ChatGPT解决这个技术问题 Extra ChatGPT

How can I create an Asynchronous function in Javascript?

Check out this code :

<a href="#" id="link">Link</a>
<span>Moving</span>

$('#link').click(function () {
    console.log("Enter");
    $('#link').animate({ width: 200 }, 2000, function() {
         console.log("finished");            
    });    
    console.log("Exit");    
});

As you can see in the console, the "animate" function is asynchronous, and it "fork"s the flow of the event handler block code. In fact :

$('#link').click(function () {
    console.log("Enter");
    asyncFunct();
    console.log("Exit");    
});

function asyncFunct() {
    console.log("finished");
}

follow the flow of the block code!

If I wish to create my function asyncFunct() { } with this behaviour, how can I do it with javascript/jquery? I think there is a strategy without the use of setTimeout()

take a look at jQuery sources :)
The .animate() mathod uses a callback. Animate will call the callback when the animation is complete. If you need the same behaviour of .animate() what you need is a callback (called by the "main" function after some other operations). It's different if you need a "full" async function (a function called withouth blocking the execution flow). In this case you could use setTimeout() with a near 0 delay.
@Fabio Buda : why callback() should implements a sort of async? In fact, it doesnt jsfiddle.net/5H9XT/9
in fact after "callback" I cited a "full" async method with setTimeout. I meant callback as pseudo-async in the way the function is called after other code :-)

p
pimvdb

You cannot make a truly custom asynchronous function. You'll eventually have to leverage on a technology provided natively, such as:

setInterval

setTimeout

requestAnimationFrame

XMLHttpRequest

WebSocket

Worker

Some HTML5 APIs such as the File API, Web Database API

Technologies that support onload

... many others

In fact, for the animation jQuery uses setInterval.


I was discussing this with a friend yesterday so this answer is perfect! I understand and can identify the async functions and use them in JS properly. But simply why can't we implement custom ones is not clear to me. It's like a black box that we know how make it work (using, say, setInterval) but that we can't even open it to see how it is done. Do you happen to have more information on the subject?
@MatheusFelipe those functions are native to the javascript engine's implementation and the only thing you can rely on is the specs, e.g. HTML5 timers and trust the black box nature that they behave according to specs.
@MatheusFelipe youtu.be/8aGhZQkoFbQ best talk so far regarding this topic...
Some implemantations, in particular Node.js, support setImmediate
what about promises. Does it give an awaitable?
Š
Šime Vidas

You can use a timer:

setTimeout( yourFn, 0 );

(where yourFn is a reference to your function)

or, with Lodash:

_.defer( yourFn );

Defers invoking the func until the current call stack has cleared. Any additional arguments are provided to func when it's invoked.


This doesn't work, my javascript function that draws in a canvas keeps making the UI not responding.
@gab06 - I'd say your canvas drawing function is blocking for its own good reasons. Split its action into many smaller ones and invoke each one of them with a timer: you'll see that the interface this way does respond to your mouse clicks, etc.
Minimum time for setTimeout is 4 milliseconds by HTML5 spec. Giving it 0 will still take that minimum amount of time. But yeah, it works well as a function deferrer.
For scope.setTimeout function, if the delay parameter is omitted, a value of 0 is used by default.
f
fider

here you have simple solution (other write about it) http://www.benlesh.com/2012/05/calling-javascript-function.html

And here you have above ready solution:

function async(your_function, callback) {
    setTimeout(function() {
        your_function();
        if (callback) {callback();}
    }, 0);
}

TEST 1 (may output '1 x 2 3' or '1 2 x 3' or '1 2 3 x'):

console.log(1);
async(function() {console.log('x')}, null);
console.log(2);
console.log(3);

TEST 2 (will always output 'x 1'):

async(function() {console.log('x');}, function() {console.log(1);});

This function is executed with timeout 0 - it will simulate asynchronous task


TEST 1 can actually only ever output '1 2 3 x' and TEST 2 is guaranteed to output '1 x' every time. The reason for the unexpected results in TEST 2 is because console.log(1) is called and the output (undefined) is passed as the 2nd arguments to async(). In the case of TEST 1, I think you don't fully understand JavaScript's execution queue. Because each of the calls to console.log() happen in the same stack, x is guaranteed to be logged last. I'd down-vote this answer for misinformation but don't have enough rep.
@Joshua: It seems @fider meant to write TEST 2 as: async(function() {console.log('x')}, function(){console.log(1)});.
Yes @nzn and @Joshua I meant TEST 2 as: async(function() {console.log('x')}, function(){console.log(1)}); - I corrected it already
TEST 2 output is 1 x in async(function() {setTimeout(()=>{console.log('x');},1000)}, function() {console.log(1);});
E
Ethan McTague

Here is a function that takes in another function and outputs a version that runs async.

var async = function (func) {
  return function () {
    var args = arguments;
    setTimeout(function () {
      func.apply(this, args);
    }, 0);
  };
};

It is used as a simple way to make an async function:

var anyncFunction = async(function (callback) {
    doSomething();
    callback();
});

This is different from @fider's answer because the function itself has its own structure (no callback added on, it's already in the function) and also because it creates a new function that can be used.


setTimeout can’t be used in a loop (call the same function several times with distinct arguments).
@user2284570 That's what closures are for. (function(a){ asyncFunction(a); })(a)
IIRC, you could also achieve this without a closure: setTimeout(asyncFunction, 0, a);
If by async we mean: running in the background, parallel to the main thread then this is not truly async. All this will do is delay the execution to the process.nextTick. Whatever code you have in the function is going to be executed on the main thread. If the function was set to calculate PI then the app will freeze, with or without timeout!
I don't understand why this answer is upvoted. When I put this in my code, the program blocks until the function is finished, which exactly what it should not do.
L
Linus Thiel

Edit: I totally misunderstood the question. In the browser, I would use setTimeout. If it was important that it ran in another thread, I would use Web Workers.


? This doesnt make a async function :O
h
hd84335

Late, but to show an easy solution using promises after their introduction in ES6, it handles asynchronous calls a lot easier:

You set the asynchronous code in a new promise:

var asyncFunct = new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
    $('#link').animate({ width: 200 }, 2000, function() {
        console.log("finished");                
        resolve();
    });             
});

Note to set resolve() when async call finishes.
Then you add the code that you want to run after async call finishes inside .then() of the promise:

asyncFunct.then((result) => {
    console.log("Exit");    
});

Here is a snippet of it:

$('#link').click(function () { console.log("Enter"); var asyncFunct = new Promise(function(resolve, reject) { $('#link').animate({ width: 200 }, 2000, function() { console.log("finished"); resolve(); }); }); asyncFunct.then((result) => { console.log("Exit"); }); }); Link Moving

or JSFiddle


As I understand it, the code in the executor (the argument to new Promise) is run immediately, not in the next tick. So I'm not sure this answer is correct. However, it looks like the then handler is always run in a later tick.
s
shanabus

This page walks you through the basics of creating an async javascript function.

Since ES2017, asynchronous javacript functions are much easier to write. You should also read more on Promises.


The link is dead.
J
João Alves

If you want to use Parameters and regulate the maximum number of async functions you can use a simple async worker I've build:

var BackgroundWorker = function(maxTasks) {
    this.maxTasks = maxTasks || 100;
    this.runningTasks = 0;
    this.taskQueue = [];
};

/* runs an async task */
BackgroundWorker.prototype.runTask = function(task, delay, params) {
    var self = this;
    if(self.runningTasks >= self.maxTasks) {
        self.taskQueue.push({ task: task, delay: delay, params: params});
    } else {
        self.runningTasks += 1;
        var runnable = function(params) {
            try {
                task(params);
            } catch(err) {
                console.log(err);
            }
            self.taskCompleted();
        }
        // this approach uses current standards:
        setTimeout(runnable, delay, params);
    }
}

BackgroundWorker.prototype.taskCompleted = function() {
    this.runningTasks -= 1;

    // are any tasks waiting in queue?
    if(this.taskQueue.length > 0) {
        // it seems so! let's run it x)
        var taskInfo = this.taskQueue.splice(0, 1)[0];
        this.runTask(taskInfo.task, taskInfo.delay, taskInfo.params);
    }
}

You can use it like this:

var myFunction = function() {
 ...
}
var myFunctionB = function() {
 ...
}
var myParams = { name: "John" };

var bgworker = new BackgroundWorker();
bgworker.runTask(myFunction, 0, myParams);
bgworker.runTask(myFunctionB, 0, null);

B
Benjamin Kuykendall
Function.prototype.applyAsync = function(params, cb){
      var function_context = this;
      setTimeout(function(){
          var val = function_context.apply(undefined, params); 
          if(cb) cb(val);
      }, 0);
}

// usage
var double = function(n){return 2*n;};
var display = function(){console.log(arguments); return undefined;};
double.applyAsync([3], display);

Although not fundamentally different than the other solutions, I think my solution does a few additional nice things:

it allows for parameters to the functions

it passes the output of the function to the callback

it is added to Function.prototype allowing a nicer way to call it

Also, the similarity to the built-in function Function.prototype.apply seems appropriate to me.


M
Mike M

Next to the great answer by @pimvdb, and just in case you where wondering, async.js does not offer truly asynchronous functions either. Here is a (very) stripped down version of the library's main method:

function asyncify(func) { // signature: func(array)
    return function (array, callback) {
        var result;
        try {
            result = func.apply(this, array);
        } catch (e) {
            return callback(e);
        }
        /* code ommited in case func returns a promise */
        callback(null, result);
    };
}

So the function protects from errors and gracefully hands it to the callback to handle, but the code is as synchronous as any other JS function.


D
Davide Cannizzo

Unfortunately, JavaScript doesn't provide an async functionality. It works only in a single one thread. But the most of the modern browsers provide Workers, that are second scripts which gets executed in background and can return a result. So, I reached a solution I think it's useful to asynchronously run a function, which creates a worker for each async call.

The code below contains the function async to call in background.

Function.prototype.async = function(callback) {
    let blob = new Blob([ "self.addEventListener('message', function(e) { self.postMessage({ result: (" + this + ").apply(null, e.data) }); }, false);" ], { type: "text/javascript" });
    let worker = new Worker(window.URL.createObjectURL(blob));
    worker.addEventListener("message", function(e) {
        this(e.data.result);
    }.bind(callback), false);
    return function() {
        this.postMessage(Array.from(arguments));
    }.bind(worker);
};

This is an example for usage:

(function(x) {
    for (let i = 0; i < 999999999; i++) {}
        return x * 2;
}).async(function(result) {
    alert(result);
})(10);

This executes a function which iterate a for with a huge number to take time as demonstration of asynchronicity, and then gets the double of the passed number. The async method provides a function which calls the wanted function in background, and in that which is provided as parameter of async callbacks the return in its unique parameter. So in the callback function I alert the result.


x
xtian

MDN has a good example on the use of setTimeout preserving "this".

Like the following:

function doSomething() {
    // use 'this' to handle the selected element here
}

$(".someSelector").each(function() {
    setTimeout(doSomething.bind(this), 0);
});