I am trying to detect user inactivity for a certain amount of time and based on it need to perform certain actions.
I am using localStorage for this so that i set the idle time start across all tabs open.
below is the relevant part of my code
const detect = () => {
//console.log(`time is ${idleStartTime}`);
if(Date.now() - getIdleStartTime() > ONE_HOUR){
console.log('idle time more than one hour....');
console.log(`${getIdleStartTime()} ended`);
alert('idle time more than one hour....');
} else {
idleAnimationFrameId = requestAnimationFrame(function() {
detect();
});
}
};
const startTimer = () => {
idleAnimationFrameId = requestAnimationFrame(function() {
detect();
});
};
function setIdleStartTime() {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
if (storageAvailable('localStorage')) {
// Yippee!
localStorage.setItem('idleStartTime', Date.now());
console.log('idle time has been set...');
resolve(true);
}
else {
// Too bad, no localStorage for us
console.log('no local storage support...');
reject('no local storage support.')
}
});
}
I mark the user as active if by listing to the following events. ['mousedown', 'mousemove', 'keydown', 'scroll', 'touchstart'];
function setEventListners() {
activityEvents.forEach(function(eventName) {
document.addEventListener(eventName, activity, true);
});
}
function activity() {
console.log('user activity detected...');
localStorage.setItem('idleStartTime', Date.now());
}
I see that in some cases there are 1.5K request sent in a very short time to localstorage to set the value. I see user activity detected... printed on the console around 1.5k times in matter of seconds.
My couple of questions are
will there be any performance issues as i am setting the value idleStartTime in localStorage and local storage set will be called thousands of time in a few seconds.
Are there any better alertnatives than using localStorage for my scenario.
Thanks.
Answer to Question-1
There will be no memory limit issue since every time you call localStorage.setItem, you are overwriting on the previous value. But you mentioned that your activity change is firing 1.5K times in a very short amount of time. That will increase disk usage(I/O) time.
Answer to Question-2
You can use setTimeout instead of event listeners. Many website use setTimeout 1 or 2 minutes to detect idle time. The logic is to check whether all your input fields are same as 2 minutes ago. If they are same then it is considered that the page is in idle mode for that amount of time. I know this approach seems ancient, but it will significantly reduce I/O time.
You can skip cursor move event. That alone will reduce the checking in a huge amount.
This article hit the top of HackerNews recently: http://highscalability.com/blog/2013/9/18/if-youre-programming-a-cell-phone-like-a-server-youre-doing.html#
In which it states:
The cell radio is one of the biggest battery drains on a phone. Every time you send data, no matter how small, the radio is powered on for up for 20-30 seconds. Every decision you make should be based on minimizing the number of times the radio powers up. Battery life can be dramatically improved by changing the way your apps handle data transfers. Users want their data now, the trick is balancing user experience with transferring data and minimizing power usage. A balance is achieved by apps carefully bundling all repeating and intermittent transfers together and then aggressively prefetching the intermittent transfers.
I would like to modify $.ajax to add an option like "doesn't need to be done right now, just do this request when another request is launched". What would be a good way to go about this?
I started with this:
(function($) {
var batches = [];
var oldAjax = $.fn.ajax;
var lastAjax = 0;
var interval = 5*60*1000; // Should be between 2-5 minutes
$.fn.extend({batchedAjax: function() {
batches.push(arguments);
}});
var runBatches = function() {
var now = new Date().getTime();
var batched;
if (lastAjax + interval < now) {
while (batched = batches.pop()) {
oldAjax.apply(null, batched);
}
}
}
setInterval(runBatches, interval);
$.fn.ajax = function() {
runBatches();
oldAjax.apply(null, arguments);
lastAjax = now;
};
})(jQuery);
I can't tell by the wording of the paper, I guess a good batch "interval" is 2-5 minutes, so I just used 5.
Is this a good implementation?
How can I make this a true modification of just the ajax method, by adding a {batchable:true} option to the method? I haven't quite figured that out either.
Does setInterval also keep the phone awake all the time? Is that a bad thing to do? Is there a better way to not do that?
Are there other things here that would cause a battery to drain faster?
Is this kind of approach even worthwhile? There are so many things going on at once in a modern smartphone, that if my app isn't using the cell, surely some other app is. Javascript can't detect if the cell is on or not, so why bother? Is it worth bothering?
I made some progress on adding the option to $.ajax, started to edit the question, and realized it's better as an answer:
(function($) {
var batches = [];
var oldAjax = $.fn.ajax;
var lastAjax = 0;
var interval = 5*60*1000; // Should be between 2-5 minutes
var runBatches = function() {
var now = new Date().getTime();
var batched;
if (lastAjax + interval < now) {
while (batched = batches.pop()) {
oldAjax.apply(null, batched);
}
}
}
setInterval(runBatches, interval);
$.fn.ajax = function(url, options) {
if (options.batchable) {
batches.push(arguments);
return;
}
runBatches();
oldAjax.apply(null, arguments);
lastAjax = now;
};
})(jQuery);
That was actually fairly straightforward. Is love to see a better answer though.
Does setInterval also keep the phone awake all the time? Is that a bad thing to do? Is there a better way to not do that?
From an iPhone 4, iOS 6.1.0 Safari environment:
A wrote an app with a countdown timer that updated an element's text on one-second intervals. The DOM tree had about medium complexity. The app was a relatively-simple calculator that didn't do any AJAX. However, I always had a sneaking suspicion that those once-per-second reflows were killing me. My battery sure seemed to deplete rather quickly, whenever I left it turned-on on a table, with Safari on the app's webpage.
And there were only two timeouts in that app. Now, I don't have any quantifiable proof that the timeouts were draining my battery, but losing about 10% every 45 minutes from this dopey calculator was a little unnerving. (Who knows though, maybe it was the backlight.)
On that note: You may want to build a test app that does AJAX on intervals, other things on intervals, etc, and compare how each function drains your battery under similar conditions. Getting a controlled environment might be tricky, but if there is a big enough difference in drain, then even "imperfect" testing conditions will yield noticeable-enough results for you to draw a conclusion.
However, I found out an interesting thing about how iOS 6.1.0 Safari handles timeouts:
The timeouts don't run their callbacks if you turn off the screen.
Consequentially, long-term timeouts will "miss their mark."
If my app's timer was to display the correct time (even after I closed and reopened the screen), then I couldn't go the easy route and do secondsLeft -= 1. If I turned off the screen, then the secondsLeft (relative to my starting time) would have been "behind," and thus incorrect. (The setTimeout callback did not run while the screen was turned off.)
The solution was that I had to recalculate timeLeft = fortyMinutes - (new Date().getTime() - startTime) on each interval.
Also, the timer in my app was supposed to change from green, to lime, to yellow, to red, as it got closer to expiry. Since, at this point, I was worried about the efficiency of my interval-code, I suspected that it would be better to "schedule" my color changes for their appropriate time (lime: 20 minutes after starting time, yellow: 30 mins, red: 35) (this seemed preferable to a quadruple-inequality-check on every interval, which would be futile 99% of the time).
However, if I scheduled such a color change, and my phone's screen was turned off at the target time, then that color change would never happen.
The solution was to check, on each interval, if the time elapsed since the last 1-second timer update had been ">= 2 seconds". (This way, the app could know if my phone had had its screen turned off; it was able to realize when it had "fallen behind.") At that point, if necessary, I would "forcibly" apply a color change and schedule the next one.
(Needless to say, I later removed the color-changer...)
So, I believe this confirms my claim that
iOS 6.1.0 Safari does not execute setTimeout callback functions if the screen is turned off.
So keep this in mind when "scheduling" your AJAX calls, because you will probably be affected by this behavior as well.
And, using my proposition, I can answer your question:
At least for iOS, we know that setTimeout sleeps while the screen is off.
Thus setTimeout won't give your phone "nightmares" ("keep it awake").
Is this kind of approach even worthwhile? There are so many things going on at once in a modern smartphone, that if my app isn't using the cell, surely some other app is. Javascript can't detect if the cell is on or not, so why bother? Is it worth bothering?
If you can get this implementation to work correctly then it seems like it would be worthwhile.
You will incur latency for every AJAX request you make, which will slow down your app to some degree. (Latency is the bane of page loading time, after all.) So you will definitely achieve some gain by "bundling" requests. Extending $.ajax such that you can "batch" requests will definitely have some merit.
The article you've linked clearly focuses on optimizing power consumption for apps (yes, the weather widget example is horrifying). Actively using a browser is, by definition, a foreground task; plus something like ApplicationCache is already available to reduce the need for network requests. You can then programmatically update the cache as required and avoid DIY.
Sceptical side note: if you are using jQuery as part of your HTML5 app (perhaps wrapped in Sencha or similar), perhaps the mobile app framework has more to do with request optimization than the code itself. I have no proof whatsoever, but goddammit this sounds about right :)
How can I make this a true modification of just the ajax method, by
adding a {batchable:true} option to the method? I haven't quite
figured that out either.
A perfectly valid approach but to me this sounds like duck punching gone wrong. I wouldn't. Even if you correctly default batchable to false, personally I would rather use a facade (perhaps even in its own namespace?)
var gQuery = {}; //gQuery = green jQuery, patent pending :)
gQuery.ajax = function(options,callback){
//your own .ajax with blackjack and hooking timeouts, ultimately just calling
$.ajax(options);
}
Does setInterval also keep the phone awake all the time? Is that a
bad thing to do? Is there a better way to not do that?
Native implementations of setInterval and setTimeout are very similar afaik; think of the latter not firing while the website is in the background for online banking inactivity prompts; when a page is not in the foreground its execution is basically halted. If an API is available for such "deferrals" (the article mentions of some relevant iOS7 capabilities) then it's likely a preferable approach, otherwise I see no reason to avoid setInterval.
Are there other things here that would cause a battery to drain
faster?
I'd speculate that any heavy load would (from calculating pi to pretty 3d transitions perhaps). But this sounds like premature optimization to me and reminds me of an e-reader with battery-saving mode that turned the LCD screen completely off :)
Is this kind of approach even worthwhile? There are so many things
going on at once in a modern smartphone, that if my app isn't using
the cell, surely some other app is. Javascript can't detect if the
cell is on or not, so why bother? Is it worth bothering?
The article pointed out a weather app being unreasonably greedy, and that would concern me. It seems to be a development oversight though more than anything else, as in fetching data more often than it's really needed. In an ideal world, this should be nicely handled on OS level, otherwise you'd end up with an array of competing workarounds. IMO: don't bother until highscalability posts another article telling you to :)
Here is my version:
(function($) {
var batches = [],
ajax = $.fn.ajax,
interval = 5*60*1000, // Should be between 2-5 minutes
timeout = setTimeout($.fn.ajax, interval);
$.fn.ajax=function(url, options) {
var batched, returns;
if(typeof url === "string") {
batches.push(arguments);
if(options.batchable) {
return;
}
}
while (batched = batches.shift()) {
returns = ajax.apply(null, batched);
}
clearTimeout(timeout);
timeout = setTimeout($.fn.ajax, interval);
return returns;
}
})(jQuery);
I think this version has the following main advantages:
If there is a non-batchable ajax call, the connection is used to send all batches. This Resets the timer.
Returns the expected return value on direct ajax calls
A direct processing of the batches can be triggered by calling $.fn.ajax() without parameters
As far as hacking the $.ajax method, I would :
try to also preserve the Promise mechanism provided by $.ajax,
take advantage of one of the global ajax events to trigger ajax calls,
maybe add a timer, to have the batch being called anyways in case no "immediate" $.ajax call is made,
give a new name to this function (in my code : $.batchAjax) and keep the orginal $.ajax.
Here is my go :
(function ($) {
var queue = [],
timerID = 0;
function ajaxQueue(url, settings) {
// cutom deferred used to forward the $.ajax' promise
var dfd = new $.Deferred();
// when called, this function executes the $.ajax call
function call() {
$.ajax(url, settings)
.done(function () {
dfd.resolveWith(this, arguments);
})
.fail(function () {
dfd.rejectWith(this, arguments);
});
}
// set a global timer, which will trigger the dequeuing in case no ajax call is ever made ...
if (timerID === 0) {
timerID = window.setTimeout(ajaxCallOne, 5000);
}
// enqueue this function, for later use
queue.push(call);
// return the promise
return dfd.promise();
}
function ajaxCallOne() {
window.clearTimeout(timerID);
timerID = 0;
if (queue.length > 0) {
f = queue.pop();
// async call : wait for the current ajax events
//to be processed before triggering a new one ...
setTimeout(f, 0);
}
}
// use the two functions :
$(document).bind('ajaxSend', ajaxCallOne);
// or :
//$(document).bind('ajaxComplete', ajaxCallOne);
$.batchAjax = ajaxQueue;
}(jQuery));
In this example, the hard coded delay fo 5 seconds defeats the purpose of "if less than 20 seconds between calls, it drains the battery". You can put a bigger one (5 minutes ?), or remove it altogether - it all depends on your app really.
fiddle
Regarding the general question "How do I write a web app which doesn't burn a phone's battery in 5 minutes ?" : it will take more than one magic arrow to deal with that one. It is a whole set of design decisions you will have to take, which really depends on your app.
You will have to arbitrate between loading as much data as possible in one go (and possibly send data which won't be used) vs fetching what you need (and possibly send many small individual requests).
Some parameters to take into account are :
volume of data (you don't want to drain your clients data plan either ...),
server load,
how much can be cached,
importance of being "up to date" (5 minutes delay for a chat app won't work),
frequency of client updates (a network game will probably require lots of updates from the client, a news app probably less ...).
One rather general suggestion : you can add a "live update" checkbox, and store its state client side. When unchecked, the client should hit a "refresh" button to download new data.
Here is my go, it somewhat grew out of what #Joe Frambach posted but I wanted the following additions:
retain the jXHR and error/success callbacks if they were provided
Debounce identical requests (by url and options match) while still triggering the callbacks or jqXHRs provided for EACH call
Use AjaxSettings to make configuration easier
Don't have each non batched ajax flush the batch, those should be separate processes IMO, but thus supply an option to force a batch flush as well.
Either way, this sucker would mostly likely be better done as a separate plugin rather than overriding and affecting the default .ajax function... enjoy:
(function($) {
$.ajaxSetup({
batchInterval: 5*60*1000,
flushBatch: false,
batchable: false,
batchDebounce: true
});
var batchRun = 0;
var batches = {};
var oldAjax = $.fn.ajax;
var queueBatch = function(url, options) {
var match = false;
var dfd = new $.Deferred();
batches[url] = batches[url] || [];
if(options.batchDebounce || $.ajaxSettings.batchDebounce) {
if(!options.success && !options.error) {
$.each(batches[url], function(index, batchedAjax) {
if($.param(batchedAjax.options) == $.param(options)) {
match = index;
return false;
}
});
}
if(match === false) {
batches[url].push({options:options, dfds:[dfd]});
} else {
batches[url][match].dfds.push(dfd);
}
} else {
batches[url].push({options:options, dfds:[dfd]);
}
return dfd.promise();
}
var runBatches = function() {
$.each(batches, function(url, batchedOptions) {
$.each(batchedOptions, function(index, batchedAjax) {
oldAjax.apply(null, url, batchedAjax.options).then(
function(data, textStatus, jqXHR) {
var args = arguments;
$.each(batchedAjax.dfds, function(index, dfd) {
dfd.resolve(args);
});
}, function(jqXHR, textStatus, errorThrown) {
var args = arguments;
$.each(batchedAjax.dfds, function(index, dfd) {
dfd.reject(args);
});
}
)
});
});
batches = {};
batchRun = new Date.getTime();
}
setInterval(runBatches, $.ajaxSettings.batchInterval);
$.fn.ajax = function(url, options) {
if (options.batchable) {
var xhr = queueBatch(url, options);
if((new Date.getTime()) - batchRun >= options.batchInterval) {
runBatches();
}
return xhr;
}
if (options.flushBatch) {
runBatches();
}
return oldAjax.call(null, url, options);
};
})(jQuery);
What this is all about
I am currently working on a script for emoticons on the Campfire Chat Service since they don't have an emoticon feature. Right now it is running the emoticon really slowly since it uses a setInterval that is suppose to check ever 200 milliseconds if there is a new message in the chat. I do this by making two variables "a" and "b" with var a,b;. So then in the first setInterval I time it with 150 millisecond. Inside of this I just give the variable "a" the value of the HTML of the chat. Then in the second setInterval (200) I give the variable "b" the value of the HTML too but this is a different timing so now I check the HTML in an if statement and if it is different I run the function to change the Symbol to an emoticon. I did it this was to improve performance. Before it would check for emoticons even though no one in the Campfire Chat actually wrote something so there is no need to check for emoticons.
This is the complete function:
var a, b;
setInterval(function() {
a = $('#chat').html();
console.warn("Chat HTML has been Scanned");
}, 150);
var t = "0";
setInterval(function() {
b = $('#chat').html();
console.warn("Chat got scanned for Change in html.");
if (emoOn == true) {
if (t === $('#num12345').text()) {
$(".participants").after('<div id="emote"><h3><span class="room_actions">On | Off</span>Emoticons</h3></div>');
$('#num12345').text("111")
}
if (a !== b) {
turnOn();
console.log("CHANGE")
} else {
turnOn("off");
}
}
}, 200);
The problem
As you can see in the above code I run 3 consoles. In the consoles I expect the "Chat HTML has been Scanned" warning to come for and then the "Chat got scanned for Change in html." in that order for the whole time. But instead the "Chat HTML has been Scanned" warning shoes up twice it just doesn't work like I image it to work.
And when a new message shows its suppose to log "Change" but most of the time it doesn't and I think it is the problem of the setIntervals. It seems like they aren't timing right. But I really don't wanna say that JavaScript is causing this issue but I don't know what else it could be. Also I'm using Chrome.
setInterval is asynchronous, so when your first call is waiting, the javascript interpreter moves on to it's next job (in this case setting t to "0" and then your second setInterval call).
Edit: I think the problem is that you're defining your setInterval calls at the same time, yet the precision of javascript timers is not that great (see here: http://ejohn.org/blog/accuracy-of-javascript-time/).
You could call the second setInterval after a setTimeout to give yourself a bit of a buffer:
var a, b;
setInterval(function() {
a = $('#chat').html();
console.warn("Chat HTML has been Scanned");
var t = "0";
}, 2000);
setTimeout(function(){
setInterval(function() {
b = $('#chat').html();
console.warn("Chat got scanned for Change in html.");
if (emoOn == true) {
if (t === $('#num12345').text()) {
$(".participants").after('<div id="emote"><h3><span class="room_actions">On | Off</span>Emoticons</h3></div>');
$('#num12345').text("111")
}
if (a !== b) {
turnOn();
console.log("CHANGE")
} else {
turnOn("off");
}
}
}, 2000);
}, 500);
This will set up the second call to setInterval half a second after the first, you could get away with a lot less than that though (anything over 30ms should be enough).
There has to be an easy way to do this, but I'm new to JS.
I have a javascript program that (1) takes user input, (2) updates the webpage based on that input, then (3) performs a lengthy calculation. The trouble is that the webpage doesn't register the update till after the lengthy calculation. Isn't there a way to pause execution so that the page can update before the long calculation?
I've tried setTimeout and window.setTimeout, but they made no difference.
The program is for playing a game: the user inputs a move, the script updates the position, then calculates its next move. postMessage prints text messages using div.innerHTML; buttonFn takes the input from the user, updates the position, prints a message, then starts the computer calculating.
function buttonFn(arg){
var hst = histButt;
hst.push(arg);
var nwmv = hst.clone();
postMessage("New move: " + nwmv.join());
if(status == opposite(comp) && !pauseQ){
var mvsposs = movesFromPos(posCur,status);
if(mvsposs.has(nwmv)){
updatePosCur(nwmv);
//waitasec();
if(comp == status && !pauseQ){
compTurn();
};
}
else{
histButt = nwmv;
};
};
};
yes there is, call your function like this. Using setTimeout will allow a page reflow prior to your JS executing.
function buttonFn(arg){
var hst = histButt;
hst.push(arg);
var nwmv = hst.clone();
postMessage("New move: " + nwmv.join());
if(status == opposite(comp) && !pauseQ){
var mvsposs = movesFromPos(posCur,status);
if(mvsposs.has(nwmv)){
updatePosCur(nwmv);
//waitasec();
if(comp == status && !pauseQ){
setTimeout(function(){
compTurn();
},0);
};
}
else{
histButt = nwmv;
};
};
};
Remember, JS is very event driven friendly. If you can move things off, and call them later do it. Thats the only way we can support multi-threaded like behavior.
setTimeout
If you only need to support modern browsers (or if you use a transpiler), you can now use ES6 features to make this much easier and more in the style the original questioner was trying to do. (I realize the question is 8 years old - no harm in a new, more current answer!)
For example you can do something like this:
// helper function to use a setTimeout as a promise.
function allowUpdate() {
return new Promise((f) => {
setTimeout(f, 0);
});
}
// An infinitely looping operation that doesn't crash the browser.
async function neverStopUpdating(someElement) {
let i = 0;
while (true) {
someElement.innerText = i;
i++;
await allowUpdate();
}
}
If you're trying to do a hard computation you'll want to make sure not to do this await too frequently - in this example, in Chrome at time of writing, i only increments by about 150 per second because the context switch of a setTimeout is not fast (where you'd get hundreds of thousands in a second if you didn't yield for updates). You'd likely want to find a balance, either always perform some number of iterations before allowing an update, or maybe eg. call Date.now() in your loop and yield for an update whenever 100ms have passed since the last time you allowed an update.
You can do the update, wait for a bit of time, than do the calculation.
OR
You can use webworkers on browsers that support them.
Without having actual code, that is the best answer that I can give you.
JavaScript is single threaded. If you do your calc server side you could get the results via ajax which is called asynchronously, not blocking your ui.
EDIT: I figured out the answer to the original YUI3 question I posted here, but it led to another one and instead of starting a new thread I thought I'd just add it here. Please scroll down for the new question (it's bolded).
Original question:
I'm having some issues creating a JavaScript countdown timer inside a YUI definition, my guess is something to do with object scoping. Here's my code:
YUI({combine: true, timeout: 10000}).use("node", function (Y) {
var timer = new function(){};
Y.augment(timer, Y.EventTarget);
timer.on('timer:down', function() {
Y.log('timer down event fired', 'event');
Y.Lang.later(1000, Y, timer_trigger());
});
timer.on('timer:end', function() {
Y.log('timer end event fired', 'event');
});
var timer_from;
function startTimer(seconds){ // start a coundown from seconds to 0
timer_from = seconds;
timer_trigger();
}
function timer_display(){
var mins = Math.floor(timer_from/60);
var secs = timer_from - mins*60;
var secsDisp = secs;
if(secs<10){
secsDisp = '0' + secs;
}
Y.one('#timer').set('innerHTML', mins + ':' + secsDisp);
}
function timer_trigger(){
Y.log('timer from is: '+timer_from);
if(timer_from > 0){
timer_from--;
timer_display();
if(timer_from > 0){
timer.fire('timer:down');
}
} else {
timer.fire('timer:end');
}
}
function initializePage(){
startTimer(900);
}
});
The error I'm getting is that it doesn't wait the 1000ms like I'm asking it to to call timer_trigger() and Safari eventually asks me whether I want to stop running the code. When I do a few seconds after loading the page, the timer is already down to about 3, 4 minutes.
I've also tried using setTimeout but that also produces the same result. Can anyone help? I would really appreciate it!
EDIT:
I actually figured out a solution - this came after hours of trying tons of things, but a few more Google searches can sometimes still produce new results/answers (I found the answer on this site, actually).
So apparently my code was creating a race condition, and all I had to do to fix it is this:
setTimeout(function(){
timer_trigger();
}, 1000);
I looked up race conditions, but it's unclear to me what it means in my case, and how the seemingly trivial change to my code fixed the issue I was having. So the original question in answered, but I'd like to turn this into the question that arose from the answer.
How does threading in JavaScript work and what cause my race condition, and why did the minor change in code fix the error I had?
The problem is not a race condition. The reason the additional call to setTimeout "fixes" your code is because of a logic flaw in timer_trigger. Consider what happens in the case where timer_from is 1 when the function is called. Neither timer:down nor timer:end will be triggered.
function timer_trigger(){
Y.log('timer from is: '+timer_from);
if(timer_from > 0){ // Since timer_from is 1, the if block is entered
timer_from--; // timer_from is 0
timer_display();
if(timer_from > 0){ // This block is not entered, but it has no matching else
timer.fire('timer:down');
}
} else { // The matching if block was entered, so this is not
timer.fire('timer:end');
}
}
You added this code:
setTimeout(function(){
timer_trigger();
}, 1000);
This causes timer_trigger to be called once more with timer_from already set to 0, allowing the else block to be executed.
Also note that
Y.Lang.later(1000, Y, timer_trigger());
executes timer_trigger immediately and passes the return value to Y.Lang.later. You probably meant
Y.Lang.later(1000, Y, timer_trigger);