I'm making requests to an API, but their server only allows a certain number of active connections, so I would like to limit the number of ongoing fetches. For my purposes, a fetch is only completed (not ongoing) when the HTTP response body arrives at the client.
I would like to create an abstraction like this:
const fetchLimiter = new FetchLimiter(maxConnections);
fetchLimiter.fetch(url, options); // Returns the same thing as fetch()
This would make things a lot simpler, but there seems to be no way of knowing when a stream being used by other code ends, because streams are locked while they are being read. It is possible to use ReadableStream.tee() to split the stream into two, use one and return the other to the caller (possibly also constructing a Response with it), but this would degrade performance, right?
Since fetch uses promises, you can take advantage of that to make a simple queue system.
This is a method I've used before for queuing promise based stuff. It enqueues items by creating a Promise and then adding its resolver to an array. Of course until that Promise resolves, the await keeps any later promises from being invoked.
And all we have to do to start the next fetch when one finishes is just grab the next resolver and invoke it. The promise resolves, and then the fetch starts!
Best part, since we don't actually consume the fetch result, there's no worries about having to clone or anything...we just pass it on intact, so that you can consume it in a later then or something.
*Edit: since the body is still streaming after the fetch promise resolves, I added a third option so that you can pass in the body type, and have FetchLimiter retrieve and parse the body for you.
These all return a promise that is eventually resolved with the actual content.
That way you can just have FetchLimiter parse the body for you. I made it so it would return an array of [response, data], that way you can still check things like the response code, headers, etc.
For that matter, you could even pass in a callback or something to use in that await if you needed to do something more complex, like different methods of parsing the body depending on response code.
Example
I added comments to indicate where the FetchLimiter code begins and ends...the rest is just demo code.
It's using a fake fetch using a setTimeout, which will resolve between 0.5-1.5 secs. It will start the first three requests immediately, and then the actives will be full, and it will wait for one to resolve.
When that happens, you'll see the comment that the promise has resolved, then the next promise in the queue will start, and then you'll see the then from in the for loop resolve. I added that then just so you could see the order of events.
(function() {
const fetch = (resource, init) => new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
console.log('starting ' + resource);
setTimeout(() => {
console.log(' - resolving ' + resource);
resolve(resource);
}, 500 + 1000 * Math.random());
});
function FetchLimiter() {
this.queue = [];
this.active = 0;
this.maxActive = 3;
this.fetchFn = fetch;
}
FetchLimiter.prototype.fetch = async function(resource, init, respType) {
// if at max active, enqueue the next request by adding a promise
// ahead of it, and putting the resolver in the "queue" array.
if (this.active >= this.maxActive) {
await new Promise(resolve => {
this.queue.push(resolve); // push, adds to end of array
});
}
this.active++; // increment active once we're about to start the fetch
const resp = await this.fetchFn(resource, init);
let data;
if (['arrayBuffer', 'blob', 'json', 'text', 'formData'].indexOf(respType) >= 0)
data = await resp[respType]();
this.active--; // decrement active once fetch is done
this.checkQueue(); // time to start the next fetch from queue
return [resp, data]; // return value from fetch
};
FetchLimiter.prototype.checkQueue = function() {
if (this.active < this.maxActive && this.queue.length) {
// shfit, pulls from start of array. This gives first in, first out.
const next = this.queue.shift();
next('resolved'); // resolve promise, value doesn't matter
}
}
const limiter = new FetchLimiter();
for (let i = 0; i < 9; i++) {
limiter.fetch('/mypage/' + i)
.then(x => console.log(' - .then ' + x));
}
})();
Caveats:
I'm not 100% sure if the body is still streaming when the promise resolves...that seems to be a concern for you. However if that's a problem you could use one of the Body mixin methods like blob or text or json, which doesn't resolve until the body content is completely parsed (see here)
I intentionally kept it very short (like 15 lines of actual code) as a very simple proof of concept. You'd want to add some error handling in production code, so that if the fetch rejects because of a connection error or something that you still decrement the active counter and start the next fetch.
Of course it's also using async/await syntax, because it's so much easier to read. If you need to support older browsers, you'd want to rewrite with Promises or transpile with babel or equivalent.
Related
so basically i have a web application that retrieves data from firebase. and since it takes a lot of time to retrieve data from firebase, i used promise to make my code to populate at the right time. here is my code:
var promise = getDataFirebase();
promise.then(function () {
console.log(Collect);
console.log("firsst");
return getDataFirebaseUser();
}).then(function () {
console.log("Second");
});
function getDataFirebase() {
return new Promise(function (resolve, reject) {
refReview.on("value", function (snap) {
var data = snap.val();
for (var key in data) {
Collect.push({
"RevieweeName": data[key].revieweeID.firstname.concat(" ", data[key].revieweeID.lastname),
"ReviewerName": data[key].reviewerID.firstname.concat(" ", data[key].reviewerID.lastname),
rating: data[key].rating,
content: data[key].content,
keyOfReviewee: data[key].revieweeID.userID
})
var getDataToUsers = firebase.database().ref("users").child(data[key].revieweeID.userID);
getDataToUsers.once("value", async function (snap) {
var fnLn = snap.val();
var first = fnLn.isTerminated;
console.log("terminateStatus", first);
});
}//end of for loop
resolve();
}); //end of snap
});
}
so in function getDataFirebase, data is retrieved from firebase and is push to an array called , Collect. So, after pushing 1 row, it query again to the firebase for another table of data then continues the loop. The problem here is that, i wanted to finish all processes before it resolves the promise.
the output of console according to the code is as follow:
Collect (array)
first
Second
terminateStatus, 1
it must be
Collect (array)
first
terminateStatus,1
second
I'm not 100% sure how your code is working but it looks like you're doing the right thing on refReview.on("value"): creating a promise before calling Firebase, and then resolving it afterwards. But you're not doing that on getDataToUsers.once("value"). There, you're firing the event and not waiting for it to return — the for-loop continues on, and all the callbacks are processed later, but resolve is at the end of the for-loop, so it's too late by then.
My guess is that you thought the async keyword would cause the for-loop to wait for that job to complete, but actually all it does here is cause the callback to return a promise — which is ignored by the on function.
You have a few options, but probably the best will be to use Promise.all, which accepts an array of promises and waits for them all to be resolved — but you should probably use Firebase's Promise API rather than bolting promises onto the event API. So it'll look something like:
refReview.once('value')
.then(snap => Promise.all(snap.val().map(item =>
firebase.database()
.ref("users")
.child(item.revieweeID.userID)
.once('value')
.then(snap => {
console.log('terminated');
])
})));
(except with the actual functionality added in, natch)
I understand that this is a basic question, but I can't figure it out myself, how to export my variable "X" (which is actually a JSON object) out of "for" cycle. I have tried a various ways, but in my case function return not the JSON.object itself, but a "promise.pending".
I guess that someone more expirienced with this will help me out. My code:
for (let i = 0; i < server.length; i++) {
const fetch = require("node-fetch");
const url = ''+(server[i].name)+'';
const getData = async url => {
try {
const response = await fetch(url);
return await response.json();
} catch (error) {
console.log(error);
}
};
getData(url).then(function(result) { //promise.pending w/o .then
let x = result; //here is real JSON that I want to export
});
}
console.log(x); // -element is not exported :(
Here's some cleaner ES6 code you may wish to try:
const fetch = require("node-fetch");
Promise.all(
server.map((srv) => {
const url = String(srv.name);
return fetch(url)
.then((response) => response.json())
.catch((err) => console.log(err));
})
)
.then((results) => {
console.log(results);
})
.catch((err) => {
console.log('total failure!');
console.log(err);
});
How does it work?
Using Array.map, it transforms the list of servers into a list of promises which are executed in parallel. Each promise does two things:
fetch the URL
extract JSON response
If either step fails, that one promise rejects, which will then cause the whole series to reject immediately.
Why do I think this is better than the accepted answer? In a word, it's cleaner. It doesn't mix explicit promises with async/await, which can make asynchronous logic muddier than necessary. It doesn't import the fetch library on every loop iteration. It converts the server URL to a string explicitly, rather than relying on implicit coercion. It doesn't create unnecessary variables, and it avoids the needless for loop.
Whether you accept it or not, I offer it up as another view on the same problem, solved in what I think is a maximally elegant and clear way.
Why is this so hard? Why is async work so counterintuitive?
Doing async work requires being comfortable with something known as "continuation passing style." An asynchronous task is, by definition, non-blocking -- program execution does not wait for the task to complete before moving to the next statement. But we often do async work because subsequent statements require data that is not yet available. Thus, we have the callback function, then the Promise, and now async/await. The first two solve the problem with a mechanism that allows you to provide "packages" of work to do once an asynchronous task is complete -- "continuations," where execution will resume once some condition obtains. There is absolutely no difference between a boring node-style callback function and the .then of a Promise: both accept functions, and both will execute those functions at specific times and with specific data. The key job of the callback function is to act as a receptacle for data about the asynchronous task.
This pattern complicates not only basic variable scoping, which was your main concern, but also the issue of how best to express complicated workflows, which are often a mix of blocking and non-blocking statements. If doing async work requires providing lots of "continuations" in the form of functions, then we know that doing this work will be a constant battle against the proliferation of a million little functions, a million things needing names that must be unique and clear. This is a problem that cannot be solved with a library. It requires adapting one's style to the changed terrain.
The less your feet touch the ground, the better. :)
Javascript builds on the concept of promises. When you ask getData to to do its work, what is says is that, "OK, this is going to take some time, but I promise that I'll let you know after the work is done. So please have faith on my promise, I'll let you know once the work is complete", and it immediately gives you a promise to you.
That's what you see as promise.pending. It's pending because it is not completed yet. Now you should register a certain task (or function) with that promise for getData to call when he completes the work.
function doSomething(){
var promiseArray = [];
for (let i = 0; i < server.length; i++) {
const fetch = require("node-fetch");
const url = ''+(server[i].name)+'';
const getData = async url => {
try {
const response = await fetch(url);
return await response.json();
} catch (error) {
console.log(error);
}
};
promiseArray.push(getData(url)); // keeping track of all promises
}
return Promise.all(promiseArray); //see, I'm not registering anything to promise, I'm passing it to the consumer
}
function successCallback(result) {
console.log("It succeeded with " + result);
}
function failureCallback(error) {
console.log("It failed with " + error);
}
let promise = doSomething(); // do something is the function that does all the logic in that for loop and getData
promise.then(successCallback, failureCallback);
I am trying to create an array of Promises, then resolve them with Promise.all(). I am using got, which returns a promise.
My code works, but I don't fully understand how. Here it is:
const got = require('got');
const url = 'myUrl';
const params = ['param1', 'param2', 'param3'];
let promiseArray = [];
for (param of params) {
promiseArray.push(got(url + param));
}
// Inspect the promises
for (promise of promiseArray) {
console.log(JSON.stringify(promise));
// Output: promise: {"_pending":true,"_canceled":false,"_promise":{}}
}
Promise.all(promiseArray).then((results) => {
// Operate on results - works just fine
}).catch((e) => {
// Error handling logic
});
What throws me off is that the Promises are marked as "pending" when I add them into the array, which means they have already started.
I would think that they should lie inactive in promiseArray, and Promise.all(promiseArray) would both start them and resolve them.
Does this mean I am starting them twice?
You're not starting them twice. Promises start running as soon as they're created - or as soon as the JS engine finds enough resources to start them. You have no control on when they actually start.
All Promise.all() does is wait for all of them to settle (resolve or reject). Promise.all() does not interfere with nor influence the order/timing of execution of the promise itself.
Promises don't run at all. They are simply a notification system for communicating when asynchronous operations are complete.
So, as soon as you ran this:
promiseArray.push(got(url + param));
Your asynchronous operation inside of got() is already started and when it finishes, it will communicate that back through the promise.
All Promise.all() does is monitor all the promises and tell you when the first one rejects or when all of them have completed successfully. It does not "control" the async operations in any way. Instead, you start the async operations and they communicate back through the promises. You control when you started the async operations and the async operations then run themselves from then on.
If you break down your code a bit into pieces, here's what happens in each piece:
let promiseArray = [];
for (param of params) {
promiseArray.push(got(url + param));
}
This calls got() a bunch of times starting whatever async operation is in that function. got() presumably returns a promise object which is then put into your promiseArray. So, at this point, the async operations are all started already and running on their own.
// Inspect the promises
for (promise of promiseArray) {
console.log(JSON.stringify(promise));
// Output: promise: {"_pending":true,"_canceled":false,"_promise":{}}
}
This loop, just looks at all the promises to see if any of them might already be resolved, though one would not expect them to be because their underlying async operations were just started in the prior loop.
Promise.all(promiseArray).then((results) => {
// Operate on results - works just fine
}).catch((e) => {
// Error handling logic
});
Then, with Promise.all(), you're just asking to monitor the array of promises so it will tell you when either there's a rejected promise or when all of them complete successfully.
Promises "start" when they are created, i.e. the function that gives you the promise, has already launched the (often asynchronous) operations that will eventually lead into an asynchronous result. For instance, if a function returns a promise for a result of an HTTP request, it has already launched that HTTP request when returning you the promise object.
No matter what you do or not do with that promise object, that function (got) has already created a callback function which it passed on to an asynchronous API, such as a HTTP Request/Response API. In that callback function (which you do not see unless you inspect the source of got) the promise will be resolved as soon as it gets called back by that API. In the HTTP request example, the API calls that particular callback with the HTTP response, and the said callback function then resolve the promise.
Given all this, it is a bit strange to think of promises as things that "start" or "run". They are merely created in a pending state. The remaining thing is a pending callback from some API that will hopefully occur and then will change the state of the promise object, triggering then callbacks.
Please note that fetching an array of urls with Promise.all has got some possible problems:
If any of the urls fail to fetch your resolve is never called (so
one fails and your resolve function is never called.
If your array is very large you will clobber the site and your network with requests, you may want to throttle the maximum open requests and or requests made in a certain timeframe.
The first problem is easily solved, you process the failed requests and add them to the results. In the resolve handler you can decide what to do with the failed requests:
const got = require('got');
const url = 'myUrl';
const params = ['param1', 'param2', 'param3'];
const Fail = function(details){this.details = details;};
Promise.all(
params.map(
param =>
got(url + param)
.then(
x=>x,//if resolved just pass along the value
reject=>new Fail([reject,url+param])
)
)
).then((results) => {
const successes = results.filter(result=>(result && result.constructor)!==Fail),
const failedItems = results.filter(result=>(result && result.constructor)===Fail);
}).catch((e) => {
// Error handling logic
});
Point 2 is a bit more complicated, throttling can be done with this helper function and would look something like this:
... other code
const max5 = throttle(5);
Promise.all(
params.map(
param =>
max5(got)(url + param)
.then(
x=>x,//if resulved just pass along the value
reject=>new Fail([reject,url+param])
)
)
)
Question:
Is there an "easy" way to cancel ($q-/$http-)promises in AngularJS or determine the order in which promises were resolved?
Example
I have a long running calculation and i request the result via $http. Some actions or events require me to restart the calculation (and thus sending a new $http request) before the initial promise is resolved. Thus i imagine i can't use a simple implementation like
$http.post().then(function(){
//apply data to view
})
because I can't ensure that the responses come back in the order in which i did send the requests - after all i want to show the result of the latest calculation when all promises were resolved properly.
However I would like to avoid waiting for the first response until i send a new request like this:
const timeExpensiveCalculation = function(){
return $http.post().then(function(response){
if (isNewCalculationChained) {return timeExpensiveCalculation();}
else {return response.data;}
})
}
Thoughts:
When using $http i can access the config-object on the response to use some timestamps or other identifiers to manually order the incoming responses. However i was hoping I could just tell angular somehow to cancel an outdated promise and thus not run the .then() function when it gets resolved.
This does not work without manual implementation for $q-promises instead of $http though.
Maybe just rejecting the promise right away is the way to go? But in both cases it might take forever until finally a promise is resolved before the next request is generated (which leads to an empty view in the meantime).
Is there some angular API-Function that i am missing or are there robust design patterns or "tricks" with promise chaining or $q.all to handle multiple promises that return the "same" data?
I do it by generating a requestId, and in the promise's then() function I check if the response is coming from the most recent requestId.
While this approach does not actually cancel the previous promises, it does provide a quick and easy way to ensure that you are handling the most recent request's response.
Something like:
var activeRequest;
function doRequest(params){
// requestId is the id for the request being made in this function call
var requestId = angular.toJson(params); // I usually md5 hash this
// activeRequest will always be the last requestId sent out
activeRequest = requestId;
$http.get('/api/something', {data: params})
.then(function(res){
if(activeRequest == requestId){
// this is the response for last request
// activeRequest is now handled, so clear it out
activeRequest = undefined;
}
else {
// response from previous request (typically gets ignored)
}
});
}
Edit:
On a side-note, I wanted to add that this concept of tracking requestId's can also be applied to preventing duplicate requests. For example, in my Data service's load(module, id) method, I do a little process like this:
generate the requestId based on the URL + parameters.
check in requests hash-table for the requestId
if requestId is not found: generate new request and store promise in hash-table
if requestId is found: simply return the promise from the hash-table
When the request finishes, remove the requestId's entry from the hash-table.
Cancelling a promise is just making it not invoke the onFulfilled and onRejected functions at the then stage. So as #user2263572 mentioned it's always best to let go the promise not cancelled (ES6 native promises can not be cancelled anyways) and handle this condition within it's then stage (like disregarding the task if a global variable is set to 2 as shown in the following snippet) and i am sure you can find tons of other ways to do it. One example could be;
Sorry that i use v (looks like check character) for resolve and x (obvious) for reject functions.
var prom1 = new Promise((v,x) => setTimeout(v.bind(null,"You shall not read this"),2000)),
prom2,
validPromise = 1;
prom1.then(val => validPromise === 1 && console.log(val));
// oh what have i done..!?! Now i have to fire a new promise
prom2 = new Promise((v,x) => setTimeout(v.bind(null,"This is what you will see"),3000));
validPromise = 2;
prom2.then(val => validPromise === 2 && console.log(val));
I'm still trying to figure out a good way to unit test this, but you could try out this kind of strategy:
var canceller = $q.defer();
service.sendCalculationRequest = function () {
canceller.resolve();
return $http({
method: 'GET',
url: '/do-calculation',
timeout: canceller.promise
});
};
In ECMA6 promises, there is a Promise.race(promiseArray) method. This takes an array of promises as its argument, and returns a single promise. The first promise to resolve in the array will hand off its resolved value to the .then of the returned promise, while the other array promises that came in second, etc., will not be waited upon.
Example:
var httpCall1 = $http.get('/api/something', {data: params})
.then(function(val) {
return {
id: "httpCall1"
val: val
}
})
var httpCall2 = $http.get('/api/something-else', {data: params})
.then(function(val) {
return {
id: "httpCall2"
val: val
}
})
// Might want to make a reusable function out of the above two, if you use this in Production
Promise.race([httpCall1, httpCall2])
.then(function(winningPromise) {
console.log('And the winner is ' + winningPromise.id);
doSomethingWith(winningPromise.val);
});
You could either use this with a Promise polyfil, or look into the q.race that someone's developed for Angular (though I haven't tested it).
I have a promise that returns data and I want to save that in variables. Is this impossible in JavaScript because of the async nature and do I need to use onResolve as a callback?
Can I somehow use this (e.g. wrap it with async/await):
const { foo, bar } = Promise.then(result => result.data, errorHandler);
// rest of script
instead of this?
Promise.then(result => {
const { foo, bar } = result.data;
// rest of script
}, errorHandler);
Note: Bluebird library is used instead of native implementation, and I can't change from Promise to asnyc/await or Generators.
NO you can't get the data synchronously out of a promise like you suggest in your example. The data must be used within a callback function. Alternatively in functional programming style the promise data could be map()ed over.
If your are OK using async/await (you should it's awesome) then you can write code that looks synchronous yet retain the asynchronicity of a promise (see #loganfsmyth comments).
const { foo, bar } = await iAmAPromise.then(result => result.data);
Overall since you are already using ES6 I assume you are also using a transpiler. In which case you should definitely give async/await a try.
Just be sure to weight in the decision that as today they are not yet a ratified specification.
While you can get a value from an awaited Promise inside an async function (simply because it pauses the function to await a result), you can't ever get a value directly "out" of a Promise and back into the same scope as the code that created the Promise itself.
That's because "out of" would mean trying to take something that exists in the future (the eventually resolved value) and putting it into a context (synchronous variable assignment) that already happened in the past.
That is, time-travel. And even if time-travel were possible, it probably wouldn't be a good coding practice because time travel can be very confusing.:)
In general, if you find yourself feeling like you need to do this, it's good sign that you need to refactor something. Note that what you're doing with "result => result.data" here:
Promise.then(result => result.data, errorHandler);
// rest of script
..is already a case of you working with (literally, mapping over) the value by passing it to a function. But, assuming that "// rest of script" does something important related to this value, you probably want to continue mapping over the now updated value with yet another function that then does something side-effect-y with the value (like display the data on the screen).
Promise
.then(({ data }) => data)
.then(data => doSomethingWithData(data))// rest of script
.catch(errorHandler);
"doSomethingWithData" will be called (if it's ever called) at some unknown point in the future. Which is why it's a good practice to clearly encapsulate all that behavior into a specific function and then hook that function up to the Promise chain.
It's honestly better this way, because it requires you to clearly declare a particular sequence of events that will happen, explicitly separated out from the first run through all of your application code's execution.
To put it another way, imagine this scenario, hypothetically executed in the global, top-level scope:
const { foo, bar } = Promise.then(result => result.data, errorHandler);
console.log(foo);
//...more program
What would you expect to happen there? There are two possibilities, and both of them are bad.
Your entire program would have to halt and wait for the Promise to execute
before it could know what "foo" & "bar" would... nay, might be. (this is
what "await," inside an async function, does in fact do: it pauses
the entire function execution until the value is available or an the error is thrown)
foo and bar would just be undefined (this is what actually
happens), since, as executed synchronously, they'd just be
non-existent properties of the top-level Promise object (which is not itself a "value,"
but rather a quasi-Monadic wrapper around getting an eventual value OR an error) which most
likely doesn't even contain a value yet.
let out; mypromise.then(x => out = x); console.log(out)
Only use this code when
you are debugging by hand,
and you know the promise has already succeeded
Behaviour of this code:
While the promise has not resolved yet, out will be undefined.
Once the promise resolves to a failure, an error is thrown.
When the promise resolves to success, (which may be after the console.log), the value of out will change from undefined to the Promise result — maybe in the middle of what you were doing.
In production code, or really any code that runs without you, the code that uses the Promise result should be inside the .then() callback, and not use some out variable. That way:
your code won't be run too early (when the result is still undefined),
and won't run too late (because you don't need 'I think sleeping for 10 seconds should do it' workarounds),
and won't erroneously run when the promise fails.
I have a solution of getting this value "out" if you will. This is a method at backend for uploading multiple files to AWS S3 which must be dealt asynchronously. I also need the responses from S3, so I need the values out of the Promise:
async function uploadMultipleFiles(files) {
const promises = []; //Creating an array to store promises
for (i = 0; i < files.length; i++) {
const fileStream = fs.createReadStream(files[i].path)
const uploadParams = {
Bucket: bucketName,
Body: fileStream,
Key: files[i].filename
}
promises.push(s3.upload(uploadParams).promise()) //pushing each promise instead
//of awaiting, to enable for concurrent uploads.
}
await Promise.all(promises).then(values => {
console.log("values: ", values) //just checking values
result = values; //storing in a different variable
});
return result; //returning that variable
}
The key lines in context with the issue being discussed here are these :
await Promise.all(promises).then(values => {
console.log("values: ", values) //just checking values
res = values; //storing in a different variable
});
return res; //returning that variable
But of course we have to also await in the function that will be calling this :
const result = await uploadMultipleFiles(files);
All you need to do is to extract all you have in your promise by using a .then
yourFunction().then( resp => {
... do what you require here
let var1 = resp.var1;
let var2 = resp.var2;
...
.....
})
yourFunction() should return a Promise
How to Get A Value From A Promise
YES! You can extract value out of a promise!
Do NOT let anyone here say you cannot. Just realize any variable that stores your returned promise value will likely have a short delay. So if you have a JavaScript script page that needs that data outside of the Promise or async-await functions, you may have to create loops, interval timers, or event listeners to wait to grab the value after some time. Because most async-await-promises are REST calls and very fast, that wait would require just a quick while loop!
It is easy! Just set a variable (or create a function) that can access the value inside your async or promise code and store the value in an outside variable, object, array, etc you can check on. Here is a primitive example:
// I just created a simple global variable to store my promise message.
var myDelayedData = '';
// This function is only used to go get data.
// Note I set the delay for 5 seconds below so you can test the delay
const getData = () => {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
setTimeout(() => resolve('my promise data'), 5000);
});
}
// I like to create a second async function to get the data
// from the promise object and save the data to my global variable.
const processData = async () => {
let data = await getData();
// Save the delayed data to my global variable
myDelayedData = data;
}
// Start the data call from the promise.
processData();
// Open up your browser, hit F12 to pull up the browser devtools
// Click the "console" tab and watch the script print out
// the value of the variable with empty message until after
// 5 seconds the variable is assigned to the resolved promise
// and apears in the message!
// THAT IS IT! Your variable is assigned the promise value
// after the delay I set above!
// TEST: But let's test it and see...
var end = setInterval(function(){
console.log("My Result: " + myDelayedData);
if(myDelayedData !== ''){
clearInterval(end);
}
}, 1000);
// You should see this in devtools console.
// Each line below represents a 1 second delay.
My Result:
My Result:
My Result:
My Result: my promise data
Most people seeing this code will say "Then why use a Promise, just make a call for the data, pause, and update your application?" True: The whole point of a Promise is to encapsulate data processes inside the promise and take actions while the rest of the script continues.
But... you may need to output a result outside the Promise. You may have other global processes that need that data because it changes the state of the global application, for example. But at least you know you can get to that Promise data if you needed it.