If I've a code like this:
testJSCallbacks();
function testJSCallbacks(){
var i = 0;
for (i = 0; i < 5; i++){
console.log("Step 1 "+i);
foo(i, myCB);
}
}
function foo(key, fnCB){
//retrieve png image blob from indexedDB for the key 'key'. Assume that the database is
//created and started properly
var getRequest = transaction.objectStore("store").get(key);
getRequest.onsuccess = function (event) {
var result = event.target.result;
if(result){
console.log("Step 2 " + key + " Found");
}else{
console.log("Step 2 " + key + " not Found"); //for the same 'key' value this happens before the above result is valid. i.e. key found
}
fnCB(result);
}
}
myCB = function (result){
console.log("Step 3 "+result);
}
Actual Output (just for example):
Step 1 0
Step 1 1
Step 1 2
Step 1 3
Step 1 4
Step 2 0 Found
.
.
Step 3 <result>
.
.
.
Desired output:
Step 1 0
Step 2 0 Found
Step 3 <result value of key 0 goes here>
In my code I'm trying to read png blobs from IndexedDB, which are already stored earlier. But while reading/searching for a specific blob it takes too long to get the result back, meanwhile a search for second blob occurs even though the earlier search is not finished yet.
Can anyone advise what/how would you do if you need to call an asynchronous function in a loop multiple times and the callback takes too long to come? Is my code correct and makes logical sense or this isn't how javascript is done? I'm very new to this and come from an embedded C background.
The problem is the getRequest.onsuccess function is asynchronous, while the for loop executes synchronously. This is why it finishes first... In fact, while you are executing the testJsCallbacks, nothing else will execute until the current execution context ends and control is returned back to the javascript event queue because javascript execution context within the browser is single threaded.
To do what you desire, I would suggest using a promise library. Then you can write code like this (see jsfiddle which uses Q.js library):
testJSCallbacks();
function testJSCallbacks(){
var i = 0,
promise;
for (i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
//Make initial promise if one doesn't exist
if (!promise) {
promise = Q.fcall(getStep(i));
}
//Append to existing promise chain
else {
promise = promise.then(getStep(i));
}
//then function returns another promise that can be used for chaining.
//We are essentially chaining each function together here in the loop.
promise = promise.then(function (key) {
//Log the output of step here
console.log("Step 1 " + key);
return key;
})
//then function takes a callback function with one parammeter (the data).
//foo signature meets this criteria and will use the resolution of the last promise (key).
.then(foo)
//myCB will execute after foo resolves its promise, which it does in the onsuccess callback
.then(myCB);
}
}
function getStep(step) {
return function () {
return step;
}
}
function foo(key) {
//retrieve png image blob from indexedDB for the key 'key'. Assume that the database is
//created and started properly
var getRequest = transaction.objectStore("store").get(key),
//Need to return a promise
deferred = Q.defer();
getRequest.onsuccess = function (event) {
var result = event.target.result;
if(result){
console.log("Step 2 " + key + " Found");
}else{
console.log("Step 2 " + key + " not Found"); //for the same 'key' value this happens before the above result is valid. i.e. key found
}
deferred.resolve(result);
}
return deferred.promise;
}
function myCB (result){
console.log("Step 3: " + result);
}
The jsfiddle uses a setTimeout instead of objectStore to demonstrate the async nature.
Explaining getStep function:
getStep function is like a "seed" function in that it kicks off resolving the chain of what you want to do (i.e. Step 1, Step 2, Step 3). It simply creates a function that returns the value of the variable passed in. This is used to pass into the function that console.logs Step 1 in the promise resolution chain and then returns the value for the next promise resolution (Step 2)... JavaScript has the concept of closures and in order to get the correct value for step number (instead of the value of 'i' at the time when the callbacks are executed) we needed to create a closure for the variable i.
To demonstrate, consider this code:
HTML:
<button type="button">0</button>
<button type="button">1</button>
<button type="button">2</button>
<button type="button">3</button>
<button type="button">4</button>
addHandlers();
function addHandlers() {
//Don't do this. Just demonstrating a feature:
var buttons = document.getElementsByTagName("button") || [],
i, len = buttons.length;
for (var i = 0; i < len; i++) {
buttons[i].onclick = function () {
//will always alert 5
alert(i);
}
}
}
Since the variable i is 5 after the for loop ends, this is the value that is used in the function. This is why you would need to create a closure for i (using getStep again for clarity):
addHandlers();
function addHandlers() {
var buttons = document.getElementsByTagName("button") || [],
i, len = buttons.length;
for (var i = 0; i < len; i++) {
//getStep creates a function with a closure for i at its current value in the loop
buttons[i].onclick = getStep(i);
}
}
function getStep(i) {
return function () {
alert(i);
}
}
Fiddle for before and after.
Related
This question already has answers here:
JavaScript closure inside loops – simple practical example
(44 answers)
Closed 4 years ago.
The community reviewed whether to reopen this question 3 months ago and left it closed:
Duplicate This question has been answered, is not unique, and doesn’t differentiate itself from another question.
I am running an event loop of the following form:
var i;
var j = 10;
for (i = 0; i < j; i++) {
asynchronousProcess(callbackFunction() {
alert(i);
});
}
I am trying to display a series of alerts showing the numbers 0 through 10. The problem is that by the time the callback function is triggered, the loop has already gone through a few iterations and it displays a higher value of i. Any recommendations on how to fix this?
The for loop runs immediately to completion while all your asynchronous operations are started. When they complete some time in the future and call their callbacks, the value of your loop index variable i will be at its last value for all the callbacks.
This is because the for loop does not wait for an asynchronous operation to complete before continuing on to the next iteration of the loop and because the async callbacks are called some time in the future. Thus, the loop completes its iterations and THEN the callbacks get called when those async operations finish. As such, the loop index is "done" and sitting at its final value for all the callbacks.
To work around this, you have to uniquely save the loop index separately for each callback. In Javascript, the way to do that is to capture it in a function closure. That can either be done be creating an inline function closure specifically for this purpose (first example shown below) or you can create an external function that you pass the index to and let it maintain the index uniquely for you (second example shown below).
As of 2016, if you have a fully up-to-spec ES6 implementation of Javascript, you can also use let to define the for loop variable and it will be uniquely defined for each iteration of the for loop (third implementation below). But, note this is a late implementation feature in ES6 implementations so you have to make sure your execution environment supports that option.
Use .forEach() to iterate since it creates its own function closure
someArray.forEach(function(item, i) {
asynchronousProcess(function(item) {
console.log(i);
});
});
Create Your Own Function Closure Using an IIFE
var j = 10;
for (var i = 0; i < j; i++) {
(function(cntr) {
// here the value of i was passed into as the argument cntr
// and will be captured in this function closure so each
// iteration of the loop can have it's own value
asynchronousProcess(function() {
console.log(cntr);
});
})(i);
}
Create or Modify External Function and Pass it the Variable
If you can modify the asynchronousProcess() function, then you could just pass the value in there and have the asynchronousProcess() function the cntr back to the callback like this:
var j = 10;
for (var i = 0; i < j; i++) {
asynchronousProcess(i, function(cntr) {
console.log(cntr);
});
}
Use ES6 let
If you have a Javascript execution environment that fully supports ES6, you can use let in your for loop like this:
const j = 10;
for (let i = 0; i < j; i++) {
asynchronousProcess(function() {
console.log(i);
});
}
let declared in a for loop declaration like this will create a unique value of i for each invocation of the loop (which is what you want).
Serializing with promises and async/await
If your async function returns a promise, and you want to serialize your async operations to run one after another instead of in parallel and you're running in a modern environment that supports async and await, then you have more options.
async function someFunction() {
const j = 10;
for (let i = 0; i < j; i++) {
// wait for the promise to resolve before advancing the for loop
await asynchronousProcess();
console.log(i);
}
}
This will make sure that only one call to asynchronousProcess() is in flight at a time and the for loop won't even advance until each one is done. This is different than the previous schemes that all ran your asynchronous operations in parallel so it depends entirely upon which design you want. Note: await works with a promise so your function has to return a promise that is resolved/rejected when the asynchronous operation is complete. Also, note that in order to use await, the containing function must be declared async.
Run asynchronous operations in parallel and use Promise.all() to collect results in order
function someFunction() {
let promises = [];
for (let i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
promises.push(asynchonousProcessThatReturnsPromise());
}
return Promise.all(promises);
}
someFunction().then(results => {
// array of results in order here
console.log(results);
}).catch(err => {
console.log(err);
});
async await is here
(ES7), so you can do this kind of things very easily now.
var i;
var j = 10;
for (i = 0; i < j; i++) {
await asycronouseProcess();
alert(i);
}
Remember, this works only if asycronouseProcess is returning a Promise
If asycronouseProcess is not in your control then you can make it return a Promise by yourself like this
function asyncProcess() {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
asycronouseProcess(()=>{
resolve();
})
})
}
Then replace this line await asycronouseProcess(); by await asyncProcess();
Understanding Promises before even looking into async await is must
(Also read about support for async await)
Any recommendation on how to fix this?
Several. You can use bind:
for (i = 0; i < j; i++) {
asycronouseProcess(function (i) {
alert(i);
}.bind(null, i));
}
Or, if your browser supports let (it will be in the next ECMAScript version, however Firefox already supports it since a while) you could have:
for (i = 0; i < j; i++) {
let k = i;
asycronouseProcess(function() {
alert(k);
});
}
Or, you could do the job of bind manually (in case the browser doesn't support it, but I would say you can implement a shim in that case, it should be in the link above):
for (i = 0; i < j; i++) {
asycronouseProcess(function(i) {
return function () {
alert(i)
}
}(i));
}
I usually prefer let when I can use it (e.g. for Firefox add-on); otherwise bind or a custom currying function (that doesn't need a context object).
var i = 0;
var length = 10;
function for1() {
console.log(i);
for2();
}
function for2() {
if (i == length) {
return false;
}
setTimeout(function() {
i++;
for1();
}, 500);
}
for1();
Here is a sample functional approach to what is expected here.
ES2017: You can wrap the async code inside a function(say XHRPost) returning a promise( Async code inside the promise).
Then call the function(XHRPost) inside the for loop but with the magical Await keyword. :)
let http = new XMLHttpRequest();
let url = 'http://sumersin/forum.social.json';
function XHRpost(i) {
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
let params = 'id=nobot&%3Aoperation=social%3AcreateForumPost&subject=Demo' + i + '&message=Here%20is%20the%20Demo&_charset_=UTF-8';
http.open('POST', url, true);
http.setRequestHeader('Content-type', 'application/x-www-form-urlencoded');
http.onreadystatechange = function() {
console.log("Done " + i + "<<<<>>>>>" + http.readyState);
if(http.readyState == 4){
console.log('SUCCESS :',i);
resolve();
}
}
http.send(params);
});
}
(async () => {
for (let i = 1; i < 5; i++) {
await XHRpost(i);
}
})();
JavaScript code runs on a single thread, so you cannot principally block to wait for the first loop iteration to complete before beginning the next without seriously impacting page usability.
The solution depends on what you really need. If the example is close to exactly what you need, #Simon's suggestion to pass i to your async process is a good one.
This question already has answers here:
JavaScript closure inside loops – simple practical example
(44 answers)
Closed 4 years ago.
The community reviewed whether to reopen this question 3 months ago and left it closed:
Duplicate This question has been answered, is not unique, and doesn’t differentiate itself from another question.
I am running an event loop of the following form:
var i;
var j = 10;
for (i = 0; i < j; i++) {
asynchronousProcess(callbackFunction() {
alert(i);
});
}
I am trying to display a series of alerts showing the numbers 0 through 10. The problem is that by the time the callback function is triggered, the loop has already gone through a few iterations and it displays a higher value of i. Any recommendations on how to fix this?
The for loop runs immediately to completion while all your asynchronous operations are started. When they complete some time in the future and call their callbacks, the value of your loop index variable i will be at its last value for all the callbacks.
This is because the for loop does not wait for an asynchronous operation to complete before continuing on to the next iteration of the loop and because the async callbacks are called some time in the future. Thus, the loop completes its iterations and THEN the callbacks get called when those async operations finish. As such, the loop index is "done" and sitting at its final value for all the callbacks.
To work around this, you have to uniquely save the loop index separately for each callback. In Javascript, the way to do that is to capture it in a function closure. That can either be done be creating an inline function closure specifically for this purpose (first example shown below) or you can create an external function that you pass the index to and let it maintain the index uniquely for you (second example shown below).
As of 2016, if you have a fully up-to-spec ES6 implementation of Javascript, you can also use let to define the for loop variable and it will be uniquely defined for each iteration of the for loop (third implementation below). But, note this is a late implementation feature in ES6 implementations so you have to make sure your execution environment supports that option.
Use .forEach() to iterate since it creates its own function closure
someArray.forEach(function(item, i) {
asynchronousProcess(function(item) {
console.log(i);
});
});
Create Your Own Function Closure Using an IIFE
var j = 10;
for (var i = 0; i < j; i++) {
(function(cntr) {
// here the value of i was passed into as the argument cntr
// and will be captured in this function closure so each
// iteration of the loop can have it's own value
asynchronousProcess(function() {
console.log(cntr);
});
})(i);
}
Create or Modify External Function and Pass it the Variable
If you can modify the asynchronousProcess() function, then you could just pass the value in there and have the asynchronousProcess() function the cntr back to the callback like this:
var j = 10;
for (var i = 0; i < j; i++) {
asynchronousProcess(i, function(cntr) {
console.log(cntr);
});
}
Use ES6 let
If you have a Javascript execution environment that fully supports ES6, you can use let in your for loop like this:
const j = 10;
for (let i = 0; i < j; i++) {
asynchronousProcess(function() {
console.log(i);
});
}
let declared in a for loop declaration like this will create a unique value of i for each invocation of the loop (which is what you want).
Serializing with promises and async/await
If your async function returns a promise, and you want to serialize your async operations to run one after another instead of in parallel and you're running in a modern environment that supports async and await, then you have more options.
async function someFunction() {
const j = 10;
for (let i = 0; i < j; i++) {
// wait for the promise to resolve before advancing the for loop
await asynchronousProcess();
console.log(i);
}
}
This will make sure that only one call to asynchronousProcess() is in flight at a time and the for loop won't even advance until each one is done. This is different than the previous schemes that all ran your asynchronous operations in parallel so it depends entirely upon which design you want. Note: await works with a promise so your function has to return a promise that is resolved/rejected when the asynchronous operation is complete. Also, note that in order to use await, the containing function must be declared async.
Run asynchronous operations in parallel and use Promise.all() to collect results in order
function someFunction() {
let promises = [];
for (let i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
promises.push(asynchonousProcessThatReturnsPromise());
}
return Promise.all(promises);
}
someFunction().then(results => {
// array of results in order here
console.log(results);
}).catch(err => {
console.log(err);
});
async await is here
(ES7), so you can do this kind of things very easily now.
var i;
var j = 10;
for (i = 0; i < j; i++) {
await asycronouseProcess();
alert(i);
}
Remember, this works only if asycronouseProcess is returning a Promise
If asycronouseProcess is not in your control then you can make it return a Promise by yourself like this
function asyncProcess() {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
asycronouseProcess(()=>{
resolve();
})
})
}
Then replace this line await asycronouseProcess(); by await asyncProcess();
Understanding Promises before even looking into async await is must
(Also read about support for async await)
Any recommendation on how to fix this?
Several. You can use bind:
for (i = 0; i < j; i++) {
asycronouseProcess(function (i) {
alert(i);
}.bind(null, i));
}
Or, if your browser supports let (it will be in the next ECMAScript version, however Firefox already supports it since a while) you could have:
for (i = 0; i < j; i++) {
let k = i;
asycronouseProcess(function() {
alert(k);
});
}
Or, you could do the job of bind manually (in case the browser doesn't support it, but I would say you can implement a shim in that case, it should be in the link above):
for (i = 0; i < j; i++) {
asycronouseProcess(function(i) {
return function () {
alert(i)
}
}(i));
}
I usually prefer let when I can use it (e.g. for Firefox add-on); otherwise bind or a custom currying function (that doesn't need a context object).
var i = 0;
var length = 10;
function for1() {
console.log(i);
for2();
}
function for2() {
if (i == length) {
return false;
}
setTimeout(function() {
i++;
for1();
}, 500);
}
for1();
Here is a sample functional approach to what is expected here.
ES2017: You can wrap the async code inside a function(say XHRPost) returning a promise( Async code inside the promise).
Then call the function(XHRPost) inside the for loop but with the magical Await keyword. :)
let http = new XMLHttpRequest();
let url = 'http://sumersin/forum.social.json';
function XHRpost(i) {
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
let params = 'id=nobot&%3Aoperation=social%3AcreateForumPost&subject=Demo' + i + '&message=Here%20is%20the%20Demo&_charset_=UTF-8';
http.open('POST', url, true);
http.setRequestHeader('Content-type', 'application/x-www-form-urlencoded');
http.onreadystatechange = function() {
console.log("Done " + i + "<<<<>>>>>" + http.readyState);
if(http.readyState == 4){
console.log('SUCCESS :',i);
resolve();
}
}
http.send(params);
});
}
(async () => {
for (let i = 1; i < 5; i++) {
await XHRpost(i);
}
})();
JavaScript code runs on a single thread, so you cannot principally block to wait for the first loop iteration to complete before beginning the next without seriously impacting page usability.
The solution depends on what you really need. If the example is close to exactly what you need, #Simon's suggestion to pass i to your async process is a good one.
This question already has answers here:
JavaScript closure inside loops – simple practical example
(44 answers)
Closed 4 years ago.
The community reviewed whether to reopen this question 3 months ago and left it closed:
Duplicate This question has been answered, is not unique, and doesn’t differentiate itself from another question.
I am running an event loop of the following form:
var i;
var j = 10;
for (i = 0; i < j; i++) {
asynchronousProcess(callbackFunction() {
alert(i);
});
}
I am trying to display a series of alerts showing the numbers 0 through 10. The problem is that by the time the callback function is triggered, the loop has already gone through a few iterations and it displays a higher value of i. Any recommendations on how to fix this?
The for loop runs immediately to completion while all your asynchronous operations are started. When they complete some time in the future and call their callbacks, the value of your loop index variable i will be at its last value for all the callbacks.
This is because the for loop does not wait for an asynchronous operation to complete before continuing on to the next iteration of the loop and because the async callbacks are called some time in the future. Thus, the loop completes its iterations and THEN the callbacks get called when those async operations finish. As such, the loop index is "done" and sitting at its final value for all the callbacks.
To work around this, you have to uniquely save the loop index separately for each callback. In Javascript, the way to do that is to capture it in a function closure. That can either be done be creating an inline function closure specifically for this purpose (first example shown below) or you can create an external function that you pass the index to and let it maintain the index uniquely for you (second example shown below).
As of 2016, if you have a fully up-to-spec ES6 implementation of Javascript, you can also use let to define the for loop variable and it will be uniquely defined for each iteration of the for loop (third implementation below). But, note this is a late implementation feature in ES6 implementations so you have to make sure your execution environment supports that option.
Use .forEach() to iterate since it creates its own function closure
someArray.forEach(function(item, i) {
asynchronousProcess(function(item) {
console.log(i);
});
});
Create Your Own Function Closure Using an IIFE
var j = 10;
for (var i = 0; i < j; i++) {
(function(cntr) {
// here the value of i was passed into as the argument cntr
// and will be captured in this function closure so each
// iteration of the loop can have it's own value
asynchronousProcess(function() {
console.log(cntr);
});
})(i);
}
Create or Modify External Function and Pass it the Variable
If you can modify the asynchronousProcess() function, then you could just pass the value in there and have the asynchronousProcess() function the cntr back to the callback like this:
var j = 10;
for (var i = 0; i < j; i++) {
asynchronousProcess(i, function(cntr) {
console.log(cntr);
});
}
Use ES6 let
If you have a Javascript execution environment that fully supports ES6, you can use let in your for loop like this:
const j = 10;
for (let i = 0; i < j; i++) {
asynchronousProcess(function() {
console.log(i);
});
}
let declared in a for loop declaration like this will create a unique value of i for each invocation of the loop (which is what you want).
Serializing with promises and async/await
If your async function returns a promise, and you want to serialize your async operations to run one after another instead of in parallel and you're running in a modern environment that supports async and await, then you have more options.
async function someFunction() {
const j = 10;
for (let i = 0; i < j; i++) {
// wait for the promise to resolve before advancing the for loop
await asynchronousProcess();
console.log(i);
}
}
This will make sure that only one call to asynchronousProcess() is in flight at a time and the for loop won't even advance until each one is done. This is different than the previous schemes that all ran your asynchronous operations in parallel so it depends entirely upon which design you want. Note: await works with a promise so your function has to return a promise that is resolved/rejected when the asynchronous operation is complete. Also, note that in order to use await, the containing function must be declared async.
Run asynchronous operations in parallel and use Promise.all() to collect results in order
function someFunction() {
let promises = [];
for (let i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
promises.push(asynchonousProcessThatReturnsPromise());
}
return Promise.all(promises);
}
someFunction().then(results => {
// array of results in order here
console.log(results);
}).catch(err => {
console.log(err);
});
async await is here
(ES7), so you can do this kind of things very easily now.
var i;
var j = 10;
for (i = 0; i < j; i++) {
await asycronouseProcess();
alert(i);
}
Remember, this works only if asycronouseProcess is returning a Promise
If asycronouseProcess is not in your control then you can make it return a Promise by yourself like this
function asyncProcess() {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
asycronouseProcess(()=>{
resolve();
})
})
}
Then replace this line await asycronouseProcess(); by await asyncProcess();
Understanding Promises before even looking into async await is must
(Also read about support for async await)
Any recommendation on how to fix this?
Several. You can use bind:
for (i = 0; i < j; i++) {
asycronouseProcess(function (i) {
alert(i);
}.bind(null, i));
}
Or, if your browser supports let (it will be in the next ECMAScript version, however Firefox already supports it since a while) you could have:
for (i = 0; i < j; i++) {
let k = i;
asycronouseProcess(function() {
alert(k);
});
}
Or, you could do the job of bind manually (in case the browser doesn't support it, but I would say you can implement a shim in that case, it should be in the link above):
for (i = 0; i < j; i++) {
asycronouseProcess(function(i) {
return function () {
alert(i)
}
}(i));
}
I usually prefer let when I can use it (e.g. for Firefox add-on); otherwise bind or a custom currying function (that doesn't need a context object).
var i = 0;
var length = 10;
function for1() {
console.log(i);
for2();
}
function for2() {
if (i == length) {
return false;
}
setTimeout(function() {
i++;
for1();
}, 500);
}
for1();
Here is a sample functional approach to what is expected here.
ES2017: You can wrap the async code inside a function(say XHRPost) returning a promise( Async code inside the promise).
Then call the function(XHRPost) inside the for loop but with the magical Await keyword. :)
let http = new XMLHttpRequest();
let url = 'http://sumersin/forum.social.json';
function XHRpost(i) {
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
let params = 'id=nobot&%3Aoperation=social%3AcreateForumPost&subject=Demo' + i + '&message=Here%20is%20the%20Demo&_charset_=UTF-8';
http.open('POST', url, true);
http.setRequestHeader('Content-type', 'application/x-www-form-urlencoded');
http.onreadystatechange = function() {
console.log("Done " + i + "<<<<>>>>>" + http.readyState);
if(http.readyState == 4){
console.log('SUCCESS :',i);
resolve();
}
}
http.send(params);
});
}
(async () => {
for (let i = 1; i < 5; i++) {
await XHRpost(i);
}
})();
JavaScript code runs on a single thread, so you cannot principally block to wait for the first loop iteration to complete before beginning the next without seriously impacting page usability.
The solution depends on what you really need. If the example is close to exactly what you need, #Simon's suggestion to pass i to your async process is a good one.
The following piece of code has a bug but it opened an interesting question. Its using an angular's $http service which returns a promise. Once resolved, the callback function does not have access to the s1 variable.
var ids = [];
ids = ['81074'];
// show what's in
for (var s=0;s<ids.length;s++) {
var s1 = s;
$http.get('http://mydomain.com/api/catalog/product/' + ids[s]).
success(function(data) {
// console.log(s1); <--- reference error
$scope.products[s].setProductData(data);
}).error(function(err){
console.log('--------- error',err);
});
};
s1 gives ReferenceError: s1 is not defined in the debugger
And interestingly, it does have access to the for loop variable s, which is always 1 - as expected, since the promise got resolved after its incremented (hence the bug BTW)
Can someone explains why?
thanks
Lior
This is a classic issue with asynchronous callbacks in a for loop. Both s and s1 are only declared once. Even though you declare var s1; within the loop, JavaScript has no block scope, so it's irrelevant.
This means all iterations share the same variables s and s1, so when the callback completes, $scope.products[s] is looking up the ids.length + 1 product.
Instead, do:
var ids = [];
ids = ['81074'];
function launchRequest(s) {
$http.get('http://example.com/api/catalog/product/' + ids[s]).success(function (data) {
$scope.products[s].setProductData(data);
}).error(function (err) {
console.log('--------- error', err);
});
}
// show what's in
for (var s = 0; s < ids.length; s++) {
launchRequest(s);
}
... which introduces a new function level scope inside launchRequest, which means s is still s inside the function when the callback resolves.
mturk_ops.block = function(callback){
mongodb.collection(collectionName, function(err, collection){
collection.distinct('workerId',function(err,result){
var result1 = [];
console.log(result.length);
for(var i=0; i< result.length;i++){
console.log(result[i]);
result1[result[i]] = collection.count({
'workerId':result[i],
"judgementStat" : "majority"
},function(err, count){
// console.log(count);
// globals.push(count);
return count ;
// console.log( worker + ' majority : ' + count);
});
}
console.log(result1);
});
});
}
Here I am trying to print 'result1' but its always printing array with undefined value. 'result1' is an array which is assigned out of the scope of callback function.
You can't return a value from an asynchronous callback. The callback is usually executed some time after the function in which it was declared has returned (that function will continue execution after calling an asynchronous method). There is nowhere for a callback function to return to. Here's a simple example:
function doSomething() {
var x = 10;
doSomethingAsynchronous(function () {
// This is a callback function
return 30; // Where would I return to?
});
x += 10; // Execution continues here as soon as previous line has executed
return x; // doSomething function returns, callback may not have run yet
}
If you need to rely on the result of an asynchronous method, you will need to move the code that requires it into the callback.