Develop Reference

What is the point of the await keyword within an async function in terms of returning a value?

I've researched many many posts and articles, and documentation. I'm seeking deeper understanding.
From https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Operators/await
The await expression causes async function execution to pause until a Promise is settled, [...]
let fetchLocation = () => {
//fetches information from satellite system and
//returns a Vector2 of lat long on earth
return new Promise(resolve => {
setTimeout(() => {
resolve({
lat: 73,
long: -24
});
}, 2000);
});
}
//async functions automatically return a promise.
let main = async() => {
//awaits the promises resolution
let result = await fetchLocation();
console.log("I'm the awaited promise result", result)
//immediately returns a promise as promise pending
return result;
}
console.log(main().then(res => console.log("I'm the original promise, just passed along by the async function, it didn 't a-wait for me", res)))
Before going down this rabbit hole, I knew async/await was syntactical sugar to make async code look synchronous.
I therefore fully expected to see main return the lat long coordinates. Instead it returns a promise.
A couple questions.
Is the MDN documentation wrong? Does it not actually pause execution? It seems that the await keyword does not actually "pause" function execution... invoking main immediately returns a Promise<pending> object. However, after it returns we receive the value of the fulfilled promise in the awaited variable result. I suppose this came from the event loop? (And an async return statement is still synchronous.)
So it seems that await unwraps a promise, and async wraps a promise, but you need to use await within async. I get that await might actually be promise.then() underneath the hood but if they want to make it fully synchronous in appearance, why not have the async function return the resolved promise value when used with await? Otherwise async await seems a bit redundant.

Is the MDN documentation wrong?
No
Does it not actually pause execution?
It pauses the execution of the async function, hands a Promise back to the calling function — because it hasn't reached the point in the async function where it knows what to return — then the execution of the calling function (and the rest of the code) continues.
However, after it returns we receive the value of the fulfilled promise in the awaited variable result. I suppose this came from the event loop?
When the event loop stops being busy (running the code that called the async function in the first place and anything else that it picks up in the meantime) and the promise that was being awaited resolves, then the async function is woken up and given the resolved value of the function to continue processing.
why not have the async function return the resolved promise value when used with await?
Because that would block the entire event loop, which is why asynchronous logic (starting with callback style APIs) was introduced into JS in the first place.
Otherwise async await seems a bit redundant.
Consider a situation where you want to request a number of URLs from an API serially (so that you don't shove too many simultaneous requests at the API):
const data = [];
for (let i = 0; i < urls.length; i++) {
const response = await fetch(urls[i]);
const response_data = await response.json();
data.push(response_data);
}
If you were to rewrite that without await then you'd probably end up with something recursive to count your way through the loop. It would be significantly more complex.
async/await makes dealing with complex combinations of promises simple, and simple promises trivial.
knew async/await was syntactical sugar to make async code look synchronous.
And it does that inside the async function and only inside it.

It doesn't really pause the function, it just allows you to write the rest of the function code as if it were. But it's really just wrapping the rest of the code of the function into a .then().
E.g.
await foo = someFunc();
console.log(foo);
is executed like
someFunc().then((foo => {
console.log(foo);
});
Since it's really still asynchronous, you can't return the resolved value, because the original calling function returns immediately. But if the calling function is also declared async, it returns a Promise, and the caller can either use await again (so it appears to be synchronous) or use .then().

What if we do not wait for an asynchronous javascript function?

What if we do not wait for an asynchronous javascript function?
As far as I know some languages like C # should not run an asynchronous function unmanaged!
I wanted to know if this is also true for the JavaScript language?
var asynchronousFunction = async function() {
//...
}
function main() {
var result = true;
//...
asynchronousFunction(); // The result of this function has no effect on our output (result)
//...
return result;
}

It's run just the same. (In fact, you never await a function, you await for the the Promise it returns.)
The asynchronous function is run synchronously until the first await or return within it, at which point a Promise is returned to the caller and the rest of the function is arranged to run later.
It's up to the caller to do something (or nothing) to the Promise. After all, you might wish to store the promise in an array and await for the lot of them (Promise.all) or do something more esoteric about it, so JavaScript itself doesn't care.
Some smart enough IDEs and linters are able to raise a warning about unhandled promises, though, especially if you have enough type information to do so (e.g. by using TypeScript).

It's true for javascript as well.
You don't want to just create a promise and leave it totally hanging, if there are errors then they become unhandled errors and if it exits unexpectedly then you have no way of knowing that.
What I recommend is using the Promise.race at the top level and then it will run all of your async functions in parallel but will exit if any one of them exits unexpectedly.
async function worker() {
while (true) {
// do background work in a loop
}
}
async function server() {
await init()
await listen()
}
function main() {
const p0 = worker()
const p1 = server()
try {
await Promise.race([p0, p1])
console.log('done')
return true
} catch (err) {
console.log('The server had an error unexpectedly', err)
return false
}
}
If you expect the promises to eventually exit gracefully then use Promise.all instead, which will wait until all promises exit successfully before resolving.

Is leaving useless synchronous code under Async/Await an anti-pattern?

To my understanding, the point behind await is to 'await' the acting upon the resolved value of a promise until it is encountered as a microtask, as Jake Archibald explains here.
This video by LLJS shows that async-await is essentially syntactical sugar for a generator runner/interpreter function that yields where it awaits and passes the settled value of the promise to the .next() method. This means that the runner's execution of .next() is enqueued as a microtask when an await occurs.
Effectively speaking, all the code under that await will only be executed at the next microtask checkpoint. This can be an issue if code that doesn't require the awaited value of the promise lies underneath it, which is exactly the issue with Async IIFEs.
async function ping() {
for (let i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
let result = await Promise.resolve("ping");
console.log(result);
}
console.log("Why am I even here?");
}
async function pong() {
for (let i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
let result = await Promise.resolve("pong");
console.log(result);
}
console.log("I have nothing to do with any of this");
}
console.log("Let the games begin!");
ping();
pong();
console.log("Placeholder for code that is not related to ping pong");
In this example, the outside logs are logged first as part of the task of running the script, then the values of the resolved promises in the order that they were queued in the microtask queue. Within this entire process, the logs left underneath the for loops have nothing to do with the loops and are needlessly paused until the last microtask in their respective function bodies is out of the queue.
This is exactly what happens when we use async functions as IIFEs though. If you have code under the await that is meant to execute synchronously, it would have to needlessly wait until all the awaits above it have been checked out of the microtask queue.
I can see this being a problem if someone blindly wraps their entire express routes in async functions, where they would needlessly await the resolving of certain promises like database operations, the sending of emails, reading of files, etc..., So why do people still do this?
app.post('/forgotPwd', async (req, res) => {
const {email, username} = req.body;
if (!email) {
res.status(400).json({error: "No username entered"});
return;
}
if (!username) {
res.status(400).json({error: "No email entered"});
return;
}
const db = client.db();
const user = await db.collection("Users").findOne({username: username, "userInfo.email": email});
if (!user) {
res.status(400).json({error: "Account not found"});
return;
}
const authToken = await getAuthToken({id: user._id.toHexString()}, "15m");
// Would probably send a more verbose email
await sgMail.send({
from: process.env.EMAIL,
to: email,
subject: 'Forgot Password',
text: `Use this url to reset your password: http://localhost:5000/confirmation/passConf/${authToken}`,
});
res.json({error: ""});
});

If you want something in an async function to run synchronously, make sure it's prior to the first await in the function.
So why do people still do this?
That's probably an off-topic question for SO since it largely calls for opinion-based answers, but it's likely going to be either A) Because they don't want that code to run until the code above it has finished, or B) Because they don't understand async functions.

The point of using async/await is to make asynchronous code look synchronous because it's easier to read. In fact, it is a syntactic sugar that hides a callback hell underneath. You don't need to deal with callbacks in order to handle async operations.
In your case, if you think that the code after the for loop has nothing to do with the awaited operation, you shouldn't have place it after await. Or you should refactor the code so that it does not use await (callbacks).
As for the question of why people do this. Well, can you tell why people use .map() as a replacement of .forEach()? Or can you tell why they don't handle exceptions? They probably don't fully understand it or (as T.J. Crowder mentioned) they do want the code to run after the awaited operation. Simple as that.

Move object/variable away from async function

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);

Async function not returning value, but console.log() does: how to do? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
How do I return the response from an asynchronous call?
(41 answers)
Closed 5 years ago.
I have an es6 class, with an init() method responsible for fetching data, transforming it, then update the class's property this.data with newly transformed data.
So far so good.
The class itself has another getPostById() method, to just do what it sounds like. Here is the code for the class:
class Posts {
constructor(url) {
this.ready = false
this.data = {}
this.url = url
}
async init() {
try {
let res = await fetch( this.url )
if (res.ok) {
let data = await res.json()
// Do bunch of transformation stuff here
this.data = data
this.ready = true
return data
}
}
catch (e) {
console.log(e)
}
}
getPostById(id){
return this.data.find( p => p.id === id )
}
}
Straightforward, except I have an async/await mechanism in the init() method.
Now, this code will work correctly:
let allPosts = new Posts('https://jsonplaceholder.typicode.com/posts')
allPosts.init()
.then( d => console.log(allPosts.getPostById(4)) )
// resulting Object correctly logged in console
but it only gets printed into the console:
How could I use allPosts.getPostById(4) as a return of a function ?
Like:
let myFunc = async () => {
const postId = 4
await allPosts.init() // I need to wait for this to finish before returning
// This is logging correct value
console.log( 'logging: ' + JSON.stringify(allPosts.getPostById( postId ), null, 4) )
// How can I return the RESULT of allPosts.getPostById( postId ) ???
return allPosts.getPostById( postId )
}
myFunc() returns a Promise but not the final value. I have read several related posts on the subject but they all give example of logging, never returning.
Here is a fiddle that includes two ways of handling init(): using Promise and using async/await. No matter what I try, I can't manage to USE the FINAL VALUE of getPostById(id).
The question of this post is: how can I create a function that will RETURN the VALUE of getPostById(id) ?
EDIT:
A lot of good answers trying to explain what Promises are in regards to the main execution loop.
After a lot of videos and other good reads, here is what I understand now:
my function init() correctly returns. However, within the main event loop: it returns a Promise, then it is my job to catch the result of this Promise from within a kinda parallel loop (not a new real thread). In order to catch the result from the parallel loop there are two ways:
use .then( value => doSomethingWithMy(value) )
use let value = await myAsyncFn(). Now here is the foolish hiccup:
await can only be used within an async function :p
thus itself returning a Promise, usable with await which should be embed in an async function, which will be usable with await etc...
This means we cannot really WAIT for a Promise: instead we should catch parallel loop indefinitely: using .then() or async/await.
Thanks for the help !

As for your comment; I'll add it as answer.
The code you write in JavaScript is run on one thread, that means that if your code could actually wait for something it will block any of your other code from getting executed. The event loop of JavaScript is explained very well in this video and if you like to read in this page.
A good example of blocking code in the browser is alert("cannot do anything until you click ok");. Alert blocks everything, the user can't even scroll or click on anything in the page and your code also blocks from executing.
Promise.resolve(22)
.then(x=>alert("blocking")||"Hello World")
.then(
x=>console.log(
"does not resolve untill you click ok on the alert:",
x
)
);
Run that in a console and you see what I mean by blocking.
This creates a problem when you want to do something that takes time. In other frameworks you'd use a thread or processes but there is no such thing in JavaScript (technically there is with web worker and fork in node but that's another story and usually far more complicated than using async api's).
So when you want to make a http request you can use fetch but fetch takes some time to finish and your function should not block (has to return something as fast as possible). This is why fetch returns a promise.
Note that fetch is implemented by browser/node and does run in another thread, only code you write runs in one thread so starting a lot of promises that only run code you write will not speed up anything but calling native async api's in parallel will.
Before promises async code used callbacks or would return an observable object (like XmlHttpRequest) but let's cover promises since you can convert the more traditional code to a promise anyway.
A promise is an object that has a then function (and a bunch of stuff that is sugar for then but does the same), this function takes 2 parameters.
Resolve handler: A function that will be called by the promise when the promise resolves (has no errors and is finished). The function will be passed one argument with the resolve value (for http requests this usually is the response).
Reject handler: A function that will be called by the promise when the promise rejects (has an error). This function will be passed one argument, this is usually the error or reason for rejection (can be a string, number or anything).
Converting callback to promise.
The traditional api's (especially nodejs api's) use callbacks:
traditionalApi(
arg
,function callback(err,value){
err ? handleFail(err) : processValue(value);
}
);
This makes it difficult for the programmer to catch errors or handle the return value in a linear way (from top to bottom). It gets even more impossible to try and do things parallel or throttled parallel with error handling (impossible to read).
You can convert traditional api's to promises with new Promise
const apiAsPromise = arg =>
new Promise(
(resolve,reject)=>
traditionalApi(
arg,
(err,val) => (err) ? reject(err) : resolve(val)
)
)
async await
This is what's called syntax sugar for promises. It makes promise consuming functions look more traditional and easier to read. That is if you like to write traditional code, I would argue that composing small functions is much easier to read. For example, can you guess what this does?:
const handleSearch = search =>
compose([
showLoading,
makeSearchRequest,
processRespose,
hideLoading
])(search)
.then(
undefined,//don't care about the resolve
compose([
showError,
hideLoading
])
);
Anayway; enough ranting. The important part is to understand that async await doesn't actually start another thread, async functions always return a promise and await doesn't actually block or wait. It's syntax sugar for someFn().then(result=>...,error=>...) and looks like:
async someMethod = () =>
//syntax sugar for:
//return someFn().then(result=>...,error=>...)
try{
const result = await someFn();
...
}catch(error){
...
}
}
The examples allways show try catch but you don't need to do that, for example:
var alwaysReject = async () => { throw "Always returns rejected promise"; };
alwaysReject()
.then(
x=>console.log("never happens, doesn't resolve")
,err=>console.warn("got rejected:",err)
);
Any error thrown or await returning a rejected promise will cause the async function to return a rejected promise (unless you try and catch it). Many times it is desirable to just let it fail and have the caller handle errors.
Catching errors could be needed when you want the promise to succeed with a special value for rejected promises so you can handle it later but the promise does not technically reject so will always resolve.
An example is Promise.all, this takes an array of promises and returns a new promise that resolves to an array of resolved values or reject when any one of them rejects. You may just want to get the results of all promises back and filter out the rejected ones:
const Fail = function(details){this.details=details;},
isFail = item => (item && item.constructor)===Fail;
Promise.all(
urls.map(//map array of urls to array of promises that don't reject
url =>
fetch(url)
.then(
undefined,//do not handle resolve yet
//when you handle the reject this ".then" will return
// a promise that RESOLVES to the value returned below (new Fail([url,err]))
err=>new Fail([url,err])
)
)
)
.then(
responses => {
console.log("failed requests:");
console.log(
responses.filter(//only Fail type
isFail
)
);
console.log("resolved requests:");
console.log(
responses.filter(//anything not Fail type
response=>!isFail(response)
)
);
}
);

Your question and the comments suggest you could use a little intuition nudge about the way the event loop works. It really is confusing at first, but after a while it becomes second nature.
Rather than thinking about the FINAL VALUE, think about the fact that you have a single thread and you can't stop it — so you want the FUTURE VALUE -- the value on the next or some future event loop. Everything you write that is not asynchronous is going to happen almost immediately — functions return with some value or undefined immediately. There's nothing you can do about. When you need something asynchronously, you need to setup a system that is ready to deal with the async values when they return sometime in the future. This is what events, callbacks, promises (and async/await) all try to help with. If some data is asynchronous, you simply can not use it in the same event loop.
So what do you do?
If you want a pattern where you create an instance, call init() and then some function that further process it, you simply need to setup a system that does the processing when the data arrives. There are a lot of ways to do this. Here's one way that's a variation on your class:
function someAsync() {
console.log("someAsync called")
return new Promise(resolve => {
setTimeout(() => resolve(Math.random()), 1000)
})
}
class Posts {
constructor(url) {
this.ready = false
this.data = "uninitilized"
this.url = url
}
init() {
this.data = someAsync()
}
time100() {
// it's important to return the promise here
return this.data.then(d => d * 100)
}
}
let p = new Posts()
p.init()
processData(p)
// called twice to illustrate point
processData(p)
async function processData(posts) {
let p = await posts.time100()
console.log("randomin * 100:", p)
}
init() saves the promise returned from someAsync(). someAsync() could be anything that returns a promise. It saves the promise in an instance property. Now you can call then() or use async/await to get the value. It will either immediately return the value if the promise has already resolved or it will deal with it when it has resolved. I called processData(p) twice just to illustrate that it doesn't calle the someAsync() twice.
That's just one pattern. There are a lot more — using events, observables, just using then() directly, or even callbacks which are unfashionable, but still can be useful.

NOTE: Wherever you use await it has to be inside an async function.
Check out the UPDATED FIDDLE
You need to use await myFunc() to get the value you expect from getPostById because an async function always returns a promise.
This sometimes is very frustrating as the whole chain needs to be converted into async functions but that's the price you pay for converting it to a synchronous code, I guess. I am not sure if that can be avoided but am interested in hearing from people who have more experience on this.
Try out the below code in your console by copying over the functions and then accessing final and await final.
NOTE:
An async function CAN contain an await expression.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Statements/async_function
There is no rule that is must have await in order to even declare an async function.
The example below uses an async function without await just to show that an async function always returns a promise.
const sample = async () => {
return 100;
}
// sample() WILL RETURN A PROMISE AND NOT 100
// await sample() WILL RETURN 100
const init = async (num) => {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
resolve(num);
});
}
const myFunc = async (num) => {
const k = await init(num);
return k;
}
// const final = myFunc();
// final; This returns a promise
// await final; This returns the number you provided to myFunc