Welcome to OGeek Q&A Community for programmer and developer-Open, Learning and Share
Welcome To Ask or Share your Answers For Others

Categories

0 votes
239 views
in Technique[技术] by (71.8m points)

node.js - Javascript Promise Pattern - differentiate error

Consider this block of code:

    getUser(userId)
    .catch(function(error){
        crashreporter.reportError('User DB failed', error);
        // show user a generic error
    })
    .then(function(user) {
        return chargeCreditCard(user);
    })
    .catch(function(error){
        crashreporter.reportError('Credit card failed', error);
        // show user an error saying that their credit card got rejected
    })

Obviously, the problem with this is that the THEN(USER) block gets executed if User DB fails. Another option is to move the first catch block to the end of the chain. However, that causes another issue! We won't be able to differentiate whether the error comes from the User DB or CreditCard.

Is the following pattern, which I think solves the problem, considered a Promise Anti Pattern? Is there a better way of doing this? The problem that I see with this, is that you can end up in a semi-callback hell.

    getUser(userId)
    .then(function(user) {
        return chargeCreditCard(user)
              .catch(function(error){
                  crashreporter.reportError('Credit card failed', error);
                  // show user an error saying that their credit card got rejected
              });
    })
    .catch(function(error){
        crashreporter.reportError('User DB failed', error);
        // show user a generic error
    })

Edit: I guess I haven't been very clear. What if there are more THEN blocks, like what below. The problem is that once you hit one ERROR, you don't want the chain to continue at all.

getUser(userId)
    .then(function(user) {
        return chargeCreditCard(user);
    }, function(error){
        crashreporter.reportError('User DB failed', error);
        // show user a error 1
    })
    .then(function(chargeId) {
        return saveChargeId(chargeId);
    }, function(error){
        crashreporter.reportError('ChargeId DB failed', error);
        // show user a error 2
    })
    .then(function(chargeHistoryId) {
        return associateChargeToUsers(chargeHistoryId);
    }, function(error){
        crashreporter.reportError('chargeHistoryId DB failed', error);
        // show user a error 3
    })
    .catch(function(error){
        crashreporter.reportError('Credit card failed', error);
        // show user a error 4
    })
See Question&Answers more detail:os

与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…
Welcome To Ask or Share your Answers For Others

1 Reply

0 votes
by (71.8m points)

Is the following pattern, which I think solves the problem, considered a Promise Anti Pattern?

No, it's fine.

Is there a better way of doing this?

Yes, have a look at the difference between .then(…).catch(…) and .then(…, …). If you want to strictly distinguish the success case (continue) from the error case (report this specific problem), passing two callbacks to then is a better idea. That way, the outer handler cannot be triggered by a failure from the success case code, only from failures in the promise it was installed on. In your case:

getUser(userId)
.then(function(user) {
    return chargeCreditCard(user)
    .then(function(chargeId) {
        return saveChargeId(chargeId)
        .then(function(chargeHistoryId) {
            return associateChargeToUsers(chargeHistoryId);
            .then(function(result) {
                return finalFormatting(result);
            }, function(error){
                crashreporter.reportError('chargeHistoryId DB failed', error);
                return 3;
            });
        }, function(error){
            crashreporter.reportError('ChargeId DB failed', error);
            return 2;
        });
    }, function(error){
        crashreporter.reportError('Credit card failed', error);
        return 4;
    });
}, function(error){
    crashreporter.reportError('User DB failed', error);
    return 1;
})
.then(showToUser);

Though you might want to use a generic error handler:

getUser(userId)
.catch(function(error){
    crashreporter.reportError('User DB failed', error);
    throw new Error(1);
})
.then(function(user) {
    return chargeCreditCard(user)
    .catch(function(error){
        crashreporter.reportError('Credit card failed', error);
        throw new Error(4);
    });
})
.then(function(chargeId) {
    return saveChargeId(chargeId);
    .catch(function(error){
        crashreporter.reportError('ChargeId DB failed', error);
        throw new Error(2);
    });
})
.then(function(chargeHistoryId) {
    return associateChargeToUsers(chargeHistoryId);
    .catch(function(error){
        crashreporter.reportError('chargeHistoryId DB failed', error);
        throw new Error(3);
    });
})
.then(function(result) {
    return finalFormatting(result);
}, function(error) {
    return error.message;
})
.then(showToUser);

Here, every then callback does return a promise that rejects with the appropriate error on its own. Ideally every of the called functions already did that, when they don't and you need to append a specific catch to each of them you might want to use a wrapper helper function (maybe as part of the crashreporter?).

function withCrashReporting(fn, msg, n) {
    return function(x) {
        return fn(x)
        .catch(function(error){
            crashreporter.reportError(msg, error);
            throw new Error(n);
        });
    };
}
withCrashReporting(getUser, 'User DB failed', 1)(userId)
.then(withCrashReporting(chargeCreditCard, 'Credit card failed', 4))
.then(withCrashReporting(saveChargeId, 'ChargeId DB failed', 2))
.then(withCrashReporting(associateChargeToUsers, 'chargeHistoryId DB failed', 3))
.then(finalFormatting, function(error) {
    return error.message;
})
.then(showToUser);

The problem that I see with this, is that you can end up in a semi-callback hell.

Nah, it's just an appropriate level of wrapping. In contrast to callback hell, it can be flattened down to a maximum nesting of two, and it always has a return value.

If you absolutely want to avoid nesting and callbacks, use async/await, though that's actually even uglier:

try {
    var user = await getUser(userId);
} catch(error) {
    crashreporter.reportError('User DB failed', error);
    return showToUser(1);
}
try {
    var chargeId = chargeCreditCard(user);
} catch(error) {
    crashreporter.reportError('Credit card failed', error);
    return showToUser(4);
}
try {
    var chargeHistoryId = saveChargeId(chargeId);
} catch(error) {
    crashreporter.reportError('ChargeId DB failed', error);
    return showToUser(2);
}
try {
    var result = associateChargeToUsers(chargeHistoryId);
} catch(error) {
    crashreporter.reportError('chargeHistoryId DB failed', error);
    return showToUser(3);
}
return showToUser(finalFormatting(result));

与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…
OGeek|极客中国-欢迎来到极客的世界,一个免费开放的程序员编程交流平台!开放,进步,分享!让技术改变生活,让极客改变未来! Welcome to OGeek Q&A Community for programmer and developer-Open, Learning and Share
Click Here to Ask a Question

...