I know JS is single threaded. But I have a function which takes time for the calculation. I would like it to work paralleled, so this function would not freeze next statement. Calculation inside of function will take approximately 1-2 seconds.
I used to create it using promise, but it still freeze the next statement.
console.log("start");
new Promise((res, rej) => {
/* calculations */
}).then((res) => console.log(res));
console.log("end");
Then I used setTimeout function with time interval 0. LoL
console.log("start");
setTimeout(() => {
/* calculations */
console.log(res);
}, 0);
console.log("end");
Outputs:
start
end
"calculation result"
Both cases shows similar result, but using promise prevented to show console.log("end") before calculation finishes. Using setTimeout works as I wanted, and shows console.log("end") before calculation, so it was not freeze till calculation done.
I hope it was clear enough. Now for me using setTimeout is the best solution, but I would be happy to hear your ideas or any other method calculating concurrently without setTimeout.
The code you write under new Promise(() => {..code here..}) is not asynchronous. The is a very common misconception that everything under the Promise block would run asynchronously.
Instead, this JS API just let's get us a hook of some deferred task to be done once the promise is resolved. MDN
Promises are a comparatively new feature of the JavaScript language that allow you to defer further actions until after a previous action
has completed, or respond to its failure. This is useful for setting
up a sequence of async operations to work correctly.
new Promise(() => {
// whatever I write here is synchromous
// like console.log, function call, setTimeout()/fetch()/async web apis
// if there are some async tasks like fetch, setTimeout.
// they can be async by themselves but their invocation is still sync
//
})
setTimeout is not the correct option either. Code under setTimeout would run when the event stack is empty and once it enters, it would block the main thread again.
The right approach to this would be to use Web Workers.
Related
i know this probably has been asked before, but coming from single-threaded language for the past 20 years, i am really struggling to grasp the true nature of node. believe me, i have read a bunch of SO posts, github discussions, and articles about this.
i think i understand that each function has it's own thread type of deal. however, there are some cases where i want my code to be fully synchronous (fire one function after the other).
for example, i made 3 functions which seem to show me how node's async i/o works:
function sleepA() {
setTimeout(() => {
console.log('sleep A')
}, 3000)
}
function sleepB() {
setTimeout(() => {
console.log('sleep B')
}, 2000)
}
function sleepC() {
setTimeout(() => {
console.log('sleep C')
}, 1000)
}
sleepA()
sleepB()
sleepC()
this outputs the following:
sleep C
sleep B
sleep A
ok so that makes sense. node is firing all of the functions at the same time, and whichever ones complete first get logged to the console. kind of like watching horses race. node fires a gun and the functions take off, and the fastest one wins.
so now how would i go about making these synchronous so that the order is always A, B, C, regardless of the setTimeout number?
i've dabbled with things like bluebird and the util node library and am still kind of confused. i think this async logic is insanely powerful despite my inability to truly grasp it. php has destroyed my mind.
how would i go about making these synchronous so that the order is always A, B, C
You've confirmed that what you mean by that is that you don't want to start the timeout for B until A has finished (etc.).
Here in 2021, the easiest way to do that is to use a promise-enabled wrapper for setTimeout, like this one:
const delay = (ms) => new Promise(resolve => setTimeout(resolve, ms));
Then, make sleepA and such async functions:
async function sleepA() {
await delay(3000);
console.log("sleep A");
}
async function sleepB() {
await delay(2000);
console.log("sleep B");
}
async function sleepC() {
await delay(1000);
console.log("sleep C");
}
Then your code can await the promise each of those functions returns, which prevents the code from continuing until the promise is settled:
await sleepA();
await sleepB();
await sleepC();
You can do that inside an async function or (in modern versions of Node.js) at the top level of a module. You can't use await in a synchronous function, since await is asynchronous by nature.
i think i understand that each function has it's own thread type of deal
No, JavaScript functions are just like those of other synchronous languages (despite its reputation, JavaScript itself is overwhelmingly synchronous; it's just used in highly-asynchronous environments and recently got some features to make that easier). More on this below.
ok so that makes sense. node is firing all of the functions at the same time, and whichever ones complete first get logged to the console. kind of like watching horses race. node fires a gun and the functions take off, and the fastest one wins.
Close. The functions run in order, but all that each of them does is set up a timer and return. They don't wait for the timer to fire. Later, when it does fire, it calls the callback you passed into setTimeout.
JavaScript has a main thread and everything runs on that main thread unless you explicitly make it run on a worker thread or in a child process. Node.js is highly asynchronous (as are web browsers, the other place JavaScript is mostly used), but your JavaScript code all runs on one thread by default. There's a loop that processes "jobs." Jobs get queued by events (such as a timer firing), and then processed in order by the event loop. I go into a bit more on it here, and the Node.js documentation covers their loop here (I think it's slightly out of date, but the principal hasn't changed).
Here is the code I'm running:
async function sleep(ms) {
const start = new Date();
while (new Date() - start < ms) { };
}
const start = new Date();
sleep(5000).then(() => console.log("1!"));
console.log(new Date() - start, "ms");
sleep(5000).then(() => console.log("2!"));
console.log(new Date() - start, "ms");
The output I would expect is this:
1 ms (or some other small number of ms)
2 ms (or some other small number of ms)
1!
2!
Instead what I see is this:
5000 ms
10005 ms
1!
2!
I'm a bit confused by this. Firstly, why are the two sleep functions not running asynchronously? Why doesn't the second call to sleep start until the first one is finished?
Secondly, if the second call doesn't start until the first is completed, why is 1! printed before 2!?
If I change the sleep(ms) function to the following, which was suggested in another StackOverflow question, the code works as expected:
function sleep(ms) {
return new Promise(res => setTimeout(res, ms));
}
If I replace sleep(ms) with some slow computation without using a timeout, what should I expect?
JavaScript isn't really multithreaded. It relies on two things to give that illusion:
Computers are really really fast and generally complete whatever needs to be done instantaneously as far as a human can tell
Because they are fast and the world is slow, computers spend a lot of time waiting for something to happen, and can profitably do something else in the meantime
Basically, JavaScript runs a thread until it either finishes, or is waiting for something to happen (e.g. an async network call), at which point JavaScript will switch to another thread, if there is one.
Your first sleep() function is a busy wait. It consumes 100% CPU doing nothing. More importantly, it never gives another thread a chance to run. The promise solution does it the JavaScript way: it ends almost immediately (thereby giving other threads a chance to run) and uses SetTimeout to regain control (in an async sort of way) when other threads aren't running.
The reason why the functions marked as async are not run concurrently with other code is that async does not cause a function to be asynchronous (!). Instead, this keyword marks a function as returning a Promise, and also enables some syntax sugar such as await.
This means that async has absolutely nothing to do with Threads, Tasks, or any other concurrency primitives known from other languages. In a JavaScript program, all visible code is executed in a single thread in a blocking fashion, and it runs to completion. This is why the long while loop blocks program flow.
Why does setTimeout work as expected? Because the code that actually runs is setTimeout and the res callback, nothing more. In the background, the event loop ensures that res is called eventually, but the machinery that handles this is hidden from the developer.
Let's look in depth at the first case.
What happens, step by step, is this - note that user code runs to completion in an uninterrupted fashion:
The first sleep() runs to completion, and its return value's .then() method is called, which enqueues a callback as a so-called microtask (which will log 1!) for the event loop to execute soon
The first console.log runs
The second sleep() runs to completion, and its return value's .then() method is called, which in turn enqueues another microtask
The second console.log runs
<The user program is now finished, but there is stuff in the event loop for the JS engine to process!>
The event loop processes the first microtask: () => console.log("1!")
The event loop processes the second microtask: () => console.log("2!")
<The event loop is now empty - execution is ended>
If you replace the body of the sleep() function with setTimeout, you'll notice that setTimeout itself is quick to execute - all it does is enqueue something for the event loop to process later and return. This is why the flow of execution is not blocked.
I am new to node js and trying to understand how to make async calls.
I am trying to wrap a function into a promise in order to make it async. For simplicity, the function is just a loop that takes time :
var p = new Promise(resolve => {
for (let i=0;i<999999999;i++){}
resolve('foo')
});
p.then(function (value) { console.log(value);});
console.log('bar');
I am expecting to see :
bar // printed immediately
foo // printed after the loop finishes
Instead, they are both printed after the loop completion.
How to make the loop block run asynchronously?
Ps. Apologies for the indentation/formatting, I had to write this from a phone.
Thanks
You seem to assume that "asynchronous code" involves concurrency, in the sense that code will run at the same time in another thread. That is not the case. Unless you start another thread by purpose, JS itself will run in a single thread. Therefore no matter what you do with promises: Either the loop runs first and then the logs run or the logs run first and then the loop runs.
You could also achieve concurrent execution through multitasking: If you stop the loop inbetween, other code can run in the meantime:
(async function() {
while(true) {
console.log("loop");
await Promise.resolve();
}
})();
console.log("in the meantime");
But there's nothing asynchronous about your promise. Creating a promise starts the execution of the function, and JS always runs to completion.
Typically, a promise is used to initiate something asynchronous, like an API call, or even a plain setTimeout, that runs outside JS's thread. Your code, however, will iterate through the empty loop bajillion times, and only after that any following lines will be run.
Replace the empty line with a timeout, and it will become async:
var p = new Promise(resolve => {
setTimeout(() => resolve("foo"), 2000);
});
p.then(function(value) {
console.log(value);
});
console.log('bar');
Firstly I am familiar with the concept of asynchronous/synchronous function.
There is also a lot of questions related to mine. But I can't find my answer anywhere.
So the question is:
Is there a way to return a value instead of a Promise using async/await ? As a synchronous function do.
For example:
async doStuff(param) {
return await new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
setTimeout(() => {
console.log('doStuff after a while.');
resolve('mystuffisdone'+param);
}, 2000);
});
}
console.log(doStuff('1'));
The only way to get the value of this function is by using the .then function.
doStuff('1').then(response => {
console.log(response); // output: mystuffisdone1
doOtherStuffWithMyResponse(response);
// ...
});
Now, what I want is:
const one = doStuff('1');
console.log(one) // mystuffisdone1
const two = doStuff('2');
console.log(two) // mystuffisdone2
To explain myself, I have an asynchronous library full of callbacks. I can turn this asynchronous behavior to a synchronous behavior by using Promises and async/await to faking a synchronous behavior.
But there is still a problem, it is still asynchronous in the end; outside of the scope of the async function.
doStuff('1').then((r) => {console.log(r)};
console.log('Hello wolrd');
It will result in: Hello world then mystuffisdone1. This is the expected behavior when using async/await functions. But that's not what I want.
Now my question would be: Is there a way to do the same thing as await do without the keyword async ? To make the code being synchronous ? And if not possible, why ?
Edit:
Thank you for all you answers, I think my question is not obsvious for all. To clear up what I think here is my comment to #Nikita Isaev answer.
"I understand why all I/O operations are asynchronously done; or done in parallel. But my question is more about the fact that why the engine doesn't block the caller of the sync function in an asynchronous manner ? I mean const a = doStuff(...) is a Promise. We need to call .then to get the result of this function. But why JavaScript or Node engine does not block the caller (just the block where the call is made). If this is possible, we could do const a = doStuff(...), wait and get the result in a without blocking the main thread. As async/await does, why there is no place for sync/wait ?"
Hope this is more clear now, feel free to comment or ask anything :)
Edit 2:
All precisions of the why of the answer are in the comments of the accepted answer.
There are some hacky ways to do what is desired, but that would be an anti-pattern. I’ll try to explain. Callbacks is one of the core concepts in javascript. When your code launches, you may set up event listeners, timers, etc. You just tell the engine to schedule some tasks: “when A happens, do B”. This is what asynchrony is. But callbacks are ugly and difficult to debug, that’s why promises and async-await were introduced. It is important to understand that this is just a syntax sugar, your code still is asynchronous when using async-await. As there are no threads in javascript, waiting for some events to fire or some complicated operations to finish in a synchronous way would block your entire application. The UI or the server would just stop responding to any other user interactions and would keep waiting for a single event to fire.
Real world cases:
Example 1.
Let’s say we have a web UI. We have a button that downloads the latest information from the server on click. Imagine we do it synchronously. What happens?
myButton.onclick = function () {
const data = loadSomeDataSync(); // 0
useDataSomehow(data);
}
Everything’s synchronous, the code is flat and we are happy. But the user is not.
A javascript process can only ever execute a single line of code in a particular moment. User will not be able to click other buttons, see any animations etc, the app is stuck waiting for loadSomeDataSync() to finish. Even if this lasts 3 seconds, it’s a terrible user experience, you can neither cancel nor see the progress nor do something else.
Example 2.
We have a node.js http server which has over 1 million users. For each user, we need to execute a heavy operation that lasts 5 seconds and return the result. We can do it in a synchronous or asynchronous manner. What happens if we do it in async?
User 1 connects
We start execution of heavy operation for user 1
User 2 connects
We return data for user 1
We start execution of heavy operation for user 2
…
I.e we do everything in parallel and asap. Now imagine we do the heavy operation in a sync manner.
User 1 connects
We start execution of heavy operation for user 1, everyone else is waiting for it to accomplish
We return data for user 1
User 2 connects
…
Now imagine the heavy operation takes 5 seconds to accomplish, and our server is under high load, it has over 1 million users. The last one will have to wait for nearly 5 million seconds, which is definitely not ok.
That’s why:
In browser and server API, most of the i/o operations are asynchronous
Developers strive to make all heavy calculation asynchronous, even React renders in an asynchronous manner.
No, going from promise to async/await will not get you from async code to sync code. Why? Because both are just different wrapping for the same thing. Async function returns immediately just like a promise does.
You would need to prevent the Event Loop from going to next call. Simple while(!isMyPromiseResolved){} will not work either because it will also block callback from promises so the isMyPromiseResolved flag will never be set.
BUT... There are ways to achieve what you have described without async/await. For example:
OPTION 1: using deasync approach. Example:
function runSync(value) {
let isDone = false;
let result = null;
runAsync(value)
.then(res => {
result = res;
isDone = true;
})
.catch(err => {
result = err;
isDone = true;
})
//magic happens here
require('deasync').loopWhile(function(){return !isDone;});
return result;
}
runAsync = (value) => {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
setTimeout(() => {
// if passed value is 1 then it is a success
if(value == 1){
resolve('**success**');
}else if (value == 2){
reject('**error**');
}
}, 1000);
});
}
console.log('runSync(2): ', runSync(2));
console.log('runSync(1): ', runSync(1));
OR
OPTION 2: calling execFileSync('node yourScript.js') Example:
const {execFileSync} = require('child_process');
execFileSync('node',['yourScript.js']);
Both approaches will block the user thread so they should be used only for automation scripts or similar purposes.
Wrap the outer body in an asynchronous IIFE:
/**/(async()=>{
function doStuff(param) { // no need for this one to be async
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => { // just return the original promise
setTimeout(() => {
console.log('doStuff after a while.');
resolve('mystuffisdone'+param);
}, 2000);
});
}
console.log(await doStuff('1')); // and await instead of .then
/**/})().then(()=>{}).catch(e=>console.log(e))
The extra cleanup of the doStuff function isn't strictly necessary -- it works either way -- but I hope it helps clarify how async functions and Promises are related. The important part is to wrap the outer body into an async function to get the improved semantics throughout your program.
It's also not strictly necessary to have the final .then and .catch, but it's good practice. Otherwise, your errors might get swallowed, and any code ported to Node will whine about uncaught Promise rejections.
I have an async function that runs by a setInterval somewhere in my code. This function updates some cache in regular intervals.
I also have a different, synchronous function which needs to retrieve values - preferably from the cache, yet if it's a cache-miss, then from the data origins
(I realize making IO operations in a synchronous manner is ill-advised, but lets assume this is required in this case).
My problem is I'd like the synchronous function to be able to wait for a value from the async one, but it's not possible to use the await keyword inside a non-async function:
function syncFunc(key) {
if (!(key in cache)) {
await updateCacheForKey([key]);
}
}
async function updateCacheForKey(keys) {
// updates cache for given keys
...
}
Now, this can be easily circumvented by extracting the logic inside updateCacheForKey into a new synchronous function, and calling this new function from both existing functions.
My question is why absolutely prevent this use case in the first place? My only guess is that it has to do with "idiot-proofing", since in most cases, waiting on an async function from a synchronous one is wrong. But am I wrong to think it has its valid use cases at times?
(I think this is possible in C# as well by using Task.Wait, though I might be confusing things here).
My problem is I'd like the synchronous function to be able to wait for a value from the async one...
They can't, because:
JavaScript works on the basis of a "job queue" processed by a thread, where jobs have run-to-completion semantics, and
JavaScript doesn't really have asynchronous functions — even async functions are, under the covers, synchronous functions that return promises (details below)
The job queue (event loop) is conceptually quite simple: When something needs to be done (the initial execution of a script, an event handler callback, etc.), that work is put in the job queue. The thread servicing that job queue picks up the next pending job, runs it to completion, and then goes back for the next one. (It's more complicated than that, of course, but that's sufficient for our purposes.) So when a function gets called, it's called as part of the processing of a job, and jobs are always processed to completion before the next job can run.
Running to completion means that if the job called a function, that function has to return before the job is done. Jobs don't get suspended in the middle while the thread runs off to do something else. This makes code dramatically simpler to write correctly and reason about than if jobs could get suspended in the middle while something else happens. (Again it's more complicated than that, but again that's sufficient for our purposes here.)
So far so good. What's this about not really having asynchronous functions?!
Although we talk about "synchronous" vs. "asynchronous" functions, and even have an async keyword we can apply to functions, a function call is always synchronous in JavaScript. An async function is a function that synchronously returns a promise that the function's logic fulfills or rejects later, queuing callbacks the environment will call later.
Let's assume updateCacheForKey looks something like this:
async function updateCacheForKey(key) {
const value = await fetch(/*...*/);
cache[key] = value;
return value;
}
What that's really doing, under the covers, is (very roughly, not literally) this:
function updateCacheForKey(key) {
return fetch(/*...*/).then(result => {
const value = result;
cache[key] = value;
return value;
});
}
(I go into more detail on this in Chapter 9 of my recent book, JavaScript: The New Toys.)
It asks the browser to start the process of fetching the data, and registers a callback with it (via then) for the browser to call when the data comes back, and then it exits, returning the promise from then. The data isn't fetched yet, but updateCacheForKey is done. It has returned. It did its work synchronously.
Later, when the fetch completes, the browser queues a job to call that promise callback; when that job is picked up from the queue, the callback gets called, and its return value is used to resolve the promise then returned.
My question is why absolutely prevent this use case in the first place?
Let's see what that would look like:
The thread picks up a job and that job involves calling syncFunc, which calls updateCacheForKey. updateCacheForKey asks the browser to fetch the resource and returns its promise. Through the magic of this non-async await, we synchronously wait for that promise to be resolved, holding up the job.
At some point, the browser's network code finishes retrieving the resource and queues a job to call the promise callback we registered in updateCacheForKey.
Nothing happens, ever again. :-)
...because jobs have run-to-completion semantics, and the thread isn't allowed to pick up the next job until it completes the previous one. The thread isn't allowed to suspend the job that called syncFunc in the middle so it can go process the job that would resolve the promise.
That seems arbitrary, but again, the reason for it is that it makes it dramatically easier to write correct code and reason about what the code is doing.
But it does mean that a "synchronous" function can't wait for an "asynchronous" function to complete.
There's a lot of hand-waving of details and such above. If you want to get into the nitty-gritty of it, you can delve into the spec. Pack lots of provisions and warm clothes, you'll be some time. :-)
Jobs and Job Queues
Execution Contexts
Realms and Agents
You can call an async function from within a non-async function via an Immediately Invoked Function Expression (IIFE):
(async () => await updateCacheForKey([key]))();
And as applied to your example:
function syncFunc(key) {
if (!(key in cache)) {
(async () => await updateCacheForKey([key]))();
}
}
async function updateCacheForKey(keys) {
// updates cache for given keys
...
}
This shows how a function can be both sync and async, and how the Immediately Invoked Function Expression idiom is only immediate if the path through the function being called does synchronous things.
function test() {
console.log('Test before');
(async () => await print(0.3))();
console.log('Test between');
(async () => await print(0.7))();
console.log('Test after');
}
async function print(v) {
if(v<0.5)await sleep(5000);
else console.log('No sleep')
console.log(`Printing ${v}`);
}
function sleep(ms : number) {
return new Promise(resolve => setTimeout(resolve, ms));
}
test();
(Based off of Ayyappa's code in a comment to another answer.)
The console.log looks like this:
16:53:00.804 Test before
16:53:00.804 Test between
16:53:00.804 No sleep
16:53:00.805 Printing 0.7
16:53:00.805 Test after
16:53:05.805 Printing 0.3
If you change the 0.7 to 0.4 everything runs async:
17:05:14.185 Test before
17:05:14.186 Test between
17:05:14.186 Test after
17:05:19.186 Printing 0.3
17:05:19.187 Printing 0.4
And if you change both numbers to be over 0.5, everything runs sync, and no promises get created at all:
17:06:56.504 Test before
17:06:56.504 No sleep
17:06:56.505 Printing 0.6
17:06:56.505 Test between
17:06:56.505 No sleep
17:06:56.505 Printing 0.7
17:06:56.505 Test after
This does suggest an answer to the original question, though. You could have a function like this (disclaimer: untested nodeJS code):
const cache = {}
async getData(key, forceSync){
if(cache.hasOwnProperty(key))return cache[key] //Runs sync
if(forceSync){ //Runs sync
const value = fs.readFileSync(`${key}.txt`)
cache[key] = value
return value
}
//If we reach here, the code will run async
const value = await fsPromises.readFile(`${key}.txt`)
cache[key] = value
return value
}
Now, this can be easily circumvented by extracting the logic inside updateCacheForKey into a new synchronous function, and calling this new function from both existing functions.
T.J. Crowder explains the semantics of async functions in JavaScript perfectly. But in my opinion the paragraph above deserves more discussion. Depending on what updateCacheForKey does, it may not be possible to extract its logic into a synchronous function because, in JavaScript, some things can only be done asynchronously. For example there is no way to perform a network request and wait for its response synchronously. If updateCacheForKey relies on a server response, it can't be turned into a synchronous function.
It was true even before the advent of asynchronous functions and promises: XMLHttpRequest, for instance, gets a callback and calls it when the response is ready. There's no way of obtaining a response synchronously. Promises are just an abstraction layer on callbacks and asynchronous functions are just an abstraction layer on promises.
Now this could have been done differently. And it is in some environments:
In PHP, pretty much everything is synchronous. You send a request with curl and your script blocks until it gets a response.
Node.js has synchronous versions of its file system calls (readFileSync, writeFileSync etc.) which block until the operation completes.
Even plain old browser JavaScript has alert and friends (confirm, prompt) which block until the user dismisses the modal dialog.
This demonstrates that the designers of the JavaScript language could have opted for synchronous versions of XMLHttpRequest, fetch etc. Why didn't they?
[W]hy absolutely prevent this use case in the first place?
This is a design decision.
alert, for instance, prevents the user from interacting with the rest of the page because JavaScript is single threaded and the one and only thread of execution is blocked until the alert call completes. Therefore there's no way to execute event handlers, which means no way to become interactive. If there was a syncFetch function, it would block the user from doing anything until the network request completes, which can potentially take minutes, even hours or days.
This is clearly against the nature of the interactive environment we call the "web". alert was a mistake in retrospect and it should not be used except under very few circumstances.
The only alternative would be to allow multithreading in JavaScript which is notoriously difficult to write correct programs with. Are you having trouble wrapping your head around asynchronous functions? Try semaphores!
It is possible to add a good old .then() to the async function and it will work.
Should consider though instead of doing that, changing your current regular function to async one, and all the way up the call stack until returned promise is not needed, i.e. there's no work to be done with the value returned from async function. In which case it actually CAN be called from a synchronous one.