I am trying to make a while loop loop a statement exactly for one second after which it stops. I have tried this in DartPad, but it crashes the browser window.
void main(){
var count = 0.0;
bool flag = true;
Future.delayed(Duration(seconds: 1), (){
flag = false;
});
while (flag){
count++;
}
print(count);
}
Am I doing something wrong?
I like how you are trying to figure Futures out. I was exactly where you were before I understood this stuff. It's kind of like threads, but quite different in some ways.
The Dart code that you wrote is single threaded. By writing Future.delayed, you did not start a job. Its execution won't happen unless you let go of the thread by returning from this main function.
Main does not have to return if it is marked with async.
Two actions have to run "concurrently" to be able to interact with each other like you are trying to do. The way to do it is to call Future.wait to get a future that depends on the two futures. Edit: Both of these actions have to let go of execution at every step so that the other can get control of the single thread. So, if you have a loop, you have to have some kind of await call in it to yield execution to other actions.
Here's a modified version of your code that counts up to about 215 for me:
Future main() async {
var count = 0.0;
bool flag = true;
var futureThatStopsIt = Future.delayed(Duration(seconds: 1), (){
flag = false;
});
var futureWithTheLoop = () async {
while (flag){
count++;
print("going on: $count");
await Future.delayed(Duration(seconds: 0));
}
}();
await Future.wait([futureThatStopsIt, futureWithTheLoop]);
print(count);
}
Related
In Node.js I can set the interval that a certain event should be triggered,
function intervalFunc() {
console.log('whelp, triggered again!');
}
setInterval(intervalFunc, 1500);
However the interface for Tokio's interval is a bit more complex. It seems to be a something to do with a much more literal definition of an interval, and rather than calling a function at an interval, it simply stalls the thread until the time passes (with .await).
Is there a primitive in Tokio that calls a function "every x seconds" or the like? If not, is there an idiom that has emerged to do this?
I only need to run one function on a recurring interval... I don't care about other threads either. It's just one function on Tokio's event loop.
Spawn a Tokio task to do something forever:
use std::time::Duration;
use tokio::{task, time}; // 1.3.0
#[tokio::main]
async fn main() {
let forever = task::spawn(async {
let mut interval = time::interval(Duration::from_millis(10));
loop {
interval.tick().await;
do_something().await;
}
});
forever.await;
}
You can also use tokio::time::interval to create a value that you can tick repeatedly. Perform the tick and call your function inside of the body of stream::unfold to create a stream:
use futures::{stream, StreamExt}; // 0.3.13
use std::time::{Duration, Instant};
use tokio::time; // 1.3.0
#[tokio::main]
async fn main() {
let interval = time::interval(Duration::from_millis(10));
let forever = stream::unfold(interval, |mut interval| async {
interval.tick().await;
do_something().await;
Some(((), interval))
});
let now = Instant::now();
forever.for_each(|_| async {}).await;
}
async fn do_something() {
eprintln!("do_something");
}
See also:
How can I run a set of functions concurrently on a recurring interval without running the same function at the same time using Tokio?
I am still a rust/tokio beginner, but I did find this solution helpful for myself:
use std::time::Duration;
use tokio::time;
use tokio_stream::wrappers::IntervalStream;
#[tokio::main]
async fn main() {
let mut stream = IntervalStream::new(time::interval(Duration::from_secs(1)));
while let Some(_ts) = stream.next().await {
println!("whelp, triggered again!");
}
}
Please note that _ts holds the execution timestamp.
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.
How can I achieve a loop like this:
foobar.each(function (model, j) {
// asynchrounous call etc. {in here bool get set to true}
// outside all asynchronous calls
// wait till bool is true, without stopping anything else except the loop to the top of
the _.each
})
I asked a similar question yesterday. But it got marked as a duplicate when it wasn't the same case. Their solution did not achieve the same thing. Also generator functions were suggested which looked like it would work. But I can't use them with ecmascript 5
I've tried busy loops and set time out but they don't seem to work either
I've also tried this:
goto();
function goto() {
if (foo === true) {
//return true; /*I've tried with and without the return because the loops
doesn't need a return*/
} else {
goto();
}
}
What happens with the goto() method is it breaks. Giving me the right results for the first iterations then execution seems to stop altogether. 'foo' always gets set to true in normal execution though.
What you could do is implement a foreach yourself, where you execute your condition, and then on success callback go to the next item (but meanwhile the rest of the code will keep running.
var iteration = 0 //count the iteration of your asynchronous process
//start looping
loop(iteration)
function loop(iteration){
var model = foobar[iteration];
//exit your loop when all iterations have finished (assuming all foobar items are not undefined)
if (foobar[iteration] === undefined){
return;
}
//do what you want
//on success callback
iteration++;
loop(iteration);
//end success callback
}
I am facing a weird case, I am using google directionsService.route. but it doesn’t sync well. Here is my code:
angular.forEach(requestArray, function(v, i) {
directionsService.route(v, function(result, status) {
var googleLeg = result.routes[0].legs[0];
// sth else...
});
});
As you can see, I am looping the location Array into the route. every time I fire the function, it will go through the requestArray first, (if we make a breakpoint on the line (var googleLeg = result.routes[0].legs[0]), it doesn’t reach there until it goes through all the requestArray.(i from 0 - length); then it will have the second loop for directionsService.route( at this time, it will reach to line(var googleLeg = result.routes[0].legs[0]); Any idea about this?
Essentially your problem is that calling a google service is an asynchronous call, and you are not guaranteed when the callback will execute. If you need to process requestArray synchronously, here is what you can do:
function start() {
// create a copy of request array
var stuff = [].slice.call(requestArray);
function continueSync() {
// stop the recursion if we have nothing left to process
if (!stuff || stuff.length == 0) return;
// grab the first item off of the stuff queue
v = stuff[0];
stuff = stuff.slice(1);
// call to google
directionsService.route(v, function(result, status) {
var googleLeg = result.routes[0].legs[0];
// sth else...
// now continue processing the rest of the stuff queue through tail recursion
continueSync();
});
}
// kick off our recursive processing
continueSync();
}
your problem is that calling a google service is an asynchronous call, you could prove to generate threads
I am using Windows Automation to test my UI and am opening and closing processes. I want to have a valid WindowHandle, but Process.WaitForInputIdle() doesn't wait long enough. I have a work around, but don't understand why WaitForInputIdle() doesn't work.
Below is a small code snip:
Process = new Process
{
StartInfo =
{
WorkingDirectory = directory,
FileName = EXECUTABLE_FILE_NAME
}
};
Process.Start();
//Process.WaitForInputIdle() doesn't work,
//so will use a while loop until MainWindowHandle isn't IntPtr.Zero anymore,
//or until 10 seconds have elapsed
int count = 0;
while (Process.MainWindowHandle == IntPtr.Zero && count<100)
{
count++;
Thread.Sleep(100);
}
AppElement = AutomationElement.FromHandle(Process.MainWindowHandle);
As stated by Chaser324 in his comment, the answer to my question can be found here.
I basically need to add a call to Process.Refresh() inside of my 'while' loop.