I am having some difficulties with node.js & using functions. My problem is when I call a function, node.js doesnt wait for it to finish and I ended up getting nothing as my return values. This is what I have
exports.handle = (event, context,callback) => {
switch (event.request.type)
{
case "IntentRequest":
console.log('INTENT REQUEST')
switch(event.request.intent.name)
{
case "MoveDown":
readpos()
}
}}
function readpos(){
var position = []
//this code parses an array and gets me x y values
return position }
My problem is I end up getting an empty array because node.js runs to fast. Im assuming I have to do something with callback but im unsure on how to implement callback. I've tried reading online tutorials on callback but all of them have confused me as well and I cant seem to apply what online resources say to my cold. My main language is c++ & Python.
It's quite simple. You handle it in your callback. Let's look at your fixed function:
exports.handle = (event, context,callback) => {
switch (event.request.type)
{
case "IntentRequest":
console.log('INTENT REQUEST');
switch(event.request.intent.name)
{
case "MoveDown":
callback(readpos());
}
}
};
function readpos() {
var position = [];
//this code parses an array and gets me x y values
return position;
}
And now, when you call the handle, you just call it as such:
handle(event, context,
// This is your callback function, which returns when done
function(position){
// When readPos() has run, it will return the value in this function
var newPos = position + 1; ...etc...
});
Of course, your code should follow conventions. Callbacks are designed to return errors and results so you should cater for that too. But this is just a general idea of callbacks :)
You need to use a callback as
exports.handle = (event, context,callback) => {
switch (event.request.type)
{
case "IntentRequest":
console.log('INTENT REQUEST')
switch(event.request.intent.name)
{
case "MoveDown":
callback();
}
}}
Usage
function readpos(){
var position = []
//this code parses an array and gets me x y values
Don't return here instead use the result directly or store into a global
}
handle(event,context,readpos);
Related
ref.child("path").on("value", snapshot => {
var z = Object.keys(snapshot.val())[2];
y = snapshot.val()[z];
//Call the friggin thing
exportData(y);
function exportData(y) {
exporting(y);
}
});
function exporting(y) {
var x = y;
//console.log(y);
return x;
}
I want to store x in a global variable.
I cannot do code just below because 'y' will not be passed through.
'y' is a local variable.
var answer = exporting();
answer();
Storing the value in a global variable is not a problem, it's the when that is messing you up.
Data is loaded from Firebase asynchronously. This means that code doesn't run in the order that you probably expected. You can most easily see this by putting some logging in there:
console.log("Before starting to load value");
ref.child("path").on("value", snapshot => {
console.log("Loaded value");
});
console.log("After starting to load value");
When you run this code it prints:
Before starting to load value
After starting to load value
Loaded value
That is probably not the order you expected. But it explains perfectly why the global variable is not set when you access it: the value hasn't come back from the database yet.
That's why you'll want to move the code that needs the data from the database inside the callback function. Alternatively you can use the fact that once() returns a promise, which makes it easier to deal with as a result:
function loadData() {
return ref.child("path").once("value");
});
loadData().then((snapshot) => {
... use the data from snapshot
});
Note that is asynchronous loading is an incredibly common source of confusion for developers who are new to it. I highly recommend checking out some of the other questions on the topic:
How to return value from an asynchronous callback function?
How do I return the response from an asynchronous call?
How to get returned a value by a callback function
Return a value from a Firebase JS callback method (DAL) to another function (controller)
Firebase return output from function
I figured out a solution using jQuery
ref.child("path").on("value", snapshot => {
var y = Object.keys(snapshot.val())[2];
z = snapshot.val()[y];
$("#id").attr("data-stored", z);
updateVal();
});
var x;
function updateVal() {
x = parseFloat($("#id").attr("data-stored"));
}
console.log("It Works! " + x);
I am using JS with Angular came to the following problem.
I am getting data from a requestService, so a call the request function and then do something with the data in a 'success' function. Inside this function, everything is fine and I get all my results but as soon as a leave the success function, my results are undefined. I read some other questions/answers about similar problems, and tried other things. However I do not really know how to hand this and wanted to ask this explicitly with a code example:
function loadShips() {
var count = 0;
RequestService.getShips(nelat, swlat, nelong, swlong, timestamp)
.success(function(results) {
var groupedShips = results.aisData.aisGroupedByShipType;
_.each(groupedShips, function(groupedShip) {
_.each(groupedShip, function(ship) {
Markers['marker' + count] = createMarker(ship);
count++;
});
});
console.log(Markers, '#1')
return Markers
});
console.log(Markers, '#2');
return Markers;
}
So anyone could maybe tell me, why Markers at the print out of '#1' are defined and at '#2' are undefined.
Assuming the request is being done asynchronously, the call at #2 is happening before the request's success method is being called. This would explain why the object does not exist yet.
One solution would be to pass a call back method into the factory as a parameter, and then call that method after the request success has occurred. That would look something like this:
function loadShips(callBack) {
var count = 0;
RequestService.getShips(nelat, swlat, nelong, swlong, timestamp)
.success(function(results) {
var groupedShips = results.aisData.aisGroupedByShipType;
_.each(groupedShips, function(groupedShip) {
_.each(groupedShip, function(ship) {
Markers['marker' + count] = createMarker(ship);
count++;
});
});
console.log(Markers, "#1");
callBack(Markers);
});
}
Using this method looks like this:
function myCallback(markers){
console.log(markers, "#2");
//assign markers to something
}
loadShips(myCallback);
As Will P pointed out, with asynchronous functions, the inline code after them will execute first, because the success function is still waiting in the event queue.
in addition to that, Markers is being returned from inside a anonymous function which will not return it as the result of loadShips but will return it inside ajax wonderland, never to be seen.
what you will have to do is have a function that receives the data when it is ready and call that function with the data. I'm assuming things happen after the ships load, those things will have to be called after the anonymous function is done creating Markers.
function loadShips() {
var count = 0;
RequestService.getShips(nelat, swlat, nelong, swlong, timestamp)
.success(function(results) {
var groupedShips = results.aisData.aisGroupedByShipType;
_.each(groupedShips, function(groupedShip) {
_.each(groupedShip, function(ship) {
Markers['marker' + count] = createMarker(ship);
count++;
});
});
doFancyWonderfulThingsInTheOcean(Markers);
});
}
In terms of solving the problem, I have a fully working solution that I just finished here:
// synchronous dynamic script loading.
// takes an array of js url's to be loaded in that specific order.
// assembles an array of functions that are referenced more directly rather than
// using only nested closures. I couldn't get it going with the closures and gave up on it.
function js_load(resources, cb_done) {
var cb_list = []; // this is not space optimal but nobody gives a damn
array_each(resources, function(r, i) {
cb_list[i] = function() {
var x = document.body.appendChild(document.createElement('script'));
x.src = r;
console.log("loading "+r);
x.onload = function() {
console.log("js_load: loaded "+r);
if (i === resources.length-1) {
cb_done();
} else {
cb_list[i+1]();
}
};
};
});
cb_list[0]();
}
I am completely happy with this because it does what I want now, and is probably far easier to debug than what my first approach, if it had succeeded, would have been.
But what i can't get over is why I could never get it to work.
It looked something like this.
function js_load(resources, cb_done) {
var cur_cont = cb_done;
// So this is an iterative approach that makes a nested "function stack" where
// the inner functions are hidden inside the closures.
array_each_reverse(resources, function(r) {
// the stack of callbacks must be assembled in reverse order
var tmp_f = function() {
var x = document.body.appendChild(document.createElement('script'));
x.src = r;
console.log("loading "+r);
x.onload = function() { console.log("js_load: loaded "+r); cur_cont(); }; // TODO: get rid of this function creation once we know it works right
};
cur_cont = tmp_f; // Trying here to not make the function recursive. We're generating a closure with it inside. Doesn't seem to have worked :(
});
cur_cont();
}
It kept trying to call itself in an infinite loop, among other strange things, and it's really hard to identify which function a function is and what a function contains within it, during debugging.
I did not dig into the code, but it appears that jQuery.queue has also implemented a similar mechanism to my working one (using an array to track the queue of continuations) rather than using only closures.
My question is this: Is it possible to build a Javascript function that can take a function as argument, and enhance it with a list of other functions, by building closures that wrap functions it creates itself?
This is really hard to describe. But I'm sure somebody has a proper theory-backed mathematical term for it.
P.S. Referenced by the code above are these routines
// iterates through array (which as you know is a hash), via a for loop over integers
// f receives args (value, index)
function array_each(arr, f) {
var l = arr.length; // will die if you modify the array in the loop function. BEWARE
for (var i=0; i<l; ++i) {
f(arr[i], i);
}
}
function array_each_reverse(arr, f) {
var l = arr.length; // will die if you modify the array in the loop function. BEWARE
for (var i=l-1; i>=0; --i) {
f(arr[i], i);
}
}
The problem is how you were setting the value of cur_cont for every new function you made, and calling cur_cont in the onload callback. When you make a closure like tmp_f, any free variables like cur_cont are not 'frozen' to their current values. If cur_cont is changed at all, any reference to it from within tmp_f will refer to the new, updated value. As you are constantly changing cur_cont to be the new tmp_f function you have just made, the reference to the other functions are lost. Then, when cur_cont is executed and finishes, cur_cont is called again. This is exactly the same function that had just finished executing - hence the infinite loop!
In this sort of situation, where you need to keep the value of a free variable inside a closure, the easiest thing to do is to make a new function and call that with the value you want to keep. By calling this new function, a new variable is created just for that run, which will keep the value you need.
function js_load(resources, cb_done) {
var cur_cont = cb_done;
array_each_reverse(resources, function(r) {
// the stack of callbacks must be assembled in reverse order
// Make a new function, and pass the current value of the `cur_cont`
// variable to it, so we have the correct value in later executions.
// Within this function, use `done` instead of `cur_cont`;
cur_cont = (function(done) {
// Make a new function that calls `done` when it is finished, and return it.
// This function will become the new `cur_cont`.
return function() {
var x = document.body.appendChild(document.createElement('script'));
x.src = r;
console.log("loading "+r);
x.onload = function() {
console.log("js_load: loaded "+r);
done();
};
};
})(cur_cont);
});
// Start executing the function chain
cur_cont();
}
EDIT: Actually, this can be made even simpler by using the Array.reduce function. Conceptually, you are taking an array and producing a single function from that array, and each successive function generated should be dependant upon the last function generated. This is the problem that reduce was designed to help solve:
function js_load(resources, done) {
var queue = resources.reduceRight(function(done, r) {
return function() {
var x = document.body.appendChild(document.createElement('script'));
x.src = r;
console.log("loading "+r);
x.onload = function() {
console.log("js_load: loaded "+r);
done();
};
};
}, done);
queue();
};
Note that reduce and reduceRight are not available for older browsers (<= IE8). A JavaScript implementation can be found on the MDN page.
so i have to calculate some share in a loop. In every iteration of that loop i have to get a variable called rent from an array. So i devided the calculate function from the database stuff.
var calculate = function() {
while(count < 100) {
var share = 50;
var shareArray = [];
for(var i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
var pension = share*2; // mathematical stuff
// Gets a rent from a database and returns it in a callback
getRent(modules, share, function(rent) {
share = rent*foo; // some fancy mathematical stuff going on here
// I need to get the share variable above out of its function scope
});
// I need the share variable right here
shareArray.push(share); // the value of share will be for i = 0: 50, i= 1: 50 ...
// This is not what i want, i need the share value from getRent()
}
count++;
}
}
Now as you may see i am presented with the following trouble. Because I'm working in node.js, the only way to get the rent variable from the modules array is through this callback function called getRent(). The thing is, i need the share value after this step but outside of getRent().
Is there any way i can do this?
This is the getRent() - Function:
var getRent = function(modules, share, callback) {
// Searching for a fitting rent in the modules array
// Just assume this is happening here
callback(rent);
};
So the question is: How can i "return" share:
getRent(modules, share, function(rent) {
share = rent*foo; // some fancy mathematical stuff going on here
// I need to get the share variable above out of its function scope
});
in any way?
If getRent is async there's no way to get the result synchronously. Fundamentally you don't know the value that getRent will end up supplying to its callback until it finally returns it. So it isn't a question of function scope, its a question of timing. You just have to wait for getRent to do its thing before you can get the value for rent. You need to refactor your code so that calculate is also async.
Something like:
// Refactor calculate to be async:
function calculate(cb) {
var data = [];
for ( var i=0; i<100; i++ ) {
getRent(function (rent) {
data.push(rent);
if ( data.length === 100 ) cb(data);
});
}
}
// And then use it async:
calculate(function (data) {
// data array arrives here with 100 elements
});
The above answer is perhaps similar to how you might achieve it with vanilla JS. Using the async library like miggs suggests is probably a good idea in the long run. But like I said, if you use vanilla JS, or the async lib, there's no getting away from the fact that you'll have to refactor towards asynchronicity both in this code and the code that calls it.
You want to use the whilst method of the async library (npm install async) to simplify this:
var count = 0;
var shareArray = [];
async.whilst(
function () {
return count < 100;
},
function (next) {
count++;
getRent(function(rent) {
// What does modules do anyway??
// Dont know where foo comes from...
shareArray.push(rent*foo); // some fancy mathematical stuff going on here
next();
});
},
function (err) {
console.log(shareArray);
// Do sth. with shareArray
}
);
If it was OK for you to request all 100 call in parallel, you could also use the parallel function.
I'm trying to write a function in Javascript (with jQuery, if you want):
function fetchItem(itemId) { return /* ??? */; }
This function relies on a second, predefined and unmodifyable function that looks like this:
function load(callback) { /* ... */ }
This function is asynchronous. After calling it, it fetches n items via XHR, then when they have arrived, stores them in the DOM, then invokes the callback.
fetchItem uses a simple jQuery selector (irrelevant here) to check the DOM for the element with itemId and calls load if the item isn't there yet. Rinse and repeat.
My problem is that I want to wrap multiple asynchronous calls of load into my synchronous fetchItem function, which should return the DOM element with itemId after it has made enough load calls.
Pseudo code, if load was synchronous:
function fetchItem(itemId):
while not dom.contains(itemId):
load()
return dom.find(itemId)
My first attempts at doing this in Javascript, which probably display a lot of misconceptions about Javascript's closures and execution model: ;)
function fetchItem(itemId) {
var match = undefined;
function finder() {
match = $(...).get(0);
if(!match) {
load(finder);
}
}
finder();
return match;
}
Obviously, this fails because the return is executed before the first callback. Also, as you can see I had some problems getting match back out to fetchItem. Is it properly protected by the closure here? Would this work if fetchItem was executed multiple times in parallel, assuming that load supports this (and doesn't mix up the DOM)?
I'm probably missing a perfectly good pattern here, but I don't really know what to google for...
You need to make fetchItems async too and provide it a callback, something like this should probably work (warning untested!):
function fetchItems(itemIDS, callback, matches) {
if (!matches) { // init the result list
matches = [];
}
// fetch until we got'em all
if (itemIDS.length > 0) {
var id = itemIDS[0]; // get the first id in the queue
var match = $(id).get(0);
// not found, call load again
if (!match) {
load(function() {
fetchItems(itemIDS, callback, matches);
});
// found, update results and call fetchItems again to get the next one
} else {
matches.push(match); // push the current match to the results
itemIDS.shift(); // remove the current id form the queue
fetchItems(itemIDS, callback, matches);
}
// we have all items, call the callback and supply the matches
} else {
callback(matches);
}
}
fetchItems(['#foo', '#bar', '#test'], function(matches) {
console.log(matches);
})
I would simply gave your fetchItem function as a callback to load. Like this:
function fetchItem(itemId, callback):
if not dom.contains(itemId):
load(fetchItem)
else:
callback(dom.find(itemId))
callback() is a function that does rest of the job when necessary element appears in the DOM.
That is impossible. You cannot create synchronousness from asynchronousness. Why do not you add a callback to your fetchItem-function as well?
Seems like everybody agrees that I need to introduce my own callback, so here's my (so far final) working solution:
var MAX_FETCH_MORE = 3;
/*
* Searches for itemId, loading more items up to MAX_FETCH_MORE times if necessary. When
* the item has been found or the maximum reload count has been reached, the callback
* is invoked, which is passed the DOM object of the item wrapped in a jQuery object, or
* undefined.
*/
function executeWithItem(itemId, callback, fetchCycleCounter) {
// initialize fetchCycleCounter on first iteration
if(!fetchCycleCounter) fetchCycleCounter = 0;
console.debug('iteration ' + fetchCycleCounter + '/' + MAX_FETCH_MORE);
// try to find the item in the DOM
match = $('div[data-item-id="' + itemId + '"]').get(0);
if(match) {
// if it has been found, invoke the callback, then terminate
console.debug('found: ' + match);
callback($(match));
} else if(!match && fetchCycleCounter < MAX_FETCH_MORE) {
// if it has not been found, but we may still reload, call load() and pass it
// this function as the callback
console.debug('fetching more...');
load(function() {executeWithItem(itemId, callback, fetchCycleCounter+1);});
} else {
// give up after MAX_FETCH_MORE attempts, maybe the item is gone
console.debug('giving up search');
}
}
// example invocation
executeWithItem('itemA01', function(item) {
// do stuff with it
item.fadeOut(10000);
});
Thanks to everybody for encouraging me to introduce another callback, it hasn't turned out looking so bad. :)