I'm writing some node.js to interact with sensors over a serial port connection. The code for reading the sensor is asynchronous, naturally. In my control code, though, I need to read a sensor, do something based on the value, read again, do something else, etc. To do this, I'm using code like the following self-contained test:
var main = new Main();
main.next();
function* Main()
{
var reading = yield readSensor(this.next.bind(this));
console.log(reading);
var reading = yield readSensor(this.next.bind(this));
console.log(reading);
}
function readSensor(callback)
{
// simulate asynchrounous callback from reading sensor
setTimeout(function sensorCallback() { callback('foo'); }, 100);
}
So, my sequential control code is in a generator which yields to readSensor() when it needs to get a reading. When the sensor reading is done, it calls the callback, and control returns to the main code. I'm doing it this way because I may need to read from various sensors in different orders depending on previous readings. So, here's the questionable part: I pass this.next.bind(this) as a callback to the asynchronous read function. The code seems to work when generators are enabled (--harmony_generators), but I am wondering if there are pitfalls here that I am missing. I'm relatively new to JS, so don't be afraid to point out the obvious :)
I haven't studied ES6 generators in depth, but having a generator pass its own .next to another function as a callback doesn't sit well with me. If anything, it could create a situation where readSensor fails and you have no way to handle the failure, ending up in a deadlock.
I suggest modifying or wrapping readSensor to return a promise, and then using the technique outlined in this article.
That would allow you to write code like this (verified working in Node v0.12.0):
var Promise = require('q');
var main = async(function* () {
var reading = yield readSensor();
console.log(reading);
reading = yield readSensor();
console.log(reading);
});
main();
function readSensor() {
return Promise.delay(2000).thenResolve(Math.random() * 100);
}
/***********************************************************
* From here down, *
* boilerplate async() function from article linked above *
***********************************************************/
function async(makeGenerator){
return function () {
var generator = makeGenerator.apply(this, arguments);
function handle(result){
// result => { done: [Boolean], value: [Object] }
if (result.done) return Promise.resolve(result.value);
return Promise.resolve(result.value).then(function (res){
return handle(generator.next(res));
}, function (err){
return handle(generator.throw(err));
});
}
try {
return handle(generator.next());
} catch (ex) {
return Promise.reject(ex);
}
}
}
As loganfsmyth notes below, Q already provides a Q.async() method that provides the functionality of this async() function, and possibly other promise libraries do as well.
So, here's the questionable part: I pass this.next.bind(this) as a callback to the asynchronous read function. The code seems to work when generators are enabled
No, that doesn't work. Generators cannot be constructed using new like you do. From the spec:
If the generator was invoked using [[Call]], the this binding will have already been initialized in the normal manner. If the generator was invoked using [[Construct]], the this bind is not initialized and any references to this within the FunctionBody will produce a ReferenceError exception.
Generator functions be invoked with new (see §9.2.3, with derived for [[ConstructorKind]]), but they do not construct an instance.
When the sensor reading is done, […] control returns to the main code.
That's a clever idea indeed. It has been explored before, see Understanding code flow with yield/generators or this article. Many libraries support this, especially combined with promises.
I suggest you use one of these libraries, your current code isn't really stable (will break with full ES6 support) and also seems to lacks error handling.
Related
This is a post that might come across as quite conceptual, since I first start with a lot of pseudo code. - At the end you'll see the use case for this problem, though a solution would be a "tool I can add to my tool-belt of useful programming techniques".
The problem
Sometimes one might need to create multiple promises, and either do something after all promises have ended. Or one might create multiple promises, based on the results of the previous promises. The analogy can be made to creating an array of values instead of a single value.
There are two basic cases to be considered, where the number of promises is indepedented of the result of said promises, and the case where it is depedent. Simple pseudo code of what "could" be done.
for (let i=0; i<10; i++) {
promise(...)
.then(...)
.catch(...);
}.then(new function(result) {
//All promises finished execute this code now.
})
The basically creates n (10) promises, and the final code would be executed after all promises are done. Of course the syntax isn't working in javascript, but it shows the idea. This problem is relativelly easy, and could be called completely asynchronous.
Now the second problem is like:
while (continueFn()) {
promise(...)
.then(.. potentially changing outcome of continueFn ..)
.catch(.. potentially changing outcome of continueFn ..)
}.then(new function(result) {
//All promises finished execute this code now.
})
This is much more complex, as one can't just start all promises and then wait for them to finish: in the end you'll have to go "promise-by-promise". This second case is what I wish to figure out (if one can do the second case you can also do the first).
The (bad) solution
I do have a working "solution". This is not a good solution as can probably quickly be seen, after the code I'll talk about why I dislike this method. Basically instead of looping it uses recursion - so the "promise" (or a wrapper around a promise which is a promise) calls itself when it's fulfilled, in code:
function promiseFunction(state_obj) {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
//initialize fields here
let InnerFn = (stateObj) => {
if (!stateObj.checkContinue()) {
return resolve(state_obj);
}
ActualPromise(...)
.then(new function(result) {
newState = stateObj.cloneMe(); //we'll have to clone to prevent asynchronous write problems
newState.changeStateBasedOnResult(result);
return InnerFn(newState);
})
.catch(new function(err) {
return reject(err); //forward error handling (must be done manually?)
});
}
InnerFn(initialState); //kickstart
});
}
Important to note is that the stateObj should not change during its lifetime, but it can be really easy. In my real problem (which I'll explain at the end) the stateObj was simply a counter (number), and the if (!stateObj.checkContinue()) was simply if (counter < maxNumber).
Now this solution is really bad; It is ugly, complicated, error prone and finally impossible to scale.
Ugly because the actual business logic is buried in a mess of code. It doesn't show "on the can" that is actually simply doing what the while loop above does.
Complicated because the flow of execution is impossible to follow. First of all recursive code is never "easy" to follow, but more importantly you also have to keep in mind thread safety with the state-object. (Which might also have a reference to another object to, say, store a list of results for later processing).
It's error prone since there is more redundancy than strictly necessary; You'll have to explicitly forward the rejection. Debugging tools such as a stack trace also quickly become really hard to look through.
The scalability is also a problem at some points: this is a recursive function, so at one point it will create a stackoverflow/encounter maximum recursive depth. Normally one could either optimize by tail recursion or, more common, create a virtual stack (on the heap) and transform the function to a loop using the manual stack. In this case, however, one can't change the recursive calls to a loop-with-manual-stack; simply because of how promise syntax works.
The alternative (bad) solution
A colleague suggested an alternative approach to this problem, something that initially looked much less problematic, but I discarded ultimatelly since it was against everything promises are meant to do.
What he suggested was basically looping over the promises as per above. But instead of letting the loop continue there would be a variable "finished" and an inner loop that constantly checks for this variable; so in code it would be like:
function promiseFunction(state_obj) {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
while (stateObj.checkContinue()) {
let finished = false;
let err = false;
let res = null;
actualPromise(...)
.then(new function(result) {
res = result;
finished = true;
})
.catch(new function(err) {
res = err;
err = true;
finished = true;
});
while(!finished) {
sleep(100); //to not burn our cpu
}
if (err) {
return reject(err);
}
stateObj.changeStateBasedOnResult(result);
}
});
}
While this is less complicated, since it's now easy to follow the flow of execution. This has problems of its own: not for the least that it's unclear when this function will end; and it's really bad for performance.
Conclusion
Well this isn't much to conclude yet, I'd really like something as simple as in the first pseudo code above. Maybe another way of looking at things so that one doesn't have the trouble of deeply recursive functions.
So how would you rewrite a promise that is part of a loop?
The real problem used as motivation
Now this problem has roots in a real thing I had to create. While this problem is now solved (by applying the recursive method above), it might be interesting to know what spawned this; The real question however isn't about this specific case, but rather on how to do this in general with any promise.
In a sails app I had to check a database, which had orders with order-ids. I had to find the first N "non existing order-ids". My solution was to get the "first" M products from the database, find the missing numbers within it. Then if the number of missing numbers was less than N get the next batch of M products.
Now to get an item from a database, one uses a promise (or callback), thus the code won't wait for the database data to return. - So I'm basically at the "second problem:"
function GenerateEmptySpots(maxNum) {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
//initialize fields
let InnerFn = (counter, r) => {
if (r > 0) {
return resolve(true);
}
let query = {
orderNr: {'>=': counter, '<': (counter + maxNum)}
};
Order.find({
where: query,
sort: 'orderNr ASC'})
.then(new function(result) {
n = findNumberOfMissingSpotsAndStoreThemInThis();
return InnerFn(newState, r - n);
}.bind(this))
.catch(new function(err) {
return reject(err);
});
}
InnerFn(maxNum); //kickstart
});
}
EDIT:
Small post scriptus: the sleep function in the alternative is just from another library which provided a non-blocking-sleep. (not that it matters).
Also, should've indicated I'm using es2015.
The alternative (bad) solution
…doesn't actually work, as there is no sleep function in JavaScript. (If you have a runtime library which provides a non-blocking-sleep, you could just have used a while loop and non-blocking-wait for the promise inside it using the same style).
The bad solution is ugly, complicated, error prone and finally impossible to scale.
Nope. The recursive approach is indeed the proper way to do this.
Ugly because the actual business logic is buried in a mess of code. And error-prone as you'll have to explicitly forward the rejection.
This is just caused by the Promise constructor antipattern! Avoid it.
Complicated because the flow of execution is impossible to follow. Recursive code is never "easy" to follow
I'll challenge that statement. You just have to get accustomed to it.
You also have to keep in mind thread safety with the state-object.
No. There is no multi-threading and shared memory access in JavaScript, if you worry about concurrency where other stuff affects your state object while the loop runs that will a problem with any approach.
The scalability is also a problem at some points: this is a recursive function, so at one point it will create a stackoverflow
No. It's asynchronous! The callback will run on a new stack, it's not actually called recursively during the function call and does not carry those stack frames around. The asynchronous event loop already provides the trampoline to make this tail-recursive.
The good solution
function promiseFunction(state) {
const initialState = state.cloneMe(); // clone once for this run
// initialize fields here
return (function recurse(localState) {
if (!localState.checkContinue())
return Promise.resolve(localState);
else
return actualPromise(…).then(result =>
recurse(localState.changeStateBasedOnResult(result))
);
}(initialState)); // kickstart
}
The modern solution
You know, async/await is available in every environment that implemented ES6, as all of them also implemented ES8 now!
async function promiseFunction(state) {
const localState = state.cloneMe(); // clone once for this run
// initialize fields here
while (!localState.checkContinue()) {
const result = await actualPromise(…);
localState = localState.changeStateBasedOnResult(result);
}
return localState;
}
Let’s begin with the simple case: You have N promises that all do some work, and you want to do something when all the promises have finished. There’s actually a built-in way to do exactly that: Promise.all. With that, the code will look like this:
let promises = [];
for (let i=0; i<10; i++) {
promises.push(doSomethingAsynchronously());
}
Promise.all(promises).then(arrayOfResults => {
// all promises finished
});
Now, the second call is a situation you encounter all the time when you want to continue doing something asynchronously depending on the previous asynchronous result. A common example (that’s a bit less abstract) would be to simply fetch pages until you hit the end.
With modern JavaScript, there’s luckily a way to write this in a really readable way: Using asynchronous functions and await:
async function readFromAllPages() {
let shouldContinue = true;
let pageId = 0;
let items = [];
while (shouldContinue) {
// fetch the next page
let result = await fetchSinglePage(pageId);
// store items
items.push.apply(items, result.items);
// evaluate whether we want to continue
if (!result.items.length) {
shouldContinue = false;
}
pageId++;
}
return items;
}
readFromAllPages().then(allItems => {
// items have been read from all pages
});
Without async/await, this will look a bit more complicated, since you need to manage all this yourself. But unless you try to make it super generic, it shouldn’t look that bad. For example, the paging one could look like this:
function readFromAllPages() {
let items = [];
function readNextPage(pageId) {
return fetchSinglePage(pageId).then(result => {
items.push.apply(items, result.items);
if (!result.items.length) {
return Promise.resolve(null);
}
return readNextPage(pageId + 1);
});
}
return readNextPage(0).then(() => items);
}
First of all recursive code is never "easy" to follow
I think the code is fine to read. As I’ve said: Unless you try to make it super generic, you can really keep it simple. And naming also helps a lot.
but more importantly you also have to keep in mind thread safety with the state-object
No, JavaScript is single-threaded. You doing things asynchronously but that does not necessarily mean that things are happening at the same time. JavaScript uses an event loop to work off asynchronous processes, where only one code block runs at a single time.
The scalability is also a problem at some points: this is a recursive function, so at one point it will create a stackoverflow/encounter maximum recursive depth.
Also no. This is recursive in the sense that the function references itself. But it will not call itself directly. Instead it will register itself as a callback when an asynchronous process finishes. So the current execution of the function will finish first, then at some point the asynchronous process finishes, and then the callback will eventually run. These are (at least) three separate steps from the event loop, which all run independently from another, so you do no have a problem with recursion depth here.
The crux of the matter seems to be that "the actual business logic is buried in a mess of code".
Yes it is ... in both solutions.
Things can be separated out by :
having an asyncRecursor function that simply knows how to (asynchronously) recurse.
allowing the recursor's caller(s) to specify the business logic (the terminal test to apply, and the work to be performed).
It is also better to allow caller(s) to be responsible for cloning the original object rather than resolver() assuming cloning always to be necessary. The caller really needs to be in charge in this regard.
function asyncRecursor(subject, testFn, workFn) {
// asyncRecursor orchestrates the recursion
if(testFn(subject)) {
return Promise.resolve(workFn(subject)).then(result => asyncRecursor(result, testFn, workFn));
// the `Promise.resolve()` wrapper safeguards against workFn() not being thenable.
} else {
return Promise.resolve(subject);
// the `Promise.resolve()` wrapper safeguards against `testFn(subject)` failing at the first call of asyncRecursor().
}
}
Now you can write your caller as follows :
// example caller
function someBusinessOrientedCallerFn(state_obj) {
// ... preamble ...
return asyncRecursor(
state_obj, // or state_obj.cloneMe() if necessary
(obj) => obj.checkContinue(), // testFn
(obj) => somethingAsync(...).then((result) => { // workFn
obj.changeStateBasedOnResult(result);
return obj; // return `obj` or anything you like providing it makes a valid parameter to be passed to `testFn()` and `workFn()` at next recursion.
});
);
}
You could theoretically incorporate your terminal test inside the workFn but keeping them separate will help enforce the discipline, in writers of the business-logic, to remember to include a test. Otherwise they will consider it optional and sure as you like, they will leave it out!
Sorry, this doesn't use Promises, but sometimes abstractions just get in the way.
This example, which builds from #poke's answer, is short and easy to comprehend.
function readFromAllPages(done=function(){}, pageId=0, res=[]) {
fetchSinglePage(pageId, res => {
if (res.items.length) {
readFromAllPages(done, ++pageId, items.concat(res.items));
} else {
done(items);
}
});
}
readFromAllPages(allItems => {
// items have been read from all pages
});
This has only a single depth of nested functions. In general, you can solve the nested callback problem without resorting to a subsystem that manages things for you.
If we drop the parameter defaults and change the arrow functions, we get code that runs in legacy ES3 browsers.
I'm aware of the power of promises, however I have several old functions that are synchronous:
function getSomething() {
return someExternalLibrary.functionReturnsAValue()
}
console.log(getSomething()); // eg prints 'foo'
Unfortunately, when someExternalLibrary updated, it has removed functionReturnsAValue() and has lumped me with functionReturnsAPromise():
function getSomething() {
return someExternalLibrary.functionReturnsAPromise()
}
console.log(getSomething()); // now prints '[object]'
This of course, breaks absolutely everything written that depends on what used to be a simple value.
Obviously, I'd prefer two things:
ask the original library to keep a synchronous return value. (Not going to happen -- b/c they have refused)
A way to actually wait for a value
I have read numerous articles on why promises are great, ad nauseam, but the simple fact is: If I embrace promises, all I really do is shuffle promises onto some other part of the code, which then must deal with the promise of a value...
Is there a way (in nodejs) to actually wait for a promise to get itself together?
The best I can find is to use coroutines and yield, but really, it's still passing the buck. To be clear, I want the function getSomething to continue to return a value. Is there a way to do it?
Clearly, I fear I've misunderstood something about Promises...
The app is for non-browser implementations and runs purely from the command line. I've been trying to understand how bluebird's reflect() might help, to no avail.
(Yes, I'm aware this question has been asked many times in various formats, but I can't find a suitable answer to the core issue. If anything, I'm looking for the opposite of this question. The closest related (but unhelpful) question I can find is: Managing promise dependencies.)
There's the concept of generator functions. These are a special kind of function in both syntax (asterisk notation) and semantics. Unlike regular functions, generator functions return something that's also new to ECMAScript: iterators. Iterators happen to be objects made specifically to be iterated on, e.g. with the all new for...of loop. They can be also iterated on manually by calling their 'next' method. Each such call produces an object containing two properties: 'value' (iterator's current value) and 'done' (a boolean indicating whether we reached the last value of the iterable). However, the best thing about generator functions is their ability to suspend their execution each time a keyword 'yield' is encountered. Let's have a glimpse of how it all works together:
'use strict';
let asyncTask = () =>
new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
if (Math.random() > 0.5) {
resolve(1);
} else {
reject(new Error('Something went wrong'));
}
});
let makeMeLookSync = fn => {
let iterator = fn();
let loop = result => {
!result.done && result.value.then(
res => loop(iterator.next(res)),
err => loop(iterator.throw(err))
);
};
loop(iterator.next());
};
makeMeLookSync(function* () {
try {
let result = yield asyncTask();
console.log(result);
} catch (err) {
console.log(err.message);
}
});
The short answer
I am told repeatedly: You can't undo functions that have been promisified.
Edit: An upcoming solution
It appears that the ES2017 (although still draft), goes a long way in making promisified code easier to work with:
https://ponyfoo.com/articles/understanding-javascript-async-await
It seems that there is also a node library ready for this support too: https://github.com/normalize/mz.
Using this methodology, having apis converted to Promises won't be so bad (although it still appears that promises still poison the rest of the codebase):
const fs = require('mz/fs')
async function doSomething () {
if (await fs.exists(__filename)) // do something
}
The rest of this answer is just a general commentary on the problem.
Why we need a solution
Let's start with a sample piece of traditional synchronous code, in 3 flavours from more 'older-fashioned' to 'newer':
This is the traditional javascript way, requiring exception based programming to handle unexpected errors:
function getSomething() {
if (someproblem) throw new Error('There is a problem');
return 'foo';
}
However, adding try/ catch statements becomes very laborious and tedious, very quickly.
With the advent of node.js, callbacks were made popular, which nicely circumvented the issue, since each caller was explicitly forced to deal with error conditions in the same callback. This meant less errors in the caller's code:
function getSomething(callback) {
if (callback) {
if (someproblem)
callback(new Error('There is a problem'), null);
else
callback(null, 'foo');
}
return 'foo';
}
Then, the after some teething issues, node.js quickly proved itself for server-side communications, and people were amazed at the speed that asynchronous solutions provided. Node application frameworks like Express and Meteor grew, which focused on this.
Unfortunately, using the same callback scheme quickly became troublesome and the developers dealing in asynchronous code started using Promises in an effort to linearize the code, to make it readable, like the traditional (try/catch) code was.
The problem is that it got evangenlized too much. Everyone started thinking that Promises are the way to go. Personally, I call it a poison on a codebase. Once you have anything that uses Promises, your whole codebase must become asynchronous. This is not always a sensible nor a practical solution, IMHO.
The worst of all side effects is that the above function, even though it is completely synchronous, can be written in Promises too:
var bluebird = require('bluebird');
function getSomething() {
// IMHO, this is ridiculous code, but is increasingly popular.
if (someproblem) return Promise.reject(new Error('There is a problem'));
return Promise.resolve('foo');
}
For those who doubt this is a problem, perhaps should look at the SO question: How do I convert an existing callback API to promises?. Pay particular attention to #3, Node-style callback.
So, for anyone who cares, I would like to suggest that there needs to be a 'pill' for Promises. I urge that we need more than promises: we need results, and sometimes in a timely manner.
Take a look at the default node.js api. It does not use Promises. It also provides both synchronous and asynchronous calls to appropriate parts of the api (eg File System).
For those of you who feel tempted to downvote this answer: that is your prerogative, but there are clear issues on when Promises are not the answer, and I feel strongly that there are cases when we need to be able to re-synchronize decoupled code.
I also apologize for this 'blog-post' styled answer.
I am struggling with getting my head around how to overcome and handle the async nature of Node.JS. I have done quite a bit of reading on it and tried to make Node do what I want by either using a message passing solution or callback functions.
My problem is I have a object where I want to constructor to load a file and populate an array. Then I want all calls to this function use that loaded data. So I need the original call to wait for the file to be loaded and all subsequent calls to use the already loaded private member.
My issue is that the function to load load the data and get the data is being executed async even if it return a function with a callback.
Anyways, is there something simple I am missing? Or is there an easier pattern I could use here? This function should return part of the loaded file but returns undefined. I have checked that the file is actually being loaded, and works correctly.
function Song() {
this.verses = undefined;
this.loadVerses = function(verseNum, callback) {
if (this.verses === undefined) {
var fs = require('fs'),
filename = 'README.md';
fs.readFile(filename, 'utf8', function(err, data) {
if (err) {
console.log('error throw opening file: %s, err: %s', filename, err);
throw err;
} else {
this.verses = data;
return callback(verseNum);
}
});
} else {
return callback(verseNum);
}
}
this.getVerse = function(verseNum) {
return this.verses[verseNum + 1];
}
}
Song.prototype = {
verse: function(input) {
return this.loadVerses(input, this.getVerse);
}
}
module.exports = new Song();
Update:
This is how I am using the song module from another module
var song = require('./song');
return song.verse(1);
"My issue is that the function to load the data and get the data is being executed async even if it return a function with a callback."
#AlbertoZaccagni what I mean by that scentence is that this line return this.loadVerses(input, this.getVerse); returns before the file is loaded when I expect it to wait for the callback.
That is how node works, I will try to clarify it with an example.
function readFile(path, callback) {
console.log('about to read...');
fs.readFile(path, 'utf8', function(err, data) {
callback();
});
}
console.log('start');
readFile('/path/to/the/file', function() {
console.log('...read!');
});
console.log('end');
You are reading a file and in the console you will likely have
start
about to read...
end
...read!
You can try that separately to see it in action and tweak it to understand the point. What's important to notice here is that your code will keep on running skipping the execution of the callback, until the file is read.
Just because you declared a callback does not mean that the execution will halt until the callback is called and then resumed.
So this is how I would change that code:
function Song() {
this.verses = undefined;
this.loadVerses = function(verseNum, callback) {
if (this.verses === undefined) {
var fs = require('fs'),
filename = 'README.md';
fs.readFile(filename, 'utf8', function(err, data) {
if (err) {
console.log('error throw opening file: %s, err: %s', filename, err);
throw err;
} else {
this.verses = data;
return callback(verseNum);
}
});
} else {
return callback(verseNum);
}
}
}
Song.prototype = {
verse: function(input, callback) {
// I've removed returns here
// I think they were confusing you, feel free to add them back in
// but they are not actually returning your value, which is instead an
// argument of the callback function
this.loadVerses(input, function(verseNum) {
callback(this.verses[verseNum + 1]);
});
}
}
module.exports = new Song();
To use it:
var song = require('./song');
song.verse(1, function(verse) {
console.log(verse);
});
I've ignored
the fact that we're not treating the error as first argument of the callback
the fact that calling this fast enough will create racing conditions, but I believe this is another question
[Collected into an answer and expanded from my previous comments]
TL;DR You need to structure your code such that the result of any operation is only used inside that operation's callback, since you do not have access to it anywhere else.
And while assigning it to an external global variable will certainly work as expected, do so will only occur after the callback has fired, which happens at a time you cannot predict.
Commentary
Callbacks do not return values because by their very nature, they are executed sometime in the future.
Once you pass a callback function into a controlling asynchronous function, it will be executed when the surrounding function decides to call it. You do not control this, and so waiting for a returned result won't work.
Your example code, song.verse(1); cannot be expected to return anything useful because it is called immediately and since the callback hasn't yet fired, will simply return the only value it can: null.
I'm afraid this reliance on asynchronous functions with passed callbacks is an irremovable feature of how NodeJS operates; it is at the very core of it.
Don't be disheartened though. A quick survey of all the NodeJS questions here shows quite clearly that this idea that one must work with the results of async operations only in their callbacks is the single greatest impediment to anyone understanding how to program in NodeJS.
For a truly excellent explanation/tutorial on the various ways to correctly structure NodeJS code, see Managing Node.js Callback Hell with Promises, Generators and Other Approaches.
I believe it clearly and succinctly describes the problem you face and provides several ways to refactor your code correctly.
Two of the features mentioned there, Promises and Generators, are programming features/concepts, the understanding of which would I believe be of great use to you.
Promises (or as some call them, Futures) is/are a programming abstraction that allows one to write code a little more linearly in a if this then that style, like
fs.readFileAsync(path).then(function(data){
/* do something with data here */
return result;
}).catch(function(err){
/* deal with errors from readFileAsync here */
}).then(function(result_of_last_operation){
/* do something with result_of_last_operation here */
if(there_is_a_problem) throw new Error('there is a problem');
return final_result;
})
.catch(function(err){
/* deal with errors when there_is_a_problem here */
}).done(function(final_result){
/* do something with the final result */
});
In reality, Promises are simply a means of marshaling the standard callback pyramid in a more linear fashion. (Personally I believe they need a new name, since the idea of "a promise of some value that might appear in the future" is not an easy one to wrap one's head around, at least it wasn't for me.)
Promises do this by (behind the scenes) restructuring "callback hell" such that:
asyncFunc(args,function callback(err,result){
if(err) throw err;
/* do something with the result here*/
});
becomes something more akin to:
var p=function(){
return new Promise(function(resolve,reject){
asyncFunc(args,function callback(err,result){
if(err) reject(err)
resolve(result);
});
});
});
p();
where any value you provide to resolve() becomes the only argument to the next "then-able" callback and any error is passed via rejected(), so it can be caught by any .catch(function(err){ ... }) handlers you define.
Promises also do all the things you'd expect from the (somewhat standard) async module, like running callbacks in series or in parallel and operating over the elements of an array, returning their collected results to a callback once all the results have been gathered.
But you will note that Promises don't quite do what you want, because everything is still in callbacks.
(See bluebird for what I believe is the simplest and thus, best Promises package to learn first.)
(And note that fs.readFileAsync is not a typo. One useful feature of bluebird is that it can be made to add this and other Promises-based versions of fs's existing functions to the standard fs object. It also understands how to "promisify" other modules such as request and mkdirp).
Generators are the other feature described in the tutorial above, but are only available in the new, updated but not yet officially released version of JavaScript (codenamed "Harmony").
Using generators would also allow you to write code in a more linear manner, since one of the features it provides is the ability of waiting on the results of an asynchronous operation in a way that doesn't wreak havoc with the JavaScript event-loop. (But as I said, it's not a feature in general use yet.)
You can however use generators in the current release of node if you'd like, simply add "--harmony" to the node command line to tell it to turn on the newest features of the next version of JavaScript.
As cowboy says down in the comments here, we all want to "write [non-blocking JavaScript] asynchronous code in a style similar to this:
try
{
var foo = getSomething(); // async call that would normally block
var bar = doSomething(foo);
console.log(bar);
}
catch (error)
{
console.error(error);
}
"
So people have come up solutions to this problem like
callback libraries (eg async)
promises
event patterns
streamline
domains and
generators.
But none of these lead to code as simple and easy to understand as the sync-style code above.
So why isn't possible for javascript compilers/interpreters to just NOT block on the statements we currently know as "blocking"? So why isn't possible for javascript compilers/interpreters to handle the sync syntax above AS IF we'd written it in an async style?"
For example, upon processing getSomething() above, the compiler/interpreter could just say "this statement is a call to [file system/network resource/...], so I'll make a note to listen to responses from that call and in the meantime get on with whatever's in my event loop". When the call returns, execution can proceed to doSomething().
You would still maintain all of the basic features of popular JavaScript runtime environments
single threaded
event loop
blocking operations (I/O, network, wait timers) handled "asynchronously"
This would be simply a tweak to the syntax, that would allow the interpreter to pause execution on any given bit of code whenever IT DETECTS an async operation, and instead of needing callbacks, code just continues from the line after the async call when the call returns.
As Jeremy says
there is nothing in the JavaScript runtime that will preemptively
pause the execution of a given task, permit some other code to execute
for a while, and then resume the original task
Why not? (As in, "why couldn't there be?"... I'm not interested in a history lesson)
Why does a developer have to care about whether a statement is blocking or not? Computers are for automating stuff that humans are bad at (eg writing non-blocking code).
You could perhaps implement it with
a statement like "use noblock"; (a bit like "use strict";) to turn this "mode" on for a whole page of code. EDIT: "use noblock"; was a bad choice, and misled some answerers that I was trying to change the nature of common JavaScript runtimes altogether. Something like 'use syncsyntax'; might better describe it.
some kind of parallel(fn, fn, ...); statement allowing you to run things in parallel while in "use syncsyntax"; mode - eg to allow multiple async activities to be kicked off at once
EDIT: a simple sync-style syntax wait(), which would be used instead of setTimeout() in "use syncsyntax"; mode
EDIT:
As an example, instead of writing (standard callback version)
function fnInsertDB(myString, fnNextTask) {
fnDAL('insert into tbl (field) values (' + myString + ');', function(recordID) {
fnNextTask(recordID);
});
}
fnInsertDB('stuff', fnDeleteDB);
You could write
'use syncsyntax';
function fnInsertDB(myString) {
return fnDAL('insert into tbl (field) values (' + myString ');'); // returns recordID
}
var recordID = fnInsertDB('stuff');
fnDeleteDB(recordID);
The syncsyntax version would process exactly the same way as the standard version, but it's much easier to understand what the programmer intended (as long as you understand that syncsyntax pauses execution on this code as discussed).
So why isn't possible for javascript compilers/interpreters to just NOT block on the statements we currently know as "blocking"?
Because of concurrency control. We want them to block, so that (in JavaScript's single-threaded nature) we are safe from race conditions that alter the state of our function while we still are executing it. We must not have an interpreter that suspends the execution of the current function at any arbitrary statement/expression and resumes with some different part of the program.
Example:
function Bank() {
this.savings = 0;
}
Bank.prototype.transfer = function(howMuch) {
var savings = this.savings;
this.savings = savings + +howMuch(); // we expect `howMuch()` to be blocking
}
Synchronous code:
var bank = new Bank();
setTimeout(function() {
bank.transfer(prompt); // Enter 5
alert(bank.savings); // 5
}, 0);
setTimeout(function() {
bank.transfer(prompt); // Enter 3
alert(bank.savings); // 8
}, 100);
Asynchronous, arbitrarily non-blocking code:
function guiPrompt() {
"use noblock";
// open form
// wait for user input
// close form
return input;
}
var bank = new Bank();
setTimeout(function() {
bank.transfer(guiPrompt); // Enter 5
alert(bank.savings); // 5
}, 0);
setTimeout(function() {
bank.transfer(guiPrompt); // Enter 3
alert(bank.savings); // 3 // WTF?!
}, 100);
See https://glyph.twistedmatrix.com/2014/02/unyielding.html for a longer (and language-agnostic) explanation.
there is nothing in the JavaScript runtime that will preemptively pause the execution of a given task, permit some other code to execute for a while, and then resume the original task
Why not?
For simplicity and security, see above. (And, for the history lesson: That's how it just was done)
However, this is no longer true. With ES6 generators, there is something that lets you explicitly pause execution of the current function generator: the yield keyword.
As the language evolves, there are also async and await keywords planned for ES7.
generators [… don't …] lead to code as simple and easy to understand as the sync code above.
But they do! It's even right in that article:
suspend(function* () {
// ^ "use noblock" - this "function" doesn't run continuously
try {
var foo = yield getSomething();
// ^^^^^ async call that does not block the thread
var bar = doSomething(foo);
console.log(bar);
} catch (error) {
console.error(error);
}
})
There is also a very good article on this subject here: http://howtonode.org/generators-vs-fibers
Why not? No reason, it just hadn't been done.
And here in 2017, it has been done in ES2017: async functions can use await to wait, non-blocking, for the result of a promise. You can write your code like this if getSomething returns a promise (note the await) and if this is inside an async function:
try
{
var foo = await getSomething();
var bar = doSomething(foo);
console.log(bar);
}
catch (error)
{
console.error(error);
}
(I've assumed there that you only intended getSomething to be asynchronous, but they both could be.)
Live Example (requires up-to-date browser like recent Chrome):
function getSomething() {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
setTimeout(() => {
if (Math.random() < 0.5) {
reject(new Error("failed"));
} else {
resolve(Math.floor(Math.random() * 100));
}
}, 200);
});
}
function doSomething(x) {
return x * 2;
}
(async () => {
try
{
var foo = await getSomething();
console.log("foo:", foo);
var bar = doSomething(foo);
console.log("bar:", bar);
}
catch (error)
{
console.error(error);
}
})();
The first promise fails half the time, so click Run repeatedly to see both failure and success.
You've tagged your question with NodeJS. If you wrap the Node API in promises (for instance, with promisify), you can write nice straight-forward synchronous-looking code that runs asynchronously.
Because Javascript interpreters are single-threaded, event driven. This is how the initial language was developed.
You can't do "use noblock" because no other work can occur during that phase. This means your UI will not update. You cannot respond to mouse or other input event from the user. You cannot redraw the screen. Nothing.
So you want to know why? Because javascript can cause the display to change. If you were able to do both simultaneously you'd have all these horrible race conditions with your code and the display. You might think you've moved something on the screen, but it hasn't drawn, or it drew and you moved it after it drew and now it's gotta draw again, etc. This asynchronous nature allows, for any given event in the execution stack to have a known good state -- nothing is going to modify the data that is being used while this is being executed.
That is not to say what you want doesn't exist, in some form.
The async library allows you to do things like your parallel idea (amongst others).
Generators/async/wait will allow you to write code that LOOKS like what you want (although it'll be asynchronous by nature).
Although you are making a false claim here -- humans are NOT bad at writing asynchronous code.
The other answers talked about the problems multi-threading and parallelism introduce. However, I want to address your answer directly.
Why not? (As in, "why couldn't there be?"... I'm not interested in a history lesson)
Absolutely no reason. ECMAScript - the JavaScript specification says nothing about concurrency, it does not specify the order code runs in, it does not specify an event loop or events at all and it does not specify anything about blocking or not blocking.
The way concurrency works in JavaScript is defined by its host environment - in the browser for example that's the DOM and the DOM specifies the semantics of the event loop. "async" functions like setTimeout are only the concern of the DOM and not the JavaScript language.
Moreover there is nothing that says JavaScript runtimes have to run single threaded and so on. If you have sequential code the order of execution is specified, but there is nothing stopping anyone from embedding the JavaScript language in a multi threaded environment.
Supposed, I have a async function in Node.js, basically something such as:
var addAsync = function (first, second, callback) {
setTimeout(function () {
callback(null, first + second);
}, 1 * 1000);
};
Now of course I can call this function in an asynchronous style:
addAsync(23, 42, function (err, result) {
console.log(result); // => 65
});
What I am wondering about is whether you can make it somehow to call this function synchronously. For that, I'd like to have a wrapper function sync, which basically does the following thing:
var sync = function (fn, params) {
var res,
finished = false;
fn.call(null, params[0], params[1], function (err, result) {
res = result;
finished = true;
});
while (!finished) {}
return res;
};
Then, I'd be able to run addAsync synchronously, by calling it this way:
var sum = sync(addAsync, [23, 42]);
Note: Of course you wouldn't work using params[0] and params[1] in reality, but use the arguments array accordingly, but I wanted to keep things simple in this example.
Now, the problem is, that the above code does not work. It just blocks, as the while loop blocks and does not release the event loop.
My question is: Is it possible in any way to make this sample run as intended?
I have already experimented with setImmediate and process.nextTick and various other things, but non of them helped. Basically, what you'd need was a way to tell Node.js to please pause the current function, continue running the event loop, and getting back at a later point in time.
I know that you can achieve something similar using yield and generator functions, at least in Node.js 0.11.2 and above. But, I'm curious whether it works even without?
Please note that I am fully aware of how to do asynchronous programming in Node.js, of the event loop and all the related stuff. I am also fully aware that writing code like this is a bad idea, especially in Node.js. And I am also fully aware that an 'active wait' is a stupid idea, as well. So please don't give the advice to learn how to do it asynchronously or something like that. I know that.
The reason why I am asking is just out of curiosity and for the wish to learn.
I've recently created simpler abstraction WaitFor to call async functions in sync mode (based on Fibers). It's at an early stage but works. Please try it: https://github.com/luciotato/waitfor
using WaitFor your code will be:
console.log ( wait.for ( addAsync,23,42 ) ) ;
You can call any standard nodejs async function, as if it were a sync function.
wait.for(fn,args...) fulfills the same need as the "sync" function in your example, but inside a Fiber (without blocking node's event loop)
You can use npm fibers (C++ AddOn project) & node-sync
implement a blocking call in C(++) and provide it as a library
Yes I know-you know - BUT EVER-EVER-EVER ;)
Non-Blocking) use a control flow library
Standard propmises and yield (generator functions) will make this straigthforward:
http://blog.alexmaccaw.com/how-yield-will-transform-node
http://jlongster.com/A-Study-on-Solving-Callbacks-with-JavaScript-Generators