I want call few function one after another recursively with setTimeout.
var flag = 0 ;
function slave1(){
if(flag < 60) {
var COPY_PO_LINE_DIV = document.getElementById("DOM_ELEMENT1"); // Checking if DOM has loaded or not. If yes then doing something.
if (COPY_PO_LINE_DIV != null) {
flag = 0;
//doing something
} else {
setTimeout(slave1,2000); //waiting for 2 seconds and checking again.
}
}
}
//doing similar task
function slave2(){
if(flag < 60) {
var COPY_PO_LINE_DIV = document.getElementById("DOM_ELEMENT2");
if (COPY_PO_LINE_DIV != null) {
flag = 0;
//doing something
} else {
setTimeout(slave2,2000);
}
}
}
function master() {
slave1();
console.log("Without completing slave1 function.");
slave2();
}
Through master() function I want to call multiple functions one after another, however in current situation its calling slave2() without completing slave1(). How can I make sure that slave1() has executed completed. If DOM element is not loaded than it should execute 60 times after every 2 seconds and than it should come out from slave1() and go to next one.
I want to execute same function for 60 times if dom element is not loaded without returning the control to next function.
You need to adjust slave1 to run a callback when it is finished which will be slave2.
function slave1(callback){
if(flag < 60) {
var COPY_PO_LINE_DIV = document.getElementById("DOM_ELEMENT1"); // Checking if DOM has loaded or not. If yes then doing something.
if (COPY_PO_LINE_DIV != null) {
flag = 0;
//doing something
callback();
} else {
setTimeout(slave1,2000); //waiting for 2 seconds and checking again.
}
}
}
function slave2(){...}
function master() {
slave1(slave2);
console.log("Without completing slave1 function.");
}
This is your basic javascript chaining. If you have more slaves you might want to look into async.series otherwise you go into callback hell as Gabs00 has put it nicely:
slave1(function(){
slave2(function(){
slave3(function(){
slave4(slave5);
});
});
});
If you need to pass values to callbacks then you need to use an intermediate anonymous function which in turn calls the intended callback with the arguments in question. To do that, you need define your functions so that they use the arguments:
function slave1(str, callback){...}
function slave3(i, callback){...}
slave1("some argument", function(){
slave2("another argument", function(){
slave3(1, function(){
slave4(2, slave5);
});
});
});
Consider using promises for things like that. Here an implementation on top of jQuery, other promise libraries work similarly.
function waitForElement(elementId, maxTries, checkInterval) {
var d = $.Deferred(), intvalID, checkFunc;
// set up default values
maxTries = maxTries || 60;
checkInterval = checkInterval || 2000;
checkFunc = function () {
var elem = document.getElementById(elementId);
if (maxTries-- > 0 && elem) {
clearInterval(intvalID);
d.resolve(elem);
}
if (maxTries <= 0) {
clearInterval(intvalID);
d.reject(elementId);
}
};
// set up periodic check & do first check right-away
intvalID = setInterval(checkFunc, checkInterval);
checkFunc();
return d.promise();
}
Now, if you want to test for elements one after another, you can cascade the calls like this:
function master() {
waitForElement("DOM_ELEMENT1").done(function (elem1) {
waitForElement("DOM_ELEMENT2").done(function (elem2) {
alert("elem1 and elem2 exist!");
// now do something with elem1 and elem2
}).fail(function () {
alert("elem1 exists, but elem2 was not found.");
});
}).fail(function () {
alert("elem1 not found.");
});
}
or you can do it in parallel and have a callback called when all of the elements exist:
function master() {
$.when(
waitForElement("DOM_ELEMENT1"),
waitForElement("DOM_ELEMENT2")
)
.done(function (elem1, elem2) {
alert("elem1 and elem2 exist!");
// now do something with elem1 and elem2
})
.fail(function () {
alert("not all elements were found before the timeout");
});
}
Your slave2 function should be passed to slave1 function as a callback and should be called in slave1 after it finishes (if ever?). Your current situation is quite common, since setTimeout() function is asynchronous, thus JS interpreter doesn't wait till the function is completed, but sets the setTimeout() result at the end of the Evet Loop and continues processing the master() method.
In order to pass arguments to functions, creating anonymous functions turns out to be an overkill. Consider using "bind" instead. So, if you've got
function slave1(str, callback){...}
function slave2(str, callback){...}
function slave3(i, callback){...}
function slave4(i, callback){...}
function slave5()
Instead of using
slave1("some argument", function(){
slave2("another argument", function(){
slave3(1, function(){
slave4(2, slave5);
});
});
});
Consider using
slave1("some argument",
slave2.bind(null, "another argument",
slave3.bind(null, 1,
slave4.bind(null, 2, slave5)
)
)
);
Much easier, more efficient in terms of memory and CPU utilization.
Now, how to do this with setTimeout:
slave1("some argument",
setTimeout.bind(null, slave2.bind(null, "another argument",
setTimeout.bind(null, slave3.bind(null, 1,
setTimeout.bind(null, slave4.bind(null, 2,
setTimeout.bind(null, slave5, 0)
),0)
),0)
),0)
);
I explained the problem in more detail at
http://morethanslightly.com/index.php/2014/09/executables-the-standard-solution-aka-mind-the-bind/
Related
I have two functions for eg., runslider() and runslider1().
runslider() runs after the document is loaded and I need to call runslider1() after finishing runslider(). Then again runslider() after runslider1(). This process should happen like infinite loop. Can someone help me please.
I have tried to keep them like callbacks. But that didn't work.
function runSlider(runslider1){
alert("run")
runSlider1(runSlider());
}
function runSlider1(runslider){
alert("run1");
runSlider(runSlider1());
}
if you want your functions to be called over and over again try using setInterval
function runSlider(){
alert("run");
runSlider1();
}
function runSlider1(){
alert("run1");
}
setInterval(runSlider, 100);
This will cause both functions to be called in that order repeatedly every 100ms. It seems like this is the behavior you are looking for.
The comments above are correct - you will cause a stack overflow.
Don't know why you would need this, but I cleaned your code for you:
function runSlider() {
alert('run');
runSlider1();
}
function runSlider1() {
alert('run1');
runSlider();
}
You can create infinite loop like this you just need to call one function.
var runSlider = function() {
console.log("run")
runSlider1()
}
var runSlider1 = function() {
console.log("run1");
setTimeout(function() {
runSlider()
}, 1000)
}
runSlider()
Another solution is:
function runSlider() {
console.log("run");
runSlider1();
setTimeout(runSlider1(), 1000) // Calls runSlider1() after 1 second(1000 millisecond). You can change it.
}
function runSlider1() {
console.log("run1");
setTimeout(runSlider(), 1000) // Calls runSlider1() after 1 second(1000 millisecond).
}
runSlider(); // Starts the cycle
var maxCalls = 0;
function run1(cb) {
alert('run1');
if (maxCalls++ < 5) { //Added this to avoid an infinite loop
cb(run1); //We want the function run after cb to be this one
}
}
function run2(cb) {
alert('run2');
if (maxCalls++ < 5) {
cb(run2);
}
}
This is the way to call one function from another. If you create an infinite loop, you will freeze the browser up. If you want the two functions running constantly, its best to release execution for a bit with a setInterval call instead.
var runFunc = 0;
var run1 = function() {
alert('run1');
};
var run2 = function() {
alert('run2');
};
var run = function() {
!(++runFunc) ? run2 : run1; //Alternate between calling each function
}
var stopRunning = function() { //Call this to stop the functions running
clearInterval(runInterval);
};
var runInterval = setInterval(run, 1000); //Calls the function every second
I have this function:
waitForFreeAccnt.prototype.isMemberFree = function () {
var self = this;
self.api.getMemberInfo(function () {
var accType = self.api.connect.accountType;
console.log(accType);
if (accType === 'FREE') {
console.log('it is free');
return true;
} else {
console.log('it is not free');
return false;
}
});
};
I would like to wait till the account is free for up to 10 seconds with something like that:
var test = function () {
for (var start = 1; start < 10; start++) {
var result = self.isMemberFree();
console.log(result);
if (result) {
break;
} else {
self.api.pause(1000);
console.log('waiting');
}
}
};
But it doesn't work because self.api.getMemberInfo is asynch call. This is super frustrating with Javascript. Any other language it would be so simple to do. How do I force the for loop to wait for self.isMemberFree() to finish executing before proceeding with the loop?
Also to note, this is not in browser execution so I don't care about anything hanging.
When dealing with asynchronous code, you need to make use of callbacks. That is, if you want to do a() and b() in order but a() does something asynchronously, then you need to call b() from within a() once a() has a result. So not:
a(); // does something asynchronously
b(); // tries to use a()'s result but it isn't available yet
... but rather
a(b); // pass b to a() and a() will call it when ready
function a(callback) {
triggerAsyncFunction(function(result) {
if (result === something)
callback("a just finished");
});
}
Note that a() doesn't refer to b() by name, it just calls whatever function is passed in as an argument.
So applying that to your code, maybe something like this:
waitForFreeAccnt.prototype.isMemberFree = function (cbf) {
var self = this;
self.api.getMemberInfo(function () {
cbf(self.api.connect.accountType === 'FREE');
});
};
waitForFreeAccnt.prototype.testMemberXTimes = function(maxAttempts, callback) {
var attempts = 0;
var self = this;
(function attempt() {
self.isMemberFree(function(free) {
if (free)
callback(true);
else if (++attempts < maxAttempts)
setTimeout(attempt, 1000);
else
callback(false);
});
)();
};
this.testMemberXTimes(10, function(isFree) {
// the next part of your code here, or called from here
// because at this point we know we've tested up to
// ten times and isFree tells us the result
});
Note that the way I coded getMemberInfo() it is basically doing the same thing yours was, but instead of returning a boolean it is calling the callback function and passing the same boolean value that you were returning. (I've removed the console.log()s to make the code shorter.)
Note also that you could structure the above to use promises, but the end result will be the same.
You could return a Promise
waitForFreeAccnt.prototype.isMemberFree = function () {
return new Promise((reject, resolve)=>
// set a timeout if api call takes too long
var timeout = setTimeout(()=> reject(Error('API timeout')), 10000);
// make api call
this.api.getMemberInfo(()=> {
clearTimeout(timeout);
resolve(this.api.connect.accountType === 'FREE');
});
);
};
Then use it like this
whatever.isMemberFree().then(isFree=> {
if (isFree)
console.log('it is free');
else
console.log('it is not free');
})
// handle timeout or other errors
.catch(err=> {
console.log(err.message);
});
Building on naomik's answer, if you do it that way you can pretty easily use a for loop with it, using the (most likely) upcoming async/await feature - though it's not part of ES2015.
// Note "async" here! That will make "await" work. It makes the function
// return a promise, which you'll be able to either "await" or
// "test().then" later.
var test = async function () {
for (var start = 1; start < 10; start++) {
// Right here we're using "await" - it makes JavaScript *wait* for
// the promise that comes from self.isMemberFree() to be finished.
// It's really handy because you can use it in loops like "for" and
// "while" without changing the flow of your program!
var result = await self.isMemberFree();
console.log(result);
if (result) {
break;
} else {
self.api.pause(1000);
console.log('waiting');
}
}
};
For now you'll need to use a transpiler like Babel or Traceur before you can really use async/await, though. It's only supported in Microsoft Edge 14 right now.
And a big emphasis that what is returned from test() isn't whatever you directly return from inside it. If I do this:
var test = async function() { return 15; };
var result = test();
I'm not going to get 15 - I'll get a promise that will resolve as 15:
result.then(function(res) {
console.log(res); // 15
});
// or, use an async function again:
var main = async function() {
console.log(await res); // 15
};
main();
I don't have my work laptop today because it is Sunday, I'm coding this on sublime. Apologise if the syntax is a bit off.
To solve your problem I would recommend changing isMemberFree() to take in a callback function. This is because isMemberFree is async, and you will need a way to report the result after it has done the work.
Then change test function to use setTimeout API to wait a second.
Wrap the function call for isMemberFree() to be in a nested function and call it recursively, that way you'll have synchronize control over the async calls.
Look at the coding example:
waitForFreeAccnt.prototype.isMemberFree = function (done) {
var self = this;
self.api.getMemberInfo(function () {
var accType = self.api.connect.accountType;
console.log(accType);
if (accType === 'FREE') {
console.log('it is free');
return done(null, true);
} else {
console.log('it is not free');
return done(null, false);
}
});
};
var test = function () {
var testMembership = function(waitAttempt, isFree) {
if (isFree) {
return;
}
else if (waitAttempt > 10) {
// wait exceeded, do something.
return;
}
setTimeout(function() {
self.isMemberFree(function(err, isFree) {
testMembership(waitAttempt+=1, isFree);
});
}, /*total milliseconds in 1sec=*/1000);
}
testMembership(/*WaitAttempts=*/0, /*isFree=*/false);
};
What the above code does is that, presumably something has already been done to the member's account and now test function is called. So it waits for 1 second, then call isMemberFree function, this happens recursively until either isMemberFree() returns true OR the 10 seconds wait has been exceeded.
I have this code as a starting point.
// $ = jQuery
// groupAdata and groupBdata are arrays
function funcA(elem) {
for (f = 0; f < groupAdata.length ; f++) {
// this is an example on how this function calls other functions asynchronously.
elem.children('.partyA').each( function() {
this.innerHTML = "been here" + groupAdata[f];
});
}
}
function funcB(elem) {
// another function that fires more calls
for (f = 0; f < groupAdata.length ; f++) {
$.post(url, somedata, function(data) {
elem.children('.partyB').each( function() {
this.innerHTML = "will be there" + groupBdata[f] + data;
});
}
}
}
$(document).ready(function() {
$('.groupA').each(function () {
funcA(this);
});
$('.groupB').each(function (){
funcB(this);
});
});
function endofitall() {
// call this after all instances of funcA and funcB are done.
}
When running endofitall(), I'd like to be sure that all calls of funcA and funcB are done.
I take that Promises and jQuery.Deferred() would be a good/preferred approach but was not able to map the answers I found to this specific scenario. (It is part of a templating tool that fires multiple dom manipulators func[AB] for multiple DOM elements.)
You can use $.when().
Your goal should be to get to:
// call funcA, call funcB
$.when( funcA(), funcB() )
// when everything is done go on with the callback
.done(endofitall);
In the case of funcA (synchronous function there's no problem and it will work as is).
In the case of funcB (asynchronous) there are some things to consider. If it would be just one ajax call your code should be something like:
// This function returns a promise.
// When it's fulfilled the callback (in your case '.done(endofitall)')
// will be called.
function funcB(somedata){
return $.post(url, somedata);
}
As you are actually making more requests you have to return a resolved promise only when all calls have been fulfilled.
// an *Asynchronous* function, returns an array of promises
function funcB(elem, groupAdata) {
var allCalls = [];
// for each element in the array call the relative async
// function. While you're calling it push it to the array.
groupAdata.forEach(data, function(data){
allCalls.push( $.post(url, data) );
});
// allCalls is now an array of promises.
// why .apply(undefined)? read here: https://stackoverflow.com/a/14352218/1446845
return $.when.apply(undefined, allCalls);
}
At this point you can go for a flat and clear:
$.when( funcA(), funcB() ).done(endofitall);
As a rule of thumb: if you are making async requests try to always return a promise from them, this will help flatten out your code (will post some link later on if you want) and to leverage the power of callbacks.
The above code can surely be refactored further (also, I haven't used a lot of jQuery in the last few years, but the concept applies to any Js library or even when using no library at all) but I hope it will help as a starting point.
References:
$.when
A similar answer here on SO
Call endofitall() inside each iteration for funcA and funcB. Keep a counter and perform the actual work once the counter reaches the number signifying all the tasks are complete.
function funcA(elem) {
for (f = 0; f < groupAdata.length ; f++) {
// these calls are not async
elem.children('.partyA').each( function() {
this.innerHTML = "been here" + groupAdata[f];
});
endofitall();
}
}
function funcB(elem) {
// another function that fires more calls
for (f = 0; f < groupBdata.length ; f++) {
$.post(url, somedata, function(data) {
elem.children('.partyB').each( function() {
this.innerHTML = "will be there" + groupBdata[f] + data;
});
endofitall();
}
}
}
$(document).ready(function() {
$('.groupA').each(function () {
funcA(this);
});
$('.groupB').each(function (){
funcB(this);
});
});
var counter=0;
function endofitall() {
if(++counter==groupAdata.length + groupBdata.length){
//do stuff
}
I want to get two resources using two asynch calls. I want to proceed only when both resources have been retrieved.
How can I do this elegantly in JS?
This would work:
getStuff1(function (result1) {
getStuff2 (function (result2) {
// do stuff with result1 and result2
....
}
}
but stuff2 only starts after stuff1 completes. I'd prefer to start stuff2 while waiting on stuff1.
If you know that functions are in fact first-class objects in Javascript, you can come up with a fairly elegant solution.
Without any extra objects, or global variables.
function callback1() {
callback1.done = true;
commonCallback();
}
function callback2() {
callback2.done = true;
commonCallback();
}
function commonCallback() {
if (callback1.done && callback2.done) {
// do stuff, since you know both calls have come back.
}
}
Why is this so elegant? Because you've encapsulated the data, your scope is free from useless variables and the code is more readable than ever. How cool is that? :)
UPDATE
And if you want a bit more general solution you may try the following:
function callback() {
callback.number -= 1;
if (callback.number === 0) {
// do stuff since all calls finished
callback.last();
}
}
callback.newQueue = function(num, last) {
callback.number = num;
callback.last = last;
}
// EXAMPLE USAGE
// our last function to be invoked
function afterEverythingDone(){ alert("done"); }
// create a new callback queue
callback.newQueue(3, afterEverythingDone);
// as time passes you call the callback
// function after every request
callback();
callback();
callback();
// after all call is finished
// afterEverythingDone() executes
Awesomeness again :)
One way is to use the same callback for both requests and proceed when both are complete:
var requestStatus = {
fooComplete: false,
barComplete: false
};
function callback(data) {
if (isFoo(data)) {
requestStatus.fooComplete = true;
} else if (isBar(data)) {
requestStatus.barComplete = true;
}
if (requestStatus.fooComplete && requestStatus.barComplete) {
proceed();
}
}
getAsync("foo", callback);
getAsync("bar", callback);
You'll probably want to flesh this out into a class.
Edit: added the async calls for clarity
You could have the callback function for each one indicate that their respective request has come back, and then execute the same common function. To illustrate:
var call1isBack = false;
var call2isBack = false;
function call1Callback() {
call1isBack = true;
commonCallback();
}
function call2Callback() {
call2isBack = true;
commonCallback();
}
function commonCallback() {
if (call1isBack && call2isBack) {
// do stuff, since you know both calls have come back.
}
}
Use a common callback handler with a counter that only allows passage into the "actual" processing section after the counter meets or exceeds the number of pending requests:
var commonHandler = (function() {
var counter=0, pendingCalls=2;
return function() {
if (++counter >= pendingCalls) {
// Do the actual thing...
}
}
})();
makeAjaxCall({args:args1, onComplete:commonHandler});
makeAjaxCall({args:args2, onComplete:commonHandler});
Using a closure around the anonymous function lets you avoid using a global variable for the counter.
Here's a snippet from a concurrent library I'm working on. All you need to do is instantiate a new Concurrent.Counter with the number of requests to await (before you execute them), and the callback to execute when they have finished. Before each of the asynchronous functions returns, have it call the decrement() method of the counter; once the counter has been decremented the number of times specified, the callback will be executed:
// Ensure the existence of the "Concurrent" namespace
var Concurrent = Concurrent || {};
/**
* Constructs a new Concurrent.Counter which executes a callback once a given number of threads have
* returned. Each Concurrent.Counter instance is designed to be used only once, and then disposed of,
* so a new one should be instantiated each additional time one is needed.
*
* #param {function} callback The callback to execute once all the threads have returned
* #param {number} count The number of threads to await termination before executing the callback
*/
Concurrent.Counter = function(callback, count) {
/**
* Decrements the thread count, and executes the callback once the count reaches zero.
*/
this.decrement = function() {
if (!(-- count)) {
callback();
}
};
};
// The number of asynchronous requests to execute
var requests = 10,
// Executes a callback once all the request tasks have returned
counter = new Concurrent.Counter(function() {
// this will be executed once the tasks have completed
}, requests),
// Tracks the number of requests made
i;
for (i = 0; i < requests; i ++) {
setTimeout(function() {
/*
* Perform an asynchronous task
*/
// Decrement the counter
counter.decrement();
}, 0);
}
This is written off the top of my head, but it should work.
function createCoordinator(onFinish) {
var count = 0;
return function (callback) {
count++;
return function () {
if (callback.apply(this, arguments))
count--;
if (count == 0)
onFinish();
}
}
}
var coordinate = createCoordinator(function () { alert('done!') });
// Assume sendAJAX = function (url, onreadystatechange)
sendAJAX('url1', coordinate(function () {
if (this.readyState != 4)
return false; // Return false if not done
alert('Done with url1!');
return true;
}));
sendAJAX('url2', coordinate(function () {
if (this.readyState != 4)
return false; // Return false if not done
alert('Done with url2!');
return true;
}));
I use the following code to create countdowns in Javascript. n is the number of times to repeat, freq is the number of milliseconds to wait before executing, funN is a function to call on each iteration (typically a function that updates part of the DOM) and funDone is the function to call when the countdown is complete.
function timer(n, freq, funN, funDone)
{
if(n == 0){
funDone();
}else{
setTimeout(function(){funN(n-1); timer(n-1, freq, funN, funDone);}, freq);
}
}
It can be called like so:
timer(10,
1000, /* 1 second */
function(n){console.log("(A) Counting: "+n);},
function() {console.log("(A) Done!");}
);
timer(10,
500,
function(n){console.log("(B) Counting: "+n);},
function() {console.log("(B) Done!");}
);
The advantage of this is that I can call timer() as many times as I want without worrying about global variables etc. Is there a better way to do this? Is there a clean way to make setInterval stop after a certain number of calls (without using global variables)? This code also creates a new lambda function with each call to setTimeout which seems like it could be problematic for large countdowns (I'm not sure how javascript's garbage collector handles this).
Is there a better way to do this? Thanks.
This is basically the same idea as #balabaster, but it is tested, uses prototype, and has a little more flexible interface.
var CountDownTimer = function(callback,n,interval) {
this.initialize(callback,n,interval);
}
CountDownTimer.prototype = {
_times : 0,
_interval: 1000,
_callback: null,
constructor: CountDownTimer,
initialize: function(callback,n,interval) {
this._callback = callback;
this.setTimes(n);
this.setInterval(interval);
},
setTimes: function(n) {
if (n)
this._times = n
else
this._times = 0;
},
setInterval: function(interval) {
if (interval)
this._interval = interval
else
this._interval = 1000;
},
start: function() {
this._handleExpiration(this,this._times);
},
_handleExpiration: function(timer,counter) {
if (counter > 0) {
if (timer._callback) timer._callback(counter);
setTimeout( function() {
timer._handleExpiration(timer,counter-1);
},
timer._interval
);
}
}
};
var timer = new CountDownTimer(function(i) { alert(i); },10);
...
<input type='button' value='Start Timer' onclick='timer.start();' />
I'd create an object that receives a counter and receives a function pointer to execute, something akin to the following pseudo code:
TimedIteration = function(interval, iterations, methodToRun, completedMethod){
var counter = iterations;
var timerElapsed = methodToRun; //Link to timedMethod() method
var completed = callbackMethod;
onTimerElapsed = function(){
if (timerElapsed != null)
timerElapsed();
}
onComplete = function(){
if (completed != null)
completed();
}
timedMethod = function(){
if (counter != null)
if (counter > 0) {
setTimeOut(interval, onTimerElapsed);
counter--;
}
else
onComplete();
this = null;
}
}
if ((counter != null)&&(counter > 0)){
//Trip the initial iteration...
setTimeOut(interval, timedMethod);
counter--;
}
}
obviously this is pseudo code, I've not tested it in an IDE and syntactically I'm not sure if it'll work as is [I'd be astonished if it does], but basically what you're doing is you're creating a wrapper object that receives a time interval, a number of iterations and a method to run upon the timer elapsed.
You'd then call this on your method to run like so:
function myMethod(){
doSomething();
}
function doWhenComplete(){
doSomethingElse();
}
new TimedIteration(1000, 10, myMethod, doWhenComplete);
I like your original solution better than the proposed alternatives, so I just changed it to not create a new function for every iteration (and the argument of fun() is now the value before decrement - change if needed...)
function timer(n, delay, fun, callback) {
setTimeout(
function() {
fun(n);
if(n-- > 0) setTimeout(arguments.callee, delay);
else if(callback) callback();
},
delay);
}