5 ms·
And the "correct" code would be this for instance: export default function getUsers () { return getUsers().then(users => { return filterUsersWithFr
by lhecker 10y ago
And the "correct" code would be this for instance:
export default function getUsers () {
return getUsers().then(users => {
return filterUsersWithFriends(users)
.catch(err => trySomethingElse(users));
});
}
Or if you like one-liners:
export default function getUsers () {
return getUsers().then(users => filterUsersWithFriends(users).catch(err => trySomethingElse(users)));
}
- untog 10y ago(EDIT: ahem, that'll teach me to not look at the code I'm editing)
- savanaly 10y agoI dont think this quite works. For one thing, the users references won't be available when you try to use it in trySomethingElse(users), because it's scoped to that little arrow function above. For another, it has the effect of catching any error thrown by getUsers() and calling trySomethingElse, whereas the original code simply did nothing in that case.
- davej 10y agoThis isn't correct, `users` would be undefined.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- taranw85 10y agoThat still doesn't look as nice as await.
- eyko 10y agoYou're still nesting. Considering the whole point the author made was that something went wrong with `filterUsersWithFriends`, then you would simply handle that in the next `.then`... So something like: export default function getUsers () { return getUsers() .then(users => filterUsersWithFriends) .then(getUsersLikes, trySomethingElse); } would have been more than enough.
- md224 10y agoI think the problem with your solution is that trySomethingElse won't have access to the users variable unless the filterUsersWithFriends rejection explicitly passes it through.