Say we have 3 asynchronous tasks that return Promises: A, B and C. We want to chain them together (that is, for sake of clarity, taking the value returned by A and calling B with it), but also want to handle the errors correctly for each, and break out at the first failure. Currently, I see 2 ways of doing this:
A
.then(passA)
.then(B)
.then(passB)
.then(C)
.then(passC)
.catch(failAll)
Here, the passX functions handle each of the success of the call to X. But in the failAll function, we'd have to handle all of the errors of A, B and C, which may be complex and not easy to read, especially if we had more than 3 async tasks. So the other way takes this into consideration:
A
.then(passA, failA)
.then(B)
.then(passB, failB)
.then(C)
.then(passC, failC)
.catch(failAll)
Here, we separated out the logic of the original failAll into failA, failB and failC, which seems simple and readable, since all errors are handled right next to its source. However, this does not do what I want.
Let's see if A fails (rejected), failA must not proceed to call B, therefore must throw an exception or call reject. But both of these gets caught by failB and failC, meaning that failB and failC needs to know if we had already failed or not, presumably by keeping state (i.e. a variable).
Moreover, it seems that the more async tasks we have, either our failAll function grows in size (way 1), or more failX functions gets called (way 2). This brings me to my question:
Is there a better way to do this?
Consideration: Since exceptions in then is handled by the rejection method, should there be a Promise.throw method to actually break off the chain?
A possible duplicate, with an answer that adds more scopes inside the handlers. Aren't promises supposed to honor linear chaining of functions, and not passing functions that pass functions that pass functions?
You have a couple options. First, let's see if I can distill down your requirements.
You want to handle the error near where it occurs so you don't have one error handler that has to sort through all the possible different errors to see what to do.
When one promise fails, you want to have the ability to abort the rest of the chain.
One possibility is like this:
A().then(passA).catch(failA).then(val => {
return B(val).then(passB).catch(failB);
}).then(val => {
return C(val).then(passC).catch(failC);
}).then(finalVal => {
// chain done successfully here
}).catch(err => {
// some error aborted the chain, may or may not need handling here
// as error may have already been handled by earlier catch
});
Then, in each failA, failB, failC, you get the specific error for that step. If you want to abort the chain, you rethrow before the function returns. If you want the chain to continue, you just return a normal value.
The above code could also be written like this (with slightly different behavior if passB or passC throws or returns a rejected promise.
A().then(passA, failA).then(val => {
return B(val).then(passB, failB);
}).then(val => {
return C(val).then(passC, failC);
}).then(finalVal => {
// chain done successfully here
}).catch(err => {
// some error aborted the chain, may or may not need handling here
// as error may have already been handled by earlier catch
});
Since these are completely repetitive, you could make the whole thing be table-driven for any length of sequence too.
function runSequence(data) {
return data.reduce((p, item) => {
return p.then(item[0]).then(item[1]).catch(item[2]);
}, Promise.resolve());
}
let fns = [
[A, passA, failA],
[B, passB, failB],
[C, passC, failC]
];
runSequence(fns).then(finalVal => {
// whole sequence finished
}).catch(err => {
// sequence aborted with an error
});
Another useful point when chaining lots of promises is if you make a unique Error class for each reject error, then you can more easily switch on the type of error using instanceof in the final .catch() handler if you need to know there which step caused the aborted chain. Libraries like Bluebird, provide specific .catch() semantics for making a .catch() that catches only a particular type of error (like the way try/catch does it). You can see how Bluebird does that here: http://bluebirdjs.com/docs/api/catch.html. If you're going to handle each error right at it's own promise rejection (as in the above examples), then this is not required unless you still need to know at the final .catch() step which step caused the error.
There are two ways that I recommend (depending on what you are trying to accomplish with this):
Yes, you want to handle all errors in the promise chain with a single catch.
If you need to know which one failed, you can reject the promise with a unique message or value like this:
A
.then(a => {
if(!pass) return Promise.reject('A failed');
...
})
.then(b => {
if(!pass) return Promise.reject('B failed');
...
})
.catch(err => {
// handle the error
});
Alternatively, you can return other promises inside of .then
A
.then(a => {
return B; // B is a different promise
})
.then(b => {
return C; // C is another promise
})
.then(c => {
// all promises were resolved
console.log("Success!")
})
.catch(err => {
// handle the error
handleError(err)
});
In each of those promises, you will want some kind of unique error message so you know which one failed.
And since these are arrow functions we can remove the braces! Just another reason I love promises
A
.then(a => B)
.then(b => C)
.then(c => console.log("Success!"))
.catch(err => handleError(err));
You can branch the promise-chain, but honestly, early error handling is not the proper way to do it, especially for woolly reasons like readability. True for synchronous code as well, i.e. don't try/catch every single function, or readability just goes in the trash.
Always pass up errors and "handle" them at the point where positive code flow resumes.
If you need to know how far things got, a trick I use is a simple progression counter:
let progress = "";
A()
.then(a => (progress = "A passed", passA(a)))
.then(B)
.then(b => (progress = "B passed", passB(b)))
.then(C)
.then(c => (progress = "C passed", passC(c)))
.catch(err => (console.log(progress), failAll(err)))
Related
I had a look at the bluebird promise FAQ, in which it mentions that .then(success, fail) is an antipattern. I don't quite understand its explanation as for the try and catch.
What's wrong with the following?
some_promise_call()
.then(function(res) { logger.log(res) }, function(err) { logger.log(err) })
It seems that the example is suggesting the following to be the correct way.
some_promise_call()
.then(function(res) { logger.log(res) })
.catch(function(err) { logger.log(err) })
What's the difference?
What's the difference?
The .then() call will return a promise that will be rejected in case the callback throws an error. This means, when your success logger fails, the error would be passed to the following .catch() callback, but not to the fail callback that goes alongside success.
Here's a control flow diagram:
To express it in synchronous code:
// some_promise_call().then(logger.log, logger.log)
then: {
try {
var results = some_call();
} catch(e) {
logger.log(e);
break then;
} // else
logger.log(results);
}
The second log (which is like the first argument to .then()) will only be executed in the case that no exception happened. The labelled block and the break statement feel a bit odd, this is actually what python has try-except-else for (recommended reading!).
// some_promise_call().then(logger.log).catch(logger.log)
try {
var results = some_call();
logger.log(results);
} catch(e) {
logger.log(e);
}
The catch logger will also handle exceptions from the success logger call.
So much for the difference.
I don't quite understand its explanation as for the try and catch
The argument is that usually, you want to catch errors in every step of the processing and that you shouldn't use it in chains. The expectation is that you only have one final handler which handles all errors - while, when you use the "antipattern", errors in some of the then-callbacks are not handled.
However, this pattern is actually very useful: When you want to handle errors that happened in exactly this step, and you want to do something entirely different when no error happened - i.e. when the error is unrecoverable. Be aware that this is branching your control flow. Of course, this is sometimes desired.
What's wrong with the following?
some_promise_call()
.then(function(res) { logger.log(res) }, function(err) { logger.log(err) })
That you had to repeat your callback. You rather want
some_promise_call()
.catch(function(e) {
return e; // it's OK, we'll just log it
})
.done(function(res) {
logger.log(res);
});
You also might consider using .finally() for this.
The two aren't quite identical. The difference is that the first example won't catch an exception that's thrown in your success handler. So if your method should only ever return resolved promises, as is often the case, you need a trailing catch handler (or yet another then with an empty success parameter). Sure, it may be that your then handler doesn't do anything that might potentially fail, in which case using one 2-parameter then could be fine.
But I believe the point of the text you linked to is that then is mostly useful versus callbacks in its ability to chain a bunch of asynchronous steps, and when you actually do this, the 2-parameter form of then subtly doesn't behave quite as expected, for the above reason. It's particularly counterintuitive when used mid-chain.
As someone who's done a lot of complex async stuff and bumped into corners like this more than I care to admit, I really recommend avoiding this anti-pattern and going with the separate handler approach.
By looking at advantages and disadvantages of both we can make a calculated guess as to which is appropriate for the situation.
These are the two main approaches to implementing promises. Both have it's pluses and minus
Catch Approach
some_promise_call()
.then(function(res) { logger.log(res) })
.catch(function(err) { logger.log(err) })
Advantages
All errors are handled by one catch block.
Even catches any exception in the then block.
Chaining of multiple success callbacks
Disadvantages
In case of chaining it becomes difficult to show different error messages.
Success/Error Approach
some_promise_call()
.then(function success(res) { logger.log(res) },
function error(err) { logger.log(err) })
Advantages
You get fine grained error control.
You can have common error handling function for various categories of errors like db error, 500 error etc.
Disavantages
You will still need another catch if you wish to handler errors thrown by the success callback
Simple explain:
In ES2018
When the catch method is called with argument onRejected, the
following steps are taken:
Let promise be the this value.
Return ? Invoke(promise, "then", « undefined, onRejected »).
that means:
promise.then(f1).catch(f2)
equals
promise.then(f1).then(undefiend, f2)
Using .then().catch() lets you enable Promise Chaining which is required to fulfil a workflow. You may need to read some information from database then you want to pass it to an async API then you want to manipulate the response. You may want to push the response back into the database. Handling all these workflows with your concept is doable but very hard to manage. The better solution will be then().then().then().then().catch() which receives all errors in just once catch and lets you keep the maintainability of the code.
Using then() and catch() helps chain success and failure handler on the promise.catch() works on promise returned by then(). It handles,
If promise was rejected. See #3 in the picture
If error occurred in success handler of then(), between line numbers 4 to 7 below. See #2.a in the picture
(Failure callback on then() does not handle this.)
If error occurred in failure handler of then(), line number 8 below. See #3.b in the picture.
1. let promiseRef: Promise = this. aTimetakingTask (false);
2. promiseRef
3. .then(
4. (result) => {
5. /* successfully, resolved promise.
6. Work on data here */
7. },
8. (error) => console.log(error)
9. )
10. .catch( (e) => {
11. /* successfully, resolved promise.
12. Work on data here */
13. });
Note: Many times, failure handler might not be defined if catch() is
written already.
EDIT: reject() result in invoking catch() only if the error
handler in then() is not defined. Notice #3 in the picture to
the catch(). It is invoked when handler in line# 8 and 9 are not
defined.
It makes sense because promise returned by then() does not have an error if a callback is taking care of it.
Instead of words, good example. Following code (if first promise resolved):
Promise.resolve()
.then
(
() => { throw new Error('Error occurs'); },
err => console.log('This error is caught:', err)
);
is identical to:
Promise.resolve()
.catch
(
err => console.log('This error is caught:', err)
)
.then
(
() => { throw new Error('Error occurs'); }
)
But with rejected first promise, this is not identical:
Promise.reject()
.then
(
() => { throw new Error('Error occurs'); },
err => console.log('This error is caught:', err)
);
Promise.reject()
.catch
(
err => console.log('This error is caught:', err)
)
.then
(
() => { throw new Error('Error occurs'); }
)
I had a look at the bluebird promise FAQ, in which it mentions that .then(success, fail) is an antipattern. I don't quite understand its explanation as for the try and catch.
What's wrong with the following?
some_promise_call()
.then(function(res) { logger.log(res) }, function(err) { logger.log(err) })
It seems that the example is suggesting the following to be the correct way.
some_promise_call()
.then(function(res) { logger.log(res) })
.catch(function(err) { logger.log(err) })
What's the difference?
What's the difference?
The .then() call will return a promise that will be rejected in case the callback throws an error. This means, when your success logger fails, the error would be passed to the following .catch() callback, but not to the fail callback that goes alongside success.
Here's a control flow diagram:
To express it in synchronous code:
// some_promise_call().then(logger.log, logger.log)
then: {
try {
var results = some_call();
} catch(e) {
logger.log(e);
break then;
} // else
logger.log(results);
}
The second log (which is like the first argument to .then()) will only be executed in the case that no exception happened. The labelled block and the break statement feel a bit odd, this is actually what python has try-except-else for (recommended reading!).
// some_promise_call().then(logger.log).catch(logger.log)
try {
var results = some_call();
logger.log(results);
} catch(e) {
logger.log(e);
}
The catch logger will also handle exceptions from the success logger call.
So much for the difference.
I don't quite understand its explanation as for the try and catch
The argument is that usually, you want to catch errors in every step of the processing and that you shouldn't use it in chains. The expectation is that you only have one final handler which handles all errors - while, when you use the "antipattern", errors in some of the then-callbacks are not handled.
However, this pattern is actually very useful: When you want to handle errors that happened in exactly this step, and you want to do something entirely different when no error happened - i.e. when the error is unrecoverable. Be aware that this is branching your control flow. Of course, this is sometimes desired.
What's wrong with the following?
some_promise_call()
.then(function(res) { logger.log(res) }, function(err) { logger.log(err) })
That you had to repeat your callback. You rather want
some_promise_call()
.catch(function(e) {
return e; // it's OK, we'll just log it
})
.done(function(res) {
logger.log(res);
});
You also might consider using .finally() for this.
The two aren't quite identical. The difference is that the first example won't catch an exception that's thrown in your success handler. So if your method should only ever return resolved promises, as is often the case, you need a trailing catch handler (or yet another then with an empty success parameter). Sure, it may be that your then handler doesn't do anything that might potentially fail, in which case using one 2-parameter then could be fine.
But I believe the point of the text you linked to is that then is mostly useful versus callbacks in its ability to chain a bunch of asynchronous steps, and when you actually do this, the 2-parameter form of then subtly doesn't behave quite as expected, for the above reason. It's particularly counterintuitive when used mid-chain.
As someone who's done a lot of complex async stuff and bumped into corners like this more than I care to admit, I really recommend avoiding this anti-pattern and going with the separate handler approach.
By looking at advantages and disadvantages of both we can make a calculated guess as to which is appropriate for the situation.
These are the two main approaches to implementing promises. Both have it's pluses and minus
Catch Approach
some_promise_call()
.then(function(res) { logger.log(res) })
.catch(function(err) { logger.log(err) })
Advantages
All errors are handled by one catch block.
Even catches any exception in the then block.
Chaining of multiple success callbacks
Disadvantages
In case of chaining it becomes difficult to show different error messages.
Success/Error Approach
some_promise_call()
.then(function success(res) { logger.log(res) },
function error(err) { logger.log(err) })
Advantages
You get fine grained error control.
You can have common error handling function for various categories of errors like db error, 500 error etc.
Disavantages
You will still need another catch if you wish to handler errors thrown by the success callback
Simple explain:
In ES2018
When the catch method is called with argument onRejected, the
following steps are taken:
Let promise be the this value.
Return ? Invoke(promise, "then", « undefined, onRejected »).
that means:
promise.then(f1).catch(f2)
equals
promise.then(f1).then(undefiend, f2)
Using .then().catch() lets you enable Promise Chaining which is required to fulfil a workflow. You may need to read some information from database then you want to pass it to an async API then you want to manipulate the response. You may want to push the response back into the database. Handling all these workflows with your concept is doable but very hard to manage. The better solution will be then().then().then().then().catch() which receives all errors in just once catch and lets you keep the maintainability of the code.
Using then() and catch() helps chain success and failure handler on the promise.catch() works on promise returned by then(). It handles,
If promise was rejected. See #3 in the picture
If error occurred in success handler of then(), between line numbers 4 to 7 below. See #2.a in the picture
(Failure callback on then() does not handle this.)
If error occurred in failure handler of then(), line number 8 below. See #3.b in the picture.
1. let promiseRef: Promise = this. aTimetakingTask (false);
2. promiseRef
3. .then(
4. (result) => {
5. /* successfully, resolved promise.
6. Work on data here */
7. },
8. (error) => console.log(error)
9. )
10. .catch( (e) => {
11. /* successfully, resolved promise.
12. Work on data here */
13. });
Note: Many times, failure handler might not be defined if catch() is
written already.
EDIT: reject() result in invoking catch() only if the error
handler in then() is not defined. Notice #3 in the picture to
the catch(). It is invoked when handler in line# 8 and 9 are not
defined.
It makes sense because promise returned by then() does not have an error if a callback is taking care of it.
Instead of words, good example. Following code (if first promise resolved):
Promise.resolve()
.then
(
() => { throw new Error('Error occurs'); },
err => console.log('This error is caught:', err)
);
is identical to:
Promise.resolve()
.catch
(
err => console.log('This error is caught:', err)
)
.then
(
() => { throw new Error('Error occurs'); }
)
But with rejected first promise, this is not identical:
Promise.reject()
.then
(
() => { throw new Error('Error occurs'); },
err => console.log('This error is caught:', err)
);
Promise.reject()
.catch
(
err => console.log('This error is caught:', err)
)
.then
(
() => { throw new Error('Error occurs'); }
)
I have two requests and some function to be called in between. The flow is that when the first promise is called and finished, no matter what result is (success or failure) some non-promise related function should be called and only after we should call the second promise. So this is how I ended up doing it, which does not look like a good solution.
funtionReturnsPromise()
.then(()=>{})
.catch(()=>{})
.then(()=>{
nonPromiseRelatedFuntion()
})
.then(()=>{
return funtionReturnsPromise2()
})
Since the desired flow is:
Promise > Function > Promise
On which the function is executed no matter the outcome of the first promise, you can simply do something like:
function secondFunction(outcome) {
// do stuff
return funtionReturnsPromise2()
}
functionReturnsPromise().then(secondFunction).catch(secondFunction)
Now, on another topic, I would not call the second function 'unrelated' since it clearly, according to your explanation, needs to be called after the first promise is fulfilled.
Assuming nonPromiseRelatedFuntion is sync and you're not interested in return value of functionReturnsPromise
functionReturnsPromise()
.then(
// no matter what happens, the function is invoked
() => { nonPromiseRelatedFunction() },
error => {
nonPromiseRelatedFunction()
// do error handling from functionReturnsPromise
}
)
.then(() => functionReturnsPromise2() }
.catch(console.error)
If you need a value:
functionReturnsPromise()
.then(
value => {
nonPromiseRelatedFunction()
return functionReturnsPromise2(value)
},
error => {
nonPromiseRelatedFunction()
// do error handling from functionReturnsPromise
}
)
.catch(console.error) // error handling from functionReturnsPromise2
Like the other answers I'm assuming
nonPromiseRelatedFunction is synchronous
you really don't care about any return values
nonPromiseRelatedFunction and funtionReturnsPromise2 should be executed in all circumstances
Having read ALL the comments to the question, I see the above is not an assumption after all
The simplest solution is to get rid of the first .then
funtionReturnsPromise()
.catch(()=>{})
.then(()=>{
nonPromiseRelatedFuntion()
})
.then(()=>{
return funtionReturnsPromise2()
})
Note: such code could be written
funtionReturnsPromise()
.catch(()=>{})
.then(nonPromiseRelatedFuntion)
.then(funtionReturnsPromise2)
sure, the last two functions will receive arguments, but if the code in those functions ignores arguments anyway, then their will be no issue
I had a look at the bluebird promise FAQ, in which it mentions that .then(success, fail) is an antipattern. I don't quite understand its explanation as for the try and catch.
What's wrong with the following?
some_promise_call()
.then(function(res) { logger.log(res) }, function(err) { logger.log(err) })
It seems that the example is suggesting the following to be the correct way.
some_promise_call()
.then(function(res) { logger.log(res) })
.catch(function(err) { logger.log(err) })
What's the difference?
What's the difference?
The .then() call will return a promise that will be rejected in case the callback throws an error. This means, when your success logger fails, the error would be passed to the following .catch() callback, but not to the fail callback that goes alongside success.
Here's a control flow diagram:
To express it in synchronous code:
// some_promise_call().then(logger.log, logger.log)
then: {
try {
var results = some_call();
} catch(e) {
logger.log(e);
break then;
} // else
logger.log(results);
}
The second log (which is like the first argument to .then()) will only be executed in the case that no exception happened. The labelled block and the break statement feel a bit odd, this is actually what python has try-except-else for (recommended reading!).
// some_promise_call().then(logger.log).catch(logger.log)
try {
var results = some_call();
logger.log(results);
} catch(e) {
logger.log(e);
}
The catch logger will also handle exceptions from the success logger call.
So much for the difference.
I don't quite understand its explanation as for the try and catch
The argument is that usually, you want to catch errors in every step of the processing and that you shouldn't use it in chains. The expectation is that you only have one final handler which handles all errors - while, when you use the "antipattern", errors in some of the then-callbacks are not handled.
However, this pattern is actually very useful: When you want to handle errors that happened in exactly this step, and you want to do something entirely different when no error happened - i.e. when the error is unrecoverable. Be aware that this is branching your control flow. Of course, this is sometimes desired.
What's wrong with the following?
some_promise_call()
.then(function(res) { logger.log(res) }, function(err) { logger.log(err) })
That you had to repeat your callback. You rather want
some_promise_call()
.catch(function(e) {
return e; // it's OK, we'll just log it
})
.done(function(res) {
logger.log(res);
});
You also might consider using .finally() for this.
The two aren't quite identical. The difference is that the first example won't catch an exception that's thrown in your success handler. So if your method should only ever return resolved promises, as is often the case, you need a trailing catch handler (or yet another then with an empty success parameter). Sure, it may be that your then handler doesn't do anything that might potentially fail, in which case using one 2-parameter then could be fine.
But I believe the point of the text you linked to is that then is mostly useful versus callbacks in its ability to chain a bunch of asynchronous steps, and when you actually do this, the 2-parameter form of then subtly doesn't behave quite as expected, for the above reason. It's particularly counterintuitive when used mid-chain.
As someone who's done a lot of complex async stuff and bumped into corners like this more than I care to admit, I really recommend avoiding this anti-pattern and going with the separate handler approach.
By looking at advantages and disadvantages of both we can make a calculated guess as to which is appropriate for the situation.
These are the two main approaches to implementing promises. Both have it's pluses and minus
Catch Approach
some_promise_call()
.then(function(res) { logger.log(res) })
.catch(function(err) { logger.log(err) })
Advantages
All errors are handled by one catch block.
Even catches any exception in the then block.
Chaining of multiple success callbacks
Disadvantages
In case of chaining it becomes difficult to show different error messages.
Success/Error Approach
some_promise_call()
.then(function success(res) { logger.log(res) },
function error(err) { logger.log(err) })
Advantages
You get fine grained error control.
You can have common error handling function for various categories of errors like db error, 500 error etc.
Disavantages
You will still need another catch if you wish to handler errors thrown by the success callback
Simple explain:
In ES2018
When the catch method is called with argument onRejected, the
following steps are taken:
Let promise be the this value.
Return ? Invoke(promise, "then", « undefined, onRejected »).
that means:
promise.then(f1).catch(f2)
equals
promise.then(f1).then(undefiend, f2)
Using .then().catch() lets you enable Promise Chaining which is required to fulfil a workflow. You may need to read some information from database then you want to pass it to an async API then you want to manipulate the response. You may want to push the response back into the database. Handling all these workflows with your concept is doable but very hard to manage. The better solution will be then().then().then().then().catch() which receives all errors in just once catch and lets you keep the maintainability of the code.
Using then() and catch() helps chain success and failure handler on the promise.catch() works on promise returned by then(). It handles,
If promise was rejected. See #3 in the picture
If error occurred in success handler of then(), between line numbers 4 to 7 below. See #2.a in the picture
(Failure callback on then() does not handle this.)
If error occurred in failure handler of then(), line number 8 below. See #3.b in the picture.
1. let promiseRef: Promise = this. aTimetakingTask (false);
2. promiseRef
3. .then(
4. (result) => {
5. /* successfully, resolved promise.
6. Work on data here */
7. },
8. (error) => console.log(error)
9. )
10. .catch( (e) => {
11. /* successfully, resolved promise.
12. Work on data here */
13. });
Note: Many times, failure handler might not be defined if catch() is
written already.
EDIT: reject() result in invoking catch() only if the error
handler in then() is not defined. Notice #3 in the picture to
the catch(). It is invoked when handler in line# 8 and 9 are not
defined.
It makes sense because promise returned by then() does not have an error if a callback is taking care of it.
Instead of words, good example. Following code (if first promise resolved):
Promise.resolve()
.then
(
() => { throw new Error('Error occurs'); },
err => console.log('This error is caught:', err)
);
is identical to:
Promise.resolve()
.catch
(
err => console.log('This error is caught:', err)
)
.then
(
() => { throw new Error('Error occurs'); }
)
But with rejected first promise, this is not identical:
Promise.reject()
.then
(
() => { throw new Error('Error occurs'); },
err => console.log('This error is caught:', err)
);
Promise.reject()
.catch
(
err => console.log('This error is caught:', err)
)
.then
(
() => { throw new Error('Error occurs'); }
)
There are many tutorials on how to use "then" and "catch" while programming with JavaScript Promise. However, all these tutorials seem to miss an important point: returning from a then/catch block to break the Promise chain. Let's start with some synchronous code to illustrate this problem:
try {
someFunction();
} catch (err) {
if (!(err instanceof MyCustomError))
return -1;
}
someOtherFunction();
In essence, I am testing a caught error and if it's not the error I expect I will return to the caller otherwise the program continues. However, this logic will not work with Promise:
Promise.resolve(someFunction).then(function() {
console.log('someFunction should throw error');
return -2;
}).catch(function(err) {
if (err instanceof MyCustomError) {
return -1;
}
}).then(someOtherFunction);
This logic is used for some of my unit tests where I want a function to fail in a certain way. Even if I change the catch to a then block I am still not able to break a series of chained Promises because whatever is returned from the then/catch block will become a Promise that propagates along the chain.
I wonder if Promise is able to achieve this logic; if not, why? It's very strange to me that a Promise chain can never be broken. Thanks!
Edit on 08/16/2015:
According to the answers given so far, a rejected Promise returned by the then block will propagate through the Promise chain and skip all subsequent then blocks until is is caught (handled). This behavior is well understood because it simply mimics the following synchronous code (approach 1):
try {
Function1();
Function2();
Function3();
Function4();
} catch (err) {
// Assuming this err is thrown in Function1; Function2, Function3 and Function4 will not be executed
console.log(err);
}
However, what I was asking is the following scenario in synchronous code (approach 2):
try {
Function1();
} catch(err) {
console.log(err); // Function1's error
return -1; // return immediately
}
try {
Function2();
} catch(err) {
console.log(err);
}
try {
Function3();
} catch(err) {
console.log(err);
}
try {
Function4();
} catch(err) {
console.log(err);
}
I would like to deal with errors raised in different functions differently. It's possible that I catch all the errors in one catch block as illustrated in approach 1. But that way I have to make a big switch statement inside the catch block to differentiate different errors; moreover, if the errors thrown by different functions do not have a common switchable attribute I won't be able to use the switch statement at all; under such a situation, I have to use a separate try/catch block for each function call. Approach 2 sometimes is the only option. Does Promise not support this approach with its then/catch statement?
This can't be achieved with features of the language. However, pattern-based solutions are available.
Here are two solutions.
Rethrow previous error
This pattern is basically sound ...
Promise.resolve()
.then(Function1).catch(errorHandler1)
.then(Function2).catch(errorHandler2)
.then(Function3).catch(errorHandler3)
.then(Function4).catch(errorHandler4)
.catch(finalErrorHandler);
Promise.resolve() is not strictly necessary but allows all the .then().catch() lines to be of the same pattern, and the whole expression is easier on the eye.
... but :
if an errorHandler returns a result, then the chain will progress to the next line's success handler.
if an errorHandler throws, then the chain will progress to the next line's error handler.
The desired jump out of the chain won't happen unless the error handlers are written such that they can distinguish between a previously thrown error and a freshly thrown error. For example :
function errorHandler1(error) {
if (error instanceof MyCustomError) { // <<<<<<< test for previously thrown error
throw error;
} else {
// do errorHandler1 stuff then
// return a result or
// throw new MyCustomError() or
// throw new Error(), new RangeError() etc. or some other type of custom error.
}
}
Now :
if an errorHandler returns a result, then the chain will progress to the next FunctionN.
if an errorHandler throws a MyCustomError, then it will be repeatedly rethrown down the chain and caught by the first error handler that does not conform to the if(error instanceof MyCustomError) protocol (eg a final .catch()).
if an errorHandler throws any other type of error, then the chain will progress to the next catch.
This pattern would be useful if you need the flexibility to skip to end of chain or not, depending on the type of error thrown. Rare circumstances I expect.
DEMO
Insulated Catches
Another solution is to introduce a mechanism to keep each .catch(errorHandlerN) "insulated" such that it will catch only errors arising from its corresponding FunctionN, not from any preceding errors.
This can be achieved by having in the main chain only success handlers, each comprising an anonymous function containing a subchain.
Promise.resolve()
.then(function() { return Function1().catch(errorHandler1); })
.then(function() { return Function2().catch(errorHandler2); })
.then(function() { return Function3().catch(errorHandler3); })
.then(function() { return Function4().catch(errorHandler4); })
.catch(finalErrorHandler);
Here Promise.resolve() plays an important role. Without it, Function1().catch(errorHandler1) would be in the main chain the catch() would not be insulated from the main chain.
Now,
if an errorHandler returns a result, then the chain will progress to the next line.
if an errorHandler throws anything it likes, then the chain will progress directly to the finalErrorHandler.
Use this pattern if you want always to skip to the end of chain regardless of the type of error thrown. A custom error constructor is not required and the error handlers do not need to be written in a special way.
DEMO
Usage cases
Which pattern to choose will determined by the considerations already given but also possibly by the nature of your project team.
One-person team - you write everything and understand the issues - if you are free to choose, then run with your personal preference.
Multi-person team - one person writes the master chain and various others write the functions and their error handlers - if you can, opt for Insulated Catches - with everything under control of the master chain, you don't need to enforce the discipline of writing the error handlers in that certain way.
First off, I see a common mistake in this section of code that could be completely confusing you. This is your sample code block:
Promise.resolve(someFunction()).then(function() {
console.log('someFunction should throw error');
return -2;
}).catch(function(err) {
if (err instanceof MyCustomError) {
return -1;
}
}).then(someOtherFunction()); // <== Issue here
You need pass function references to a .then() handler, not actually call the function and pass their return result. So, this above code should probably be this:
Promise.resolve(someFunction()).then(function() {
console.log('someFunction should throw error');
return -2;
}).catch(function(err) {
if (err instanceof MyCustomError) {
// returning a normal value here will take care of the rejection
// and continue subsequent processing
return -1;
}
}).then(someOtherFunction); // just pass function reference here
Note that I've removed () after the functions in the .then() handler so you are just passing the function reference, not immediately calling the function. This will allow the promise infrastructure to decide whether to call the promise in the future or not. If you were making this mistake, it will totally throw you off for how the promises are working because things will get called regardless.
Three simple rules about catching rejections.
If nobody catches the rejection, it stops the promise chain immediately and the original rejection becomes the final state of the promise. No subsequent handlers are invoked.
If the promise rejection is caught and either nothing is returned or any normal value is returned from the reject handler, then the reject is considered handled and the promise chain continues and subsequent handlers are invoked. Whatever you return from the reject handler becomes the current value of the promise and it as if the reject never happened (except this level of resolve handler was not called - the reject handler was called instead).
If the promise reject is caught and you either throw an error from the reject handler or you return a rejected promise, then all resolve handlers are skipped until the next reject handler in the chain. If there are no reject handlers, then the promise chain is stopped and the newly minted error becomes the final state of the promise.
You can see a couple examples in this jsFiddle where it shows three situations:
Returning a regular value from a reject handler, causes the next .then() resolve handler to be called (e.g. normal processing continues),
Throwing in a reject handler causes normal resolve processing to stop and all resolve handlers are skipped until you get to a reject handler or the end of the chain. This is effective way to stop the chain if an unexpected error is found in a resolve handler (which I think is your question).
Not having a reject handler present causes normal resolve processing to stop and all resolve handlers are skipped until you get to a reject handler or the end of the chain.
There is no built-in functionality to skip the entirety of the remaining chain as you're requesting. However, you could imitate this behavior by throwing a certain error through each catch:
doSomething()
.then(func1).catch(handleError)
.then(func2).catch(handleError)
.then(func3).catch(handleError);
function handleError(reason) {
if (reason instanceof criticalError) {
throw reason;
}
console.info(reason);
}
If any of the catch blocks caught a criticalError they would skip straight to the end and throw the error. Any other error would be console logged and before continuing to the next .then block.
If you can use the newer async await this is pretty simple to implement:
async function myfunc() {
try {
return await anotherAsyncFunction();
} catch {
//do error handling
// can be async or not.
return errorObjct();
}
}
let alwaysGetAValue = await myfunc();
Depending on what technology your using you may need some kind of high level wrapper function to allow for the top level await.