Help with jQuery functions executing prematurely - javascript

I have a click function:
jQuery("#element").click(function(e){
var op = jQuery("#box").GetOp();
op.flag1 = false;
op.flag2 = true;
executeFunction();
jQuery("#box").reload();
});
I want the functions executeFunction(); and jQuery("#box").reload(); to execute in serial order only after the previous two lines are executed.
EDIT: The functions should execute synchronously.
Other threads have suggested using callbacks, but I'm not sure how I can use it in my case.
Any suggestions?

Javascript is inherently synchronous so, if your code does not execute in serial order, maybe executeFunction() is calling some async behaviour, like AJAX requests or setTimeout/setInterval things.
A posible solution in that case is to pass a function to executeFunction() and call it when the async behaviour is done:
jQuery('#element').click(function(e){
var op = jQuery('#box').GetOp();
op.flag1 = false;
op.flag2 = true;
executeFunction(function(){
jQuery('#box').reload();
});
});
And changing executeFunction(fn) to call the function on async behaviour success.

Normally, JavaScript is single thread programming. But you can simulate thread by using setTimeOut to automatically call the defined function. For your source code, it should work synchronously if you don't work any setTimeOut statement in any method.

Related

I want to make the second function await the first one to complete but I can’t think of syntax to it

I want to make the second function await the first one to complete but I can’t think of syntax to it.
function rr(){
gr1.innerText = niz.splice(niz[Math.floor(Math.random()*niz.length)],1)
gr2.innerText = niz.splice(niz[Math.floor(Math.random()*niz.length)],1)
dl1.innerText = niz.splice(niz[Math.floor(Math.random()*niz.length)],1)
dl2.innerText = niz.splice(niz[Math.floor(Math.random()*niz.length)],1)
}
function reset(){
niz = ["jd","dv","tr","ct","pt","s","ss","os","dv","dd","jj","dvv","trr","ctt","pett","ssss","sds","ds"]
}
You can implement simple callback from first function and let second function depend on the callback. This way second function will only load when first function's loading is complete.
Refer this : https://humanwhocodes.com/blog/2009/07/28/the-best-way-to-load-external-javascript/
The functions above are synchronous functions, which means that they run synchronously, and don't let the main thread continue until they finished their work. So if you call the rr function, and then the reset function, reset will wait until rr finishes executing and only after that, will start running as well.
Asynchronous functions have the keyword async before function like this:
async function myFunction() { ... };
In your code, you don't need to use asynchronous functions, as you don't make any requests from another server. Asynchronous functions are not stopping the main thread from executing, by running in the background. They are used on loading large files, gathering data, and other operations that take a lot of time.

Javascript - wait for async call to finish before returning from function, without the use of callbacks

I want to preface by saying I've viewed a lot of stackoverflow questions regarding this topic, but I haven't found any 'duplicates' per se since none of them contain solutions that would solve this specific case.
I've mainly looked at How do I return the response from an asynchronous call?, and the section on 'Promises with async/await' would work inside an asynchronous function, but the function I'm working on is not async and is part of an existing codebase that I can't change easily. I wouldn't be able to change the function to async.
The section on callbacks wouldn't work either, which is explained further below. Anyway, I'll jump into my question:
I'm editing a function (standard function, not async) in JavaScript by adding an asynchronous function call. I want to wait until the async call finishes before I return from the function (since the result of the async call needs to be included in the return value). How would I do so?
I looked into using callbacks, which would allow me to write code which is guaranteed to run only after the async call completes. However, this wouldn't interrupt the flow of the program in the original function, and the original function could still return before the callback is run. A callback would allow me to execute something sequentially after the async function, but it wouldn't allow me to wait for asynchronous call to complete at the highest level.
Example code, which wouldn't return the desired result:
function getPlayers() {
... other code ...
let outfieldPlayers = asyncGetOutfieldPlayersCall()
... other code ...
allPlayers.add(outfieldPlayers)
return allPlayers // the returned value may or may not include outfield players
}
The actual problem I'm facing is a little more complicated - I'm calling the async function in each iteration of a for loop, and need to wait until all calls have completed before returning. But, I think if I can solve this simpler problem, I can solve the problem with a for loop.
Sadly, it is pretty much impossible to wait for async code in a synchronous way. This is because there is no threading in JS (most JS runtimes, but some are). So code is either synchronous or asynchronous.
Asynchronous code is possible because of the event loop. The event loop is part of the javascript runtime. It works by keeping a stack of callback functions that run when events trigger them - usually either timeout events (which you can set with setTimeout()) or IO events (which happen when you make disk or HTTP requests, or on user interaction). However, these callbacks only run when no other code is running, so only when the program is idle and all functions have returned.
This means that techniques like "spin loops" (where you just run a loop until a condition is changed by another thread) that work in threaded environments don't work because the async code won't run until the spin loop finishes.
More Info: https://medium.com/front-end-weekly/javascript-event-loop-explained-4cd26af121d4
If you are using NodeJS, this is possible through execSync.
This requires you to place your asynchronous code in a separate file, spawn a separate process using execSync, which will wait until it exits.
For example, consider the following async function which prints an array.
// task.js
(async function() {
await new Promise((resolve) => setTimeout(() => {
console.log(JSON.stringify([3,4,5]));
resolve();
}, 1000));
})();
Now, you can invoke this from your main process:
function asyncGetOutfieldPlayersCall() {
const execSync = require('child_process').execSync;
return JSON.parse(execSync("node task.js"));
}
function getPlayers() {
let allPlayers = [1,2];
// ... other code ...
let outfieldPlayers = asyncGetOutfieldPlayersCall();
// ... other code ...
allPlayers = allPlayers.concat(outfieldPlayers)
return allPlayers;
}

Javascript - return a value or use a callback function

I am curious what is considered the better style/the correct way to do something.
In javascript, I could do the following:
function one() {
two(param, function(ans){
// do more work
});
}
function two(param, callback) {
var answer;
//do work
callback(answer);
}
but I could have a similar result by simply returning the answer:
function one() {
var ans = two(param);
// do more work
}
function two(param, callback) {
var answer;
//do work
return answer;
}
I think that if all you need is "answer" then it is probably better to use the second version and just return that value rather than passing a callback function as a parameter, etc. - is my thinking correct? Any ideas on the relative performance of the two? Again, I would expect the return version to be better performance-wise.
Generally a callback function is used when the function you are calling will be performing an asynchronous event (such as making an AJAX call) that will be done in a non-blocking fashion.
Non-blocking means that once you call that function, your code will continue on to the next statement BEFORE the function you just called has completed its work. Hence the callback function, in which you put code that you want to be executed AFTER the non-blocking function has completed.
I would recommend returning answer directly from two rather then implementing a callback. Too many callbacks can lead to what is known as the Callback Pyramid
You should use the return.
Callback are suitable when you perform asynchronous actions, otherwise they're useless overhead.
You should definitely just use return. Callbacks are meant for when you would like some customized code to be executed after the completion of a function or an asynchronous event such as an Ajax call.

How to write a node.js function that waits for an event to fire before 'returning'?

I have a node application that is not a web application - it completes a series of asynchronous tasks before returning 1. Immediately before returning, the results of the program are printed to the console.
How do I make sure all the asynchronous work is completed before returning? I was able to achieve something similar to this in a web application by making sure all tasks we completed before calling res.end(), but I haven't any equivalent for a final 'event' to call before letting a script return.
See below for my (broken) function currently, attempting to wait until callStack is empty. I just discovered that this is a kind of nonsensical approach because node waits for processHub to complete before entering any of the asynchronous functions called in processObjWithRef.
function processHub(hubFileContents){
var callStack = [];
var myNewObj = {};
processObjWithRef(samplePayload, myNewObj, callStack);
while(callStack.length>0){
//do nothing
}
return 1
}
Note: I have tried many times previously to achieve this kind of behavior with libraries like async (see my related question at How can I make this call to request in nodejs synchronous?) so please take the answer and comments there into account before suggesting any answers based on 'just use asynch'.
You cannot wait for an asynchronous event before returning--that's the definition of asynchronous! Trying to force Node into this programming style will only cause you pain. A naive example would be to check periodically to see if callstack is empty.
var callstack = [...];
function processHub(contents) {
doSomethingAsync(..., callstack);
}
// check every second to see if callstack is empty
var interval = setInterval(function() {
if (callstack.length == 0) {
clearInterval(interval);
doSomething()
}
}, 1000);
Instead, the usual way to do async stuff in Node is to implement a callback to your function.
function processHub(hubFileContents, callback){
var callStack = [];
var myNewObj = {};
processObjWithRef(samplePayload, myNewObj, callStack, function() {
if (callStack.length == 0) {
callback(some_results);
}
});
}
If you really want to return something, check out promises; they are guaranteed to emit an event either immediately or at some point in the future when they are resolved.
function processHub(hubFileContents){
var callStack = [];
var myNewObj = {};
var promise = new Promise();
// assuming processObjWithRef takes a callback
processObjWithRef(samplePayload, myNewObj, callStack, function() {
if (callStack.length == 0) {
promise.resolve(some_results);
}
});
return promise;
}
processHubPromise = processHub(...);
processHubPromise.then(function(result) {
// do something with 'result' when complete
});
The problem is with your design of the function. You want to return a synchronous result from a list of tasks that are executed asynchronously.
You should implement your function with an extra parameter that will be the callback where you would put the result (in this case, 1) for some consumer to do something with it.
Also you need to have a callback parameter in your inner function, otherwise you won't know when it ends. If this last thing is not possible, then you should do some kind of polling (using setInterval perhaps) to test when the callStack array is populated.
Remember, in Javascript you should never ever do a busy wait. That will lock your program entirely as it runs on a single process.
deasync is desinged to address your problem exactly. Just replace
while(callStack.length>0){
//do nothing
}
with
require('deasync').loopWhile(function(){return callStack.length>0;});
The problem is that node.js is single-threaded, which means that if one function runs, nothing else runs (event-loop) until that function has returned. So you can not block a function to make it return after async stuff is done.
You could, for example, set up a counter variable that counts started async tasks and decrement that counter using a callback function (that gets called after the task has finished) from your async code.
Node.js runs on A SINGLE threaded event loop and leverages asynchronous calls for doing various things, like I/O operations.
if you need to wait for a number of asynchronous operations to finish before executing additional code
you can try using Async -
Node.js Async Tutorial
You'll need to start designing and thinking asynchronously, which can take a little while to get used to at first. This is a simple example of how you would tackle something like "returning" after a function call.
function doStuff(param, cb) {
//do something
var newData = param;
//"return"
cb(newData);
}
doStuff({some:data}, function(myNewData) {
//you're done with doStuff in here
});
There's also a lot of helpful utility functions in the async library available on npm.

AJAX workflow: How do I order the execution of these functions?

I'm trying to figure the best way to get my functions executing in the correct order.
I have 3 functions
function 1 - squirts OPTIONs into a SELECT via JSON and marks them as selected
function 2 - squirts OPTIONS into a 2nd SELECT and marks them as selected
function 3 - gets the values from the above SELECTs along with some additional INPUT values, does an AJAX GET resulting in JSON data, which is read and populates a table.
With JQuery Onload, I execute:
function1();
function2();
function3();
I'm finding function3 is executing before the SELECTs have been populated with OPTIONS and hence the table has no results, because the values sent in the GET were blank.
I know this is probably a very simple problem and that there are probably a dozen ways to accomplish this, but basically I need the best way to code this so that function3 only runs if function1 and 2 are complete.
I've come into Javascript via the back door having learnt the basics of JQuery first!
Thanks for your assistance.
Javascript executes synchronously, which means that function3 must wait for function2 to complete, which must wait for function1 to complete before executing.
The exception is when you run code that is asynchronous, like a setTimeout, setInterval or an asynchronous AJAX request.
Any subsequent code that relies on the completion of such asynchronous code needs to be called in such a manner that it doesn't execute until the asynchronous code has completed.
In the case of the setTimeout, you could just place the next function call at the end of the function you're passing to the setTimeout.
In the case of an AJAX call, you can place the next function call in a callback that fires upon a completed request.
If you don't want the execution of the subsequent function to occur every time, you can modify your functions to accept a function argument that gets called at the end of the asynchronous code.
Something like:
function function1( fn ) {
setTimeout(function() {
// your code
// Call the function parameter if it exists
if( fn ) {
fn();
}
}, 200);
}
function function2() {
// some code that must wait for function1
}
onload:
// Call function1 and pass function2 as an argument
function1( function2 );
// ...or call function1 without the argument
function1();
// ...or call function2 independently of function1
function2();
I recommend you use a Promises library. You can hack simple solutions like other answers suggest, but as your application grows, you'll find you are doing more and more of these hacks. Promises are intended to solve these kinds of problems when dealing with asynchronous calls.
The CommonJS project has several Promises proposals which you should check out. Here is a question I asked on SO about Promises a while back with links to other solutions. Learn more about Promises in this Douglas Crockford video. The whole video is good, but skip to just past half way for promises.
I'm using the FuturesJS library currently as it suits my needs. But there are advantages to other implementations as well. It allows you to do sequences very easily:
// Initialize Application
Futures.sequence(function (next) {
// First load the UI description document
loadUI(next); // next() is called inside loadUI
})
.then(function(next) {
// Then load all templates specified in the description
loadTemplates(next); // next() is called inside loadTemplates
})
.then(function(next) {
// Then initialize all templates specified in the description
initTemplates();
});
Even more powerful is when you need to join async events together and do another action when all of the other async events have completed. Here's an example (untested) that will load a bunch of HTML files and then perform an action only once ALL of them have completed loading:
var path = "/templates/",
templates = ["one.html","two.html","three.html"],
promises = [];
$.each(templates, function(i,name) {
promises[i] = Futures.promise();
var $container = $("<div>");
$container.load(path+name, function(response,status,xhr) {
promises[i].fullfill();
}
});
Futures.join(promises, {timeout: 10000}) // Fail if promises not completed in 10 seconds
.when(function(p_arr) {
console.log("All templates loaded");
})
.fail(function(p_arr) {
console.log("Error loading templates");
});
This might be overkill for your application. But if the application is growing in complexity, using promises will help you in the long run.
I hope this helps!
invoke function2 inside of function1 and function3 inside of function2.
It's not clear why f1 and f2 are executing before f3.
Also, are you using the preferred $(document).ready() or some variation of onload?
It might be helpful if you provide a reproducible test case.
fun3() will only run after both are ready. It might run twice. You can fix this with a lock inside fun3() you would need a Singleton to guarantee it works correctly.
var select1ready = false, select2ready = false;
fun1()
{
// do stuff
select1ready = true;
fun3();
}
fun2()
{
// do stuff
select2ready = true;
fun3();
}
fun3()
{
if (select1ready && select2ready)
{
}
}
fun1();
fun2();

Categories

Resources