I’ll begin by showing what should be the expected output, both from a sensible view point and because it’s what happens if the functions weren’t async
.
Edit: It is also what would happen if foo
and bar
received “done” callbacks instead of Promise.then
callbacks.
about to resolve
about to return from foo
code right after awaited return from foo
about to return from bar
code right after awaited return from bar
But between returning from a function and executing the next line of code in the caller, Javascript is interleaving other code, resulting in the following:
about to resolve
about to return from foo
about to return from bar
code right after awaited return from foo
code right after awaited return from bar
I wonder if there’s a way to prevent it. I need the next line of code in the caller to be executed right after the async function returns.
That’s the output of the following code:
async function caller(cb) {
await cb();
console.log(`code right after awaited return from ${ cb.name }`);
}
const { promise, resolve } = Promise.withResolvers();
async function foo() {
await promise;
console.log('about to return from foo');
}
async function bar() {
await promise;
console.log('about to return from bar');
}
caller(foo);
caller(bar);
console.log('about to resolve');
resolve();
4
You would need to fundamentally change the behavior of Promises. If you were to change your code to use then
instead of async/await
this could work:
class DepthFirstPromise {
constructor(executor) {
this.handlers = [];
this.resolvedValue = null;
this.isResolved = false;
if (executor) {
executor(this.resolve.bind(this));
}
}
resolve(value) {
if (this.isResolved) return;
this.isResolved = true;
this.resolvedValue = value;
// Execute handlers in depth-first fashion
while (this.handlers.length) {
const handler = this.handlers.shift();
handler(value);
}
}
then(onFulfilled) {
const nextPromise = new DepthFirstPromise();
const wrapper = (value) => {
try {
const result = onFulfilled(value);
if (result && typeof result.then === 'function') {
result.then(nextPromise.resolve.bind(nextPromise));
} else {
nextPromise.resolve(result);
}
} catch (err) {
nextPromise.resolve(Promise.reject(err));
}
};
if (this.isResolved) {
wrapper(this.resolvedValue);
} else {
this.handlers.push(wrapper);
}
return nextPromise;
}
static withResolvers() {
const dfPromise = new DepthFirstPromise();
return {
promise: dfPromise,
resolve: dfPromise.resolve.bind(dfPromise),
};
}
}
// Use the DepthFirstPromise
const { promise, resolve } = DepthFirstPromise.withResolvers();
function foo() {
return promise.then(() => console.log("about to return from foo"));
}
function bar() {
return promise.then(() => console.log("about to return from bar"));
}
function caller(cb) {
return cb().then(() =>
console.log(`code right after awaited return from ${cb.name}`)
);
}
caller(foo);
caller(bar);
console.log("about to resolve");
resolve();
However, async/await
are tightly coupled to the Promise
type, so this won’t work using async/await
. I think creating a Promise-like object like this would only lead to confusion and future bugs. You’re probably better off thinking about why you need your caller
function to behave the way you’re describing, and make that an explicit part of your code’s APIs and patterns.
6
I wonder if there’s a way to prevent it.
No, not in portable JavaScript. Using await
is explicitly opting into yielding control and being resumed whenever the promise decides, necessarily involving a microtask in a microtask queue that you don’t locally control.
Even in the cases when you can rely on a particular ordering of microtasks, doing so is a code smell. You should wait for any operations you depend on explicitly.
5
Since caller() is an async function and await has not been called on it – it will execute in an async manner. This means it may move on to the next line of code, before execution has been completed,
If the order of execution matters ( you want to execute in an a sync manner ) you need to use await OR use .then()
1
you could do
caller(foo).then(()=>{caller(bar)});
ofcourse the two caller calls will not be ran concurrently but sequentially (meaning caller(bar) will wait for caller(foo) to finish), but it sounds to me like that’s what you want.
EDIT: also the next line of code is in fact being called immediately after the async function returns, however the other async caller function is running concurrently in your code, so they’re not waiting for each other, which they are in the code i posted here, as “then” waits for the promise of the async function to resolve.
this would practically be pretty much the same as this:
(async ()=>{
await caller(foo);
await caller(bar)
})()
EDIT: is this what you want, based on discussion below? (removed the code that was not what you wanted)
async function caller(cb) {
await cb();
console.log(`code right after awaited return from ${ cb.name }`);
(async ()=>{
//rest of caller code, there is no awaiting this, it will run however long it takes.
})();
}
const { promise, resolve } = Promise.withResolvers();
async function foo() {
await promise;
console.log('about to return from foo');
}
async function bar() {
await promise;
console.log('about to return from bar');
}
(async ()=>{
await caller(foo); // will wait until the point cb()/foo() has finished, it will not wait for the rest of the caller code.
await caller(bar); // same as above
//...etc.
})();
console.log('about to resolve');
resolve();
22