Develop Reference

Race condition issues with async functions Javascript [duplicate]

I would like to get a deeper understanding of how Promises work internally.
Therefore I have some sample code:
var p1 = new Promise(
function(resolve, reject) {
window.setTimeout(
function() {
resolve('res called')
}, 2000);
});
var p2 = new Promise(
function(resolve, reject) {
window.setTimeout(
function() {
resolve('res called')
}, 2000);
});
function chainPromises() {
return p1.then(function(val) {
console.log("p1");
return p2.then(function(val) {
console.log("p2");
return val;
});
});
}
chainPromises().then(function(val) {
console.log(val);
});
Here a link to execute this code.
As you would predict, first p1 is resolved, afterwards p2 and in the end the final then prints the resolv value.
But the API ref states the following:
"then" returns a new promise equivalent to the value you return from
onFulfilled/onRejected after being passed through Promise.resolve
So it would be interesting to know WHEN exactly the "then" function is executed?
Because the final "then" in the code is chained to the chainPromises(), I first thought that
it would execute after the function chainPromises() returns something (in this case another promise).
If this would have been the case the "val" of the final "then" function would be the returned promise.
But instead, the final "then" waits until all promises inside the first "then" which are returned have been resolved.
This absolutely makes sense because in this way, the "then" functions can be stacked, but
I do not really get how this is done, since the API spec. does not really cover what "then" returns and when the "then" functions is executed.
Or in other words, why does the final "then" function wait until all the Promises are resolved inside the chainPromises() function instead of just waiting for the first returned object as the API doc says.
I hope I could make clear what I mean.. :)

About Promise resolution
The thing you're witnessing here is called recursive thenable resolution. The promise resolution process in the Promises/A+ specification contains the following clause:
onFulfilled or onRejected returns a value x, run the Promise Resolution Procedure [[Resolve]](promise2, x)
The ES6 promise specification (promises unwrapping) contains a similar clause.
This mandates that when a resolve operation occurs: either in the promise constructor, by calling Promise.resolve or in your case in a then chain a promise implementation must recursively unwrap the returned value if it is a promise.
In practice
This means that if onFulfilled (the then) returns a value, try to "resolve" the promise value yourself thus recursively waiting for the entire chain.
This means the following:
promiseReturning().then(function(){
alert(1);
return foo(); // foo returns a promise
}).then(function(){
alert(2); // will only run after the ENTIRE chain of `foo` resolved
// if foo OR ANY PART OF THE CHAIN rejects and it is not handled this
// will not run
});
So for example:
promiseReturning().then(function(){
alert(1);
return Promise.resolve().then(function(){ throw Error(); });
}).then(function(){
alert("This will never run");
});
And that:
promiseReturning().then(function(){
alert(1);
return Promise.resolve().then(function(){ return delay(2000); });
}).then(function(){
alert("This will only run after 2000 ms");
});
Is it a good idea?
It's been the topic of much debate in the promises specification process a second chain method that does not exhibit this behavior was discussed but decided against (still available in Chrome, but will be removed soon). You can read about the whole debate in this esdiscuss thread. This behavior is for pragmatic reasons so you wouldn't have to manually do it.
In other languages
It's worth mentioning that other languages do not do this, neither futures in Scala or tasks in C# have this property. For example in C# you'd have to call Task.Unwrap on a task in order to wait for its chain to resolve.

Let's start with an easy perspective: "chainPromises" returns a promise, so you could look at it this way:
// Do all internal promises
var cp = chainPromises();
// After everything is finished you execute the final "then".
cp.then(function(val) {
console.log(val);
});
Generally speaking, when returning a promise from within a "then" clause, the "then" function of the encapsulating promise will be marked as finished only after the internal "then" has finished.
So, if "a" is a promise, and "b" is a promise:
// "a"'s "then" function will only be marked as finished after "b"'s "then" function has finished.
var c = a.then(function () {
return b.then(function () {
console.log("B!");
};
};
// c is a promise, since "then" always returns a promise.
c.then(function() {
console.log("Done!");
};
So the output will be:
B!
Done!
Notice btw, that if you don't "return" the internal promise, this will not be the case:
// "a"'s "then" function will only be marked as finished without waiting for "b"'s "then" to finish.
var c = a.then(function () {
// Notice we're just calling b.then, and don't "return" it.
b.then(function () {
console.log("B!");
};
};
// c is a promise, since "then" always returns a promise.
c.then(function() {
console.log("Done!");
};
Here we can't know what would be outputted first. It could be either "B!" or "Done!".

Please check the below example regarding how promises works:
The Promise object represents the eventual completion (or failure) of an asynchronous operation, and its resulting value.
console.log('person1: shoe ticket');
console.log('person2: shoe ticket');
const promiseGirlFriendBringingTickets = new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
setTimeout(() => {
resolve('ticket');
}, 3000);
});
promiseGirlFriendBringingTickets.then((t) => {
console.log(`person3: show ${t}`);
})
console.log('person4: shoe ticket');
console.log('person5: shoe ticket');

Promise then return promise object, not promise's resolved value. I forked your JsFiddle, and added some of mine try this.
promise.then is executed right after that promise object is resolved.

I do not know how this is done in actual promises libraries, but I was able to re-create this functionality in the following way:
1) each promise has a waitingPromises property;
2) then method returns a new promise, and the original promise's waitingPromises property points to the new promise.
In this way, the chain of .then()s creates a structure that is similar to a linked list or rather a tree (each promise can have several waiting promises). A promise can be resolved only after its 'parent' promise has been resolved. The .then method itself is executed immediately, but the corresponding promise that it creates is resolved only later.
I am not sure this is a good explanation and would love to learn about other possible approaches.

Normally code is synchronous - one statement executes like (fileopen) and there is a guarantee that the next statement will execute immediately afterwards like filewrite()
but in asynchronous operations like nodejs, you should assume that
you have no idea when the operation will complete.
You can't even assume that just because you send out one request first, and another request second, that they will return in that order
Callbacks are the standard way of handling asynchrnous code in JavaScript
but promises are the best way to handle asynchronous code.
This is because callbacks make error handling difficult, and lead to ugly nested code.
which user and programmer not readble easily so promises is the way

You can think of Promise as a wrapper on some background task. It takes in a function which needs to be executed in the background.
The most appropriate place to use a promise is where some code is dependent on some background processing and it needs to know the status of the background task which was executed. For that, the background task itself accepts two callback resolve and reject in order to convey its status to the code which is dependent on it. In layman terms, this code is the one behind it in the promise chain.
When a background task invokes resolve callback with some parameter. it's marking the background operation successful and passing the result of the background operation to the next then block which will be executed next. and if it calls reject, marking it as unsuccessful then the first catch block will be executed.
In your custom promise, you can pass an error obj to the reject callback so that next catch block is aware of the error happened in the background task.

catching exceptions while waiting for a promise in nodejs

I am writing a library in nodejs, that is wrapping another library. my code is something like this:
function wrapper(functionToWrap) {
return function(param1, param2) {
try {
return functionToWrap(param1, param2);
} catch(err) {
console.log(err);
throw err;
} finally {
finalizeWrapping();
}
}
}
the problem is that my finalizeWrapping function is a function that waits for promises that i collect (by placing some hooks before calling functionToWrap on some of the async apis it uses) to resolve, and only then acts, something like this:
function finalizeWrapping() {
Promise.all(pendingPromises).then(function(values) {
//finalize the wrapping
console.log('all promises fulfilled!');
});
}
the issue is that the error is thrown and node exits (this error should not be handled, since the wrapped function doesn't handle it) before all the promises are resolved and the then block is executed.
my question is: is there anything i can do to work around this, meaning throwing the error to the user appropriately and finish executing the then block, or do i have to change the way i hook the apis to be synchronous and not use a promise?
Thanks in advance to all the helpers :)
EDIT: an attempt to make my question clearer - functionToWrap is not my function, it is a function of a different library (and it can change - meaning i want my code to be able to wrap as many functions as possible). this function is allowed to use async apis (which i may be trying to monkeypatch), and basically it should have as least restrictions as possible - i want the user to be able to write any function and me being able to wrap it.

Not sure if the following can help, you may not have enough reputation to comment although I think you can comment on your own question and it's answers.
const wrapper = functionToWrap =>
function() {
//special type to indicate failed call to functionToWrap
const Fail = function(reason){this.reason=reason;};
//does not matter how many argument. Assuming functionToWrap
// does not rely on "this". If it does then also pass the
// object that functionToWrap is on and replace null with that object
return Promise.resolve(Array.from(arguments))
.then(
//if functionToWrap is on an object pass it to wrapper
// and replace null with that object
args=>functionToWrap.apply(null,args)
)
.catch(
//if functionToWrap throws an error or rejects we will catch it here
// and resolve with a special Fail type value
err=>{
console.log(err);
return new Fail(err)
}
).then(
//since promise cannot fail (its rejection is caught and resolves with Fail)
// this will always be called
//finalize should return Promise.all... and maybe not use a shared
// variable called pendingPromises, global shared mutable variables in async
// functions is asking for trouble
result=>finalizeWrapping().then(
()=>
//if functionToWrap rejected or thew the result will be a Fail type
(result && result.constructor === Fail)
? Promise.reject(result.reason)//reject with the original error
: result//resolve with the functionToWrap result
)
);
}

Why promise chains can be flattened?

The following code contains two kinds of promise chain, seems they'r equivalent, but I don't understand why they are equivalent. I think of it like 2*(3+4) = 2*3+4, which is not correct.
// example1
runAsync1()
.then(function(data1){
return runAsync2()
.then(function(data2){
return runAsync3();
})
})
.then(function(data3){
console.log(data3);
});
// example 2
runAsync1()
.then(function(data1){
return runAsync2();
}).then(function(data2){
return runAsync3();
}).then(function(data3){
console.log(data3);
});

Maybe some braces would help you understand this a little better. (NOTE: this is exactly the same thing as you had except with an extra set of braces on the return)
// example1
runAsync1()
.then(function(data1){
return (
runAsync2()
.then(function(data2){
return runAsync3();
})
)
})
.then(function(data3){
console.log(data3);
});
So what is happening here,
.then is called on runAsynch1()
.then is then called on runAsynch2() which returns runAsynch3() (this return carries on all the way down the chain of returns)
finally .then is called on the returned runAsynch3()
As you can see, this is exactly the same process as what happens in example 2
// example 2
runAsync1()
.then(function(data1){
return runAsync2();
}).then(function(data2){
return runAsync3();
}).then(function(data3){
console.log(data3);
});

It's a little bit implementation-specific, but the magic, regardless of the specifics is in the then.
Then does a couple of things.
The TL;DR is that then subscribes to returned promise chains, but below are examples closer to the guts of a promise.
The first thing is:
"Is the promise still pending? Then schedule these callbacks for later; otherwise, schedule this callback to run on the next tick (setTimeout(handle, 0)). Return a new promise that resolves/rejects to the eventual value."
// basically accurate-ish
then (onSuccess, onError) {
return new Promise((resolveNext, rejectNext) => {
if (myPromiseIsDone) {
// I already have the value; run the next step ASAP
// this is ugly, but hopefully it proves a point
runOnNextTick(onSuccess, onError, promiseResult, resolveNext, rejectNext);
} else {
// I don't have a result yet; come back when it's ready
scheduleWhenDone(onSuccess, onError, resolveNext, rejectNext);
}
});
}
The second is where your answer lies:
"Run the handler. Get the return value from the callback passed to then. Is the return value a Thenable object (has a then method)? Then call then and pass in the resolve/reject functions that control my promise... otherwise, resolve/reject accordingly, based on whether it throws or returns."
// entirely subjective and implementation-specific,
// but the algorithm is almost spec-compliant
handleSuccess (onSuccess, resolveNext, rejectNext, value) {
if (!onSuccess) {
// if they didn't give me a `then(callback)`,
// just pass the value to the next promise
resolveNext(value);
return;
}
try {
// I'm running the `then(callback)` here
const result = onSuccess(value);
if (hasThenMethod(result)) {
// it's promise-like, subscribe
result.then(resolveNext, rejectNext);
} else {
resolveNext(result);
}
} catch (err) {
// something blew up, while trying to succeed, so fail
rejectNext(err);
}
}
Reject looks similar.
So the outer then subscribes to the inner then.
If you ever wanted to get into functional programming, the ES6 Promise is almost a monad.
The difference is that a monad would force you to have a different method, to tell it to chain to the returned promise, rather than doing it automatically.
then is basically the same as map on arrays. You call then, pass it a function that gets the value and returns a new promise with the transformed value.
So a monadic promise might be one that has map and chain, or then and chain, where chain does almost exactly the same thing but says "hey, then, this callback is going to return a promise; subscribe to that one, so that you flatten it out, rather than returning a promise of a promise of a value".
That's almost all it would take to be a monad.
Hope that all helps.

promise call separate from promise-resolution

I'm not so familiar with promises.
I would like hide promise-implementation from promise-call.
Example:
function findFriends(req, res) {
const promiseFriend = MyFriendes.find({}).exec(); //call promise
if(friends.length===0){
logger.warn('No friendsavailible');
}else if(friends === undefined){
res.status(500).json({
error: 'INTERNAL ERROR'
});
}else{
res.status(200).json({
friends: friends
});
}
}
and I will resolve my promise within same file but not
at same function, where I call this promise.
promiseFriend
.then(function(friends){
return friends;
})
.catch(function(err){
logger.error({error:err});
});
Now, I get, that "promiseFriend" is undefined.
How can I separate promise-call from promise-resolution?

If you want to define a promise in a function and use it somewhere else then first of all you need to return the promise from that function, which you're not doing in your code. Then you need to actually call that function which you are also not doing. And finally you need to use a then callback on the returned value, which you are not doing in this case as well.
There is no point in saving the promise in a local variable promiseFriend that is scoped to this function. There is also no point to return a value in your then callback: .then(function (friends) { return friends; }) - I have no idea what have tried to do here.
I suppose that findFriends is supposed to be a route handler for Express. If so then make sure that you send a response in every case (which you don't do for friends.length===0). Also, you need to actually add a then handler to the saved promise if you want to act when it's resolved. Right now you don't even have friends defined in your function. Also add a catch handlers and also send a response for that case.
Then you might return the promise from your function but not if it is a route handler, it doesn't make sense. You can return a promise from a function:
function x() {
return MyFriendes.find({}).exec();
}
and then use it:
x().then(friends => ...).catch(error => ...);
but you cannot use return values if you don't return it, you can't use undefined variables as if they were defined, and you actually need to consider who is your return value returned to.
I suggest that you learn how Node actually works because it seems that you have copied and pasted some random code, joined it together and expect that it does what you want without actually trying to understand it.
To get a better understanding on the asynchronous nature of Node that is giving this execution order here, see those answers:
A detailed explanation on how to use callbacks and promises
Explanation on how to use promises in complex request handlers
An explanation of what a promise really is, on the example of AJAX requests
An explanation of callbacks, promises and how to access data returned asynchronously
Don't try to write Node programs before you understand the concept of function calls, return values, callbacks and in this case promises.

How to return from a Promise's catch/then block?

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.