I have a cloud function in Firebase that, among a chain of promise invocations, ends with a call to this function:
function sendEmail() {
return new Promise((accept) => {
const Email = require('email-templates');
const email = new Email({...});
email.send({...}).then(() => {
console.log('Email sent');
}).catch((e) => {
console.error(e);
});
accept();
});
}
I am well aware of the fact that email.send() returns a promise. There's a problem however with this approach, that is, if I were to change the function to be:
function sendEmail() {
const Email = require('email-templates');
const email = new Email({...});
return email.send({...});
}
It usually results in the UI hanging for a significant amount of time (10+ seconds) because the time it takes from the promise to resolve equals the amount of time it takes for the email to send.
That's why I figured the first approach would be better. Just call email.send() asynchronously, it'll send the email eventually, and return a response to the client whether the email has finished its round trip or not.
The first approach is giving me problems. The cloud function finishes execution must faster, and thus ends up being a better experience for the user, however, the email doesn't send for another 15+ minutes.
I am considering another approach where we have a separate cloud function hook that handles the email sending, but I wanted to ask StackOverflow first.
I think there are two aspects being mixed here.
One side of the question deals with promises in the context of Cloud Functions. Promises in Cloud Functions need to be resolved before you call res.send() because right after this call the function will be shutdown and there's no guarantee that unresolved promises will complete before the function instance is terminated, see this question. You might as well never call res.send() and instead return the result of a promise as shown in the Firebase documentation, the key here would be to ensure the promise is resolved properly for example using an idiom like return myPromise().then(console.log); which will force the promise resolution.
Separately, as Bergi pointed out in the comments the first snippet uses an anti-pattern with promises and the second one is way more concise and clear. If you're experiencing a delay in the UI it's likely that the execution gets freezed waiting for the Function response and you might consider whether this could be avoided in your particular use case.
All that said, your last idea of creating a separate function to deal with the email send process would also likely reduce the response time and could even make more sense from a separation of concerns point of view. To go this route I would suggest to send a PubSub message from the main function so that a second one sends the email. Moreover, PubSub triggered function allows to configure retry policies which may be useful to ensure the mail will be sent in the context of eventual errors. This approach is also suggested in the question linked above.
Related
I'm having trouble understanding control flow with asynchronous programming in JS. I come from classic OOP background. eg. C++. Your program starts in the "main" -- top level -- function and it calls other functions to do stuff, but everything always comes back to that main function and it retains overall control. And each sub-function retains control of what they're doing even when they call sub functions. Ultimately the program ends when that main function ends. (That said, that's about as much as I remember of my C++ days so answers with C++ analogies might not be helpful lol).
This makes control flow relatively easy. But I get how that's not designed to handle event driven programming as needed on something like a web server. While Javascript (let's talk node for now, not browser) handles event-driven web servers with callbacks and promises, with relative ease... apparently.
I think I've finally got my head around the idea that with event-driven programming the entry point of the app might do little more than set up a bunch of listeners and then get out of the way (effectively end itself). The listeners pick up all the action and respond.
But sometimes stuff still has to be synchronous, and this is where I keep getting unstuck.
With callbacks, promises, or async/await, we can effectively build synchronous chains of events. eg with Promises:
doSomething()
.then(result => doSomethingElse(result))
.then(newResult => doThirdThing(newResult))
.then(finalResult => {
console.log(`Got the final result: ${finalResult}`);
})
.catch(failureCallback);
});
Great. I've got a series of tasks I can do in order -- kinda like more traditional synchronous programming.
My question is: sometimes you need to deviate from the chain. Ask some questions and act differently depending on the answers. Perhaps conditionally there's some other function you need to call to get something else you need along the way. You can't continue without it. But what if it's an async function and all it's going to give me back is a promise? How do I get the actual result without the control flow running off and eloping with that function and never coming back?
Example:
I want to call an API in a database, get a record, do something with the data in that record, then write something back to the database. I can't do any of those steps without completing the previous step first. Let's assume there aren't any sync functions that can handle this API. No problem. A Promise chain (like the above) seems like a good solution.
But... Let's say when I call the database the first time, the authorization token I picked up earlier for it has expired and I have to get a new one. I don't know that until I make that first call. I don't want to get (or even test for the need for) a new auth token every time. I just want to be able to respond when a call fails because I need one.
Ok... In synchronous pseudo-code that might look something like this:
let Token = X
Step 1: Call the database(Token). Wait for the response.
Step 2: If response says need new token, then:
Token = syncFunctionThatGetsAndReturnsNewToken().
// here the program waits till that function is done and I've got my token.
Repeat Step 1
End if
Step 3: Do the rest of what I need to do.
But now we need to do it in Javascript/node with only async functions, so we can use a promise (or callback) chain?
let Token = X
CallDatabase(Token)
.then(check if response says we need new token, and if so, get one)
.then(...
Wait a sec. That "if so, get one" is the part that's screwing me. All this asynchronicity in JS/node isn't going to wait around for that. That function is just going to "promise" me a new token sometime in the future. It's an IOU. Great. Can't call the database with an IOU. Well ok, I'd be happy to wait, but node and JS won't let me, because that's blocking.
That's it in a (well, ok, rather large) nutshell. What am I missing? How do I do something like the above with callbacks or Promises?
I'm sure there's a stupid "duh" moment in my near future here, thanks to one or more of you wonderful people. I look forward to it. 😉 Thanks in advance!
What you do with the .then call is to attach a function which will run when the Promise resolves in a future task. The processing of that function is itself synchronous, and can use all the control flows you'd want:
getResponse()
.then(response => {
if(response.needsToken)
return getNewToken().then(getResponse);
})
.then(() => /* either runs if token is not expired or token was renewed */)
If the token is expired, instead of directly scheduling the Promise returned by .then, a new asynchronous action gets started to retrieve a new token. If that asynchronous action is done, in a new task it'll resolve the Promise it returns, and as that Promise was returned from the .then callback, this will also then resolve the outer Promise and the Promise chain continues.
Note that these Promise chains can get complicated very quick, and with async functions this can be written more elegantly (though under the hood it is about the same):
do {
response = await getResponse();
if(response.needsToken)
await renewToken();
} while(response.needsToken)
Fist of all, I would recommend against using then and catch method to listen to Promise result. They tend to create a too nested code which is hard to read and maintain.
I worked a prototype for your case which makes use of async/await. It also features a mechanism to keep track of attempts we are making to authenticate to database. If we reach max attempts, it would be viable to send an emergency alert to administrator etc for notification purposes. This avoid the endless loop of trying to authenticate and instead helps you to take proper actions.
'use strict'
var token;
async function getBooks() {
// In case you are not using an ORM(Sequelize, TypeORM), I would suggest to use
// at least a query builder like Knex
const query = generateQuery(options);
const books = executeQuery(query)
}
async function executeQuery(query) {
let attempts = 0;
let authError = true;
if (!token) {
await getDbAuthToken();
}
while (attemps < maxAttemps) {
try {
attempts++;
// call database
// return result
}
catch(err) {
// token expired
if (err.code == 401) {
await getDbAuthToken();
}
else {
authError = false;
}
}
}
throw new Error('Crital error! After several attempts, authentication to db failed. Take immediate steps to fix this')
}
// This can be sync or async depending on the flow
// how the auth token is retrieved
async function getDbAuthToken() {
}
As I have heard, and actually know recursion is far not better solution for many cases if talk about sync code. But i would like to ask someone who more experienced than I am about the solution. What do you think about this code? It will work okay (as I suppose now - cause it is not syncronous) or may be it has some significant (or not so) drawbacks? Where? Why?
Guys, I would very appreciate your help, I'm doubtfull about this part of code.
Maybe there is a better solution for this?
I just want to have function which will be able to run promise function (class method) every exact time span + time for resolving this async functon.
If still enough clear.. Step by step it should -
exec target promise fn ->
waiting for resolve ->
waiting for interval ->
exec target promise fn.
And additionally it should stop if promise fn failed
Thanks in advance!
export function poll(fn: Function, every: number): number {
let pollId = 0;
const pollRecursive = async () => {
try {
await fn();
} catch (e) {
console.error('Polling was interrupted due to the error', e);
return;
}
pollId = window.setTimeout(() => {
pollRecursive();
}, every);
};
pollRecursive();
return pollId;
}
Although you have a call to pollRecursive within the function definition, what you actually do is pass a new anonymous function that will call pollRecursive when triggered by setTimeout.
The timeout sets when to queue the call to pollRecursive, but depending on the contents of that queue, the actually function will be run slightly later. In any case, it allows all other items in the queue to process in turn, unlike a tight loop / tight recursive calls, which would block the main thread.
The one addition you may want to add is more graceful error handling, as transient faults are common on the Internet (i.e. there are a lot of places where something can go missing, which makes regular failed request part of "normal business" for a TypeScript app that polls).
In your catch block, you could still re-attempt the call after the next timer, rather than stop processing. This would handle transient faults.
To avoid overloading the server after a fault, you can back off exponentially (i.e. double the every value for each contiguous fault). This reduces server load, while still enabling your application to come back online later.
If you are running at scale, you should also add jitter to this back off, otherwise the server will be flooded 2, 4, 8, 16, 32... seconds after a minor fault. This is called a stampede. By adding a little random jitter, the clients don't all come back at once.
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.
I'm building a blog site w/Express, and using Q for the first time, and I was hoping to tap into the knowledge of veteran Q users.
I'm making one request to my DB to load post data, and another request that hits the Instagram API (unless it's already cached) and returns some json. So I have something like:
Q.all([blogPromise, instagramPromise]).then(good, bad);
The issue/question I'm running into is that say my request fails in my instagramPromise and I call deferred.reject(), my bad function is called. However, I still want to load the page with the blog post data if my blogPromise resolves, but it seems I'm not getting any arguments when my bad function is called (e.g. I don't get the blogPromise data that was successfully fetched).
Given this, it seems my only option is to not call deferred.reject() when I have an error, and instead call deferred.resolve() with something like deferred.resolve({error: true}) which I can then use in my good function to handle what gets passed to my view.
So my question is, does this sound right? Is this not a misuse of Q using resolve when in fact I'm running into an error and should be using reject? Or am I missing something with Q that would allow a better approach?
If you want your promise to resolve when both blogPromise and instagramPromise either resolves or rejects, you need to use allSettled method. Here is an example from the documentation:
Q.allSettled([blogPromise, instagramPromise])
.then(function (results) {
var loaded = results.filter(function (result) {
return result.state === "fulfilled";
});
good(loaded);
});
Inside of allSettled's then callback you can filter successfully loaded results and pass them to the good function. Or handle failed results somehow with bad one.
Something like this perhaps?
Q.all([
blogPromise,
instagramPromise.catch(function() { return {error: true}; })
]).then(good, bad);
It's similar to the approach you mention, with the difference that the error suppression is done in the place where it's used, rather than in the place where the error originates.
Recently I made a webscraper in nodejs using 'promise'. I created a Promise for each url I wanted to scrape and then used all method:
var fetchUrlArray=[];
for(...){
var mPromise = new Promise(function(resolve,reject){
(http.get(...))()
});
fetchUrlArray.push(mPromise);
}
Promise.all(fetchUrlArray).then(...)
There were thousands of urls but only a few of them got timed out. I got the impression that it was handling 5 promises in parallel at a time.
My question is how exactly does promise.all() work. Does it:
Call each promise one by one and switch to the next one till the previous one is resolved.
Or does in process the promises in a batch of a few from the array.
Or does it fire all promises
What is the best way to solve this problem in nodejs. Because as it stands I can solve this problem way faster in Java/C#
What you pass Promise.all() is an array of promises. It knows absolutely nothing about what is behind those promises. All it knows is that those promises will get resolved or rejected sometime in the future and it will create a new master promise that follows the sum of all the promises you passed it. This is one of the nice things about promises. They are an abstraction that lets you coordinate any type of action (usually asynchronous) without regard for what type of action it is. As such, promises have literally nothing to do with the actual action. All they do is monitor the completion or error of the action and report that back to those agents following the promise. Other code actually runs the action.
In your particular case, you are immediately calling http.get() in a tight loop and your code (nothing to do with promises) is launching a zillion http.get() operations at once. Those will get fired as fast as the underlying transport can do them (likely subject to connection limits).
If you want them to be launched serially or in batches of say 10 at a time, then you have to code it that way yourself. Promises have nothing to do with that.
You could use promises to help you code them to launch serially or in batches, but it would take extra of your code to do that either way to make that happen.
The Async library is specifically built for running things in parallel, but with a maximum number in flight at any given time because this is a common scheme where you either have connection limits on your end or you don't want to overwhelm the receiving server. You may be interested in the parallelLimit option which lets you run a number of async operations in parallel, but with a maximum number in flight at any given time.
I would do it like this
Personally, I'm not a big fan of Promises. I think the API is extremely verbose and the resulting code is very hard to read. The method defined below results in very flat code and it's much easier to immediately understand what's going on. At least imo.
Here's a little thing I created for an answer to this question
// void asyncForEach(Array arr, Function iterator, Function callback)
// * iterator(item, done) - done can be called with an err to shortcut to callback
// * callback(done) - done recieves error if an iterator sent one
function asyncForEach(arr, iterator, callback) {
// create a cloned queue of arr
var queue = arr.slice(0);
// create a recursive iterator
function next(err) {
// if there's an error, bubble to callback
if (err) return callback(err);
// if the queue is empty, call the callback with no error
if (queue.length === 0) return callback(null);
// call the callback with our task
// we pass `next` here so the task can let us know when to move on to the next task
iterator(queue.shift(), next);
}
// start the loop;
next();
}
You can use it like this
var urls = [
"http://example.com/cat",
"http://example.com/hat",
"http://example.com/wat"
];
function eachUrl(url, done){
http.get(url, function(res) {
// do something with res
done();
}).on("error", function(err) {
done(err);
});
}
function urlsDone(err) {
if (err) throw err;
console.log("done getting all urls");
}
asyncForEach(urls, eachUrl, urlsDone);
Benefits of this
no external dependencies or beta apis
reusable on any array you want to perform async tasks on
non-blocking, just as you've come to expect with node
could be easily adapted for parallel processing
by writing your own utility, you better understand how this kind of thing works
If you just want to grab a module to help you, look into async and the async.eachSeries method.
First, a clarification: A promise does represent the future result of a computation, nothing else. It does not represent the task or computation itself, which means it cannot be "called" or "fired".
Your script does create all those thousands of promises immediately, and each of those creations does call http.get immediately. I would suspect that the http library (or something it depends on) has a connection pool with a limit of how many requests to make in parallel, and defers the rest implicitly.
Promise.all does not do any "processing" - it's not responsible for starting the tasks and resolving the passed promises. It only listens to them and checks whether they all are ready, and returns a promise for that eventual result.