Develop Reference

Access and modify website variables using Javascript [duplicate]

I have a click event that is triggered from another place automatically for the first time. My problem is that it runs too soon, since the required variables are still being defined by Flash and web services. So right now I have:
(function ($) {
$(window).load(function(){
setTimeout(function(){
$('a.play').trigger("click");
}, 5000);
});
})(jQuery);
The problem is that 5 seconds for a person with a slow internet connection could be too fast and vice versa, for a person with a fast internet connection, it's too slow.
So how should I do the delay or timeout until someVariable is defined?

The following will keep looking for someVariable until it is found. It checks every 0.25 seconds.
function waitForElement(){
if(typeof someVariable !== "undefined"){
//variable exists, do what you want
}
else{
setTimeout(waitForElement, 250);
}
}

async, await implementation, improvement over #Toprak's answer
(async() => {
console.log("waiting for variable");
while(!window.hasOwnProperty("myVar")) // define the condition as you like
await new Promise(resolve => setTimeout(resolve, 1000));
console.log("variable is defined");
})();
console.log("above code doesn't block main function stack");
After revisiting the OP's question. There is actually a better way to implement what was intended: "variable set callback". Although the below code only works if the desired variable is encapsulated by an object (or window) instead of declared by let or var (I left the first answer because I was just doing improvement over existing answers without actually reading the original question):
let obj = encapsulatedObject || window;
Object.defineProperty(obj, "myVar", {
configurable: true,
set(v){
Object.defineProperty(obj, "myVar", {
configurable: true, enumerable: true, writable: true, value: v });
console.log("window.myVar is defined");
}
});
see Object.defineProperty
or use es6 proxy (which is probably overkill)
If you are looking for more:
/**
* combining the two as suggested by #Emmanuel Mahuni,
* and showing an alternative to handle defineProperty setter and getter
*/
let obj = {} || window;
(async() => {
let _foo = await new Promise(res => {
Object.defineProperty(obj, "foo", { set: res });
});
console.log("obj.foo is defined with value:", _foo);
})();
/*
IMPORTANT: note that obj.foo is still undefined
the reason is out of scope of this question/answer
take a research of Object.defineProperty to see more
*/
// TEST CODE
console.log("test start");
setTimeout(async () => {
console.log("about to assign obj.foo");
obj.foo = "Hello World!";
// try uncomment the following line and compare the output
// await new Promise(res => setTimeout(res));
console.log("finished assigning obj.foo");
console.log("value of obj.foo:", obj.foo); // undefined
// console: obj.foo is defined with value: Hello World!
}, 2000);

I would prefer this code:
function checkVariable() {
if (variableLoaded == true) {
// Here is your next action
}
}
setTimeout(checkVariable, 1000);

I prefer something simple like this:
function waitFor(variable, callback) {
var interval = setInterval(function() {
if (window[variable]) {
clearInterval(interval);
callback();
}
}, 200);
}
And then to use it with your example variable of someVariable:
waitFor('someVariable', function() {
// do something here now that someVariable is defined
});
Note that there are various tweaks you can do. In the above setInterval call, I've passed 200 as how often the interval function should run. There is also an inherent delay of that amount of time (~200ms) before the variable is checked for -- in some cases, it's nice to check for it right away so there is no delay.

With Ecma Script 2017 You can use async-await and while together to do that
And while will not crash or lock the program even variable never be true
//First define some delay function which is called from async function
function __delay__(timer) {
return new Promise(resolve => {
timer = timer || 2000;
setTimeout(function () {
resolve();
}, timer);
});
};
//Then Declare Some Variable Global or In Scope
//Depends on you
let Variable = false;
//And define what ever you want with async fuction
async function some() {
while (!Variable)
await __delay__(1000);
//...code here because when Variable = true this function will
};
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//In Your Case
//1.Define Global Variable For Check Statement
//2.Convert function to async like below
var isContinue = false;
setTimeout(async function () {
//STOPT THE FUNCTION UNTIL CONDITION IS CORRECT
while (!isContinue)
await __delay__(1000);
//WHEN CONDITION IS CORRECT THEN TRIGGER WILL CLICKED
$('a.play').trigger("click");
}, 1);
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Also you don't have to use setTimeout in this case just make ready function asynchronous...

You can use this:
var refreshIntervalId = null;
refreshIntervalId = setInterval(checkIfVariableIsSet, 1000);
var checkIfVariableIsSet = function()
{
if(typeof someVariable !== 'undefined'){
$('a.play').trigger("click");
clearInterval(refreshIntervalId);
}
};

Here's an example where all the logic for waiting until the variable is set gets deferred to a function which then invokes a callback that does everything else the program needs to do - if you need to load variables before doing anything else, this feels like a neat-ish way to do it, so you're separating the variable loading from everything else, while still ensuring 'everything else' is essentially a callback.
var loadUser = function(everythingElse){
var interval = setInterval(function(){
if(typeof CurrentUser.name !== 'undefined'){
$scope.username = CurrentUser.name;
clearInterval(interval);
everythingElse();
}
},1);
};
loadUser(function(){
//everything else
});

Instead of using the windows load event use the ready event on the document.
$(document).ready(function(){[...]});
This should fire when everything in the DOM is ready to go, including media content fully loaded.

Shorter way:
var queue = function (args){
typeof variableToCheck !== "undefined"? doSomething(args) : setTimeout(function () {queue(args)}, 2000);
};
You can also pass arguments

I have upvoted #dnuttle's answer, but ended up using the following strategy:
// On doc ready for modern browsers
document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded', (e) => {
// Scope all logic related to what you want to achieve by using a function
const waitForMyFunction = () => {
// Use a timeout id to identify your process and purge it when it's no longer needed
let timeoutID;
// Check if your function is defined, in this case by checking its type
if (typeof myFunction === 'function') {
// We no longer need to wait, purge the timeout id
window.clearTimeout(timeoutID);
// 'myFunction' is defined, invoke it with parameters, if any
myFunction('param1', 'param2');
} else {
// 'myFunction' is undefined, try again in 0.25 secs
timeoutID = window.setTimeout(waitForMyFunction, 250);
}
};
// Initialize
waitForMyFunction();
});
It is tested and working! ;)
Gist: https://gist.github.com/dreamyguy/f319f0b2bffb1f812cf8b7cae4abb47c

Object.defineProperty(window, 'propertyName', {
set: value => {
this._value = value;
// someAction();
},
get: () => this._value
});
or even if you just want this property to be passed as an argument to a function and don't need it to be defined on a global object:
Object.defineProperty(window, 'propertyName', { set: value => someAction(value) })
However, since in your example you seem to want to perform an action upon creation of a node, I would suggest you take a look at MutationObservers.

I have an adaptation of the answer by #dnuttle that I would suggest using.
The advantage of using a try-catch block is that if any part of the code you are trying to execute fails, the whole block fails. I find this useful because it gives you a kind of transaction; everything or nothing gets done.
You should never write code that could end up in an endless loop due to external factors. This is exactly what would happen if you were waiting for a response from an ajax request and the server doesn't respond. I think it's good practice to have a timeout for any questionable loops.
let time = 0; // Used to keep track of how long the loop runs
function waitForElement() {
try {
// I'm testing for an element, but this condition can be
// any reasonable condition
if (document.getElementById('test') === null) {
throw 'error';
}
// This is where you can do something with your variable
// document.getElementById('test').addEventListener....
// or call a function that uses your value
} catch (error) {
// Loop stops executing if not successful within about 5 seconds
if (time > 5000) {
// I return false on failure so I can easily check for failure
return false;
} else {
// Increment the time and call the function again
time += 250;
setTimeout(waitForElement, 250);
}
}
}
// Call the function after the definition, ensures that time is set
waitForElement();

You could have Flash call the function when it's done. I'm not sure what you mean by web services. I assume you have JavaScript code calling web services via Ajax, in which case you would know when they terminate. In the worst case, you could do a looping setTimeout that would check every 100 ms or so.
And the check for whether or not a variable is defined can be just if (myVariable) or safer: if(typeof myVariable == "undefined")

Very late to the party but I want to supply a more modern solution to any future developers looking at this question. It's based off of Toprak's answer but simplified to make it clearer as to what is happening.
<div>Result: <span id="result"></span></div>
<script>
var output = null;
// Define an asynchronous function which will not block where it is called.
async function test(){
// Create a promise with the await operator which instructs the async function to wait for the promise to complete.
await new Promise(function(resolve, reject){
// Execute the code that needs to be completed.
// In this case it is a timeout that takes 2 seconds before returning a result.
setTimeout(function(){
// Just call resolve() with the result wherever the code completes.
resolve("success output");
}, 2000);
// Just for reference, an 'error' has been included.
// It has a chance to occur before resolve() is called in this case, but normally it would only be used when your code fails.
setTimeout(function(){
// Use reject() if your code isn't successful.
reject("error output");
}, Math.random() * 4000);
})
.then(function(result){
// The result variable comes from the first argument of resolve().
output = result;
})
.catch(function(error){
// The error variable comes from the first argument of reject().
// Catch will also catch any unexpected errors that occur during execution.
// In this case, the output variable will be set to either of those results.
if (error) output = error;
});
// Set the content of the result span to output after the promise returns.
document.querySelector("#result").innerHTML = output;
}
// Execute the test async function.
test();
// Executes immediately after test is called.
document.querySelector("#result").innerHTML = "nothing yet";
</script>
Here's the code without comments for easy visual understanding.
var output = null;
async function test(){
await new Promise(function(resolve, reject){
setTimeout(function(){
resolve("success output");
}, 2000);
setTimeout(function(){
reject("error output");
}, Math.random() * 4000);
})
.then(function(result){
output = result;
})
.catch(function(error){
if (error) output = error;
});
document.querySelector("#result").innerHTML = output;
}
test();
document.querySelector("#result").innerHTML = "nothing yet";
On a final note, according to MDN, Promises are supported on all modern browsers with Internet Explorer being the only exception. This compatibility information is also supported by caniuse. However with Bootstrap 5 dropping support for Internet Explorer, and the new Edge based on webkit, it is unlikely to be an issue for most developers.

while (typeof myVar == void(0)) {
if ( typeof myVar != void(0)) {
console.log(myVar);
}
}
This makes use of the typeof operator which only returns undefined if variable is not declared yet. Should be applicable in every type of javascript.

Get result of currently running async function

How to check if there is already running function and if it is exist listen to this function result;
async function a() {
// wait 5 seconds and return foo = foo + 1;
// if A is already running await and return result of this running function A instead result;
}

If I translate the problem correctly, A returns a promise that is asynchronously settled. While the promise is pending, all calls to a wrapper function around A should return the currently pending promise.
If, however, A has not been called, or a previously return promise has been settled, A should be called again.
This can be achieved by chaining off the promise returned by A, using promise handlers to determine results are no longer pending, and have the wrapper function return the chained promise. This example code speeds up the process a little - four successive calls made to a 500ms apart get the same fulfilled value from A which is taking 2000ms to perform a mythical asynchronous task:
// promise a delay
const delay = ms => new Promise(resolve=>setTimeout(resolve, ms));
// async function A
let foo =0;
async function A() {
await delay( 2000); // 2 second example
return foo = foo + 1;
}
// Wrapper function a
const a=(()=>{
let pending = null;
const onfulfill = data => { pending = null; return data};
const onreject = err => { pending = null; throw err};
let a = ()=> pending || (pending = A().then(onfulfill, onreject));
return a;
})();
// and test
async function test() {
for( let i=1; i < 11; ++i) {
a().then( data=> console.log(`a() call ${i} fulfills with ${data}`));
await delay(500);
}
}
console.log(" a is a named function ", a.name == 'a')
test();
a is coded to be a named function which minimizes run time object creation by using the two parameter form of then and passing pre-compiled functions as handler arguments.
The catch handler re-throws the error for caller code to handle.
synchronous and asynchronous code don't mix well together. Calls to wrapper function a always receive a pending promise value in return.

Solution
You can create class that will be execute one flow (maximum) and await result if flow already running. It may looks something like that:
class OneThreadExecutor {
// Boolean variable which represents is task running right now
taskRunning = false;
// All Promise.resolve callbacks
listeners = [];
// Accept initial value
constructor(value = 0) {
this.value = value;
}
// Send [result = value + 1] after 5 sec
startNewTask = () => {
this.taskRunning = true;
setTimeout(() => {
this.taskRunning = false;
return this.sendResult();
}, 5000)
}
// Call all Promise.resolve callbacks, and pass [value + 1] to them
sendResult = () => {
for (const listener of this.listeners) {
listener(++this.value);
}
this.listeners = [];
}
// Main method that exec one task
getResult = () => new Promise(resolve => {
// Add callback to queue
this.listeners.push(resolve);
// Start new task if necessary
if (!this.taskRunning) this.startNewTask();
})
}
General concept
Async getResult method will register promise in class' queue. Any successfull task execution will send result to queue. Current task returns value + 1 on each getResult call and take 5 seconds for whole flow.
Usage
const a = new OneThreadExecutor(); // value = 0 by default
// will start task#1, 5 sec left till .then call, value = 1
a.getResult().then(...)
// 2.5 sec left, task#1 is already half progress, value = 2
setTimeout(() => {
a.getResult().then(...)
}, 2500)
Async/await
const a = new OneThreadExecutor(3); // let's set value = 3 initially
// will start task#1, 5 sec left till .then call, value = 4
a.getResult();
// wait till task#1 completed, 5 sec left, value = 5
const value = await a.getResult();
// will start task#2 bacause not task running, 5 sec left, value = 6
a.getResult();
Cons
In demo solution we already expect successful task execution, without error handling, so you may need to extend it for proper error catching during task execution.

var is_a_running = false;
function a() {
if (is_a_running == false) {
is_a_running = true
//do something
//after you have done the thing
is_a_running = false
}
else if (is_a_running == true){
result();
}
}
This is should help you

Resolve promise on array push - javascript

I'm attempting to define a function that returns a promise. The promise should resolve when a given array is set (push()).
To do this I'm attempting to use a Proxy object (influenced by this):
let a = []
;(async function(){
const observe = array => new Promise(resolve =>
new Proxy(array, {
set(array, key, val) {
array[key] = val;
resolve();
}
}));
while(true){
await observe(a);
console.log(new Date().toLocaleTimeString(),"Blimey Guv'nor:",`${a.pop()}`);
}
})(a);
;(async function(){
await new Promise(resolve => timerID = setTimeout(resolve, 2000))
a.push('ʕ·͡ᴥ·ʔ');
a.push('¯\(°_o)/¯ ')
})(a)
I can't see why this doesn't work. Does anyone have any idea?
More generally, what is a good way to have a promise resolve on push to an array?

The problems with your attempt:
you invoke .push on the original array, not the proxied one. Where you create the proxy, it is returned to no-one: any reference to it is lost (and will be garbage collected).
The code following after the line with await will execute asynchronously, so after all of your push calls have already executed. That means that console.log will execute when the array already has two elements. Promises are thus not the right tool for what you want, as the resolution of a promise can only be acted upon when all other synchronous code has run to completion. To get notifications during the execution synchronously, you need a synchronous solution, while promises are based on asynchronous execution.
Just to complete the answer, I provide here a simple synchronous callback solution:
function observed(array, cb) {
return new Proxy(array, {
set(array, key, val) {
array[key] = val;
if (!isNaN(key)) cb(); // now it is synchronous
return true;
}
});
}
let a = observed([], () =>
console.log(new Date().toLocaleTimeString(),"Blimey Guv'nor:", `${a.pop()}`)
);
a.push('ʕ·͡ᴥ·ʔ');
a.push('¯\(°_o)/¯ ');
As noted before: promises are not the right tool when you need synchronous code execution.
When each push is executed asynchronously
You can use promises, if you are sure that each push happens in a separate task, where the promise job queue is processed in between every pair of push calls.
For instance, if you make each push call as part of an input event handler, or as the callback for a setTimeout timer, then it is possible:
function observed(array) {
let resolve = () => null; // dummy
let proxy = new Proxy(array, {
set(array, key, val) {
array[key] = val;
if (!isNaN(key)) resolve();
return true;
}
});
proxy.observe = () => new Promise(r => resolve = r);
return proxy;
}
let a = observed([]);
(async () => {
while (true) {
await a.observe();
console.log(new Date().toLocaleTimeString(),"Blimey Guv'nor:",`${a.pop()}`);
}
})();
setTimeout(() => a.push('ʕ·͡ᴥ·ʔ'), 100);
setTimeout(() => a.push('¯\(°_o)/¯ '), 100);

How do use Javascript Async-Await as an alternative to polling for a statechange?

I'd like to accomplish the following using promises: only execute further once the state of something is ready. I.e. like polling for an external state-change.
I've tried using promises and async-await but am not getting the desired outcome. What am I doing wrong here, and how do I fix it?
The MDN docs have something similar but their settimeout is called within the promise--that's not exactly what I'm looking for though.
I expect the console.log to show "This function is now good to go!" after 5 seconds, but instead execution seems to stop after calling await promiseForState();
var state = false;
function stateReady (){
state = true;
}
function promiseForState(){
var msg = "good to go!";
var promise = new Promise(function (resolve,reject){
if (state){
resolve(msg);
}
});
return promise;
}
async function waiting (intro){
var result = await promiseForState();
console.log(intro + result)
}
setTimeout(stateReady,5000);
waiting("This function is now ");

What you're doing wrong is the promise constructor executor function executes immediately when the promise is created, and then never again. At that point, state is false, so nothing happens.
Promises (and async/await) are not a replacement for polling. You still need to poll somewhere.
The good news: async functions make it easy to do conditional code with loops and promises.
But don't put code inside promise constructor executor functions, because of their poor error handling characteristics. They are meant to wrap legacy code.
Instead, try this:
var state = false;
function stateReady() {
state = true;
}
const wait = ms => new Promise(resolve => setTimeout(resolve, ms));
async function promiseForState() {
while (!state) {
await wait(1000);
}
return "good to go!";
}
async function waiting(intro) {
var result = await promiseForState();
console.log(intro + result)
}
setTimeout(stateReady,5000);
waiting("This function is now ");

Based on your comments that you are waiting for messages from a server it appears you are trying to solve an X/Y problem. I am therefore going to answer the question of "how do I wait for server messages" instead of waiting for global variable to change.
If your network API accepts a callback
Plenty of networking API such as XMLHttpRequest and node's Http.request() are callback based. If the API you are using is callback or event based then you can do something like this:
function myFunctionToFetchFromServer () {
// example is jQuery's ajax but it can easily be replaced with other API
return new Promise(function (resolve, reject) {
$.ajax('http://some.server/somewhere', {
success: resolve,
error: reject
});
});
}
async function waiting (intro){
var result = await myFunctionToFetchFromServer();
console.log(intro + result);
}
If your network API is promise based
If on the other hand you are using a more modern promise based networking API such as fetch() you can simply await the promise:
function myFunctionToFetchFromServer () {
return fetch('http://some.server/somewhere');
}
async function waiting (intro){
var result = await myFunctionToFetchFromServer();
console.log(intro + result);
}
Decoupling network access from your event handler
Note that the following are only my opinion but it is also the normal standard practice in the javascript community:
In either case above, once you have a promise it is possible to decouple your network API form your waiting() event handler. You just need to save the promise somewhere else. Evert's answer shows one way you can do this.
However, in my not-so-humble opinion, you should not do this. In projects of significant size this leads to difficulty in tracing the source of where the state change comes form. This is what we did in the 90s and early 2000s with javascript. We had a lot of events in our code like onChange and onReady or onData instead of callbacks passed as function parameters. The result was that sometimes it takes you a long time to figure out what code is triggering what event.
Callback parameters and promises forces the event generator to be in the same place in the code as the event consumer:
let this_variable_consumes_result_of_a_promise = await generate_a_promise();
this_function_generate_async_event((consume_async_result) => { /* ... */ });
From the wording of your question you seem to be wanting to do this instead;
..somewhere in your code:
this_function_generate_async_event(() => { set_global_state() });
..somewhere else in your code:
let this_variable_consumes_result_of_a_promise = await global_state();
I would consider this an anti-pattern.
Calling asynchronous functions in class constructors
This is not only an anti-pattern but an impossibility (as you've no doubt discovered when you find that you cannot return the asynchronous result).
There are however design patterns that can work around this. The following is an example of exposing a database connection that is created asynchronously:
class MyClass {
constructor () {
// constructor logic
}
db () {
if (this.connection) {
return Promise.resolve(this.connection);
}
else {
return new Promise (function (resolve, reject) {
createDbConnection(function (error, conn) {
if (error) {
reject(error);
}
else {
this.connection = conn; // cache the connection
resolve(this.connection);
}
});
});
}
}
}
Usage:
const myObj = new MyClass();
async function waiting (intro){
const db = await myObj.db();
db.doSomething(); // you can now use the database connection.
}
You can read more about asynchronous constructors from my answer to this other question: Async/Await Class Constructor

The way I would solve this, is as follows. I am not 100% certain this solves your problem, but the assumption here is that you have control over stateReady().
let state = false;
let stateResolver;
const statePromise = new Promise( (res, rej) => {
stateResolver = res;
});
function stateReady(){
state = true;
stateResolver();
}
async function promiseForState(){
await stateResolver();
const msg = "good to go!";
return msg;
}
async function waiting (intro){
const result = await promiseForState();
console.log(intro + result)
}
setTimeout(stateReady,5000);
waiting("This function is now ");
Some key points:
The way this is written currently is that the 'state' can only transition to true once. If you want to allow this to be fired many times, some of those const will need to be let and the promise needs to be re-created.
I created the promise once, globally and always return the same one because it's really just one event that every caller subscribes to.
I needed a stateResolver variable to lift the res argument out of the promise constructor into the global scope.

Here is an alternative using .requestAnimationFrame().
It provides a clean interface that is simple to understand.
var serverStuffComplete = false
// mock the server delay of 5 seconds
setTimeout(()=>serverStuffComplete = true, 5000);
// continue until serverStuffComplete is true
function waitForServer(now) {
if (serverStuffComplete) {
doSomethingElse();
} else {
// place this request on the next tick
requestAnimationFrame(waitForServer);
}
}
console.log("Waiting for server...");
// starts the process off
requestAnimationFrame(waitForServer);
//resolve the promise or whatever
function doSomethingElse() {
console.log('Done baby!');
}

How do you know when an indefinitely long promise chain has completely finished?

I was trying to use promises to force serialization of a series of Ajax calls. These Ajax calls are made one for each time a user presses a button. I can successfully serialize the operations like this:
// sample async function
// real-world this is an Ajax call
function delay(val) {
log("start: ", val);
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
setTimeout(function() {
log("end: ", val);
resolve();
}, 500);
});
}
// initialize p to a resolved promise
var p = Promise.resolve();
var v = 1;
// each click adds a new task to
// the serially executed queue
$("#run").click(function() {
// How to detect here that there are no other unresolved .then()
// handlers on the current value of p?
p = p.then(function() {
return delay(v++);
});
});
Working demo: http://jsfiddle.net/jfriend00/4hfyahs3/
But, this builds a potentially never ending promise chain since the variable p that stores the last promise is never cleared. Every new operation just chains onto the prior promise. So, I was thinking that for good memory management, I should be able to detect when there are no more .then() handlers left to run on the current value of p and I can then reset the value of p, making sure that any objects that the previous chain of promise handlers might have held in closures will be eligible for garbage collection.
So, I was wondering how I would know in a given .then() handler that there are no more .then() handlers to be called in this chain and thus, I can just do p = Promise.resolve() to reset p and release the previous promise chain rather than just continually adding onto it.

I'm being told that a "good" promise implementation would not cause accumulating memory from an indefinitely growing promise chain. But, there is apparently no standard that requires or describes this (other than good programming practices) and we have lots of newbie Promise implementations out there so I have not yet decided if it's wise to rely on this good behavior.
My years of coding experience suggest that when implementations are new, facts are lacking that all implementations behave a certain way and there's no specification that says they should behave that way, then it might be wise to write your code in as "safe" a way as possible. In fact, it's often less work to just code around an uncertain behavior than it is to go test all relevant implementations to find out how they behave.
In that vein, here's an implementation of my code that seems to be "safe" in this regard. It just saves a local copy of the global last promise variable for each .then() handler and when that .then() handler runs, if the global promise variable still has the same value, then my code has not chained any more items onto it so this must be the currently last .then() handler. It seems to work in this jsFiddle:
// sample async function
// real-world this is an Ajax call
function delay(val) {
log("start: ", val);
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
setTimeout(function() {
log("end: ", val);
resolve();
}, 500);
});
}
// initialize p to a resolved promise
var p = Promise.resolve();
var v = 1;
// each click adds a new task to
// the serially executed queue
$("#run").click(function() {
var origP = p = p.then(function() {
return delay(v++);
}).then(function() {
if (p === origP) {
// no more are chained by my code
log("no more chained - resetting promise head");
// set fresh promise head so no chance of GC leaks
// on prior promises
p = Promise.resolve();
v = 1;
}
// clear promise reference in case this closure is leaked
origP = null;
}, function() {
origP = null;
});
});

… so that I can then reset the value of p, making sure that any objects that the previous chain of promise handlers might have held in closures will be eligible for garbage collection.
No. A promise handler that has been executed (when the promise has settled) is no more needed and implicitly eligible for garbage collection. A resolved promise does not hold onto anything but the resolution value.
You don't need to do "good memory management" for promises (asynchronous values), your promise library does take care of that itself. It has to "release the previous promise chain" automatically, if it doesn't then that's a bug. Your pattern works totally fine as is.
How do you know when the promise chain has completely finished?
I would take a pure, recursive approach for this:
function extendedChain(p, stream, action) {
// chains a new action to p on every stream event
// until the chain ends before the next event comes
// resolves with the result of the chain and the advanced stream
return Promise.race([
p.then(res => ({res}) ), // wrap in object to distinguish from event
stream // a promise that resolves with a .next promise
]).then(({next, res}) =>
next
? extendedChain(p.then(action), next, action) // a stream event happened first
: {res, next:stream}; // the chain fulfilled first
);
}
function rec(stream, action, partDone) {
return stream.then(({next}) =>
extendedChain(action(), next, action).then(({res, next}) => {
partDone(res);
return rec(next, action, partDone);
});
);
}
var v = 1;
rec(getEvents($("#run"), "click"), () => delay(v++), res => {
console.log("all current done, none waiting");
console.log("last result", res);
}); // forever
with a helper function for event streams like
function getEvents(emitter, name) {
var next;
function get() {
return new Promise((res) => {
next = res;
});
}
emitter.on(name, function() {
next({next: get()});
});
return get();
}
(Demo at jsfiddle.net)

It is impossible to detect when no more handlers are added.
It is in fact an undecidable problem. It is not very hard to show a reduction to the halting (or the Atm problem). I can add a formal reduction if you'd like but in handwavey: Given an input program, put a promise at its first line and chain to it at every return or throw - assuming we have a program that solves the problem you describe in this question - apply it to the input problem - we now know if it runs forever or not solving the halting problem. That is, your problem is at least as hard as the halting problem.
You can detect when a promise is "resolved" and update it on new ones.
This is common in "last" or in "flatMap". A good use case is autocomplete search where you only want the latest results. Here is an [implementation by Domenic
(https://github.com/domenic/last):
function last(operation) {
var latestPromise = null; // keep track of the latest
return function () {
// call the operation
var promiseForResult = operation.apply(this, arguments);
// it is now the latest operation, so set it to that.
latestPromise = promiseForResult;
return promiseForResult.then(
function (value) {
// if we are _still_ the last value when it resovled
if (latestPromise === promiseForResult) {
return value; // the operation is done, you can set it to Promise.resolve here
} else {
return pending; // wait for more time
}
},
function (reason) {
if (latestPromise === promiseForResult) { // same as above
throw reason;
} else {
return pending;
}
}
);
};
};
I adapted Domenic's code and documented it for your problem.
You can safely not optimize this
Sane promise implementations do not keep promises which are "up the chain", so setting it to Promise.resolve() will not save memory. If a promise does not do this it is a memory leak and you should file a bug against it.

I tried to check if we can see the promise's state in code, apprantly that is only possible from console, not from code, so I used a flag to moniter the status, not sure if there is a loophole somewhere:
var p
, v = 1
, promiseFulfilled = true;
function addPromise() {
if(!p || promiseFulfilled){
console.log('reseting promise...');
p = Promise.resolve();
}
p = p.then(function() {
promiseFulfilled = false;
return delay(v++);
}).then(function(){
promiseFulfilled = true;
});
}
fiddle demo

You could push the promises onto an array and use Promise.all:
var p = Promise.resolve,
promiseArray = [],
allFinishedPromise;
function cleanup(promise, resolvedValue) {
// You have to do this funkiness to check if more promises
// were pushed since you registered the callback, though.
var wereMorePromisesPushed = allFinishedPromise !== promise;
if (!wereMorePromisesPushed) {
// do cleanup
promiseArray.splice(0, promiseArray.length);
p = Promise.resolve(); // reset promise
}
}
$("#run").click(function() {
p = p.then(function() {
return delay(v++);
});
promiseArray.push(p)
allFinishedPromise = Promise.all(promiseArray);
allFinishedPromise.then(cleanup.bind(null, allFinishedPromise));
});
Alternatively, since you know they are executed sequentially, you could have each completion callback remove that promise from the array and just reset the promise when the array is empty.
var p = Promise.resolve(),
promiseArray = [];
function onPromiseComplete() {
promiseArray.shift();
if (!promiseArray.length) {
p = Promise.resolve();
}
}
$("#run").click(function() {
p = p.then(function() {
onPromiseComplete();
return delay(v++);
});
promiseArray.push(p);
});
Edit: If the array is likely to get very long, though, you should go with the first option b/c shifting the array is O(N).
Edit: As you noted, there's no reason to keep the array around. A counter will work just fine.
var p = Promise.resolve(),
promiseCounter = 0;
function onPromiseComplete() {
promiseCounter--;
if (!promiseCounter) {
p = Promise.resolve();
}
}
$("#run").click(function() {
p = p.then(function() {
onPromiseComplete();
return delay(v++);
});
promiseCounter++;
});