Test an async PipeTransform - asynchronous

Context
I have a basic PipeTransform, expect the fact that it is async. Why? because I have my own i18n service (because of parsing, pluralization and other constraints, I did my own) and it returns a Promise<string>:
#Pipe({
name: "i18n",
pure: false
})
export class I18nPipe implements PipeTransform {
private done = false;
constructor(private i18n:I18n) {
}
value:string;
transform(value:string, args:I18nPipeArgs):string {
if(this.done){
return this.value;
}
if (args.plural) {
this.i18n.getPlural(args.key, args.plural, value, args.variables, args.domain).then((res) => {
this.value = res;
this.done = true;
});
}
this.i18n.get(args.key, value, args.variables, args.domain).then((res) => {
this.done = true;
this.value = res;
});
return this.value;
}
}
This pipe works well, because the only delayed call is the very first one (the I18nService uses lazy loading, it loads JSON data only if the key is not found, so basically, the first call will be delayed, the other ones are instant but still async).
Problem
I can't figure out how to test this pipe using Jasmine, since it is working inside a component I know it works, but the goal here is to get this fully tested using jasmine, this way I can add it to a CI routine.
The above test:
describe("Pipe test", () => {
it("can call I18n.get.", async(inject([I18n], (i18n:I18n) => {
let pipe = new I18nPipe(i18n);
expect(pipe.transform("nope", {key: 'test', domain: 'test domain'})).toBe("test value");
})));
});
Fails because since the result given by the I18nService is async, the returned value is undefined in a sync logic.
I18n Pipe test can call I18n.get. FAILED
Expected undefined to be 'test value'.
EDIT: One way to do it would be to use setTimeout but I want a prettier solution, to avoid adding setTimeout(myAssertion, 100) everywhere.

Use fakeAsync from #angular/core/testing. It allows you to call tick(), which will wait for all currently queued asynchronous tasks to complete before continuing. This gives the illusion of the actions being synchronous. Right after the call to tick() we can write our expectations.
import { fakeAsync, tick } from '#angular/core/testing';
it("can call I18n.get.", fakeAsync(inject([I18n], (i18n:I18n) => {
let pipe = new I18nPipe(i18n);
let result = pipe.transform("nope", {key: 'test', domain: 'test domain'});
tick();
expect(result).toBe("test value");
})));
So when should we use fakeAsync and when should we use async? This is the rule of thumb that I go by (most of the time). When we are making asynchronous calls inside the test, this is when we should use async. async allows to test to continue until all asynchronous calls are complete. For example
it('..', async(() => {
let service = new Servce();
service.doSomething().then(result => {
expect(result).toBe('hello');
});
});
In a non async test, the expectation would never occur, as the test would complete before the asynchronous resolution of the promise. With the call to async, the test gets wrapped in a zone, which keeps track of all asynchronous tasks, and waits for them to complete.
Use fakeAsync when the asynchronous behavior is outside the control of the test (like in your case is going on in the pipe). Here we can force/wait for it to complete with the call to tick(). tick can also be passed a millisecond delay to allow more time to pass if needed.
Another option is to mock the service and make it synchronous, as mentioned in this post. When unit testing, if your components in test are dependent on heavy logic in the service, then the component in test is at the mercy of that service working correctly, which kinda defeats the purpose of a "unit" test. Mocking makes sense in a lot of cases.

Related

Asynchronous execution of a function App Script

I've been digging around, and I'm not able to find references or documentation on how I can use Asynchronous Functions in Google App Script, I found that people mention It's possible, but not mention how...
Could someone point me in the right direction or provide me with an example?
Promises, Callbacks, or something, that can help me with this.
I have this function lets call it foo that takes a while to execute (long enough that It could time out an HTTP call).
What I'm trying to do Is to refactor it, in a way that it works like this:
function doPost(e) {
// parsing and getting values from e
var returnable = foo(par1, par2, par3);
return ContentService
.createTextOutput(JSON.stringify(returnable))
.setMimeType(ContentService.MimeType.JSON);
}
function foo(par1, par2, par3) {
var returnable = something(par1, par2, par3); // get the value I need to return;
// continue in an Async way, or schedule execution for something else
// and allow the function to continue its flow
/* async bar(); */
return returnable;
}
Now I want to realize that bit in foo because It takes to long and I don't want to risk for a time out, also the logic that occurs there it's totally client Independent, so It doesn't matter, I just need the return value, that I'll be getting before.
Also, I think It's worth mentioning that this is deployed in Google Drive as a web app.
It's been long since this, but adding some context, at that moment I wanted to scheduled several things to happen on Google Drive, and It was timing out the execution, so I was looking for a way to safely schedule a job.
You want to execute functions by the asynchronous processing using Google Apps Script.
You want to run the functions with the asynchronous processing using time trigger.
If my understanding is correct, unfortunately, there are no methods and the official document for directly achieving it. But as a workaround, that can be achieved by using both Google Apps Script API and the fetchAll method which can work by asynchronous processing.
The flow of this workaround is as follows.
Deploy API executable, enable Google Apps Script API.
Using fetchAll, request the endpoint of Google Apps Script API for running function.
When several functions are requested once, those work with the asynchronous processing by fetchAll.
Note:
I think that Web Apps can be also used instead of Google Apps Script API.
In order to simply use this workaround, I have created a GAS library. I think that you can also use it.
In this workaround, you can also run the functions with the asynchronous processing using time trigger.
References:
fetchAll
Deploy the script as an API executable
scripts.run of Google Apps Script API
Benchmark: fetchAll method in UrlFetch service for Google Apps Script
GAS library for running the asynchronous processing
If I misunderstand your question, I'm sorry.
There is another way to accomplish this.
You can use time-based one-off triggers to run functions asynchronously, they take a bit of time to queue up (30-60 seconds) but it is ideal for slow-running tasks that you want to remove from the main execution of your script.
// Creates a trigger that will run a second later
ScriptApp.newTrigger("myFunction")
.timeBased()
.after(1)
.create();
There is handy script that I put together called Async.gs that will help remove the boilerplate out of this technique. You can even use it to pass arguments via the CacheService.
Here is the link:
https://gist.github.com/sdesalas/2972f8647897d5481fd8e01f03122805
// Define async function
function runSlowTask(user_id, is_active) {
console.log('runSlowTask()', { user_id: user_id, is_active: is_active });
Utilities.sleep(5000);
console.log('runSlowTask() - FINISHED!')
}
// Run function asynchronously
Async.call('runSlowTask');
// Run function asynchronously with one argument
Async.call('runSlowTask', 51291);
// Run function asynchronously with multiple argument
Async.call('runSlowTask', 51291, true);
// Run function asynchronously with an array of arguments
Async.apply('runSlowTask', [51291, true]);
// Run function in library asynchronously with one argument
Async.call('MyLibrary.runSlowTask', 51291);
// Run function in library asynchronously with an array of arguments
Async.apply('MyLibrary.runSlowTask', [51291, true]);
With the new V8 runtime, it is now possible to write async functions and use promises in your app script.
Even triggers can be declared async! For example (typescript):
async function onOpen(e: GoogleAppsScript.Events.SheetsOnOpen) {
console.log("I am inside a promise");
// do your await stuff here or make more async calls
}
To start using the new runtime, just follow this guide. In short, it all boils down to adding the following line to your appsscript.json file:
{
...
"runtimeVersion": "V8"
}
Based on Tanaike's answer, I created another version of it. My goals were:
Easy to maintain
Easy to call (simple call convention)
tasks.gs
class TasksNamespace {
constructor() {
this.webAppDevUrl = 'https://script.google.com/macros/s/<your web app's dev id>/dev';
this.accessToken = ScriptApp.getOAuthToken();
}
// send all requests
all(requests) {
return requests
.map(r => ({
muteHttpExceptions: true,
url: this.webAppDevUrl,
method: 'POST',
contentType: 'application/json',
payload: {
functionName: r.first(),
arguments: r.removeFirst()
}.toJson(),
headers: {
Authorization: 'Bearer ' + this.accessToken
}
}), this)
.fetchAll()
.map(r => r.getContentText().toObject())
}
// send all responses
process(request) {
return ContentService
.createTextOutput(
request
.postData
.contents
.toObject()
.using(This => ({
...This,
result: (() => {
try {
return eval(This.functionName).apply(eval(This.functionName.splitOffLast()), This.arguments) // this could cause an error
}
catch(error) {
return error;
}
})()
}))
.toJson()
)
.setMimeType(ContentService.MimeType.JSON)
}
}
helpers.gs
// array prototype
Array.prototype.fetchAll = function() {
return UrlFetchApp.fetchAll(this);
}
Array.prototype.first = function() {
return this[0];
}
Array.prototype.removeFirst = function() {
this.shift();
return this;
}
Array.prototype.removeLast = function() {
this.pop();
return this;
}
// string prototype
String.prototype.blankToUndefined = function(search) {
return this.isBlank() ? undefined : this;
};
String.prototype.isBlank = function() {
return this.trim().length == 0;
}
String.prototype.splitOffLast = function(delimiter = '.') {
return this.split(delimiter).removeLast().join(delimiter).blankToUndefined();
}
// To Object - if string is Json
String.prototype.toObject = function() {
if(this.isBlank())
return {};
return JSON.parse(this, App.Strings.parseDate);
}
// object prototype
Object.prototype.toJson = function() {
return JSON.stringify(this);
}
Object.prototype.using = function(func) {
return func.call(this, this);
}
http.handler.gs
function doPost(request) {
return new TasksNamespace.process(request);
}
calling convention
Just make arrays with the full function name and the rest are the function's arguments. It will return when everything is done, so it's like Promise.all()
var a = new TasksNamespace.all([
["App.Data.Firebase.Properties.getById",'T006DB4'],
["App.Data.External.CISC.Properties.getById",'T00A21F', true, 12],
["App.Maps.geoCode",'T022D62', false]
])
return preview
[ { functionName: 'App.Data.Firebase.Properties.getById',
arguments: [ 'T006DB4' ],
result:
{ Id: '',
Listings: [Object],
Pages: [Object],
TempId: 'T006DB4',
Workflow: [Object] } },
...
]
Notes
it can handle any static method, any method off a root object's tree, or any root (global) function.
it can handle 0 or more (any number) of arguments of any kind
it handles errors by returning the error from any post
// First create a trigger which will run after some time
ScriptApp.newTrigger("createAsyncJob").timeBased().after(6000).create();
/* The trigger will execute and first delete trigger itself using deleteTrigger method and trigger unique id. (Reason: There are limits on trigger which you can create therefore it safe bet to delete it.)
Then it will call the function which you want to execute.
*/
function createAsyncJob(e) {
deleteTrigger(e.triggerUid);
createJobsTrigger();
}
/* This function will get all trigger from project and search the specific trigger UID and delete it.
*/
function deleteTrigger(triggerUid) {
let triggers = ScriptApp.getProjectTriggers();
triggers.forEach(trigger => {
if (trigger.getUniqueId() == triggerUid) {
ScriptApp.deleteTrigger(trigger);
}
});
}
While this isn't quite an answer to your question, this could lead to an answer if implemented.
I have submitted a feature request to Google to modify the implementation of doGet() and doPost() to instead accept a completion block in the functions' parameters that we would call with our response object, allowing additional slow-running logic to be executed after the response has been "returned".
If you'd like this functionality, please star the issue here: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/231411987?pli=1

Converting a collection of Awaitables to a time-ordered AsyncGenerator in Hack

I am trying to implement Rx stream/observable merging with Hack async, and a core step is described by the title. A code version of this step would look something like this:
<?hh // strict
async function foo(Awaitable<Iterable<T>> $collection): Awaitable<void> {
$ordered_generator = async_collection_to_gen($collection) // (**)
foreach($ordered_generator await as $v) {
// do something with each awaited value in the time-order they are resolved
}
}
However, after mulling it over, I don't think I can write the starred (**) function. I've found that at some point or another, the implementations I've tried require functionality akin to JS's Promise.race, which resolves when the first of a collection Promises resolves/rejects. However, all of Hack's Awaitable collection helpers create an Awaitable of a fully resolved collection. Furthermore, Hack doesn't permit that we don't await async calls from async functions, which I've also found to be necessary.
Is it possible to anyone's knowledge?
This is possible actually! I dug around and stumbled upon a fork of asio-utilities by #jano implementing an AsyncPoll class. See PR for usage. It does exactly as I hoped.
So it turns out, there is an Awaitable called ConditionWaitHandle with succeed and fail methods* that can be invoked by any context (so long as the underlying WaitHandle hasn't expired yet), forcing the ConditionWaitHandle to resolve with the passed values.
I gave the code a hard look, and underneath it all, it works by successive Awaitable races, which ConditionWaitHandle permits. More specifically, the collection of Awaitables is compressed via AwaitAllWaitHandles (aka \HH\Asio\v) which resolves as slowly as the slowest Awaitable, then nested within a ConditionWaitHandle. Each Awaitable is awaited in an async function that triggers the common ConditionWaitHandle, concluding the race. This is repeated until the Awaitables have all resolved.
Here's a more compact implementation of a race using the same philosophy:
<?hh
function wait(int $i): Awaitable<void> {
return Race::wrap(async { await HH\Asio\usleep($i); return $i; });
}
// $wait_handle = null;
class Race {
public static ?ConditionWaitHandle $handle = null;
public static async function wrap<T>(Awaitable<T> $v): Awaitable<void> {
$ret = await $v;
$handle = self::$handle;
invariant(!is_null($handle), '');
$handle->succeed($ret);
}
}
Race::$handle = ConditionWaitHandle::create(
\HH\Asio\v(
Vector{
(wait(1))->getWaitHandle(),
(wait(1000000))->getWaitHandle()
}
)
);
printf("%d microsecond `wait` wins!", \HH\Asio\join(Race::$handle));
Very elegant solution, thanks #jano!
*(the semblance to promises/deferred intensifies)
I am curious how premature completion via ConditionWaitHandle meshes with the philosophy that all Awaitables should run to completion.

Meteor method does not return when passing a value

I am trying to pass a value in the callback of an async meteor method. "mongoCollections" is global variable
// Async method
let waiter = function(cb) {
setTimeout(() => {
cb(undefined, {data: 'test', other: mongoCollections})
}, 1000);
}
// Meteor method
Meteor.methods({
'getCollections': () => {
let func = Meteor.wrapAsync(waiter);
let res = func();
return res;
}
});
On the client
Meteor.call('getCollections', (err, res) => {
console.log(err, res)
});
The issue is that in its current state the client callback is not fired, no error or anything.
But if I remove the "other: mongoCollections" part of the object then the callback is fired. Why would sending mongoCollections prevent the callback from being fired at all? If there is an error how can I catch it?
My guess is that you are loosing your context between waiter() and the execution of cb(), which means that mongoCollections is undefined in cb(), thus the call fails.
Try to log mongoCollections in the anonymous function that you setTimeout for. It will probably show as undefined.
Or try it like this:
let waiter = function(cb) {
var _mongoCollections = mongoCollections;
setTimeout(() => {
cb(undefined, {data: 'test', other: _mongoCollections})
}, 1000);
}
(which puts mongoCollections in the closure instsead)
Another possibility (based on comment below): Your mongoCollections object is not serializable. You can try it by logging the result of JSON.stringify(mongoCollections). If this fails you have to extract the parts of the object you need, that can be serialized.
There are a number of things that could be happening here, but my guess is that an error is occurring somewhere and the error message is getting swallowed by a handler somewhere deeper.
You probably want to be using Meteor.setTimeout instead of vanilla setTimeout at a minimum. Have a look here: http://docs.meteor.com/api/timers.html#Meteor-setTimeout
Beyond that, I would follow the previous answerer's advice and try to make sure that mongoCollections is as global as you think it is. If the only change between the callback working and not working is the addition of a single symbol, then the culprit is likely that your added symbol is undefined.

Reactjs/Flux : When actions depend on async actions

Reactjs 0.14.0 , Vanilla Flux
Async Actions dependencies are a constant conceptual struggle. I've looked at this for months(dead serious) and every similar thread just doesn't make plain what I think is one of the hardest parts of the React/Flux learning curve.
The Problem:
If you want ActionB to be carried out one time directly after ActionA is done it's not really obvious at all where to put that to be updated by the View as the Flux pattern suggests( cause supposedly ActionA->ActionB chaining is an anti-pattern)
Note: maybe componentDidUpdate is the best that can be done, but it implies that ActionB can be called many times needlessly.
What I'm Trying to Do
So I'm using the common ActionA->WebAPI->Action->Dispatcher->Stores->View->ActionB
Which in most cases flows like this:
ActionA->WebAPI->Action(Async)->Dispatcher->Stores->View->ActionB
And often it is the case that ActionB is dependent on the Payload data of ActionA to be ready in it's store.(waitFor() was not designed for async situations like this supposedly.)
Example:
Main.js
componentWillMount: function(){
AuthActionCreators.checkForSession((loggedIn) => { //THIS IS A CALLBACK TO DO AN ACTION DEPENDENT ON USER DATA BEING IN THE USERSTORE
if(loggedIn){
AnotherActionCreators.updateAnotherStoreNowUserStuffIsInStores(this.props.someProp);//Action->Action(supposedly an anti-pattern)
}
});
},
AuthActionCreators.js
//Problem #1 Pointless Middle-Men Actions When Using The Pattern: ActionToServer->WebAPIUtils->ActionWithPayload
//Note: Many say to not call WebAPIUtils directly in Components
checkForSession: function(callback){
/* Notice how this action SEEMED to not need the dispatcher
because its a call to a server and I wait for a return to call an Action
that can actually dispatch a payload)*/
WebAPIUtils.hasSession(callback);
},
WebAPIUtils.js
//Problem #2 Async Actions calling dependent Actions
//ActionA -> ActionB is supposedly an anti pattern instead of :ActionA -> Dispatcher -> Store -> View -> ActionB
var hasSession = function(callbackDepOnUserData) {
let jwt = localStorage.getItem('jwt');
if (jwt) {
$.ajax(this.href, {
success: function(userData) {
ServerActionCreators.receiveUserPayloadInStore(userData);//Async Action that will actually sends a payload(I'm kinda okay with this action)
callbackDepOnUserData(true);//This callback(which is an action)feels like an anti-pattern but it the only way to call after dependent data is
//available in store
},
});
}
else{
console.log("does not have a session");
}
}

What is the best control flow module for node.js?

I've used caolan's async module which is very good, however tracking errors and the varying way of passing data through for control flow causes development to sometimes be very difficult.
I would like to know if there are any better options, or what is currently being used in production environments.
Thanks for reading.
I use async as well. To help tracking errors it's recommended you name your functions, instead of having loads of anonymous functions:
async.series([
function doSomething() {...},
function doSomethingElse() {...},
function finish() {...}
]);
This way you'll get more helpful information in stack traces.
...however tracking errors and the varying way of passing data through for control flow causes development to sometimes be very difficult.
I've recently created a simple abstraction named "wait.for" to call async functions in sync mode (based on Fibers): https://github.com/luciotato/waitfor
Using wait.for, you can use 'try/catch' while still calling async functions, and you keep function scope (no closures needed). Example:
function inAFiber(param){
try{
var data= wait.for(fs.readFile,'someFile'); //async function
var result = wait.for(doSomethingElse,data,param); //another async function
otherFunction(result);
}
catch(e) {
//here you catch if some of the "waited.for"
// async functions returned "err" in callback
// or if otherFunction throws
};
see the examples at https://github.com/luciotato/waitfor
Sometimes it is hard to put all the functions in an array. When you have an array of objects and want to do something for each object, I use something like the example below.
read more in: http://coppieters.blogspot.be/2013/03/iterator-for-async-nodejs-operations.html
var list = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
var sum = 0;
Application.each(list, function forEachNumber(done) {
sum += this;
// next statement most often called as callback in an async operation
// file, network or database stuff
done(); // pass an error if something went wrong and automatically end here
}, function whenDone(err) {
if (err)
console.log("error: " + err);
else
console.log("sum = " + sum);
});
I name the functions, because it is easier to debug (and easier to read)

Resources