reject) => {
setTimeout( () => {
console.log('bar',Date.now());
resolve();
},Math.random()*1000);
})
}
this.queue.push(_bar);
return this;
}
baz() {
const _baz = () => {
return new Promise( (resolve,reject) => {
setTimeout( () => {
console.log('baz',Date.now());
resolve();
},Math.random()*1000);
})
}
this.queue.push(_baz);
return this;
}
then(func) {
return Promise.reduce(this.queue, this.pFunc, 0).then(func);
}
}
const foo = new Foo();
foo.bar().baz().then( () => {
console.log('done')
})
result:
messel#messels-MBP:~/Desktop/Dropbox/code/js/async-chain$ node index.js
bar 1492082650917
baz 1492082651511
done
If you want to avoid callback hell and keep your sanity ES6 promises are the most appropriate approach for the sake of functional programming. You just chain up your sequential asynchronous tasks in the asynchronous timeline just like working in a synchronous timeline.
In this particular case you just need to promisify your asynchronous functions. Assume that your asynch functions takes a data and a callback like asynch(data,myCallback). Let us assume that the callback is error first type.
Such as;
var myCallback = (error,result) => error ? doErrorAction(error)
: doNormalAction(result)
When your asynch function is promisified, you will actually be returned a function which takes your data and returns a promise. You are expected to apply myCallback at the then stage. The return value of myCallback will then be passed to the next stage at where you can invoke another asynch function supplied with the return value of myCallback and this goes on and on as long as you need. So let's see how we shall implement this abstract to your workflow.
function Foo(){}
function promisify(fun){
return (data) => new Promise((resolve,reject) => fun(data, (err,res) => err ? reject(err) : resolve(res)));
}
function myCallback(val) {
console.log("hey..! i've got this:",val);
return val;
}
var bob = new Foo();
Foo.prototype.bar = function land(value, callback) {
setTimeout(function() {
callback(false,value*2); // no error returned but value doubled and supplied to callback
console.log('bar');
}, 1000);
};
Foo.prototype.baz = function land(value, callback) {
setTimeout(function() {
callback(false,value*2); // no error returned but value doubled and supplied to callback
console.log('baz');
}, 1000);
};
Foo.prototype.bar = promisify(Foo.prototype.bar);
Foo.prototype.baz = promisify(Foo.prototype.baz);
bob.bar(1)
.then(myCallback)
.then(bob.baz)
.then(myCallback)
I need to do this: browser have to make N requests to the server, requests mustn't be async, next requests are starting after previous requests will stop.
I can write some function A with for i < N i++ and calling this function A again recursively to do this, but it is not beautifull at all. Also, this called callback hell. I want some more beautifull solution.
I found deffered objects. Some says, it can help me to escape callback hell. I want something like this. setTimeout there is imitate one async request:
function foo1(some) {
debugger;
setTimeout(function foo1async() {
debugger;
deffered.resolve();
}, 500);
return deffered.promise;
}
function foo2(some) {
debugger;
setTimeout(function foo2async() {
debugger;
deffered.reject();
}, 500);
return deffered.promise;
}
function foo3() {
debugger;
setTimeout(function foo3async() {
debugger;
deffered.resolve();
}, 500);
return deffered.promise;
}
var deffered;
function doChain() {
debugger;
deffered = $q.defer();
var promise = deffered.promise;
promise.then(foo1);
promise.then(foo2);
promise.then(foo3);
promise["finally"](function () {
debugger;
});
deffered.resolve();
}
I expect foo1 to be called, then foo1async will be called and resolve deffered object.
foo2 must be called, then foo2async is called.
3.Now I expect, that foo3 wouldn't start, because deffered is rejected in foo2async. After that I expect foo in finally section called.
Actually, I have this:
foo1, foo2 and foo3 are called. Then foo in finally section called. Then foo1async, foo2async and foo3async funtions are called.
How I can get what I am expecting?
Actually, I will have something like this:
for(var i = 0; i < N; i++) {
(function (iter) {
promise.then(function () {
foo(iter);
});
})(i);
}
You got a few things wrong here.
First, you use a deferred to convert a callback-based async function into a promise-based - but each one needs its own deferred.promise and thus its own deferred. Actually, I prefer to use the $q constructor instead:
function fooN(input){
return $q(function(resolve, reject){
setTimeout(function(){
resolve(input + "; some more data");
}, 500);
});
}
(you could use var deferred = $q.defer() as well)
fooN now returns a promise, so you don't need to use $q.defer() anymore.
In fact, if the async function already was promise-based, like $timeout or $http, then you wouldn't have needed a deferred at all, for ex:
function fooN(input){
return $timeout(function(){
return input + "; some more data";
}, 500);
})
So, let's assume that foo1, foo2 and foo3 are implemented like fooN - all returning promises.
To make the calls sequential, you would need to chain promises - not to attach multiple handlers to the some root promise.
I'll break it down for you:
function doChain(){
var foo1Promise = foo1();
var foo2AfterFoo1Promise = foo1Promise.then(foo2);
var foo3AfterFoo2Promise = foo2AfterFoo1Promise.then(foo3);
var promise = foo3AfterFoo2Promise.then(function(finalData){
return doSomeProcessing(finalData); // if needed
});
promise.catch(function(error){
// "rethrow", if can't handle
return $q.reject({msg: "Some error occurred"});
})
return promise;
}
Or, the same, more concise:
function doChain(p){
return foo1(p)
.then(foo2)
.then(foo3)
.then(function(finalData){
return doSomeProcessing(finalData);
})
.catch(function(error){
return $q.reject({msg: "Some error occurred"});
});
}
A "promised" return value of each function is an input to the next chained function.
You can use $q.all method. For instance:
var promises = [promise1, promise2, ...];
$q.all(promises).then(function () {
// do something
});
What happens now is that all foo* promises depend on the single promise; when it gets resolved all are triggered. In ASCII art the dependencies are:
┎ foo1
promise ╁ foo2
┖ foo3
What you want is:
function doChain() {
foo1()
.then(foo2)
.then(foo3)
;
}
No need for the extra promise. No callback hell either!
let's take this as an example:
I have 3 urls in an array urls
require function returns a promise which just makes an $http call
this is a working code, but as the array can be '1 to n' this is obviously not what I want.
I need the 3 require as a waterfall, not in parallel.
in the last promise, I need to resolve a final promise which is the var deferred.
require(urls[0]).then(function () {
require(urls[1]).then(function () {
require(urls[2]).then(function () {
deferred.resolve();
});
});
})
this approach is not working, because this will do all the $http calls in parallel.
var promises = [];
angular.forEach(urls, function (value) {
promises.push(require(value));
});
$q.all(promises).then(function () {
deferred.resolve();
});
is there a nice way to do this with a for/cycle?
Create a function to handle the iterations:
function go (urls) {
if (urls[0]) {
require(urls[0]).then(function () {
go(urls.slice(1));
});
}
}
go(urls);
Here is an excellent blog post: http://www.codeducky.org/q-serial/
I will share only the part that is relevant.
First we define this helper method:
function serial(tasks) {
var prevPromise;
angular.forEach(tasks, function (task) {
//First task
if (!prevPromise) {
prevPromise = task();
} else {
prevPromise = prevPromise.then(task);
}
});
return prevPromise;
}
Then we use it.
serial([
function() { return require(urls[0]) },
function() { return require(urls[1]) },
function() { return require(urls[2]) }
]).then(function () {
deferred.resolve();
});
Just to offer another way, there's a "one-line" solution to this without having to make another method:
return promises.reduce($q.when, promises[0]);
See demo here: http://plnkr.co/edit/xlGxYj57lzXdAMM5Iv6s?p=preview (I changed the default $q.when to something else to show handling each promise.)
Update: Made the plunker more representative of OP's scenario.
Check out this code :
Link
<span>Moving</span>
$('#link').click(function () {
console.log("Enter");
$('#link').animate({ width: 200 }, 2000, function() {
console.log("finished");
});
console.log("Exit");
});
As you can see in the console, the "animate" function is asynchronous, and it "fork"s the flow of the event handler block code. In fact :
$('#link').click(function () {
console.log("Enter");
asyncFunct();
console.log("Exit");
});
function asyncFunct() {
console.log("finished");
}
follow the flow of the block code!
If I wish to create my function asyncFunct() { } with this behaviour, how can I do it with javascript/jquery? I think there is a strategy without the use of setTimeout()
You cannot make a truly custom asynchronous function. You'll eventually have to leverage on a technology provided natively, such as:
setInterval
setTimeout
requestAnimationFrame
XMLHttpRequest
WebSocket
Worker
Some HTML5 APIs such as the File API, Web Database API
Technologies that support onload
... many others
In fact, for the animation jQuery uses setInterval.
You can use a timer:
setTimeout( yourFn, 0 );
(where yourFn is a reference to your function)
or, with Lodash:
_.defer( yourFn );
Defers invoking the func until the current call stack has cleared. Any additional arguments are provided to func when it's invoked.
here you have simple solution (other write about it)
http://www.benlesh.com/2012/05/calling-javascript-function.html
And here you have above ready solution:
function async(your_function, callback) {
setTimeout(function() {
your_function();
if (callback) {callback();}
}, 0);
}
TEST 1 (may output '1 x 2 3' or '1 2 x 3' or '1 2 3 x'):
console.log(1);
async(function() {console.log('x')}, null);
console.log(2);
console.log(3);
TEST 2 (will always output 'x 1'):
async(function() {console.log('x');}, function() {console.log(1);});
This function is executed with timeout 0 - it will simulate asynchronous task
Here is a function that takes in another function and outputs a version that runs async.
var async = function (func) {
return function () {
var args = arguments;
setTimeout(function () {
func.apply(this, args);
}, 0);
};
};
It is used as a simple way to make an async function:
var anyncFunction = async(function (callback) {
doSomething();
callback();
});
This is different from #fider's answer because the function itself has its own structure (no callback added on, it's already in the function) and also because it creates a new function that can be used.
Edit: I totally misunderstood the question. In the browser, I would use setTimeout. If it was important that it ran in another thread, I would use Web Workers.
Late, but to show an easy solution using promises after their introduction in ES6, it handles asynchronous calls a lot easier:
You set the asynchronous code in a new promise:
var asyncFunct = new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
$('#link').animate({ width: 200 }, 2000, function() {
console.log("finished");
resolve();
});
});
Note to set resolve() when async call finishes.
Then you add the code that you want to run after async call finishes inside .then() of the promise:
asyncFunct.then((result) => {
console.log("Exit");
});
Here is a snippet of it:
$('#link').click(function () {
console.log("Enter");
var asyncFunct = new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
$('#link').animate({ width: 200 }, 2000, function() {
console.log("finished");
resolve();
});
});
asyncFunct.then((result) => {
console.log("Exit");
});
});
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.1.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
Link
<span>Moving</span>
or JSFiddle
This page walks you through the basics of creating an async javascript function.
Since ES2017, asynchronous javacript functions are much easier to write. You should also read more on Promises.
If you want to use Parameters and regulate the maximum number of async functions you can use a simple async worker I've build:
var BackgroundWorker = function(maxTasks) {
this.maxTasks = maxTasks || 100;
this.runningTasks = 0;
this.taskQueue = [];
};
/* runs an async task */
BackgroundWorker.prototype.runTask = function(task, delay, params) {
var self = this;
if(self.runningTasks >= self.maxTasks) {
self.taskQueue.push({ task: task, delay: delay, params: params});
} else {
self.runningTasks += 1;
var runnable = function(params) {
try {
task(params);
} catch(err) {
console.log(err);
}
self.taskCompleted();
}
// this approach uses current standards:
setTimeout(runnable, delay, params);
}
}
BackgroundWorker.prototype.taskCompleted = function() {
this.runningTasks -= 1;
// are any tasks waiting in queue?
if(this.taskQueue.length > 0) {
// it seems so! let's run it x)
var taskInfo = this.taskQueue.splice(0, 1)[0];
this.runTask(taskInfo.task, taskInfo.delay, taskInfo.params);
}
}
You can use it like this:
var myFunction = function() {
...
}
var myFunctionB = function() {
...
}
var myParams = { name: "John" };
var bgworker = new BackgroundWorker();
bgworker.runTask(myFunction, 0, myParams);
bgworker.runTask(myFunctionB, 0, null);
Function.prototype.applyAsync = function(params, cb){
var function_context = this;
setTimeout(function(){
var val = function_context.apply(undefined, params);
if(cb) cb(val);
}, 0);
}
// usage
var double = function(n){return 2*n;};
var display = function(){console.log(arguments); return undefined;};
double.applyAsync([3], display);
Although not fundamentally different than the other solutions, I think my solution does a few additional nice things:
it allows for parameters to the functions
it passes the output of the function to the callback
it is added to Function.prototype allowing a nicer way to call it
Also, the similarity to the built-in function Function.prototype.apply seems appropriate to me.
Next to the great answer by #pimvdb, and just in case you where wondering, async.js does not offer truly asynchronous functions either. Here is a (very) stripped down version of the library's main method:
function asyncify(func) { // signature: func(array)
return function (array, callback) {
var result;
try {
result = func.apply(this, array);
} catch (e) {
return callback(e);
}
/* code ommited in case func returns a promise */
callback(null, result);
};
}
So the function protects from errors and gracefully hands it to the callback to handle, but the code is as synchronous as any other JS function.
Unfortunately, JavaScript doesn't provide an async functionality. It works only in a single one thread. But the most of the modern browsers provide Workers, that are second scripts which gets executed in background and can return a result.
So, I reached a solution I think it's useful to asynchronously run a function, which creates a worker for each async call.
The code below contains the function async to call in background.
Function.prototype.async = function(callback) {
let blob = new Blob([ "self.addEventListener('message', function(e) { self.postMessage({ result: (" + this + ").apply(null, e.data) }); }, false);" ], { type: "text/javascript" });
let worker = new Worker(window.URL.createObjectURL(blob));
worker.addEventListener("message", function(e) {
this(e.data.result);
}.bind(callback), false);
return function() {
this.postMessage(Array.from(arguments));
}.bind(worker);
};
This is an example for usage:
(function(x) {
for (let i = 0; i < 999999999; i++) {}
return x * 2;
}).async(function(result) {
alert(result);
})(10);
This executes a function which iterate a for with a huge number to take time as demonstration of asynchronicity, and then gets the double of the passed number.
The async method provides a function which calls the wanted function in background, and in that which is provided as parameter of async callbacks the return in its unique parameter.
So in the callback function I alert the result.
MDN has a good example on the use of setTimeout preserving "this".
Like the following:
function doSomething() {
// use 'this' to handle the selected element here
}
$(".someSelector").each(function() {
setTimeout(doSomething.bind(this), 0);
});