553

Ordinarily, a Promise is constructed and used like this:

new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
  const obj = new MyEventEmitter();
  obj.onsuccess = (event) => { resolve(event.result); };
  obj.onerror = (event) => { reject(event.error); };
});

But recently, I have been doing something like this to take the resolver outside the executor callback for the sake of flexibility:

let outsideResolve;
let outsideReject;
new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
  outsideResolve = resolve; 
  outsideReject = reject; 
});

And later:

onClick = function() {
  outsideResolve();
}

This works fine, but is there an easier way to do this? If not, is this a good practice?

6
  • 3
    I don't think there is another way. I believe it is specified that the callback passed to Promise has to be executed synchronously to allow "exporting" the two functions. Commented Oct 1, 2014 at 20:44
  • 1
    This works for me exactly like you wrote it. So as far as I'm concerned, this is the "canonical" way. Commented Jul 31, 2016 at 8:40
  • 53
    I think there should be a formal way to achieve this in the future. This feature is very powerful in my opinion as you can wait for values from other contexts. Commented Apr 3, 2018 at 12:47
  • 1
    I think the Promise API "suggest" to always use them as return values and never as objects that you can access or call. In other words force us to treat them as return values instead of objects we can access or functions we can call or something we can reference with a variable or pass as a parameter, etc. If you start using promises as any other object probably you will end up needing to resolve it from outside like in your question... That being said, I also think there should should be a formal way of doing this... and Deferred seems just a workaround for me. Commented May 14, 2019 at 7:44
  • @Jose For me it's been useful a couple times, when I need a Promise to resolve immediately after another promise, in cases where Promise.all or Promise.race don't work. Commented Mar 16, 2021 at 21:51

23 Answers 23

283

simple:

var promiseResolve, promiseReject;

var promise = new Promise(function(resolve, reject){
  promiseResolve = resolve;
  promiseReject = reject;
});

promiseResolve();
Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

9 Comments

@ruX, As the accepted answer mentions - it was designed this way on purpose. The point is that if an exception is thrown it will be caught by the promise constructor. This answer (as well as mine) has the pitfall of possibly throwing an exception for whatever code calls promiseResolve(). The semantics of a promise are that it always returns a value. Also this is functionally the same as OP's post, I don't get what problem this is solving in a reusable way.
@JonJaques I'm not sure if what you say is true. The code that calls promiseResolve() will not throw an exception. You can define a .catch on the constructor and no matter what code calls it, the constructor's .catch will be called. Here is the jsbin demonstrating how this works: jsbin.com/yicerewivo/edit?js,console
Yeah, it's caught because you wrapped another promise constructor around it - Exactly the point I'm trying to make. However, lets say you have some other code that's trying to call resolve() outside of the constructor (aka Deferred object)... It could throw an exception and not be caught jsbin.com/cokiqiwapo/1/edit?js,console
I am not even sure it is a bad design. An error thrown outside the promise isn't supposed to be caught within the promise. It is perhaps an example of misconception or bad understanding, if the designer actually expects the error to be caught within.
This exact construct is already mentioned in the question. Did you even read it?
|
172

Bit late to the party here, but another way to do it would be to use a Deferred object. You essentially have the same amount of boilerplate, but it's handy if you want to pass them around and possibly resolve outside of their definition.

Naive Implementation:

class Deferred {
  constructor() {
    this.promise = new Promise((resolve, reject)=> {
      this.reject = reject
      this.resolve = resolve
    })
  }
}

function asyncAction() {
  var dfd = new Deferred()

  setTimeout(()=> {
    dfd.resolve(42)
  }, 500)

  return dfd.promise
}

asyncAction().then(result => {
  console.log(result) // 42
})

ES5 Version:

function Deferred() {
  var self = this;
  this.promise = new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
    self.reject = reject
    self.resolve = resolve
  })
}

function asyncAction() {
  var dfd = new Deferred()

  setTimeout(function() {
    dfd.resolve(42)
  }, 500)

  return dfd.promise
}

asyncAction().then(function(result) {
  console.log(result) // 42
})

10 Comments

Do notice the lexical scoping here.
There is no practical difference in whether resolve|reject are assigned lexically or through bind. This is just a simple implementation of the jQuery Deferred object that has been around since 1.0(ish). It works exactly like a promise, except there is no throw safety. The whole point of this question was how to save a few lines of code when creating promises.
Using a deferred is the usual way to do this, I have no idea why this isn't higher
Excellent answer! Was looking for the deferred functionality that jQuery offers.
Is Deferred deprecated?
|
148

As of ECMAScript 2024 – yes, use Promise.withResolvers().

For earlier versions, there is no other way to do this – but one thing I can say is that this use case isn't very common. Like Felix said in the comment – what you do will consistently work.

It's worth mentioning that the reason the promise constructor behaves this way is throw-safety – if an exception you did not anticipate happens while your code is running inside the promise constructor it will turn into a rejection, this form of throw safety – converting thrown errors to rejections is important and helps maintain predictable code.

For this throw-safety reason, the executor callback was chosen over deferreds (which are an alternative promise construction way that do allow what you're doing) – as for best practices – I'd pass the element and use the promise constructor instead:

const p = new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
    this.onclick = resolve;
});

For this reason – whenever you can use the promise constructor over exporting the functions – I recommend you do use it. Whenever you can avoid both – avoid both and chain.

15 Comments

Hi Benjamin! Is there currently no better way of getting yummy promise sugar if we don't know when the promise will be fulfilled yet? Like some sort of asynchronous wait/notify pattern? Like for example, "store", and later invoke a Promise chain? E.g. in my particular case, I am on a server, waiting for a specific client reply (a SYN-ACK-kinda hand-shake to make sure the client successfully updated state).
How could do I the same using fetch API?
Not common? I end up needing it almost every project.
As for the usecase consider you need to do something after an event is triggered and something else happened. You want to transform event into a promise and unite it with another promise. Seems like a generic problem to me.
It would be so handy if you could just var p = new Promise(); p.resolve()
|
39

I liked @JonJaques answer but I wanted to take it a step further.

If you bind then and catch then the Deferred object, then it fully implements the Promise API and you can treat it as promise and await it and such.

⚠️ Editor's Note: I don't recommend this kind of pattern anymore since at the time of writing, Promise.prototype.finally was not a thing yet, then it became a thing… This could happen to other methods so I recommend you augment the promise instance with resolve and reject functions instead:

function createDeferredPromise() {
  let resolve
  let reject

  const promise = new Promise((thisResolve, thisReject) => {
    resolve = thisResolve
    reject = thisReject
  })

  return Object.assign(promise, {resolve, reject})
}

Go upvote someone else's answer.

class DeferredPromise {
  constructor() {
    this._promise = new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
      // assign the resolve and reject functions to `this`
      // making them usable on the class instance
      this.resolve = resolve;
      this.reject = reject;
    });
    // bind `then` and `catch` to implement the same interface as Promise
    this.then = this._promise.then.bind(this._promise);
    this.catch = this._promise.catch.bind(this._promise);
    this.finally = this._promise.finally.bind(this._promise);
    this[Symbol.toStringTag] = 'Promise';
  }
}

const deferred = new DeferredPromise();
console.log('waiting 2 seconds...');
setTimeout(() => {
  deferred.resolve('whoa!');
}, 2000);

async function someAsyncFunction() {
  const value = await deferred;
  console.log(value);
}

someAsyncFunction();

4 Comments

I really love this. Thank you. I'm using it as a custom defined component in my Express app, but it'd be great as an NPM module if you were willing to create one, or I could if needed. This approach is a great mashup of the new async / await and how the old Parse Platform used to approach promises en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parse_(platform)
Don’t forget the Promise.prototype.finally.
Good catch @КонстантинВан, I haven't seen this answer in a minute and I don't recommend this anymore. I've updated the answer to reflect
Well, if you’re worrying about possible future changes in the methods of Promise, you could also generalize the mapping work by looping through the properties of Promise, no?
31

A solution I came up with in 2015 for my framework. I called this type of promises Task

function createPromise(handler){
  var resolve, reject;

  var promise = new Promise(function(_resolve, _reject){
    resolve = _resolve; 
    reject = _reject;
    if(handler) handler(resolve, reject);
  })
  
  promise.resolve = resolve;
  promise.reject = reject;
  return promise;
}


// create
var promise = createPromise()
promise.then(function(data){ alert(data) })

// resolve from outside
promise.resolve(200)

3 Comments

Thanks, this worked. But what is handler? I had to remove it to get it working.
@Sahid when you run createPromise() you need to pass a function as argument to it. otherwise the code does not work. You could have an if statement and check for the validity of the handler argument before calling it.
Thanks for the code! But isn't it possible for some other code to call your .resolve before the callback sets it? I'm used to regular threads, not asynchronous events, so I might be a bit confused.
23

Accepted answer is wrong. It's pretty easy using scope and references, though it may make Promise purists angry:

const createPromise = () => {
    let resolver;
    return [
        new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
            resolver = resolve;
        }),
        resolver,
    ];
};

const [ promise, resolver ] = createPromise();
promise.then(value => console.log(value));
setTimeout(() => resolver('foo'), 1000);

We are essentially grabbing the reference to the resolve function when the promise is created, and we return that so it can be set externally.

In one second the console will output:

> foo

4 Comments

I think this is the best approach. The only thing is that the code could be a bit less verbose.
Nice! Clever idea. +50 if I could.
This is just what OP did. In fact you are re-inventing Deferred pattern over Promises, of course this is possible and your approach works (as the initial OP code), but this is not the best practice due to "throw safety reason" described in the accepted answer.
@Mitya I mean, you could if you really wanted to
18

Just in case somebody came looking for a TypeScript version of a util simplifying this task:

export const deferred = <T>() => {
  let resolve!: (value: T | PromiseLike<T>) => void;
  let reject!: (reason?: unknown) => void;
  const promise = new Promise<T>((res, rej) => {
    resolve = res;
    reject = rej;
  });
  return { resolve, reject, promise };
};

This can be used eg. like:

const { promise, resolve } = deferred<string>();

promise.then((value) => console.log(value)); // nothing

resolve('foo'); // console.log: foo

Comments

16

A helper method would alleviate this extra overhead, and give you the same jQuery feel.

function Deferred() {
    let resolve;
    let reject;
    const promise = new Promise((res, rej) => {
        resolve = res;
        reject = rej;
    });
    return { promise, resolve, reject };
}

Usage would be

const { promise, resolve, reject } = Deferred();
displayConfirmationDialog({
    confirm: resolve,
    cancel: reject
});
return promise;

Which is similar to jQuery

const dfd = $.Deferred();
displayConfirmationDialog({
    confirm: dfd.resolve,
    cancel: dfd.reject
});
return dfd.promise();

Although, in a use case this simple, native syntax is fine

return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
    displayConfirmationDialog({
        confirm: resolve,
        cancel: reject
    });
});

Comments

13

I'm using a helper function to create what I call a "flat promise" -

function flatPromise() {

    let resolve, reject;

    const promise = new Promise((res, rej) => {
      resolve = res;
      reject = rej;
    });

    return { promise, resolve, reject };
}

And I'm using it like so -

function doSomethingAsync() {

    // Get your promise and callbacks
    const { resolve, reject, promise } = flatPromise();

    // Do something amazing...
    setTimeout(() => {
        resolve('done!');
    }, 500);

    // Pass your promise to the world
    return promise;

}

See full working example -

function flatPromise() {

    let resolve, reject;

    const promise = new Promise((res, rej) => {
        resolve = res;
        reject = rej;
    });

    return { promise, resolve, reject };
}

function doSomethingAsync() {
    
    // Get your promise and callbacks
    const { resolve, reject, promise } = flatPromise();

    // Do something amazing...
    setTimeout(() => {
        resolve('done!');
    }, 500);

    // Pass your promise to the world
    return promise;
}

(async function run() {

    const result = await doSomethingAsync()
        .catch(err => console.error('rejected with', err));
    console.log(result);

})();

Edit: I have created an NPM package called flat-promise and the code is also available on GitHub.

Comments

12

You can wrap the Promise in a class.

class Deferred {
    constructor(handler) {
        this.promise = new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
            this.reject = reject;
            this.resolve = resolve;
            handler(resolve, reject);
        });

        this.promise.resolve = this.resolve;
        this.promise.reject = this.reject;

        return this.promise;
    }
    promise;
    resolve;
    reject;
}

// How to use.
const promise = new Deferred((resolve, reject) => {
  // Use like normal Promise.
});

promise.resolve(); // Resolve from any context.

Comments

10

I find myself missing the Deferred pattern as well in certain cases. You can always create one on top of a ES6 Promise:

export default class Deferred<T> {
    private _resolve: (value: T) => void = () => {};
    private _reject: (value: T) => void = () => {};

    private _promise: Promise<T> = new Promise<T>((resolve, reject) => {
        this._reject = reject;
        this._resolve = resolve;
    })

    public get promise(): Promise<T> {
        return this._promise;
    }

    public resolve(value: T) {
        this._resolve(value);
    }

    public reject(value: T) {
        this._reject(value);
    }
}

1 Comment

I like this one. I would just change the signature from reject to reject(reason: any)
9

Many of the answers here are similar to the last example in this article. I am caching multiple Promises, and the resolve() and reject() functions can be assigned to any variable or property. As a result I am able to make this code slightly more compact:

function defer(obj) {
    obj.promise = new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
        obj.resolve = resolve;
        obj.reject  = reject;
    });
}

Here is a simplified example of using this version of defer() to combine a FontFace load Promise with another async process:

function onDOMContentLoaded(evt) {
    let all = []; // array of Promises
    glob = {};    // global object used elsewhere
    defer(glob);
    all.push(glob.promise);
    // launch async process with callback = resolveGlob()

    const myFont = new FontFace("myFont", "url(myFont.woff2)");
    document.fonts.add(myFont);
    myFont.load();
    all.push[myFont];
    Promise.all(all).then(() => { runIt(); }, (v) => { alert(v); });
}
//...
function resolveGlob() {
    glob.resolve();
}
function runIt() {} // runs after all promises resolved 

Update: 2 alternatives in case you want to encapsulate the object:

function defer(obj = {}) {
    obj.promise = new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
        obj.resolve = resolve;
        obj.reject  = reject;
    });
    return obj;
}
let deferred = defer();

and

class Deferred {
    constructor() {
        this.promise = new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
            this.resolve = resolve;
            this.reject  = reject;
        });
    }
}
let deferred = new Deferred();

1 Comment

If you're using these examples in an async function, you'll need to refer to the promise property, when you want to use the value of the resolved promise: const result = await deferred.promise;
6

In the near future, we will be able to use the native Promise.withResolvers(), which is now at stage 4 and already implemented in Blink/WebKit based browsers at the time of writing.

In the meantime, I'm using a utility function with the same signature:

export default function usePromise<T = void>() {
  const noop = () => {};

  let localResolve: (value: T | PromiseLike<T>) => void = noop;
  let localReject: (reason?: unknown) => void = noop;

  const promise = new Promise<T>((resolve, reject) => {
    localResolve = resolve;
    localReject = reject;
  });

  return {
    promise,
    resolve: localResolve,
    reject: localReject,
  };
}

// Usage
const { promise, resolve, reject } = usePromise();

// Example
const triggerEl = document.querySelector('.trigger');
const someEl = document.querySelector('.dummy-element');

const { promise, resolve } = usePromise();

someEl.addEventListener('transitionend', () => {
  resolve();
});

triggerEl.addEventListener('click', async () => {
  someEl.classList.add('fade-out');

  await promise;

  // Wait until transition ends before removing the element
  someEl.remove();
});

It is worth mentioning that this is also a valid Vue3 composable.

Comments

4

Our solution was to use closures to store the resolve/reject functions and additionally attach a function to extend the promise itself.

Here is the pattern:

function getPromise() {

    var _resolve, _reject;

    var promise = new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
        _reject = reject;
        _resolve = resolve;
    });

    promise.resolve_ex = (value) => {
       _resolve(value);
    };

    promise.reject_ex = (value) => {
       _reject(value);
    };

    return promise;
}

And using it:

var promise = getPromise();

promise.then(value => {
    console.info('The promise has been fulfilled: ' + value);
});

promise.resolve_ex('hello');  
// or the reject version 
//promise.reject_ex('goodbye');

5 Comments

Great... I'm just learning Promises but have been consistently puzzled by the fact that you don't appear to be able to resolve them "somewhere else". Using a closure to hide implementation details is a great idea... but in fact I'm not sure that's what you've done: rather than have "pseudo" private variables I'm pretty sure there's a way to completely conceal the variables which should be inaccessible... which is really what closures mean...
> A closure is a block of code that can be referenced (and passed around) with access to the variables of the enclosing scope. var _resolve, _reject; are the enclosing scope.
yep, fair enough. Actually it seems to me that my answer is overcomplicating things, and furthermore that your answer can be simplified: you just need to go promise.resolve_ex = _resolve; promise.reject_ex = _reject; ... still works fine.
"attach a function to extend the promise itself." - don't do that. Promises are result values, they should not provide the capability to resolve them. You don't want to pass those extended ones around.
The question was how to resolve it outside of the scope. Here is a solution that works, and in our production we have actually had a necessary reason to do it. I don't see why solving the problem stated deserves a downvote.
3

Class version, in Typescript :

export class Deferred<T> {
    public readonly promise: Promise<T>
    private resolveFn!: (value: T | PromiseLike<T>) => void
    private rejectFn!: (reason?: any) => void

    public constructor() {
        this.promise = new Promise<T>((resolve, reject) => {
            this.resolveFn = resolve
            this.rejectFn = reject
        })
    }

    public reject(reason?: any): void {
        this.rejectFn(reason)
    }

    public resolve(param: T): void {
        this.resolveFn(param)
    }
}

Comments

2

Yes, you can. By using the CustomEvent API for the browser environment. And using an event emitter project in node.js environments. Since the snippet in the question is for the browser environment, here is a working example for the same.

function myPromiseReturningFunction(){
  return new Promise(resolve => {
    window.addEventListener("myCustomEvent", (event) => {
       resolve(event.detail);
    }) 
  })
}


myPromiseReturningFunction().then(result => {
   alert(result)
})

document.getElementById("p").addEventListener("click", () => {
   window.dispatchEvent(new CustomEvent("myCustomEvent", {detail : "It works!"}))
})
<p id="p"> Click me </p>

I hope this answer is useful!

Comments

2

Use Promise.withResolvers()

The Promise.withResolvers() static method returns an object containing a new Promise object and two functions to resolve or reject it, corresponding to the two parameters passed to the executor of the Promise() constructor.

 let { promise, resolve, reject } = Promise.withResolvers();
 stream.on("error", (error) => reject(error));
 stream.on("end", () => resolve());
 stream.on("readable", () => resolve());

link do documentation

browser support

1 Comment

Downvote all you want. This is the solution he was looking for
1

The most concise solution I found to this issue is Promise.withResolvers()

const { promise, resolve, reject } = Promise.withResolvers();

The function returns an object allowing invokation from outside the executor function.

Comments

0

Just another solution to resolve Promise from the outside

 class Lock {
        #lock;  // Promise to be resolved (on  release)
        release;  // Release lock
        id;  // Id of lock
        constructor(id) {
            this.id = id
            this.#lock = new Promise((resolve) => {
                this.release = () => {
                    if (resolve) {
                        resolve()
                    } else {
                        Promise.resolve()
                    }
                }
            })
        }
        get() { return this.#lock }
    }

Usage

let lock = new Lock(... some id ...);
...
lock.get().then(()=>{console.log('resolved/released')})
lock.release()  // Excpected 'resolved/released'

Comments

0

I would like to share something different, an extension to this topic.

Sometimes you want a "task promise" to be automatically re-created at the same address (property or variable) when it resolves. It's possible to create an outside resolver that does just that.

Example of a recurring promise with an external resolver. Whenever the resolver is called, a new promise is created at the same address/variable/property.

let resolvePromise;
let thePromise;

const setPromise = (resolve) => {
  resolvePromise = () => {
    resolve();
    thePromise = new Promise(setPromise);   
  }
}
thePromise = new Promise(setPromise);

(async () => {
  let i = 0;
  while (true) {
    let msg = (i % 2 === 0) ? 'Tick' : 'Tock';
    document.body.innerHTML = msg;
    setTimeout(resolvePromise, 1000);
    await thePromise;
    i++;
  }
})();

https://jsfiddle.net/h3zvw5xr

Comments

-1

I wrote a small lib for this. https://www.npmjs.com/package/@inf3rno/promise.exposed

I used the factory method approach others wrote, but I overrode the then, catch, finally methods too, so you can resolve the original promise by those as well.

Resolving Promise without executor from outside:

const promise = Promise.exposed().then(console.log);
promise.resolve("This should show up in the console.");

Racing with the executor's setTimeout from outside:

const promise = Promise.exposed(function (resolve, reject){
    setTimeout(function (){
        resolve("I almost fell asleep.")
    }, 100000);
}).then(console.log);

setTimeout(function (){
    promise.resolve("I don't want to wait that much.");
}, 100);

There is a no-conflict mode if you don't want to pollute the global namespace:

const createExposedPromise = require("@inf3rno/promise.exposed/noConflict");
const promise = createExposedPromise().then(console.log);
promise.resolve("This should show up in the console.");

Comments

-1

I made a library called manual-promise that functions as a drop in replacement for Promise. None of the other answers here will work as drop in replacements for Promise, as they use proxies or wrappers.

yarn add manual-promise

npn install manual-promise


import { ManualPromise } from "manual-promise";

const prom = new ManualPromise();

prom.resolve(2);

// actions can still be run inside the promise
const prom2 = new ManualPromise((resolve, reject) => {
    // ... code
});


new ManualPromise() instanceof Promise === true

https://github.com/zpxp/manual-promise#readme

Comments

-1

If (like me) you don't like augmenting native instances, nor unwieldy ".promise" properties ... but do love proxies and mangling classes, then this one is for you:

class GroovyPromise {
  constructor() {
    return new Proxy(new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
      this.resolve = resolve;
      this.reject = reject;
    }), {
      get: (target, prop) =>
        this[prop] || target[prop].bind(target),
    });
  }
}

Used like so:

const groovypromise = new GroovyPromise();
setTimeout(() => groovypromise.resolve('groovy'), 1000);
console.log(await groovypromise);

Of course you can also rename the class to something dull like "Deferred"

3 Comments

Overcomplicated, misuse of Proxy. Avoid.
@user3840170 no doubt you're correct, but keen to understand the thinking? It's 11 straightforward LOC, is (arguably!) in the spirit of proxy, will always respect the promise API (thenable, etc.), and isn't mutating any prototypes so can be used sparingly. Perf could be a concern, but we're talking async ... sooo. Feels like an OK option, at least until that time as es15 is considered the line in the sand for backwards compat?
... I should add @user3840170 I've seen your handle across a bunch of async related questions I've also been active on, so I assume you know what you're talking about (and am genuinely interested in your insight!). I've also noted that you appear to edit/downvote answers en-masse (sometimes subjectively). But comparing days you've had edit history against (the relatively sparse) downvote activity, it would also appear that you've been downvoting multiple times. Is this just a coincidence?

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.