Re: Try/Catch always needed for await?

Just because you get a message in your console that you have an unhandled rejection, doesn't mean your program can adapt to that as needed. Relying on that information is a last resort - it's the final safety net for you, the human, if you've failed to .catch all your promises at runtime (in your

Re: Try/Catch always needed for await?

On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Marky Mark wrote: > But if you dont, your program will never know about the error or do > anything to handle it. Perhaps this is where I'm confused. I'm under the impression that `catch` shouldn't be used anymore than try/catch does when

Re: Try/Catch always needed for await?

On Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 5:32 AM Jordan Rome wrote: > > I'm still confused as to why it's important to always try/catch (or even > catch for promises) if you get an error message in the console (vs calling > console.error manually). > You don't always have to catch promise

Re: Try/Catch always needed for await?

On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 11:40 PM, Jordan Harband wrote: > When the await throws an exception that's not caught by a try/catch, the > promise returned by the `async function` ends up rejected - and you have > the identical scenario as a promise with an unhandled rejection. >

Re: Try/Catch always needed for await?

When the await throws an exception that's not caught by a try/catch, the promise returned by the `async function` ends up rejected - and you have the identical scenario as a promise with an unhandled rejection. node has been discussing adding "crash on garbage collection of an unhandled

Re: Try/Catch always needed for await?

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Alan Johnson wrote: > Having unexpected errors be silently swallowed is definitely a problematic > property of promises, which you have to guard against. I didn't think this was the case with await. If a promise rejection is not caught the

Re: Try/Catch always needed for await?

Just one thought: > Of course, in the top-level invocation it might be a good idea to use a `catch` after years of engine developers advocating "avoid try/catch as much as possible because it de-opts and slow down code and JIT and you name it", above suggestion doesn't really look like an "of

Re: Try/Catch always needed for await?

To perhaps clarify this point a bit, it is very important to `.catch()` and react appropriately at the ends of promise chains. If synchronous code fails for an unexpected reason, a visible crash will definitely happen. This is not the case for promises, because there’s no way for the runtime to

Re: Try/Catch always needed for await?

Jordan Rome schrieb: My apologies if this has already been discussed but what is the "preferred" pattern for using await ? Since await, which runs on promises, will now throw if the promise is rejected (preventing execution of code after the await and killing the process in Node), is it