Waiting for more than one concurrent await operation

TL;DR

Don't use the pattern in the question where you get the promises, and then separately wait on them; instead, use Promise.all (at least for now):

const [value1, value2] = await Promise.all([getValue1Async(), getValue2Async()]);

While your solution does run the two operations in parallel, it doesn't handle rejection properly if both promises reject.

Details:

Your solution runs them in parallel, but always waits for the first to finish before waiting for the second. ~~If you just want to start them, run them in parallel, and get both results, it's just fine.~~ (No, it isn't, keep reading...) Note that if the first takes (say) five seconds to complete and the second fails in one second, your code will wait the full five seconds before then failing.

Sadly, there isn't currently await syntax to do a parallel wait, so you have the awkwardness you listed, or Promise.all. (There's been discussion of await.all or similar, though; maybe someday.)

The Promise.all version is:

const [value1, value2] = await Promise.all([getValue1Async(), getValue2Async()]);

...which is more concise, and also doesn't wait for the first operation to complete if the second fails quickly (e.g., in my five seconds / one second example above, the above will reject in one second rather than waiting five). Also note that with your original code, if the second promise rejects before the first promise resolves, you may well get a "unhandled rejection" error in the console (you do currently with Chrome v61; update: more recent versions have more interesting behavior), although that error is arguably spurious (because you do, eventually, handle the rejection, in that this code is clearly in an async function¹ and so that function will hook rejection and make its promise reject with it) (update: again, changed). But if both promises reject, you'll get a genuine unhandled rejection error because the flow of control never reaches const value2 = await p2; and thus the p2 rejection is never handled.

Unhandled rejections are a Bad Thing™ (so much so that soon, Node.js will abort the process on truly unhandled rejections, just like unhandled exceptions — because that's what they are), so best to avoid the "get the promise then await it" pattern in your question.

Here's an example of the difference in timing in the failure case (using 500ms and 100ms rather than 5 seconds and 1 second), and possibly also the arguably-spurious unhandled rejection error (open the real browser console to see it):

const getValue1Async = () => {
  return new Promise(resolve => {
    setTimeout(resolve, 500, "value1");
  });
};
const getValue2Async = () => {
  return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
    setTimeout(reject, 100, "error");
  });
};

// This waits the full 500ms before failing, because it waits
// on p1, then on p2
(async () => {
  try {
    console.time("separate");
    const p1 = getValue1Async();
    const p2 = getValue2Async();
    const value1 = await p1;
    const value2 = await p2;
  } catch (e) {
    console.error(e);
  }
  console.timeEnd("separate");
})();

// This fails after just 100ms, because it doesn't wait for p1
// to finish first, it rejects as soon as p2 rejects
setTimeout(async () => {
  try {
    console.time("Promise.all");
    const [value1, value2] = await Promise.all([getValue1Async(), getValue2Async()]);
  } catch (e) {
    console.timeEnd("Promise.all", e);
  }
}, 1000);

Open the real browser console to see the unhandled rejection error.

And here we reject both p1 and p2, resulting in a non-spurious unhandled rejection error on p2:

const getValue1Async = () => {
  return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
    setTimeout(reject, 500, "error1");
  });
};
const getValue2Async = () => {
  return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
    setTimeout(reject, 100, "error2");
  });
};

// This waits the full 500ms before failing, because it waits
// on p1, then on p2
(async () => {
  try {
    console.time("separate");
    const p1 = getValue1Async();
    const p2 = getValue2Async();
    const value1 = await p1;
    const value2 = await p2;
  } catch (e) {
    console.error(e);
  }
  console.timeEnd("separate");
})();

// This fails after just 100ms, because it doesn't wait for p1
// to finish first, it rejects as soon as p2 rejects
setTimeout(async () => {
  try {
    console.time("Promise.all");
    const [value1, value2] = await Promise.all([getValue1Async(), getValue2Async()]);
  } catch (e) {
    console.timeEnd("Promise.all", e);
  }
}, 1000);

Open the real browser console to see the unhandled rejection error.

In a comment you've asked:

Side question: will the following force waiting for both (and discarding the results) await p1 && await p2?

This has the same issues around promise rejection as your original code: It will wait until p1 resolves even if p2 rejects earlier; it may generate an arguably-spurious (update: or temporary) unhandled rejection error if p2 rejects before p1 resolves; and it generates a genuine unhandled rejection error if both p1 and p2 reject (because p2's rejection is never handled).

Here's the case where p1 resolves and p2 rejects:

const getValue1Async = () => {
  return new Promise(resolve => {
    setTimeout(resolve, 500, false);
  });
};
const getValue2Async = () => {
  return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
    setTimeout(reject, 100, "error");
  });
};

(async () => {
  try {
    const p1 = getValue1Async();
    const p2 = getValue2Async();
    console.log("waiting");
    await p1 && await p2;
  } catch (e) {
    console.error(e);
  }
  console.log("done waiting");
})();

Look in the real console (for the unhandled rejection error).

...and where both reject:

const getValue1Async = () => {
  return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
    setTimeout(reject, 500, "error1");
  });
};
const getValue2Async = () => {
  return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
    setTimeout(reject, 100, "error2");
  });
};

(async () => {
  try {
    const p1 = getValue1Async();
    const p2 = getValue2Async();
    console.log("waiting");
    await p1 && await p2;
  } catch (e) {
    console.error(e);
  }
  console.log("done waiting");
})();

Look in the real console (for the unhandled rejection error).

¹ "...this code is clearly in an async function..." That was true in 2017 when this question and answer were written. Since then, top-level await happened/is happening.

I think this should work:

 const [value1, value2] = await Promise.all([getValue1Async(),getValue2Async()]);

A more verbose example is below in case it helps in understanding:

const promise1 = async() => {
  return 3;
}

const promise2 = async() => {
  return 42;
}

const promise3 = async() => {
  return 500;
  // emulate an error
  // throw "something went wrong...";
}

const f1 = async() => {

  try {
    // returns an array of values
    const results = await Promise.all([promise1(), promise2(), promise3()]);
    console.log(results);
    console.log(results[0]);
    console.log(results[1]);
    console.log(results[2]);

    // assigns values to individual variables through 'array destructuring'
    const [value1, value2, value3] = await Promise.all([promise1(), promise2(), promise3()]);

    console.log(value1);
    console.log(value2);
    console.log(value3);

  } catch (err) {
    console.log("there was an error: " + err);
  }

}

f1();

Use .catch() and Promise.all()

Make sure you handle rejections correctly and you can safely use Promises.all() without facing unhandled rejections. (Edit: clarification per discussion: not the Error unhandled rejection but simply rejections that are not being handled by the code. Promise.all() will throw the first promise rejection and will ignore the rest).

In the example below an array of [[error, results], ...] is returned to allow ease of processing results and/or errors.

let myTimeout = (ms, is_ok) =>
  new Promise((resolve, reject) => 
    setTimeout(_=> is_ok ? 
                   resolve(`ok in ${ms}`) :
                   reject(`error in ${ms}`),
               ms));

let handleRejection = promise => promise
  .then((...r) => [null, ...r])
  .catch(e => [e]); 

(async _=> {
  let res = await Promise.all([
    myTimeout(100, true),
    myTimeout(200, false),
    myTimeout(300, true),
    myTimeout(400, false)
  ].map(handleRejection));
  console.log(res);
})();

You may throw from within a catch() to stop waiting for all (and discard the results of the rest), however - you may only do it once per try/catch blocks so a flag has_thorwn need to be maintained and checked to make sure no unhandled errors happens.

let myTimeout = (ms, is_ok) =>
  new Promise((resolve, reject) =>
    setTimeout(_=> is_ok ?
                   resolve(`ok in ${ms}`) :
                   reject(`error in ${ms}`),
               ms));

let has_thrown = false;

let handleRejection = promise => promise
  .then((...r) => [null, ...r])
  .catch(e => {
    if (has_thrown) {
      console.log('not throwing', e);
    } else {
      has_thrown = 1;
      throw e;
    }
  });

(async _=> {
  try {
    let res = await Promise.all([
      myTimeout(100, true),
      myTimeout(200, false),
      myTimeout(300, true),
      myTimeout(400, false)
    ].map(handleRejection));
    console.log(res);
  } catch(e) {
    console.log(e);
  }
  console.log('we are done');
})();

Waiting for more than one concurrent await operation

TL;DR

Details:

Use .catch() and Promise.all()

Related

Recent Posts