I found the term "The Ghost Promise" here, which looks like my case.
I have the code like this:
return Q.Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
firstFunctionThatReturnPromise()
.then(function(firstResult) {
_check(firstResult) ? resolve(firstResult) : return secondFunctionThatReturnPromise();
})
.then(function(secondResult) {
console.log(secondResult);
return thirdFunctionThatReturnPromise(secondResult);
})
.then(function(thirdResult) {
resolve(thirdResult);
})
.catch(function(e) {
reject(e)
});
});
The problem is, even though the _check returns true, it still proceeds to the console.log command (which results in undefined).
In case the _check returns false, things work as expected.
So my question is:
If the behavior described above is normal?
If there is a more elegant way to handle this case?
Update 1: Many questioned that why I use Q.Promise instead of returning the result directly. It's because this is a generic function, shared by other functions.
// Usage in other functions
genericFunction()
.then(function(finalResult) {
doSomething(finalResult);
})
.catch(function(err) {
handleError(err);
});
First off, there's no reason to wrap a new promise around any of this. Your operations already return promises so it is an error prone anti-pattern to rewrap them in a new promise.
Second off, as others have said, a .then() handler has these choices:
It can return a result which will be passed to the next .then() handler. Not returning anything passes undefined to the next .then() handler.
It can return a promise whose resolved value will be passed to the next .then() handler or rejected value will be passed to the next reject handler.
It can throw which will reject the current promise.
There is no way from a .then() handler to tell a promise chain to conditionally skip some following .then() handlers other than rejecting.
So, if you want to branch your promise based on some condition logic, then you need to actually nest your .then() handlers according to your branching logic:
a().then(function(result1) {
if (result1) {
return result1;
} else {
// b() is only executed here in this conditional
return b().then(...);
}
}).then(function(result2) {
// as long as no rejection, this is executed for both branches of the above conditional
// result2 will either be result1 or the resolved value of b()
// depending upon your conditional
})
So, when you want to branch, you make a new nested chain that lets you control what happens based on the conditional branching.
Using your psuedo-code, it would look something like this:
firstFunctionThatReturnPromise().then(function (firstResult) {
if (_check(firstResult)) {
return firstResult;
} else {
return secondFunctionThatReturnPromise().then(function (secondResult) {
console.log(secondResult);
return thirdFunctionThatReturnPromise(secondResult);
})
}
}).then(function (finalResult) {
console.log(finalResult);
return finalResult;
}).catch(function (err) {
console.log(err);
throw err;
});
Even if this is inside a genericFunction, you can still just return the promise you already have:
function genericFunction() {
return firstFunctionThatReturnPromise().then(function (firstResult) {
if (_check(firstResult)) {
return firstResult;
} else {
return secondFunctionThatReturnPromise().then(function (secondResult) {
console.log(secondResult);
return thirdFunctionThatReturnPromise(secondResult);
})
}
}).then(function (finalResult) {
console.log(finalResult);
return finalResult;
}).catch(function (err) {
console.log(err);
throw err;
});
}
// usage
genericFunction().then(...).catch(...)
The behavior is expected. When you chain your .then() statements, you cannot break out of the chain early except by throwing an error.
Your top-level promise (the one returned by Q.Promise()) gets resolved after _check(); but you actually have an inner promise chain that continues to execute.
By specification, then() returns a promise: https://promisesaplus.com/#point-40
You can see for yourself in the source code of Q: https://github.com/kriskowal/q/blob/v1/q.js#L899
For your desired behavior, you'll actually need another nested promise chain.
return Q.Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
firstFunctionThatReturnPromise().then(function(firstResult) {
if (_check(firstResult)) {
resolve(firstResult);
} else {
return secondFunctionThatReturnPromise().then(function(secondResult) {
console.log(secondResult);
return thirdFunctionThatReturnPromise(secondResult);
});
}
});
});
I have never used Q, but everything a promise returns is transformed into a promise and passed to the next .then(). Here, your first .then() don't return anything. So it returns undefined. So undefined is wrapped in a new Promise and passed to the next handler, where you get secondResult == undefined.
You can see it in action in the following CodePen : http://codepen.io/JesmoDrazik/pen/xOaXKE
Isn't it possible to cancel an ES6 Promise by just calling Promise.reject(reason)?
Something like this:
Promise.resolve().then(function () {
return 'foo';
}).then(function () {
return console.log('we were here');
}).then(function () {
return Promise.reject({type: 'canceled'})
}).then(function () {
return console.log('never visited');
}).catch(function (e) {
console.log(e);
});
is there any downside to "cancelling" promises via Promise.reject?
No, you can't cancel a promise with Promise.reject().
Promise.reject() is just a helper function that returns a new already rejected promise.
Case in point, if you already have a promise p, then there is no way to cancel it:
var p = fetch("flower.png");
// No way to reject p or "cancel" the fetch.
Importantly, p is not a control surface for the fetch. All you can do is reject subsequently chained promises:
p = p.then(result => cancel? Promise.reject(new Error("Cancelled")) : result);
or simply ignore p, which has the same effect.
That said, your code looks fine, but doesn't match your question. Most people think of this as error handling, or rejection propagation, not cancellation, though it does break the chain of subsequent asynchronous operations, as you show.
There is no downside, it's just one of the ways you can handle a promise if it can't be fufilled
See
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Promise
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Promise/reject
I'm writing a background job function on Parse.com CloudCode. The job needs to call the same function (that includes a Parse.Query.each()call) several times with different parameters, and I want to chain these calls with promises. Here's what I have so far:
Parse.Cloud.job("threadAutoReminders", function(request, response) {
processThreads(parameters1).then(function() {
return processThreads(parameters2);
}).then(function() {
return processThreads(parameters3);
}).then(function() {
return processThreads(parameters4);
}).then(function() {
response.success("Success");
}, function(error) {
response.error(JSON.stringify(error));
});
});
Below is the processThreads() function:
function processThreads(parameters) {
var threadQuery = new Parse.Query("Thread");
threadQuery... // set up query using parameters
return threadQuery.each(function(thread) {
console.log("Hello");
// do something
});
}
My questions are:
Am I chaining function calls using promises correctly?
What happens in threadQuery.each() returns zero results? Will the promise chain continue with execution? I'm asking because at the moment "Hello" never gets logged..
Am I chaining function calls using promises correctly?
Yes.
What happens in threadQuery.each() returns zero results? Will the promise chain continue with execution? I'm asking because at the moment "Hello" never gets logged.
I think I'm right in saying that, if "do something" is synchronous, then zero "Hello" messages can only happen if :
an uncaught error occurs in "do something" before a would-be "Hello" is logged, or
every stage gives no results (suspect your data, your query or your expectation).
You can immunise yourself against uncaught errors by catching them. As Parse promises are not throw-safe, you need to catch them manually :
function processThreads(parameters) {
var threadQuery = new Parse.Query("Thread");
threadQuery... // set up query using parameters
return threadQuery.each(function(thread) {
console.log("Hello");
try {
doSomething(); // synchronous
} catch(e) {
//do nothing
}
});
}
That should ensure that the iteration continues and that a fulfilled promise is returned.
The following example shows as use promises inside your function using a web browser implementation.
function processThreads(parameters) {
var promise = new Promise();
var threadQuery = new Parse.Query("Thread");
threadQuery... // set up query using parameters
try {
threadQuery.each(function(thread) {
console.log("Hello");
if (condition) {
throw "Something was wrong with the thread with id " + thread.id;
}
});
} catch (e) {
promise.reject(e);
return promise;
}
promise.resolve();
return promise;
}
Implementations of promise:
Web Browser https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Promise
jQuery https://api.jquery.com/promise/
Angular https://docs.angularjs.org/api/ng/service/$q
Given the following two $resource examples:
var exampleOne = $resource('/path').save(objectOne);
exampleOne.$promise.then(function (success) {}, function (error) {});
var exampleTwo = $resource('/path').save(objectTwo);
exampleTwo.$promise.then(function (success) {});
[NOTE: Example two contains no error handler]
And an interceptor that sits below all $http requests:
var interceptor = ['$location', '$q', function ($location, $q) {
function error(response) {
if (response.status === 400) {
return $q.reject(response);
}
else {
$location.path('/error/page');
}
return $q.reject(response);
}
return {
'responseError': error
};
}
$httpProvider.interceptors.push(interceptor);
How can I make the interceptor not reject when the example resources $promise.then() contain no error callback? If the call back exists as in exampleOne then I wish to reject, but if not as in exampleTwo then I wish to redirect to the error page thus changing the conditional to something like:
if (response.status === 400 && $q.unresolvedPromises.doIndeedExist()) { ...
Why? Because only some situations in my project call for handling a 400 in a user friendly way, thus I'd like to eliminate many duplicate error callbacks or having to place a list of uncommon situations in the interceptor. I'd like the interceptor to be able to decide based on the presence of another handler in the promise chain.
Simply put it is impossible, you can't detect if someone will attach a handler in some point in the future just like you can't tell if when you throw in a function it will be caught on the outside or not. However, what you want done can be done.
It is not a 'noob question', and it is very fundamental:
function foo()
throw new Error(); // I want to know if whoever is calling `foo`
// handles this error
}
First, what you can do
Simply put in the first case:
exampleOne.$promise.then(function (success) {}, function (error) {});
What you get is a promise that is always fulfilled. However, in the second case the promise might be rejected. Handling a rejection with a rejection handler is like a catch in real code - once you handle it it is no longer rejected.
Personally, I would not use an interceptor here, but rather a resource-using pattern since that's more clear with intent, you can wrap it in a function so it won't need a scope but I like that idea less. Here is what I'd do
attempt(function(){
return $resource('/path').save(objectTwo).$promise.
then(function (success) {});
});
function attempt(fn){
var res = fn();
res.catch(function(err){
// figure out what conditions you want here
// if the promise is rejected. In your case check for http errors
showModalScreen();
}
return res; // for chaining, catch handlers can still be added in the future, so
// this only detects `catch` on the function passed directly so
// we keep composability
}
Now, a short proof that it can't be done
Let's prove it for fun.
Let's say we are given the code of a program M, we create a new promise p and replace every return statement in M andthrow statement in M with a return p.catch(function(){}) and also add a return p.catch(function(){}), now a handler will be added to p if and only if running M ever terminates. So in short - given code M we have constructed a way to see if it halts based on an existence of a solution to the problem of finding if catch is appended to p - so this problem is at least as hard as the halting problem.
Maybe you can postpone redirect with zero timeout and give a chance to error handler if any exists to set flag on error object that error was handled:
var interceptor = ['$q', '$timeout', function ($q, $timeout) {
function error(rejection) {
return $q.reject(rejection).finally(function () {
$timeout(function () {
if (rejection.errorHandled === true) {
alert('all is under control');
} else {
alert("Houston we've got problems");
}
}, 0); //zero timeout to execute function after all handlers in chain completed
});
}
return {
'responseError': error
};
}];
var exampleOne = $resource('/path').save(objectOne);
exampleOne.$promise.then(function (success) { }, function(error) {
error.errorHandled = true;
});
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
How is a promise/defer library like q implemented? I was trying to read the source code but found it pretty hard to understand, so I thought it'd be great if someone could explain to me, from a high level, what are the techniques used to implement promises in single-thread JS environments like Node and browsers.
I find it harder to explain than to show an example, so here is a very simple implementation of what a defer/promise could be.
Disclaimer: This is not a functional implementation and some parts of the Promise/A specification are missing, This is just to explain the basis of the promises.
tl;dr: Go to the Create classes and example section to see full implementation.
Promise:
First we need to create a promise object with an array of callbacks. I'll start working with objects because it's clearer:
var promise = {
callbacks: []
}
now add callbacks with the method then:
var promise = {
callbacks: [],
then: function (callback) {
callbacks.push(callback);
}
}
And we need the error callbacks too:
var promise = {
okCallbacks: [],
koCallbacks: [],
then: function (okCallback, koCallback) {
okCallbacks.push(okCallback);
if (koCallback) {
koCallbacks.push(koCallback);
}
}
}
Defer:
Now create the defer object that will have a promise:
var defer = {
promise: promise
};
The defer needs to be resolved:
var defer = {
promise: promise,
resolve: function (data) {
this.promise.okCallbacks.forEach(function(callback) {
window.setTimeout(function () {
callback(data)
}, 0);
});
},
};
And needs to reject:
var defer = {
promise: promise,
resolve: function (data) {
this.promise.okCallbacks.forEach(function(callback) {
window.setTimeout(function () {
callback(data)
}, 0);
});
},
reject: function (error) {
this.promise.koCallbacks.forEach(function(callback) {
window.setTimeout(function () {
callback(error)
}, 0);
});
}
};
Note that the callbacks are called in a timeout to allow the code be always asynchronous.
And that's what a basic defer/promise implementation needs.
Create classes and example:
Now lets convert both objects to classes, first the promise:
var Promise = function () {
this.okCallbacks = [];
this.koCallbacks = [];
};
Promise.prototype = {
okCallbacks: null,
koCallbacks: null,
then: function (okCallback, koCallback) {
okCallbacks.push(okCallback);
if (koCallback) {
koCallbacks.push(koCallback);
}
}
};
And now the defer:
var Defer = function () {
this.promise = new Promise();
};
Defer.prototype = {
promise: null,
resolve: function (data) {
this.promise.okCallbacks.forEach(function(callback) {
window.setTimeout(function () {
callback(data)
}, 0);
});
},
reject: function (error) {
this.promise.koCallbacks.forEach(function(callback) {
window.setTimeout(function () {
callback(error)
}, 0);
});
}
};
And here is an example of use:
function test() {
var defer = new Defer();
// an example of an async call
serverCall(function (request) {
if (request.status === 200) {
defer.resolve(request.responseText);
} else {
defer.reject(new Error("Status code was " + request.status));
}
});
return defer.promise;
}
test().then(function (text) {
alert(text);
}, function (error) {
alert(error.message);
});
As you can see the basic parts are simple and small. It will grow when you add other options, for example multiple promise resolution:
Defer.all(promiseA, promiseB, promiseC).then()
or promise chaining:
getUserById(id).then(getFilesByUser).then(deleteFile).then(promptResult);
To read more about the specifications: CommonJS Promise Specification. Note that main libraries (Q, when.js, rsvp.js, node-promise, ...) follow Promises/A specification.
Hope I was clear enough.
Edit:
As asked in the comments, I've added two things in this version:
The possibility to call then of a promise, no matter what status it has.
The possibility to chain promises.
To be able to call the promise when resolved you need to add the status to the promise, and when the then is called check that status. If the status is resolved or rejected just execute the callback with its data or error.
To be able to chain promises you need to generate a new defer for each call to then and, when the promise is resolved/rejected, resolve/reject the new promise with the result of the callback. So when the promise is done, if the callback returns a new promise it is bound to the promise returned with the then(). If not, the promise is resolved with the result of the callback.
Here is the promise:
var Promise = function () {
this.okCallbacks = [];
this.koCallbacks = [];
};
Promise.prototype = {
okCallbacks: null,
koCallbacks: null,
status: 'pending',
error: null,
then: function (okCallback, koCallback) {
var defer = new Defer();
// Add callbacks to the arrays with the defer binded to these callbacks
this.okCallbacks.push({
func: okCallback,
defer: defer
});
if (koCallback) {
this.koCallbacks.push({
func: koCallback,
defer: defer
});
}
// Check if the promise is not pending. If not call the callback
if (this.status === 'resolved') {
this.executeCallback({
func: okCallback,
defer: defer
}, this.data)
} else if(this.status === 'rejected') {
this.executeCallback({
func: koCallback,
defer: defer
}, this.error)
}
return defer.promise;
},
executeCallback: function (callbackData, result) {
window.setTimeout(function () {
var res = callbackData.func(result);
if (res instanceof Promise) {
callbackData.defer.bind(res);
} else {
callbackData.defer.resolve(res);
}
}, 0);
}
};
And the defer:
var Defer = function () {
this.promise = new Promise();
};
Defer.prototype = {
promise: null,
resolve: function (data) {
var promise = this.promise;
promise.data = data;
promise.status = 'resolved';
promise.okCallbacks.forEach(function(callbackData) {
promise.executeCallback(callbackData, data);
});
},
reject: function (error) {
var promise = this.promise;
promise.error = error;
promise.status = 'rejected';
promise.koCallbacks.forEach(function(callbackData) {
promise.executeCallback(callbackData, error);
});
},
// Make this promise behave like another promise:
// When the other promise is resolved/rejected this is also resolved/rejected
// with the same data
bind: function (promise) {
var that = this;
promise.then(function (res) {
that.resolve(res);
}, function (err) {
that.reject(err);
})
}
};
As you can see, it has grown quite a bit.
Q is a very complex promise library in terms of implementation because it aims to support pipelining and RPC type scenarios. I have my own very bare bones implementation of the Promises/A+ specification here.
In principle it's quite simple. Before the promise is settled/resolved, you keep a record of any callbacks or errbacks by pushing them into an array. When the promise is settled you call the appropriate callbacks or errbacks and record what result the promise was settled with (and whether it was fulfilled or rejected). After it's settled, you just call the callbacks or errbacks with the stored result.
That gives you aproximately the semantics of done. To build then you just have to return a new promise that is resolved with the result of calling the callbacks/errbacks.
If you're interested in a full explenation of the reasonning behind the development of a full on promise implementation with support for RPC and pipelining like Q, you can read kriskowal's reasonning here. It's a really nice graduated approach that I can't recommend highly enough if you are thinking of implementing promises. It's probably worth a read even if you're just going to be using a promise library.
As Forbes mentions in his answer, I chronicled many of the design decisions involved in making a library like Q, here https://github.com/kriskowal/q/tree/v1/design. Suffice it to say, there are levels of a promise library, and lots of libraries that stop at various levels.
At the first level, captured by the Promises/A+ specification, a promise is a proxy for an eventual result and is suitable for managing “local asynchrony”. That is, it is suitable for ensuring that work occurs in the right order, and for ensuring that it is simple and straight-forward to listen for the result of an operation regardless of whether it already settled, or will occur in the future. It also makes it just as simple for one or many parties to subscribe to an eventual result.
Q, as I have implemented it, provides promises that are proxies for eventual, remote, or eventual+remote results. To that end, it’s design is inverted, with different implementations for promises—deferred promises, fulfilled promises, rejected promises, and promises for remote objects (the last being implemented in Q-Connection). They all share the same interface and work by sending and receiving messages like "then" (which is sufficient for Promises/A+) but also "get" and "invoke". So, Q is about “distributed asynchrony”, and exists on another layer.
However, Q was actually taken down from a higher layer, where promises are used for managing distributed asynchrony among mutually suspicious parties like you, a merchant, a bank, Facebook, the government—not enemies, maybe even friends, but sometimes with conflicts of interest. The Q that I implemented is designed to be API compatible with hardened security promises (which is the reason for separating promise and resolve), with the hope that it would introduce people to promises, train them in using this API, and allow them to take their code with them if they need to use promises in secure mashups in the future.
Of course, there are trade-offs as you move up the layers, usually in speed. So, promises implementations can also be designed to co-exist. This is where the concept of a “thenable” enters. Promise libraries at each layer can be designed to consume promises from any other layer, so multiple implementations can coexist, and users can buy only what they need.
All this said, there is no excuse for being difficult to read. Domenic and I are working on a version of Q that will be more modular and approachable, with some of its distracting dependencies and work-arounds moved into other modules and packages. Thankfully folks like Forbes, Crockford, and others have filled in the educational gap by making simpler libraries.
First make sure you're understanding how Promises are supposed to work. Have a look at the CommonJs Promises proposals and the Promises/A+ specification for that.
There are two basic concepts that can be implemented each in a few simple lines:
A Promise does asynchronously get resolved with the result. Adding callbacks is a transparent action - independent from whether the promise is resolved already or not, they will get called with the result once it is available.
function Deferred() {
var callbacks = [], // list of callbacks
result; // the resolve arguments or undefined until they're available
this.resolve = function() {
if (result) return; // if already settled, abort
result = arguments; // settle the result
for (var c;c=callbacks.shift();) // execute stored callbacks
c.apply(null, result);
});
// create Promise interface with a function to add callbacks:
this.promise = new Promise(function add(c) {
if (result) // when results are available
c.apply(null, result); // call it immediately
else
callbacks.push(c); // put it on the list to be executed later
});
}
// just an interface for inheritance
function Promise(add) {
this.addCallback = add;
}
Promises have a then method that allows chaining them. I takes a callback and returns a new Promise which will get resolved with the result of that callback after it was invoked with the first promise's result. If the callback returns a Promise, it will get assimilated instead of getting nested.
Promise.prototype.then = function(fn) {
var dfd = new Deferred(); // create a new result Deferred
this.addCallback(function() { // when `this` resolves…
// execute the callback with the results
var result = fn.apply(null, arguments);
// check whether it returned a promise
if (result instanceof Promise)
result.addCallback(dfd.resolve); // then hook the resolution on it
else
dfd.resolve(result); // resolve the new promise immediately
});
});
// and return the new Promise
return dfd.promise;
};
Further concepts would be maintaining a separate error state (with an extra callback for it) and catching exceptions in the handlers, or guaranteeing asynchronity for the callbacks. Once you add those, you've got a fully functional Promise implementation.
Here is the error thing written out. It unfortunately is pretty repetitive; you can do better by using extra closures but then it get's really really hard to understand.
function Deferred() {
var callbacks = [], // list of callbacks
errbacks = [], // list of errbacks
value, // the fulfill arguments or undefined until they're available
reason; // the error arguments or undefined until they're available
this.fulfill = function() {
if (reason || value) return false; // can't change state
value = arguments; // settle the result
for (var c;c=callbacks.shift();)
c.apply(null, value);
errbacks.length = 0; // clear stored errbacks
});
this.reject = function() {
if (value || reason) return false; // can't change state
reason = arguments; // settle the errror
for (var c;c=errbacks.shift();)
c.apply(null, reason);
callbacks.length = 0; // clear stored callbacks
});
this.promise = new Promise(function add(c) {
if (reason) return; // nothing to do
if (value)
c.apply(null, value);
else
callbacks.push(c);
}, function add(c) {
if (value) return; // nothing to do
if (reason)
c.apply(null, reason);
else
errbacks.push(c);
});
}
function Promise(addC, addE) {
this.addCallback = addC;
this.addErrback = addE;
}
Promise.prototype.then = function(fn, err) {
var dfd = new Deferred();
this.addCallback(function() { // when `this` is fulfilled…
try {
var result = fn.apply(null, arguments);
if (result instanceof Promise) {
result.addCallback(dfd.fulfill);
result.addErrback(dfd.reject);
} else
dfd.fulfill(result);
} catch(e) { // when an exception was thrown
dfd.reject(e);
}
});
this.addErrback(err ? function() { // when `this` is rejected…
try {
var result = err.apply(null, arguments);
if (result instanceof Promise) {
result.addCallback(dfd.fulfill);
result.addErrback(dfd.reject);
} else
dfd.fulfill(result);
} catch(e) { // when an exception was re-thrown
dfd.reject(e);
}
} : dfd.reject); // when no `err` handler is passed then just propagate
return dfd.promise;
};
You might want to check out the blog post on Adehun.
Adehun is an extremely lightweight implementation (about 166 LOC) and very useful for learning how to implement the Promise/A+ spec.
Disclaimer: I wrote the blog post but the blog post does explain all about Adehun.
The Transition function – Gatekeeper for State Transition
Gatekeeper function; ensures that state transitions occur when all required conditions are met.
If conditions are met, this function updates the promise’s state and value. It then triggers the process function for further processing.
The process function carries out the right action based on the transition (e.g. pending to fulfilled) and is explained later.
function transition (state, value) {
if (this.state === state ||
this.state !== validStates.PENDING ||
!isValidState(state)) {
return;
}
this.value = value;
this.state = state;
this.process();
}
The Then function
The then function takes in two optional arguments (onFulfill and onReject handlers) and must return a new promise. Two major requirements:
The base promise (the one on which then is called) needs to create a new promise using the passed in handlers; the base also stores an internal reference to this created promise so it can be invoked once the base promise is fulfilled/rejected.
If the base promise is settled (i.e. fulfilled or rejected), then the appropriate handler should be called immediately. Adehun.js handles this scenario by calling process in the then function.
``
function then(onFulfilled, onRejected) {
var queuedPromise = new Adehun();
if (Utils.isFunction(onFulfilled)) {
queuedPromise.handlers.fulfill = onFulfilled;
}
if (Utils.isFunction(onRejected)) {
queuedPromise.handlers.reject = onRejected;
}
this.queue.push(queuedPromise);
this.process();
return queuedPromise;
}`
The Process function – Processing Transitions
This is called after state transitions or when the then function is invoked. Thus it needs to check for pending promises since it might have been invoked from the then function.
Process runs the Promise Resolution procedure on all internally stored promises (i.e. those that were attached to the base promise through the then function) and enforces the following Promise/A+ requirements:
Invoking the handlers asynchronously using the Utils.runAsync helper (a thin wrapper around setTimeout (setImmediate will also work)).
Creating fallback handlers for the onSuccess and onReject handlers if they are missing.
Selecting the correct handler function based on the promise state e.g. fulfilled or rejected.
Applying the handler to the base promise’s value. The value of this operation is passed to the Resolve function to complete the promise processing cycle.
If an error occurs, then the attached promise is immediately rejected.
function process() {
var that = this,
fulfillFallBack = function(value) {
return value;
},
rejectFallBack = function(reason) {
throw reason;
};
if (this.state === validStates.PENDING) {
return;
}
Utils.runAsync(function() {
while (that.queue.length) {
var queuedP = that.queue.shift(),
handler = null,
value;
if (that.state === validStates.FULFILLED) {
handler = queuedP.handlers.fulfill ||
fulfillFallBack;
}
if (that.state === validStates.REJECTED) {
handler = queuedP.handlers.reject ||
rejectFallBack;
}
try {
value = handler(that.value);
} catch (e) {
queuedP.reject(e);
continue;
}
Resolve(queuedP, value);
}
});
}
The Resolve function – Resolving Promises
This is probably the most important part of the promise implementation since it handles promise resolution. It accepts two parameters – the promise and its resolution value.
While there are lots of checks for various possible resolution values; the interesting resolution scenarios are two – those involving a promise being passed in and a thenable (an object with a then value).
Passing in a Promise value
If the resolution value is another promise, then the promise must adopt this resolution value’s state. Since this resolution value can be pending or settled, the easiest way to do this is to attach a new then handler to the resolution value and handle the original promise therein. Whenever it settles, then the original promise will be resolved or rejected.
Passing in a thenable value
The catch here is that the thenable value’s then function must be invoked only once (a good use for the once wrapper from functional programming). Likewise, if the retrieval of the then function throws an Exception, the promise is to be rejected immediately.
Like before, the then function is invoked with functions that ultimately resolve or reject the promise but the difference here is the called flag which is set on the first call and turns subsequent calls are no ops.
function Resolve(promise, x) {
if (promise === x) {
var msg = "Promise can't be value";
promise.reject(new TypeError(msg));
}
else if (Utils.isPromise(x)) {
if (x.state === validStates.PENDING){
x.then(function (val) {
Resolve(promise, val);
}, function (reason) {
promise.reject(reason);
});
} else {
promise.transition(x.state, x.value);
}
}
else if (Utils.isObject(x) ||
Utils.isFunction(x)) {
var called = false,
thenHandler;
try {
thenHandler = x.then;
if (Utils.isFunction(thenHandler)){
thenHandler.call(x,
function (y) {
if (!called) {
Resolve(promise, y);
called = true;
}
}, function (r) {
if (!called) {
promise.reject(r);
called = true;
}
});
} else {
promise.fulfill(x);
called = true;
}
} catch (e) {
if (!called) {
promise.reject(e);
called = true;
}
}
}
else {
promise.fulfill(x);
}
}
The Promise Constructor
And this is the one that puts it all together. The fulfill and reject functions are syntactic sugar that pass no-op functions to resolve and reject.
var Adehun = function (fn) {
var that = this;
this.value = null;
this.state = validStates.PENDING;
this.queue = [];
this.handlers = {
fulfill : null,
reject : null
};
if (fn) {
fn(function (value) {
Resolve(that, value);
}, function (reason) {
that.reject(reason);
});
}
};
I hope this helped shed more light into the way promises work.