- PromiseKit has a heavy focus on developer-experience. You’re a developer, do you care about your experience? Yes? Then pick PromiseKit.
- Do you care about having any bugs you find fixed? Then pick PromiseKit.
- Do you care about having your input heard and reacted to in a fast fashion? Then pick PromiseKit.
- Do you want a library that has been maintained continuously and passionately for 6 years? Then pick PromiseKit.
- Do you want a library that the community has chosen to be their №1 Promises/Futures library? Then pick PromiseKit.
- Do you want to be able to use Promises with Apple’s SDKs rather than have to do all the work of writing the Promise implementations yourself? Then pick PromiseKit.
- Do you want to be able to use Promises with Swift 3.x, Swift 4.x, ObjC, iOS, tvOS, watchOS, macOS, Android & Linux? Then pick PromiseKit.
- PromiseKit verifies its correctness by testing against the entire Promises/A+ test suite.
Generally no, provided the promise completes then all handlers are released thus
any references to self are also released.
However, if your chain contains side-effects that you would typically
not want to happen after, say, a view controller is popped then you should still
use weak self (and check for self == nil) to prevent any such side-effects.
However, in our experience most things that developers consider side-effects that should be protected against are in fact not side-effects.
Side-effects include: changes to global application state. They do not include
changing the view of a viewController. So, protect against setting UserDefaults or
modifying the application database, and don't bother protecting against changing
the text in a UILabel.
This stackoverflow question has some good discussion on the topic.
catch deliberately terminates the chain, you should place low in your promise
hierarchy: at as-root a point as possible. Typically this would be your view
controllers where your catch can then display a message to the user.
This means you should be writing one catch for many thens and be returning
promises without there being catch handlers.
This is obviously a guideline, do what is necessary.
If you have a promise:
let promise = foo()
And you call then twice:
promise.then {
// branch A
}
promise.then {
// branch B
}
You now have a branched chain. When promise resolves both chains receive its
value. However the two chains are entirely separate and Swift will prompt you
to ensure both have catch handlers.
Probably, however, you can ignore the catch for one, but be careful in these situations as Swift cannot help you ensure your chains are error-handled.
promise.then {
// branch A
}.catch { error in
//…
}
_ = promise.then {
print("foo")
// ignoring errors here as print cannot error and we handle errors above
}
It may be safer to recombine the two branches into a single chain again:
let p1 = promise.then {
// branch A
}
let p2 = promise.then {
// branch B
}
when(fulfilled: p1, p2).catch { error in
//…
}
It's worth noting that you can add multiple
catchhandlers to a promise too, and indeed, both will be called if the chain is rejected.
No, PromiseKit is hardly any sources in fact, it is “light-weight”. Any “weight” relative to other promise implementations is 6 years of bug fixes, the fact we have stellar Objective-C to Swift bridging or important things like Zalgo prevention that hobby-project implementations don’t consider.
Because promises always execute via dispatch the backtraces you get have less
information than is often required to trace the path of execution.
One solution is (during debugging) to turn off the dispatch:
// Swift
DispatchQueue.default = zalgo
//ObjC
PMKSetDefaultDispatchQueue(zalgo)Don’t leave this on, we always dispatch to avoid you accidentally writing a common bug pattern: http://blog.izs.me/post/59142742143/designing-apis-for-asynchrony
Some promise libraries provide all, we provide when, it is the same. when
was chosen as it is the more common choice which we also think reads better.
You need to use XCTestExpectation.
We also provide .wait() and hang(), if you must, but be careful as they
block the current thread!
Yes, entirely.
However the code you write in your thens might not be!
Just make sure you don’t access state outside the chain from concurrent queues.
By default PromiseKit handlers run on the main thread, which is serial, so
typically you won't have to worry about this.
Promise<T> is generic and and thus cannot be represented by Objective-C.
Yes, we have tests that prove this.
Swift demands functions with one purpose, thus we have two error handlers:
catch: ends the chain and handles errorsrecover: attempts to recover from errors in a chain
You want recover.
Often people are confused about when Promises “start”. Is it immediately? Is it later? Is it when you call then?
The answer is: promises do not choose when the underlying task they represent starts. That is up to that task. For example here is the code for a simple promise that wraps Alamofire:
func foo() -> Promise<Any>
return Promise { seal in
Alamofire.request(rq).responseJSON { rsp in
seal.resolve(rsp.value, rsp.error)
}
}
}Who chooses when this promise starts? The answer is: Alamofire does and in this
case, it “starts” immediately when foo() is called.
There is no good way to use Firebase with PromiseKit. See the next question for rationale.
The best option is to embed your chain in your firebase handler:
foo.observe(.value) { snapshot in
firstly {
bar(with: snapshot)
}.then {
baz()
}.then {
baffle()
}.catch {
//…
}
}
Then we’re afraid that you cannot use PromiseKit for that event. Promises only
resolve once, this is the fundamental nature of promises and is considered a
feature since it gives you guarantees about the flow of your chains.
You can change the values of PromiseKit.conf.Q, there are two variables that
change the defaults that the two kinds of handler run upon. Thus a typical
pattern is to change all your then-type handlers to run in a background queue
and have all your “finalizers” run on the main queue:
PromiseKit.conf.Q.map = .global()
PromiseKit.conf.Q.return = .main //NOTE this is the default
Be very careful about setting either of these queues to nil. It has the
effect of running immediately, and this is not what you usually want to do in
your application. This is, however, useful when you are running specs, and want
your promises to resolve immediately (basically the same behavior as "stubbing"
an HTTP request).
// in your test suite setup code
PromiseKit.conf.Q.map = nil
PromiseKit.conf.Q.return = nilIf your server framework requires the main-queue remain unused (eg. Kitura) then you must use PromiseKit 6 and you must tell PromiseKit to not dispatch to the main-queue by default. This is easy enough:
PromiseKit.conf.Q = (map: DispatchQueue.global(), return: DispatchQueue.global())Here’s a more full example:
import Foundation
import HeliumLogger
import Kitura
import LoggerAPI
import PromiseKit
HeliumLogger.use(.info)
PromiseKit.conf.Q = (map: DispatchQueue.global(), return: DispatchQueue.global())
let router = Router()
router.get("/") { _, response, next in
Log.info("Request received")
after(seconds: 1.0).done {
Log.info("Sending response")
response.send("OK")
next()
}
}
Log.info("Starting server")
Kitura.addHTTPServer(onPort: 8888, with: router)
Kitura.run()