Asynchronous for cycle in JavaScript

Question

I need a loop that waits for an async call before continuing. Something like:

for ( /* ... */ ) {

  someFunction(param1, praram2, function(result) {

    //         


        

Answer 1

You can't mix synchronous and asynchronous in JavaScript if you block the script, you block the Browser.

You need to go the full event driven way here, luckily we can hide the ugly stuff away.

EDIT: Updated the code.

function asyncLoop(iterations, func, callback) {
    var index = 0;
    var done = false;
    var loop = {
        next: function() {
            if (done) {
                return;
            }

            if (index < iterations) {
                index++;
                func(loop);

            } else {
                done = true;
                callback();
            }
        },

        iteration: function() {
            return index - 1;
        },

        break: function() {
            done = true;
            callback();
        }
    };
    loop.next();
    return loop;
}

This will provide us an asynchronous loop, you can of course modify it even further to take for example a function to check the loop condition etc.

Now on to the test:

function someFunction(a, b, callback) {
    console.log('Hey doing some stuff!');
    callback();
}

asyncLoop(10, function(loop) {
    someFunction(1, 2, function(result) {

        // log the iteration
        console.log(loop.iteration());

        // Okay, for cycle could continue
        loop.next();
    })},
    function(){console.log('cycle ended')}
);

And the output:

Hey doing some stuff!
0
Hey doing some stuff!
1
Hey doing some stuff!
2
Hey doing some stuff!
3
Hey doing some stuff!
4
Hey doing some stuff!
5
Hey doing some stuff!
6
Hey doing some stuff!
7
Hey doing some stuff!
8
Hey doing some stuff!
9
cycle ended

Answer 2

Here's another example which I think is more readable than others, where you wrap your async function inside a function that takes in a done function, the current loop index, and the result (if any) of the previous async call:

function (done, i, prevResult) {
   // perform async stuff
   // call "done(result)" in async callback 
   // or after promise resolves
}

Once done() is invoked, it triggers the next async call, again passing in the done function, current index and previous result. Once the entire loop is completed, the provided loop callback will be invoked.

Here's a snippet you can run:

asyncLoop({
  limit: 25,
  asyncLoopFunction: function(done, i, prevResult) {
    setTimeout(function() {
      console.log("Starting Iteration: ", i);
      console.log("Previous Result: ", prevResult);
      var result = i * 100;
      done(result);
    }, 1000);
  },
  initialArgs: 'Hello',
  callback: function(result) {
    console.log('All Done. Final result: ', result);
  }
});

function asyncLoop(obj) {
  var limit = obj.limit,
    asyncLoopFunction = obj.asyncLoopFunction,
    initialArgs = obj.initialArgs || {},
    callback = obj.callback,
    i = 0;

  function done(result) {
    i++;
    if (i < limit) {
      triggerAsync(result);
    } else {
      callback(result);
    }
  }

  function triggerAsync(prevResult) {
    asyncLoopFunction(done, i, prevResult);
  }

  triggerAsync(initialArgs); // init
}

Answer 3

http://cuzztuts.blogspot.ro/2011/12/js-async-for-very-cool.html

EDIT:

link from github: https://github.com/cuzzea/lib_repo/blob/master/cuzzea/js/functions/core/async_for.js

function async_for_each(object,settings){
var l=object.length;
    settings.limit = settings.limit || Math.round(l/100);
    settings.start = settings.start || 0;
    settings.timeout = settings.timeout || 1;
    for(var i=settings.start;i<l;i++){
        if(i-settings.start>=settings.limit){
            setTimeout(function(){
                settings.start = i;
                async_for_each(object,settings)
            },settings.timeout);
            settings.limit_callback ? settings.limit_callback(i,l) : null;
            return false;
        }else{
            settings.cbk ? settings.cbk(i,object[i]) : null;
        }
    }
    settings.end_cbk?settings.end_cbk():null;
    return true;
}

This function allows you to to create a percent break in the for loop using settings.limit. The limit property is just a integer, but when set as array.length * 0.1, this will make the settings.limit_callback to be called every 10%.

/*
 * params:
 *  object:         the array to parse
 *  settings_object:
 *      cbk:            function to call whenwhen object is found in array
 *                          params: i,object[i]
 *      limit_calback:  function to call when limit is reached
 *                          params: i, object_length
 *      end_cbk:        function to call when loop is finished
 *                          params: none
 *      limit:          number of iteration before breacking the for loop
 *                          default: object.length/100
 *      timeout:        time until start of the for loop(ms)
 *                          default: 1
 *      start:          the index from where to start the for loop
 *                          default: 0
 */

exemple:

var a = [];
a.length = 1000;
async_for_each(a,{
    limit_callback:function(i,l){console.log("loading %s/%s - %s%",i,l,Math.round(i*100/l))}
});

Answer 4

We can also use help of jquery.Deferred. in this case asyncLoop function would look like this:

asyncLoop = function(array, callback) {
  var nextElement, thisIteration;
  if (array.length > 0) nextElement = array.pop();
  thisIteration = callback(nextElement);
  $.when(thisIteration).done(function(response) {
    // here we can check value of response in order to break or whatever
    if (array.length > 0) asyncLoop(array, collection, callback);
  });
};

the callback function will look like this:

addEntry = function(newEntry) {
  var deferred, duplicateEntry;
  // on the next line we can perform some check, which may cause async response.
  duplicateEntry = someCheckHere();
  if (duplicateEntry === true) {
    deferred = $.Deferred();
    // here we launch some other function (e.g. $.ajax or popup window) 
    // which based on result must call deferred.resolve([opt args - response])
    // when deferred.resolve is called "asyncLoop" will start new iteration
    // example function:
    exampleFunction(duplicateEntry, deferred);
    return deferred;
  } else {
    return someActionIfNotDuplicate();
  }
};

example function that resolves deferred:

function exampleFunction(entry, deffered){
  openModal({
    title: "what should we do with duplicate"
    options: [
       {name:"Replace", action: function(){replace(entry);deffered.resolve(replace:true)}},
       {name: "Keep Existing", action: function(){deffered.resolve(replace:false)}}
    ]
  })
}

Answer 5

I have been using the "setTimeout(Func,0);" trick for about year. Here is some recent research i wrote up to explain how to speed it up a bit. If you just want the answer, skip to Step 4. Step 1 2 and 3 explain the reasoning and mechanics;

// In Depth Analysis of the setTimeout(Func,0) trick.

//////// setTimeout(Func,0) Step 1 ////////////
// setTimeout and setInterval impose a minimum 
// time limit of about 2 to 10 milliseconds.

  console.log("start");
  var workCounter=0;
  var WorkHard = function()
  {
    if(workCounter>=2000) {console.log("done"); return;}
    workCounter++;
    setTimeout(WorkHard,0);
  };

// this take about 9 seconds
// that works out to be about 4.5ms per iteration
// Now there is a subtle rule here that you can tweak
// This minimum is counted from the time the setTimeout was executed.
// THEREFORE:

  console.log("start");
  var workCounter=0;
  var WorkHard = function()
  {
    if(workCounter>=2000) {console.log("done"); return;}
    setTimeout(WorkHard,0);
    workCounter++;
  };

// This code is slightly faster because we register the setTimeout
// a line of code earlier. Actually, the speed difference is immesurable 
// in this case, but the concept is true. Step 2 shows a measurable example.
///////////////////////////////////////////////


//////// setTimeout(Func,0) Step 2 ////////////
// Here is a measurable example of the concept covered in Step 1.

  var StartWork = function()
  {
    console.log("start");
    var startTime = new Date();
    var workCounter=0;
    var sum=0;
    var WorkHard = function()
    {
      if(workCounter>=2000) 
      {
        var ms = (new Date()).getTime() - startTime.getTime();
        console.log("done: sum=" + sum + " time=" + ms + "ms"); 
        return;
      }
      for(var i=0; i<1500000; i++) {sum++;}
      workCounter++;
      setTimeout(WorkHard,0);
    };
    WorkHard();
  };

// This adds some difficulty to the work instead of just incrementing a number
// This prints "done: sum=3000000000 time=18809ms".
// So it took 18.8 seconds.

  var StartWork = function()
  {
    console.log("start");
    var startTime = new Date();
    var workCounter=0;
    var sum=0;
    var WorkHard = function()
    {
      if(workCounter>=2000) 
      {
        var ms = (new Date()).getTime() - startTime.getTime();
        console.log("done: sum=" + sum + " time=" + ms + "ms"); 
        return;
      }
      setTimeout(WorkHard,0);
      for(var i=0; i<1500000; i++) {sum++;}
      workCounter++;
    };
    WorkHard();
  };

// Now, as we planned, we move the setTimeout to before the difficult part
// This prints: "done: sum=3000000000 time=12680ms"
// So it took 12.6 seconds. With a little math, (18.8-12.6)/2000 = 3.1ms
// We have effectively shaved off 3.1ms of the original 4.5ms of dead time.
// Assuming some of that time may be attributed to function calls and variable 
// instantiations, we have eliminated the wait time imposed by setTimeout.

// LESSON LEARNED: If you want to use the setTimeout(Func,0) trick with high 
// performance in mind, make sure your function takes more than 4.5ms, and set 
// the next timeout at the start of your function, instead of the end.
///////////////////////////////////////////////


//////// setTimeout(Func,0) Step 3 ////////////
// The results of Step 2 are very educational, but it doesn't really tell us how to apply the
// concept to the real world.  Step 2 says "make sure your function takes more than 4.5ms".
// No one makes functions that take 4.5ms. Functions either take a few microseconds, 
// or several seconds, or several minutes. This magic 4.5ms is unattainable.

// To solve the problem, we introduce the concept of "Burn Time".
// Lets assume that you can break up your difficult function into pieces that take 
// a few milliseconds or less to complete. Then the concept of Burn Time says, 
// "crunch several of the individual pieces until we reach 4.5ms, then exit"

// Step 1 shows a function that is asyncronous, but takes 9 seconds to run. In reality
// we could have easilly incremented workCounter 2000 times in under a millisecond.
// So, duh, that should not be made asyncronous, its horrible. But what if you don't know
// how many times you need to increment the number, maybe you need to run the loop 20 times,
// maybe you need to run the loop 2 billion times.

  console.log("start");
  var startTime = new Date();
  var workCounter=0;
  for(var i=0; i<2000000000; i++) // 2 billion
  {
    workCounter++;
  }
  var ms = (new Date()).getTime() - startTime.getTime();
  console.log("done: workCounter=" + workCounter + " time=" + ms + "ms"); 

// prints: "done: workCounter=2000000000 time=7214ms"
// So it took 7.2 seconds. Can we break this up into smaller pieces? Yes.
// I know, this is a retarded example, bear with me.

  console.log("start");
  var startTime = new Date();
  var workCounter=0;
  var each = function()
  {
    workCounter++;
  };
  for(var i=0; i<20000000; i++) // 20 million
  {
    each();
  }
  var ms = (new Date()).getTime() - startTime.getTime();
  console.log("done: workCounter=" + workCounter + " time=" + ms + "ms"); 

// The easiest way is to break it up into 2 billion smaller pieces, each of which take 
// only several picoseconds to run. Ok, actually, I am reducing the number from 2 billion
// to 20 million (100x less).  Just adding a function call increases the complexity of the loop
// 100 fold. Good lesson for some other topic.
// prints: "done: workCounter=20000000 time=7648ms"
// So it took 7.6 seconds, thats a good starting point.
// Now, lets sprinkle in the async part with the burn concept

  console.log("start");
  var startTime = new Date();
  var workCounter=0;
  var index=0;
  var end = 20000000;
  var each = function()
  {
    workCounter++;
  };
  var Work = function()
  {
    var burnTimeout = new Date();
    burnTimeout.setTime(burnTimeout.getTime() + 4.5); // burnTimeout set to 4.5ms in the future
    while((new Date()) < burnTimeout)
    {
      if(index>=end) 
      {
        var ms = (new Date()).getTime() - startTime.getTime();
        console.log("done: workCounter=" + workCounter + " time=" + ms + "ms"); 
        return;
      }
      each();
      index++;
    }
    setTimeout(Work,0);
  };

// prints "done: workCounter=20000000 time=107119ms"
// Sweet Jesus, I increased my 7.6 second function to 107.1 seconds.
// But it does prevent the browser from locking up, So i guess thats a plus.
// Again, the actual objective here is just to increment workCounter, so the overhead of all
// the async garbage is huge in comparison. 
// Anyway, Lets start by taking advice from Step 2 and move the setTimeout above the hard part. 

  console.log("start");
  var startTime = new Date();
  var workCounter=0;
  var index=0;
  var end = 20000000;
  var each = function()
  {
    workCounter++;
  };
  var Work = function()
  {
    if(index>=end) {return;}
    setTimeout(Work,0);
    var burnTimeout = new Date();
    burnTimeout.setTime(burnTimeout.getTime() + 4.5); // burnTimeout set to 4.5ms in the future
    while((new Date()) < burnTimeout)
    {
      if(index>=end) 
      {
        var ms = (new Date()).getTime() - startTime.getTime();
        console.log("done: workCounter=" + workCounter + " time=" + ms + "ms"); 
        return;
      }
      each();
      index++;
    }
  };

// This means we also have to check index right away because the last iteration will have nothing to do
// prints "done: workCounter=20000000 time=52892ms"  
// So, it took 52.8 seconds. Improvement, but way slower than the native 7.6 seconds.
// The Burn Time is the number you tweak to get a nice balance between native loop speed
// and browser responsiveness. Lets change it from 4.5ms to 50ms, because we don't really need faster
// than 50ms gui response.

  console.log("start");
  var startTime = new Date();
  var workCounter=0;
  var index=0;
  var end = 20000000;
  var each = function()
  {
    workCounter++;
  };
  var Work = function()
  {
    if(index>=end) {return;}
    setTimeout(Work,0);
    var burnTimeout = new Date();
    burnTimeout.setTime(burnTimeout.getTime() + 50); // burnTimeout set to 50ms in the future
    while((new Date()) < burnTimeout)
    {
      if(index>=end) 
      {
        var ms = (new Date()).getTime() - startTime.getTime();
        console.log("done: workCounter=" + workCounter + " time=" + ms + "ms"); 
        return;
      }
      each();
      index++;
    }
  };

// prints "done: workCounter=20000000 time=52272ms"
// So it took 52.2 seconds. No real improvement here which proves that the imposed limits of setTimeout
// have been eliminated as long as the burn time is anything over 4.5ms
///////////////////////////////////////////////


//////// setTimeout(Func,0) Step 4 ////////////
// The performance numbers from Step 3 seem pretty grim, but GUI responsiveness is often worth it.
// Here is a short library that embodies these concepts and gives a descent interface.

  var WilkesAsyncBurn = function()
  {
    var Now = function() {return (new Date());};
    var CreateFutureDate = function(milliseconds)
    {
      var t = Now();
      t.setTime(t.getTime() + milliseconds);
      return t;
    };
    var For = function(start, end, eachCallback, finalCallback, msBurnTime)
    {
      var i = start;
      var Each = function()
      {
        if(i==-1) {return;} //always does one last each with nothing to do
        setTimeout(Each,0);
        var burnTimeout = CreateFutureDate(msBurnTime);
        while(Now() < burnTimeout)
        {
          if(i>=end) {i=-1; finalCallback(); return;}
          eachCallback(i);
          i++;
        }
      };
      Each();
    };
    var ForEach = function(array, eachCallback, finalCallback, msBurnTime)
    {
      var i = 0;
      var len = array.length;
      var Each = function()
      {
        if(i==-1) {return;}
        setTimeout(Each,0);
        var burnTimeout = CreateFutureDate(msBurnTime);
        while(Now() < burnTimeout)
        {
          if(i>=len) {i=-1; finalCallback(array); return;}
          eachCallback(i, array[i]);
          i++;
        }
      };
      Each();
    };

    var pub = {};
    pub.For = For;          //eachCallback(index); finalCallback();
    pub.ForEach = ForEach;  //eachCallback(index,value); finalCallback(array);
    WilkesAsyncBurn = pub;
  };

///////////////////////////////////////////////


//////// setTimeout(Func,0) Step 5 ////////////
// Here is an examples of how to use the library from Step 4.

  WilkesAsyncBurn(); // Init the library
  console.log("start");
  var startTime = new Date();
  var workCounter=0;
  var FuncEach = function()
  {
    if(workCounter%1000==0)
    {
      var s = "<div></div>";
      var div = jQuery("*[class~=r1]");
      div.append(s);
    }
    workCounter++;
  };
  var FuncFinal = function()
  {
    var ms = (new Date()).getTime() - startTime.getTime();
    console.log("done: workCounter=" + workCounter + " time=" + ms + "ms"); 
  };
  WilkesAsyncBurn.For(0,2000000,FuncEach,FuncFinal,50);

// prints: "done: workCounter=20000000 time=149303ms"
// Also appends a few thousand divs to the html page, about 20 at a time.
// The browser is responsive the entire time, mission accomplished

// LESSON LEARNED: If your code pieces are super tiny, like incrementing a number, or walking through 
// an array summing the numbers, then just putting it in an "each" function is going to kill you. 
// You can still use the concept here, but your "each" function should also have a for loop in it 
// where you burn a few hundred items manually.  
///////////////////////////////////////////////

Answer 6

A cleaner alternative to what @Ivo has suggested would be an Asynchronous Method Queue, assuming that you only need to make one async call for the collection.

(See this post by Dustin Diaz for a more detailed explanation)

function Queue() {
  this._methods = [];
  this._response = null;
  this._flushed = false;
}

(function(Q){

  Q.add = function (fn) {
    if (this._flushed) fn(this._response);
    else this._methods.push(fn);
  }

  Q.flush = function (response) {
    if (this._flushed) return;
    this._response = response;
    while (this._methods[0]) {
      this._methods.shift()(response);
    }
    this._flushed = true;
  }

})(Queue.prototype);

You simply create a new instance of Queue, add the callbacks you need, and then flush the queue with the async response.

var queue = new Queue();

queue.add(function(results){
  for (var result in results) {
    // normal loop operation here
  }
});

someFunction(param1, param2, function(results) {
  queue.flush(results);
}

An added benefit of this pattern is that you can add multiple functions to the queue instead of just one.

If you have an object which contains iterator functions, you can add support for this queue behind the scenes and write code which looks synchronous, but isn't:

MyClass.each(function(result){ ... })

simply write each to put the anonymous function into the queue instead of executing it immediately, and then flush the queue when your async call is complete. This is a very simple and powerful design pattern.

P.S. If you're using jQuery, you already have an async method queue at your disposal called jQuery.Deferred.