I had a look at the bluebird promise FAQ, in which it mentions that .then(success, fail) is an antipattern. I don't quite understand its explanation as for the try and catch.
What's wrong with the following?
some_promise_call()
.then(function(res) { logger.log(res) }, function(err) { logger.log(err) })
It seems that the example is suggesting the following to be the correct way.
some_promise_call()
.then(function(res) { logger.log(res) })
.catch(function(err) { logger.log(err) })
What's the difference?
What's the difference?
The .then() call will return a promise that will be rejected in case the callback throws an error. This means, when your success logger fails, the error would be passed to the following .catch() callback, but not to the fail callback that goes alongside success.
Here's a control flow diagram:
To express it in synchronous code:
// some_promise_call().then(logger.log, logger.log)
then: {
try {
var results = some_call();
} catch(e) {
logger.log(e);
break then;
} // else
logger.log(results);
}
The second log (which is like the first argument to .then()) will only be executed in the case that no exception happened. The labelled block and the break statement feel a bit odd, this is actually what python has try-except-else for (recommended reading!).
// some_promise_call().then(logger.log).catch(logger.log)
try {
var results = some_call();
logger.log(results);
} catch(e) {
logger.log(e);
}
The catch logger will also handle exceptions from the success logger call.
So much for the difference.
I don't quite understand its explanation as for the try and catch
The argument is that usually, you want to catch errors in every step of the processing and that you shouldn't use it in chains. The expectation is that you only have one final handler which handles all errors - while, when you use the "antipattern", errors in some of the then-callbacks are not handled.
However, this pattern is actually very useful: When you want to handle errors that happened in exactly this step, and you want to do something entirely different when no error happened - i.e. when the error is unrecoverable. Be aware that this is branching your control flow. Of course, this is sometimes desired.
What's wrong with the following?
some_promise_call()
.then(function(res) { logger.log(res) }, function(err) { logger.log(err) })
That you had to repeat your callback. You rather want
some_promise_call()
.catch(function(e) {
return e; // it's OK, we'll just log it
})
.done(function(res) {
logger.log(res);
});
You also might consider using .finally() for this.
The two aren't quite identical. The difference is that the first example won't catch an exception that's thrown in your success handler. So if your method should only ever return resolved promises, as is often the case, you need a trailing catch handler (or yet another then with an empty success parameter). Sure, it may be that your then handler doesn't do anything that might potentially fail, in which case using one 2-parameter then could be fine.
But I believe the point of the text you linked to is that then is mostly useful versus callbacks in its ability to chain a bunch of asynchronous steps, and when you actually do this, the 2-parameter form of then subtly doesn't behave quite as expected, for the above reason. It's particularly counterintuitive when used mid-chain.
As someone who's done a lot of complex async stuff and bumped into corners like this more than I care to admit, I really recommend avoiding this anti-pattern and going with the separate handler approach.
By looking at advantages and disadvantages of both we can make a calculated guess as to which is appropriate for the situation.
These are the two main approaches to implementing promises. Both have it's pluses and minus
Catch Approach
some_promise_call()
.then(function(res) { logger.log(res) })
.catch(function(err) { logger.log(err) })
Advantages
All errors are handled by one catch block.
Even catches any exception in the then block.
Chaining of multiple success callbacks
Disadvantages
In case of chaining it becomes difficult to show different error messages.
Success/Error Approach
some_promise_call()
.then(function success(res) { logger.log(res) },
function error(err) { logger.log(err) })
Advantages
You get fine grained error control.
You can have common error handling function for various categories of errors like db error, 500 error etc.
Disavantages
You will still need another catch if you wish to handler errors thrown by the success callback
Simple explain:
In ES2018
When the catch method is called with argument onRejected, the
following steps are taken:
Let promise be the this value.
Return ? Invoke(promise, "then", « undefined, onRejected »).
that means:
promise.then(f1).catch(f2)
equals
promise.then(f1).then(undefiend, f2)
Using .then().catch() lets you enable Promise Chaining which is required to fulfil a workflow. You may need to read some information from database then you want to pass it to an async API then you want to manipulate the response. You may want to push the response back into the database. Handling all these workflows with your concept is doable but very hard to manage. The better solution will be then().then().then().then().catch() which receives all errors in just once catch and lets you keep the maintainability of the code.
Using then() and catch() helps chain success and failure handler on the promise.catch() works on promise returned by then(). It handles,
If promise was rejected. See #3 in the picture
If error occurred in success handler of then(), between line numbers 4 to 7 below. See #2.a in the picture
(Failure callback on then() does not handle this.)
If error occurred in failure handler of then(), line number 8 below. See #3.b in the picture.
1. let promiseRef: Promise = this. aTimetakingTask (false);
2. promiseRef
3. .then(
4. (result) => {
5. /* successfully, resolved promise.
6. Work on data here */
7. },
8. (error) => console.log(error)
9. )
10. .catch( (e) => {
11. /* successfully, resolved promise.
12. Work on data here */
13. });
Note: Many times, failure handler might not be defined if catch() is
written already.
EDIT: reject() result in invoking catch() only if the error
handler in then() is not defined. Notice #3 in the picture to
the catch(). It is invoked when handler in line# 8 and 9 are not
defined.
It makes sense because promise returned by then() does not have an error if a callback is taking care of it.
Instead of words, good example. Following code (if first promise resolved):
Promise.resolve()
.then
(
() => { throw new Error('Error occurs'); },
err => console.log('This error is caught:', err)
);
is identical to:
Promise.resolve()
.catch
(
err => console.log('This error is caught:', err)
)
.then
(
() => { throw new Error('Error occurs'); }
)
But with rejected first promise, this is not identical:
Promise.reject()
.then
(
() => { throw new Error('Error occurs'); },
err => console.log('This error is caught:', err)
);
Promise.reject()
.catch
(
err => console.log('This error is caught:', err)
)
.then
(
() => { throw new Error('Error occurs'); }
)
Related
I have a command, that must remove other roles, after add one, but it's only remove. I know, that I need to resolve the promise from removing the roles, but I don't know how to do it.
case '🇧':
if(message.member.roles.has('0000000000000')) return msg.delete() && message.member.send(`nope ${b.name}!`);
message.member.removeRoles([a,c,d]);
message.member.addRole(b).catch(err => {
console.log(err);
return message.channel.send(`nope.`);
});
message.channel.send(`bb **${b.name}**!`).then(m => m.delete(3000));
message.member.send(`bb ${b.name}!`);
msg.delete()
break;
It only remove roles. It must remove roles, after it add one.
It appears you're almost there. I see catch() and then() methods attached to some of the promises, but not where they need to be for your intended result.
await
To keep your code clean and avoid long then() callback chains, you can use the keyword await. It will wait for the proceeding promise to be fulfilled before moving on to further code.
try {
await message.member.removeRoles([a, c, d]);
await message.member.addRole(b);
} catch(err) { // If any of the promises above
console.error(err); // are rejected, the code will
} // jump to here and log the error.
then()
In some contexts, attaching a then() method makes more sense. After the promise is resolved, the the callback within then() is executed. However, remember the scope of the code.
message.member.removeRoles([a, c, d])
.then(() => message.member.addRole(b))
.catch(console.error);
I'd definitely suggest reading up on asynchronous programming in JavaScript.
In the following code, an exception is caught by the catch function of the $q promise:
// Fiddle - http://jsfiddle.net/EFpn8/6/
f1().then(function(data) {
console.log("success 1: "+data)
return f2();
})
.then(function(data) {console.log("success 2: "+data)})
.catch(function(data) {console.log("error: "+data)});
function f1() {
var deferred = $q.defer();
// An exception thrown here is not caught in catch
// throw "err";
deferred.resolve("done f1");
return deferred.promise;
}
function f2() {
var deferred = $q.defer();
// An exception thrown here is handled properly
throw "err";
deferred.resolve("done f2");
return deferred.promise;
}
However when I look in the console log output I see the following:
The exception was caught in Angular, but was also caught by the error handling of the browser. This behavior does reproduce with Q library.
Is it a bug? How can I truly catch an exception with $q?
Angular's $q uses a convention where thrown errors are logged regardless of being caught. Instead, if you want to signal a rejection you need to return $q.reject(... as such:
function f2() {
var deferred = $q.defer();
// An exception thrown here is handled properly
return $q.reject(new Error("err"));//throw "err";
deferred.resolve("done f2");
return deferred.promise;
}
This is to distinguish rejections from errors like SyntaxError. Personally, it's a design choice I disagree with but it's understandable since $q is tiny so you can't really build in a reliable unhandled rejection detection mechanism. In stronger libraries like Bluebird, this sort of thing is not required.
As a side note - never, ever throw strings : you miss on stack traces that way.
Is it a bug?
No. Looking in the source for $q reveals that a deliberate try / catch block is created to respond to exceptions thrown in the callback by
Rejecting the promise, as through you had called deferred.reject
Calling the registered Angular exception hander. As can be seen in the $exceptionHandler docs, the default behaviour of this is to log it to the browser console as an error, which is what you have observed.
... was also caught by the error handling of the browser
To clarify, the exception isn't handled directly by the browser, but appears as an error because Angular has called console.error
How can I truly catch an exception with $q?
The callbacks are executed some time later, when the current call stack has cleared, so you won't be able to wrap the outer function in try / catch block. However, you have 2 options:
Put in try/catch block around the code that might throw the exception, within the callback:
f1().then(function(data) {
try {
return f2();
} catch(e) {
// Might want convert exception to rejected promise
return $q.reject(e);
}
})
Change how Angular's $exceptionHandler service behaves, like at How to override $exceptionHandler implementation . You could potentially change it to do absolutely nothing, so there would never be anything in the console's error log, but I don't think I would recommend that.
Fixed with AngularJS version 1.6
The reasoning for this behavior was that an uncaught error is different than a regular rejection, as
it can be caused by a programming error, for example. In practice, this turned out to be confusing
or undesirable for users, since neither native promises nor any other popular promise library
distinguishes thrown errors from regular rejections.
(Note: While this behavior does not go against the Promises/A+ spec, it is not prescribed either.)
$q:
Due to e13eea, an error thrown from a promise's onFulfilled or onRejection handlers is treated exactly the same as a regular rejection. Previously, it would also be passed to the $exceptionHandler() (in addition to rejecting the promise with the error as reason).
The new behavior applies to all services/controllers/filters etc that rely on $q (including built-in services, such as $http and $route). For example, $http's transformRequest/Response functions or a route's redirectTo function as well as functions specified in a route's resolve object, will no longer result in a call to $exceptionHandler() if they throw an error. Other than that, everything will continue to behave in the same way; i.e. the promises will be rejected, route transition will be cancelled, $routeChangeError events will be broadcasted etc.
-- AngularJS Developer Guide - Migrating from V1.5 to V1.6 - $q
The deferred is an outdated and a really terrible way of constructing promises, using the constructor solves this problem and more:
// This function is guaranteed to fulfill the promise contract
// of never throwing a synchronous exception, using deferreds manually
// this is virtually impossible to get right
function f1() {
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
// code
});
}
I don't know if angular promises support the above, if not, you can do this:
function createPromise(fn) {
var d = $q.defer();
try {
fn(d.resolve.bind(d), d.reject.bind(d));
}
catch (e) {
d.reject(e);
}
return d.promise;
}
Usage is same as promise constructor:
function f1() {
return createPromise(function(resolve, reject){
// code
});
}
Here is an sample test that shows the new $q construction function, use of .finally(), rejections, and promise chain propagations:
iit('test',inject(function($q, $timeout){
var finallyCalled = false;
var failValue;
var promise1 = $q.when(true)
.then(function(){
return $q(function(resolve,reject){
// Reject promise1
reject("failed");
});
})
.finally(function(){
// Always called...
finallyCalled = true;
// This will be ignored
return $q.when('passed');
});
var promise2 = $q.when(promise1)
.catch(function(value){
// Catch reject of promise1
failValue = value;
// Continue propagation as resolved
return value+1;
// Or continue propagation as rejected
//return $q.reject(value+2);
});
var updateFailValue = function(val){ failValue = val; };
$q.when(promise2)
.then( updateFailValue )
.catch(updateFailValue );
$timeout.flush();
expect( finallyCalled ).toBe(true);
expect( failValue ).toBe('failed1');
}));
I imagine this has to be a pretty normal setup:
return $http.get('some/url')
.then(function (result) {
if (result.data.success) {
//Do something useful
} else {
//We've hit some sort of error
}
},
function () {
return "Failed to communicate with the server, or the server encountered an error.";
});
My questions is around what to do about scenarios where the http call technically succeeds, but the data we get back from the server is bad, unusable, or explicitly indicates something is wrong. What I want to do there is push myself onto the failure track of the promise chain. That way anyone consuming this promise well execute their own failure function, if that makes sense.
I know $q gives you the tools you need to do this by creating a deferred object and then letting you call resolve or reject under any circumstance you want, but I wondered if there was a way to do that without using $q.
To change a promise from the resolved to the rejected state, you can do one of two things from a .then() handler:
Return a rejected promise and the reason for that rejected promise will become the reject reason for the parent promise.
Throw an exception and the exception value will become the reject reason for the parent promise. .then() automatically catches exceptions in .then() handler functions and turns them into rejections.
So, here's one way you could do it:
return $http.get('some/url').then(function (result) {
if (result.data.success) {
//Do something useful
} else {
//We've hit some sort of error, make promise become rejected
throw new Error("invalid data received");
}
}).catch(function (err) {
// log error
console.log(err);
// make sure promise stays rejected
throw err;
});
If you use ES6 you can use JavaScript native promises.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Promise
I have been reading about $q and promises for days now and I seem to understand it...somewhat. I have the following situation in practice:
An $http request is made and checks whether a subsequent call can be made.
If the first call fails, return "no data", if it succeeds and says a call can be made, the second call is made, if not - "no data" again. If the second call succeeds, it returns data, if not - "no data". It looks like this (approximately, I simplified for general idea, so don't worry about the minor mistakes here):
return $http.get (something)
.then(function(allowedAccess){
if(allowedAccess){
return $http.get (somethingElse)
.then( function(result){return {data:result} },
function(error){return {data:"n0pe"} }
)
} else {
return {data:"n0pe"}
}
},
function(){ return {data:"n0pe"} });
I was told to use $q here. I don't really understand how or why I would. The $http calls are promises already.
If there is a way to make this cleaner, I don't see it. Just got done re-reading this post on the subject. Essentially, am I missing something / is there a better way to do this?
Edit: Also just re-read a tutorial on chaining promises - it doesn't handle call failures at all. Basically posting this as due diligence.
Edit 2: This is more of an elaborate on the theory I am asking about, excerpt from the first article:
This is a simple example though. It becomes really powerful if your then() callback returns another promise. In that case, the next then() will only be executed once that promise resolves. This pattern can be used for serial HTTP requests, for example (where a request depends on the result of a previous one):
This seems to be talking about chains like this:
asyncFn1(1)
.then(function(data){return asyncFn2(data)})
.then(function(data){return asyncFn3(data)})
So, if I understand correctly this a). Doesn't apply to me because I don't have a 3rd function. b). Would apply to me if I had three functions because while I run an if statement inside the first $http request, and only inside the if statement do I return another promise. So, theoretically, if I had three async functions to chain, I would need to put my if statement inside a promise?
Promises really help with code composition of making async calls. In other words, they allow you to compose your code in a similar manner to how you would compose a synchronous set of calls (with the use of chained .thens) and as if it the sync code was in a try/catch block (with .catch).
So, imagine that your HTTP calls were blocking - the logic you have would look like so:
var allowedAccess, data;
try {
allowedAccess = $http.get(something);
if (allowedAccess){
try{
var result = $http.get(somethingElse);
data = {data: result};
} catch (){
data = {data: "n0pe"};
}
} else {
data = {data: "n0pe"};
}
} catch (){
data = {data: "n0pe"};
}
return data;
You could simplify it a bit:
var allowedAccess, result;
try {
allowedAccess = $http.get(something);
var result;
if (allowedAccess) {
result = $http.get(somethingElse);
} else {
throw;
}
data = {data: result};
} catch () {
data = {data: "n0pe"};
}
return data;
And that would translate to the async version of:
return $http
.get(something)
.then(function(allowedAccess){
if (allowedAccess){
return $http.get(somethingElse);
} else {
return $q.reject(); // this is the "throw;" from above
}
})
.then(function(result){
return {data: result};
})
.catch(function(){
return {data: "n0pe"};
})
At least, this is the reasoning you could apply when composing code with branches and async calls.
I'm not saying that the version I presented is optimal or shorter - it is, however, more DRY because of a single error handling. But just realize that when you do .then(success, error) it is equivalent to try/catch over the previous async operation - this may or may not be needed depending on your specific circumstance.
This is how I would code this sort of problem:
// returns a promise that resolves some endpoint if allowed
function getDataWithAccess(allowed){
return allowed ? $http.get(someEndpoint) : $q.reject();
}
// do something with data
function handleData(data){
// do stuff with your data
}
// main chain
$http.get(accessCredEndpoint)
.then(getDataWithAccess)
.then(handleData)
.catch(function(err){
return { data: "n0pe" };
});
Yes, this is very much like New Dev's answer, however I wanted to make a point of extracting the functions into their own blocks. This makes the overall code much more readable.
$q will help reduce pyramid of calls like this:
async-call1.then(...
aysnc-call2.then(...
This blog post - http://chariotsolutions.com/blog/post/angularjs-corner-using-promises-q-handle-asynchronous-calls/ - offers a clean way of making multiple HTTP requests. Notice the cleaner approach using $q. In case you were hitting a single HTTP endpoint, using your method would have been just fine. I'd say, what you have is fine also; $q might allow greater flexibility in the future.
The blog post describes a service while using $q and the code looks cleaner.
service('asyncService', function($http, $q) {
return {
loadDataFromUrls: function(urls) {
var deferred = $q.defer();
var urlCalls = [];
angular.forEach(urls, function(url) {
urlCalls.push($http.get(url.url));
});
// they may, in fact, all be done, but this
// executes the callbacks in then, once they are
// completely finished.
$q.all(urlCalls)
.then(...
I am a beginner with promises also, so take this with a grain of salt.
i have a promise chain, in which the first promise causes a failure, but even then the second promise is getting executed successfully whereas as expected that should have failed...
PLUNKER LINK
what i did was simple:
dummyPromise().then(success, error).then(success, error);
so if the first one executes error, the subsequent error should be executed but what is get is:
1. error
2. success
why is that so??
The other answer by Nikos is correct - but I feel like this could benefit from a synchronous analogy:
try{
var val = dummyPromise();
} catch (e){
val = "SomeValue";
}
secondHandler(val);
You're catching the error and handling it - so it gets to the success handler.
You have to return return $q.reject(); from a promise in order for the next promise in the chain to fail too. See forked plunker: http://plnkr.co/edit/porOG8qVg2GkeddzVHu3?p=preview
The reason is straightforward: Your error handler may take action to correct the error. Therefore it is not reasonable to have the next promise failing by default. By the way, you can return $q.reject() even from a success handler, if you sense an error condition, to have the next promise in the chain failing.
This is how promises work. In your error-function your dealing with the error,if no specified otherwise, it will return a new promise which is resolved. If you want to reject it, you hav to do it by returning $q.reject();
Have a look at the documentation. I find the example from $q.reject(); explains it well.
promiseB = promiseA.then(function(result) {
// success: do something and resolve promiseB
// with the old or a new result
return result;
}, function(reason) {
// error: handle the error if possible and
// resolve promiseB with newPromiseOrValue,
// otherwise forward the rejection to promiseB
if (canHandle(reason)) {
// handle the error and recover
return newPromiseOrValue;
}
return $q.reject(reason);
});