Develop Reference

JavaScript: setInterval and clearInterval, which way is correct?

Which way is correct and more efficient in using setInterval() and clearInterval()?
1.
something = setInterval(function() {
try {
...load something
clearInterval(something);
} catch (e) {
// error
}
}, 5000);
2.
something = setInterval(function() {
try {
...load something
} catch (e) {
// error
}
}, 5000);
setTimeout(something, 7000);
EDIT:
For #2, I meant setTimeout() instead of clearInterval().Has been changed.

I assume the interval you're passing into clearInterval is meant to be something.
Your second example will never fire your timer, because you clear the timer immediately after setting it. You're also passing an argument (7000) into clearInterval that won't get used (clearInterval only accepts one argument).
Your first example is right provided that you want to clear the repeated timer at the point where you're calling clearInterval from within the handler. Presumably that's in an if or similar, because if you want a one-off timed callback you'd use setTimeout, not setInterval.
EDIT:
For #2, I meant setTimeout() instead of clearInterval().Has been changed.
That completely changes the question. No, that's not correct. setInterval schedules the function to be called repeatedly on the interval you give it, you don't pass its return value into setTimeout.

If you need something to happen over and over again you use setInterval if you only need it to happen once use setTimeout (you can simulate setInterval by chaining multiple timeouts one after the other). Timeouts only happen once therefore you do no need to clear them. Also clearInterval does not take a time argument so the interval you set will be cleared before it ever executes since classic javascript is synchronous.

just to complete the answer, take many care with setInterval(). if your "...load something" take sometime more time to load than the time according (for a reason or another). it will just don't do it for this time and will wait the next call of setinterval.
I encourage to use setTimeout() as much as possible instead.

You can find find below the use cases that are, according to me, aswering to your questions:
For your case 1:
var something = setInterval(function() {
// Do stuff, and determine whether to stop or not
if (stopCondition) {
clearInterval(something);
}
}, 5000);
For your case 2:
var something = setInterval(function() {
// Do stuff
}, 5000);
// Pass a function to setTimeout
setTimeout(function() {
clearInterval(something);
}, 17000);

Switching between setTimeout function in javascript

I have setTimout function like this
setTimeout(function(){
//doing something here
},1000);
another setTimeout func like this right after the above func
window.setTimeout(function(){
//code here
},10000);
What I need to achieve is I need to read some files in first setTimeout function and do some processing,once the timeout over control should go to second timeout function,do some stuff there.Then get back to the first timeout function,do some processing there,when timeout over callback the second fun and so on..Like that I need to do for n number of files.
But whats happening is if I give for loop inside the first setTimeout fun,it process all the files and control is passed to second timeout fun with the last processed file.But what i want is to do that for each file??
How can i achieve this?Am newbie in Javascript. Any help?

function timeout1() {
console.log("This is timeout 1");
window.setTimeout(timeout2, 500);
}
function timeout2() {
console.log("This is timeout 2");
window.setTimeout(timeout1, 500);
}
// Kick it off.
timeout1();

Instead of using two Time outs why didn't you use wait like below?
setInterval(function(){alert("Hello")},3000);
Check this for a detailed explanation.
Hope this helps.
Please leave a feed back.

Pause JavaScript - setTime

I have created a JavaScript version of the Little Man Computer based on the Java one at http://www.atkinson.yorku.ca/~sychen/research/LMC/LMCHome.html
I have it working in by stepping through each instruction. I have a function called stepCode() that does this.
What I want is a function that will run the program, pausing for a second between each step until the simulated program ends.
The code I have is this:
function runProgram()
{
var milliseconds = 1000;
var timeOut;
programRunning = true;
while(programRunning)
{
timeOut = setTimeOut(stepCode(), milliseconds);
}
}
This seems does not work. It still performs all the stepCode() calls one after the other very quickly. I want to pause between each stepCode() call.
I'm obviously doing something wrong. Any ideas?

You should use setInterval instead of setTimeout. Additionally, you need to reference the function, not call the function:
var timeOut; // global timeout variable to ensure both methods have access to it.
function runProgram() {
var milliseconds = 1000;
timeOut = setInterval(stepCode, milliseconds); // use setInterval instead of setTimeout
}
function stepCode {
// ... code processing here ...
// I assume you are setting programRunning to false at some point in this method.
// Instead of setting programRunning = false, you would do:
clearInterval(timeOut);
// Note, if you only have one timeout interval set, you can use clearInterval();
}
setInterval will cause the stepCode function to run every 'milliseconds' until you call clearInterval(timeOut);; setTimeout will only queue it up once. Anything that is queued via setTimeout will not execute until the current flow of code has been completed. As a result, programRunning will run and queue up several setTimeout executions. Once the programRunning variable hit false, the current code flow will finish and ALL of the queues will wait 1 second, and effectively execute all at the same time, or in rapid succession.
When you pass in a method call (e.g. stepCode()), it will call the method. You have to pass a reference to the function stepCode (notice no parens), to ensure that it knows what to run each time it executes.
This Fiddle Demo simulates a counter, which is common thing people attempt to execute using setInterval. It demonstrates the basic concept and use of setInterval.

In addition to suggested setInterval use that will call stepCode at 1 second intervals until cleared (or until the page is reloaded), and correction of removing () after stepCode that results in immediate stepCode executon, you can still use setTimeout if they are chained as shown below. Depending on what stepCode does and how long it takes, this solution has an advantage of ensuring that there is 1 second of idle time between the end of the previous and the beginning of the next stepCodes.
var milliseconds = 1000;
function runProgram()
{
programRunning = true;
stepCodeWrapper();
}
function stepCodeWrapper() {
if (programRunning) {
stepCode();
setTimeOut(stepCodeWrapper, milliseconds);
}
}

Just try with:
timeOut = setInterval(stepCode, milliseconds);

Bic, thanks for your swift response. You are correct about the programRunning flag being set to false inside the stepCode() function. I've set it as a global variable so that I could possibly halt the program by pressing a button, but thats another problem.
Tried both setInterval and setTimeout. You are right about it repeatedly calling the function. Using either method locks up the browser with repeated function calls. This is probably as its in a while loop. I cannot think of another was to repeatedly call the stepCode() function otherwise.
I sort of understand the difference between setInterval & setTimeout. Thanks, and I understand that would make the while loop redundant, but then how to stop it calling the stepCode function when the programRunning flag is set to false?

Javascript: Non-blocking way to wait until a condition is true

I have several ASP.NET UpdatePanels, each with an AsyncPostBackTrigger tied to the same button's serverside click event. Since only one UpdatePanel can be doing its thing at a time, I use .get_isInAsyncPostBack() of the PageRequestManager to prevent a user from being able to access another part of the page until the async postback is complete.
Another part of this page needs to dynamically update multiple update panels consecutively. Since the update panels use async triggers, calling __doPostBack("<%=ButtonName.ClientID %>", 'PanelId'); fires asynchonously. Because of this, it will quickly move along to the next iteration of the loop and try to update the next panel. However, the second iteration fails because there is already another update panel doing an async postback.
Ideally, there would be a way to wait until .get_isInAsyncPostBack() returns false without blocking other client activity.
Research has lead me to a lot people with my problem, almost all of whom are advised to use setTimeOut(). I do not thing this will work for me. I don't want to wait for a specified amount of time before executing a function. I simply want my Javascript to wait while another script is running, preferably wait until a specific condition is true.
I understand that many will probably want to suggest that I rethink my model. It's actually not my model, but one that was handed to our development team that is currently a total mess under the hood. Due to time contraints, rewriting the model is not an option. The only option is to make this work. I think that if I had a way to make the client code wait without blocking, my problem would be solved.

There is no such functionality such as wait or sleep in javascript, since it would stop browser from responding.
In your case I would go with something similar to following:
function wait(){
if (!condition){
setTimeout(wait,100);
} else {
// CODE GOES IN HERE
}
}

It's easy to make a mistake when calling setTimeout that will cause the JavaScript call stack to fill up. If your function has parameters, you need to pass those in at the end of the setTimeout parameter list like this:
function wait(param1, param2){
if (!condition){
setTimeout(wait, 100, param1, param2);
} else {
// CODE GOES IN HERE
}
}
If you pass parameters or even include empty () after the name of the function, it will be executed immediately and fill up the stack.
// This is the wrong way to do it!
function wait(param1, param2){
if (!condition){
setTimeout(wait(param1, param2), 100); // you'll get max call stack error if you do this!
} else {
// CODE GOES IN HERE
}
}

I needed to slow down a process and came up with a helpful little method.
const wait = (seconds) =>
new Promise(resolve =>
setTimeout(() => resolve(true), seconds * 1000)
);
And you can use it like this.
const doWork = async() => {
// After 3 seconds do something...
await wait(3);
console.log('work done');
}

This function calls condFunc which should return true when condition is met. When that happens readyFunc is called. checkInterval sets checking rate in milliseconds
var wait = function(condFunc, readyFunc, checkInterval) {
var checkFunc = function() {
if(condFunc()) {
readyFunc();
}
else
{
setTimeout(checkFunc, checkInterval);
}
};
checkFunc();
};
Usage:
wait(
function() { return new Date().getSeconds() == 10; },
function() { console.log("Done"); },
100
);
prints "Done" when current time is 10 seconds after minute

How to add a callback to a function in javascript

I have two javascript functions
function one () {
do something long... like writing jpgfile on disk
}
function two () {
do something fast... like show the file
}
I call it (in jQuery) like this
one ();
two ();
Because function two needs the link file from function one, i need to be sure the execution is completed... so getting the function two in the callback of function one should be the trick.. but how to do that ?
note : I did put an alert ('aaa') between those two functions to let function one complete, and it worked fine... when the alert is commented (removed) nothing works anymore !

You only need to use a callback if you are doing something asynchronous, otherwise it doesn't matter how long something takes, the next function won't run until the first has finished.
A callback is just passing a function as an argument, and then calling it when done.
function one (callback) {
do something long... like writing jpgfile on disk
callback();
}
function two () {
do something fast... like show the file
}
one(two);
Obviously, if you are doing something asynchronous, then you need something that will tell you when it is finished (such as an event firing).

Simple:
function one (callback) {
do something long... like writing jpgfile on disk
if(callback) callback();
}
function two () {
do something fast... like show the file
}
one(two);

Try this,
$.when($.ajax(fuction1())).then(function () {
fuction2;
});
Here fuction1 is your first function to call, and fuction2 is your second function.

I think it's easy if the browser wait for the process inside "one()" to be done before execute the next line of command. The iceberg hit titanic cause it doesn't wait. Then executing this:
one(two) // while two is the callBack parameter
is nothing different from:
one()
two()
I suggest using a setInterval.
function one(){
//--- Write the file to disk
//.....................
}
function runTwo(){
if (check_the_written_file_existence){
clearInterval(t)
two();
}
}
var t = setInterval("runTwo()",500)
The most important point is that if there's an event fires when the "long process" in function "one()" has done, you just need to bind function two to that event. Unless, you must check the result by someway every span of time until it's really done.