Suppose I have the following code.
function divide(numerator, denominator) {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
if(denominator === 0){
reject("Cannot divide by 0");
return; //superfluous?
}
resolve(numerator / denominator);
});
}
If my aim is to use reject
to exit early, should I get into the habit of return
ing immediately afterward as well?
The return
purpose is to terminate the execution of the function after the rejection, and prevent the execution of the code after it.
function divide(numerator, denominator) {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
if (denominator === 0) {
reject("Cannot divide by 0");
return; // The function execution ends here
}
resolve(numerator / denominator);
});
}
In this case it prevents the resolve(numerator / denominator);
from executing, which is not strictly needed. However, it's still preferable to terminate the execution to prevent a possible trap in the future. In addition, it's a good practice to prevent running code needlessly.
Background
A promise can be in one of 3 states:
When a promise is fulfilled or rejected, it will stay in this state indefinitely (settled). So, rejecting a fulfilled promise or fulfilling a rejected promise, will have not effect.
This example snippet shows that although the promise was fulfilled after being rejected, it stayed rejected.
function divide(numerator, denominator) {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
if (denominator === 0) {
reject("Cannot divide by 0");
}
resolve(numerator / denominator);
});
}
divide(5,0)
.then((result) => console.log('result: ', result))
.catch((error) => console.log('error: ', error));
So why do we need to return?
Although we can't change a settled promise state, rejecting or resolving won't stop the execution of the rest of the function. The function may contain code that will create confusing results. For example:
function divide(numerator, denominator) {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
if (denominator === 0) {
reject("Cannot divide by 0");
}
console.log('operation succeeded');
resolve(numerator / denominator);
});
}
divide(5, 0)
.then((result) => console.log('result: ', result))
.catch((error) => console.log('error: ', error));
Even if the function doesn't contain such code right now, this creates a possible future trap. A future refactor might ignore the fact that the code is still executed after the promise is rejected, and will be hard to debug.
Stopping the execution after resolve/reject:
This is standard JS control flow stuff.
resolve
/ reject
:function divide(numerator, denominator) {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
if (denominator === 0) {
reject("Cannot divide by 0");
return;
}
console.log('operation succeeded');
resolve(numerator / denominator);
});
}
divide(5, 0)
.then((result) => console.log('result: ', result))
.catch((error) => console.log('error: ', error));
resolve
/ reject
- since the return value of the callback is ignored, we can save a line by returning the reject/resolve statement:function divide(numerator, denominator) {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
if (denominator === 0) {
return reject("Cannot divide by 0");
}
console.log('operation succeeded');
resolve(numerator / denominator);
});
}
divide(5, 0)
.then((result) => console.log('result: ', result))
.catch((error) => console.log('error: ', error));
function divide(numerator, denominator) {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
if (denominator === 0) {
reject("Cannot divide by 0");
} else {
console.log('operation succeeded');
resolve(numerator / denominator);
}
});
}
divide(5, 0)
.then((result) => console.log('result: ', result))
.catch((error) => console.log('error: ', error));
I prefer to use one of the return
options as the code is flatter.