Asincrono per il ciclo in JavaScript

Question 1

Ho bisogno di un ciclo che attende una chiamata asincrona prima di continuare. Qualcosa di simile a:

for ( /* ... */ ) {

  someFunction(param1, praram2, function(result) {

    // Okay, for cycle could continue

  })

}

alert("For cycle ended");

Come potrei farlo? Hai qualche idea?

Question 2

Non puoi mescolare sincrono e asincrono in JavaScript se blocchi lo script, blocchi il browser.

Devi andare fino in fondo all'evento qui, fortunatamente possiamo nascondere le cose brutte.

EDIT: aggiornato il codice.

function asyncLoop(iterations, func, callback) {
    var index = 0;
    var done = false;
    var loop = {
        next: function() {
            if (done) {
                return;
            }

            if (index < iterations) {
                index++;
                func(loop);

            } else {
                done = true;
                callback();
            }
        },

        iteration: function() {
            return index - 1;
        },

        break: function() {
            done = true;
            callback();
        }
    };
    loop.next();
    return loop;
}

Questo ci fornirà un asincrono loop, puoi ovviamente modificarlo ulteriormente per prendere ad esempio una funzione per controllare la condizione del loop ecc.

Ora passiamo al test:

function someFunction(a, b, callback) {
    console.log('Hey doing some stuff!');
    callback();
}

asyncLoop(10, function(loop) {
    someFunction(1, 2, function(result) {

        // log the iteration
        console.log(loop.iteration());

        // Okay, for cycle could continue
        loop.next();
    })},
    function(){console.log('cycle ended')}
);

E l'output:

Hey doing some stuff!
0
Hey doing some stuff!
1
Hey doing some stuff!
2
Hey doing some stuff!
3
Hey doing some stuff!
4
Hey doing some stuff!
5
Hey doing some stuff!
6
Hey doing some stuff!
7
Hey doing some stuff!
8
Hey doing some stuff!
9
cycle ended

Question 3

Ho semplificato questo:

FUNZIONE:

var asyncLoop = function(o){
    var i=-1;

    var loop = function(){
        i++;
        if(i==o.length){o.callback(); return;}
        o.functionToLoop(loop, i);
    } 
    loop();//init
}

UTILIZZO:

asyncLoop({
    length : 5,
    functionToLoop : function(loop, i){
        setTimeout(function(){
            document.write('Iteration ' + i + ' <br>');
            loop();
        },1000);
    },
    callback : function(){
        document.write('All done!');
    }    
});

ESEMPIO: http://jsfiddle.net/NXTv7/8/

Question 4

Un'alternativa più pulita a quanto suggerito da @Ivo sarebbe una coda del metodo asincrono , supponendo che sia necessario effettuare solo una chiamata asincrona per la raccolta.

(Vedi questo post di Dustin Diaz per una spiegazione più dettagliata)

function Queue() {
  this._methods = [];
  this._response = null;
  this._flushed = false;
}

(function(Q){

  Q.add = function (fn) {
    if (this._flushed) fn(this._response);
    else this._methods.push(fn);
  }

  Q.flush = function (response) {
    if (this._flushed) return;
    this._response = response;
    while (this._methods[0]) {
      this._methods.shift()(response);
    }
    this._flushed = true;
  }

})(Queue.prototype);

È sufficiente creare una nuova istanza di Queue, aggiungere i callback necessari e quindi svuotare la coda con la risposta asincrona.

var queue = new Queue();

queue.add(function(results){
  for (var result in results) {
    // normal loop operation here
  }
});

someFunction(param1, param2, function(results) {
  queue.flush(results);
}

Un ulteriore vantaggio di questo modello è che puoi aggiungere più funzioni alla coda invece di una sola.

Se hai un oggetto che contiene funzioni iteratore, puoi aggiungere il supporto per questa coda dietro le quinte e scrivere codice che sembra sincrono, ma non lo è:

MyClass.each(function(result){ ... })

scrivi semplicemente eachper mettere la funzione anonima nella coda invece di eseguirla immediatamente, quindi svuota la coda quando la tua chiamata asincrona è completa. Questo è un modello di progettazione molto semplice e potente.

PS Se stai usando jQuery, hai già una coda del metodo asincrono a tua disposizione chiamata jQuery.Deferred .

Question 5

Guarda anche questa splendida libreria caolan / async . Il tuo forciclo può essere facilmente realizzato utilizzando mapSeries o series .

Potrei pubblicare un codice di esempio se il tuo esempio contenesse più dettagli.

Question 6

Possiamo anche usare l'aiuto di jquery.Deferred. in questo caso la funzione asyncLoop sarebbe simile a questa:

asyncLoop = function(array, callback) {
  var nextElement, thisIteration;
  if (array.length > 0) nextElement = array.pop();
  thisIteration = callback(nextElement);
  $.when(thisIteration).done(function(response) {
    // here we can check value of response in order to break or whatever
    if (array.length > 0) asyncLoop(array, collection, callback);
  });
};

la funzione di callback sarà simile a questa:

addEntry = function(newEntry) {
  var deferred, duplicateEntry;
  // on the next line we can perform some check, which may cause async response.
  duplicateEntry = someCheckHere();
  if (duplicateEntry === true) {
    deferred = $.Deferred();
    // here we launch some other function (e.g. $.ajax or popup window) 
    // which based on result must call deferred.resolve([opt args - response])
    // when deferred.resolve is called "asyncLoop" will start new iteration
    // example function:
    exampleFunction(duplicateEntry, deferred);
    return deferred;
  } else {
    return someActionIfNotDuplicate();
  }
};

funzione di esempio che risolve il differito:

function exampleFunction(entry, deffered){
  openModal({
    title: "what should we do with duplicate"
    options: [
       {name:"Replace", action: function(){replace(entry);deffered.resolve(replace:true)}},
       {name: "Keep Existing", action: function(){deffered.resolve(replace:false)}}
    ]
  })
}

Question 7

Ho utilizzato "setTimeout (Func, 0);" trucco per circa un anno. Ecco alcune ricerche recenti che ho scritto per spiegare come velocizzarlo un po '. Se vuoi solo la risposta, vai al passaggio 4. I passaggi 1 2 e 3 spiegano il ragionamento e i meccanismi;

// In Depth Analysis of the setTimeout(Func,0) trick.

//////// setTimeout(Func,0) Step 1 ////////////
// setTimeout and setInterval impose a minimum 
// time limit of about 2 to 10 milliseconds.

  console.log("start");
  var workCounter=0;
  var WorkHard = function()
  {
    if(workCounter>=2000) {console.log("done"); return;}
    workCounter++;
    setTimeout(WorkHard,0);
  };

// this take about 9 seconds
// that works out to be about 4.5ms per iteration
// Now there is a subtle rule here that you can tweak
// This minimum is counted from the time the setTimeout was executed.
// THEREFORE:

  console.log("start");
  var workCounter=0;
  var WorkHard = function()
  {
    if(workCounter>=2000) {console.log("done"); return;}
    setTimeout(WorkHard,0);
    workCounter++;
  };

// This code is slightly faster because we register the setTimeout
// a line of code earlier. Actually, the speed difference is immesurable 
// in this case, but the concept is true. Step 2 shows a measurable example.
///////////////////////////////////////////////


//////// setTimeout(Func,0) Step 2 ////////////
// Here is a measurable example of the concept covered in Step 1.

  var StartWork = function()
  {
    console.log("start");
    var startTime = new Date();
    var workCounter=0;
    var sum=0;
    var WorkHard = function()
    {
      if(workCounter>=2000) 
      {
        var ms = (new Date()).getTime() - startTime.getTime();
        console.log("done: sum=" + sum + " time=" + ms + "ms"); 
        return;
      }
      for(var i=0; i<1500000; i++) {sum++;}
      workCounter++;
      setTimeout(WorkHard,0);
    };
    WorkHard();
  };

// This adds some difficulty to the work instead of just incrementing a number
// This prints "done: sum=3000000000 time=18809ms".
// So it took 18.8 seconds.

  var StartWork = function()
  {
    console.log("start");
    var startTime = new Date();
    var workCounter=0;
    var sum=0;
    var WorkHard = function()
    {
      if(workCounter>=2000) 
      {
        var ms = (new Date()).getTime() - startTime.getTime();
        console.log("done: sum=" + sum + " time=" + ms + "ms"); 
        return;
      }
      setTimeout(WorkHard,0);
      for(var i=0; i<1500000; i++) {sum++;}
      workCounter++;
    };
    WorkHard();
  };

// Now, as we planned, we move the setTimeout to before the difficult part
// This prints: "done: sum=3000000000 time=12680ms"
// So it took 12.6 seconds. With a little math, (18.8-12.6)/2000 = 3.1ms
// We have effectively shaved off 3.1ms of the original 4.5ms of dead time.
// Assuming some of that time may be attributed to function calls and variable 
// instantiations, we have eliminated the wait time imposed by setTimeout.

// LESSON LEARNED: If you want to use the setTimeout(Func,0) trick with high 
// performance in mind, make sure your function takes more than 4.5ms, and set 
// the next timeout at the start of your function, instead of the end.
///////////////////////////////////////////////


//////// setTimeout(Func,0) Step 3 ////////////
// The results of Step 2 are very educational, but it doesn't really tell us how to apply the
// concept to the real world.  Step 2 says "make sure your function takes more than 4.5ms".
// No one makes functions that take 4.5ms. Functions either take a few microseconds, 
// or several seconds, or several minutes. This magic 4.5ms is unattainable.

// To solve the problem, we introduce the concept of "Burn Time".
// Lets assume that you can break up your difficult function into pieces that take 
// a few milliseconds or less to complete. Then the concept of Burn Time says, 
// "crunch several of the individual pieces until we reach 4.5ms, then exit"

// Step 1 shows a function that is asyncronous, but takes 9 seconds to run. In reality
// we could have easilly incremented workCounter 2000 times in under a millisecond.
// So, duh, that should not be made asyncronous, its horrible. But what if you don't know
// how many times you need to increment the number, maybe you need to run the loop 20 times,
// maybe you need to run the loop 2 billion times.

  console.log("start");
  var startTime = new Date();
  var workCounter=0;
  for(var i=0; i<2000000000; i++) // 2 billion
  {
    workCounter++;
  }
  var ms = (new Date()).getTime() - startTime.getTime();
  console.log("done: workCounter=" + workCounter + " time=" + ms + "ms"); 

// prints: "done: workCounter=2000000000 time=7214ms"
// So it took 7.2 seconds. Can we break this up into smaller pieces? Yes.
// I know, this is a retarded example, bear with me.

  console.log("start");
  var startTime = new Date();
  var workCounter=0;
  var each = function()
  {
    workCounter++;
  };
  for(var i=0; i<20000000; i++) // 20 million
  {
    each();
  }
  var ms = (new Date()).getTime() - startTime.getTime();
  console.log("done: workCounter=" + workCounter + " time=" + ms + "ms"); 

// The easiest way is to break it up into 2 billion smaller pieces, each of which take 
// only several picoseconds to run. Ok, actually, I am reducing the number from 2 billion
// to 20 million (100x less).  Just adding a function call increases the complexity of the loop
// 100 fold. Good lesson for some other topic.
// prints: "done: workCounter=20000000 time=7648ms"
// So it took 7.6 seconds, thats a good starting point.
// Now, lets sprinkle in the async part with the burn concept

  console.log("start");
  var startTime = new Date();
  var workCounter=0;
  var index=0;
  var end = 20000000;
  var each = function()
  {
    workCounter++;
  };
  var Work = function()
  {
    var burnTimeout = new Date();
    burnTimeout.setTime(burnTimeout.getTime() + 4.5); // burnTimeout set to 4.5ms in the future
    while((new Date()) < burnTimeout)
    {
      if(index>=end) 
      {
        var ms = (new Date()).getTime() - startTime.getTime();
        console.log("done: workCounter=" + workCounter + " time=" + ms + "ms"); 
        return;
      }
      each();
      index++;
    }
    setTimeout(Work,0);
  };

// prints "done: workCounter=20000000 time=107119ms"
// Sweet Jesus, I increased my 7.6 second function to 107.1 seconds.
// But it does prevent the browser from locking up, So i guess thats a plus.
// Again, the actual objective here is just to increment workCounter, so the overhead of all
// the async garbage is huge in comparison. 
// Anyway, Lets start by taking advice from Step 2 and move the setTimeout above the hard part. 

  console.log("start");
  var startTime = new Date();
  var workCounter=0;
  var index=0;
  var end = 20000000;
  var each = function()
  {
    workCounter++;
  };
  var Work = function()
  {
    if(index>=end) {return;}
    setTimeout(Work,0);
    var burnTimeout = new Date();
    burnTimeout.setTime(burnTimeout.getTime() + 4.5); // burnTimeout set to 4.5ms in the future
    while((new Date()) < burnTimeout)
    {
      if(index>=end) 
      {
        var ms = (new Date()).getTime() - startTime.getTime();
        console.log("done: workCounter=" + workCounter + " time=" + ms + "ms"); 
        return;
      }
      each();
      index++;
    }
  };

// This means we also have to check index right away because the last iteration will have nothing to do
// prints "done: workCounter=20000000 time=52892ms"  
// So, it took 52.8 seconds. Improvement, but way slower than the native 7.6 seconds.
// The Burn Time is the number you tweak to get a nice balance between native loop speed
// and browser responsiveness. Lets change it from 4.5ms to 50ms, because we don't really need faster
// than 50ms gui response.

  console.log("start");
  var startTime = new Date();
  var workCounter=0;
  var index=0;
  var end = 20000000;
  var each = function()
  {
    workCounter++;
  };
  var Work = function()
  {
    if(index>=end) {return;}
    setTimeout(Work,0);
    var burnTimeout = new Date();
    burnTimeout.setTime(burnTimeout.getTime() + 50); // burnTimeout set to 50ms in the future
    while((new Date()) < burnTimeout)
    {
      if(index>=end) 
      {
        var ms = (new Date()).getTime() - startTime.getTime();
        console.log("done: workCounter=" + workCounter + " time=" + ms + "ms"); 
        return;
      }
      each();
      index++;
    }
  };

// prints "done: workCounter=20000000 time=52272ms"
// So it took 52.2 seconds. No real improvement here which proves that the imposed limits of setTimeout
// have been eliminated as long as the burn time is anything over 4.5ms
///////////////////////////////////////////////


//////// setTimeout(Func,0) Step 4 ////////////
// The performance numbers from Step 3 seem pretty grim, but GUI responsiveness is often worth it.
// Here is a short library that embodies these concepts and gives a descent interface.

  var WilkesAsyncBurn = function()
  {
    var Now = function() {return (new Date());};
    var CreateFutureDate = function(milliseconds)
    {
      var t = Now();
      t.setTime(t.getTime() + milliseconds);
      return t;
    };
    var For = function(start, end, eachCallback, finalCallback, msBurnTime)
    {
      var i = start;
      var Each = function()
      {
        if(i==-1) {return;} //always does one last each with nothing to do
        setTimeout(Each,0);
        var burnTimeout = CreateFutureDate(msBurnTime);
        while(Now() < burnTimeout)
        {
          if(i>=end) {i=-1; finalCallback(); return;}
          eachCallback(i);
          i++;
        }
      };
      Each();
    };
    var ForEach = function(array, eachCallback, finalCallback, msBurnTime)
    {
      var i = 0;
      var len = array.length;
      var Each = function()
      {
        if(i==-1) {return;}
        setTimeout(Each,0);
        var burnTimeout = CreateFutureDate(msBurnTime);
        while(Now() < burnTimeout)
        {
          if(i>=len) {i=-1; finalCallback(array); return;}
          eachCallback(i, array[i]);
          i++;
        }
      };
      Each();
    };

    var pub = {};
    pub.For = For;          //eachCallback(index); finalCallback();
    pub.ForEach = ForEach;  //eachCallback(index,value); finalCallback(array);
    WilkesAsyncBurn = pub;
  };

///////////////////////////////////////////////


//////// setTimeout(Func,0) Step 5 ////////////
// Here is an examples of how to use the library from Step 4.

  WilkesAsyncBurn(); // Init the library
  console.log("start");
  var startTime = new Date();
  var workCounter=0;
  var FuncEach = function()
  {
    if(workCounter%1000==0)
    {
      var s = "<div></div>";
      var div = jQuery("*[class~=r1]");
      div.append(s);
    }
    workCounter++;
  };
  var FuncFinal = function()
  {
    var ms = (new Date()).getTime() - startTime.getTime();
    console.log("done: workCounter=" + workCounter + " time=" + ms + "ms"); 
  };
  WilkesAsyncBurn.For(0,2000000,FuncEach,FuncFinal,50);

// prints: "done: workCounter=20000000 time=149303ms"
// Also appends a few thousand divs to the html page, about 20 at a time.
// The browser is responsive the entire time, mission accomplished

// LESSON LEARNED: If your code pieces are super tiny, like incrementing a number, or walking through 
// an array summing the numbers, then just putting it in an "each" function is going to kill you. 
// You can still use the concept here, but your "each" function should also have a for loop in it 
// where you burn a few hundred items manually.  
///////////////////////////////////////////////

Question 8

Data una funzione di lavoro asincrona someFunctionche richiamerà una funzione di risultato con un resultargomento che dice se il ciclo deve continuare o meno:

// having:
// function someFunction(param1, praram2, resultfunc))
// function done() { alert("For cycle ended"); }

(function(f){ f(f) })(function(f){
  someFunction("param1", "praram2", function(result){
    if (result)
      f(f); // loop continues
    else
      done(); // loop ends
  });
})

Per verificare se terminare o meno il ciclo, la funzione worker someFunctionpuò inoltrare la funzione risultato ad altre operazioni asincrone. Inoltre, l'intera espressione può essere incapsulata in una funzione asincrona prendendo una funzione donecome callback.

Question 9

Se ti piace la risposta di wilsonpage ma sei più abituato a usare la sintassi di async.js, ecco una variazione:

function asyncEach(iterableList, callback, done) {
  var i = -1,
      length = iterableList.length;

  function loop() {
      i++;
      if (i === length) {
        done(); 
        return;
      }
      callback(iterableList[i], loop);
  } 
  loop();
}


asyncEach(['A', 'B', 'C'], function(item, callback) {
    setTimeout(function(){
    document.write('Iteration ' + item + ' <br>');
    callback();
  }, 1000);
}, function() {
  document.write('All done!');
});

La demo può essere trovata qui - http://jsfiddle.net/NXTv7/8/

Question 10

Ecco un altro esempio che penso sia più leggibile di altri, in cui avvolgi la tua funzione asincrona all'interno di una funzione che accetta una donefunzione, l'indice del ciclo corrente e il risultato (se presente) della precedente chiamata asincrona:

function (done, i, prevResult) {
   // perform async stuff
   // call "done(result)" in async callback 
   // or after promise resolves
}

Una volta done()richiamato, attiva la successiva chiamata asincrona, passando di nuovo la funzione done, l'indice corrente e il risultato precedente. Una volta completato l'intero ciclo, callbackverrà richiamato il ciclo fornito .

Ecco uno snippet che puoi eseguire:

asyncLoop({
  limit: 25,
  asyncLoopFunction: function(done, i, prevResult) {
    setTimeout(function() {
      console.log("Starting Iteration: ", i);
      console.log("Previous Result: ", prevResult);
      var result = i * 100;
      done(result);
    }, 1000);
  },
  initialArgs: 'Hello',
  callback: function(result) {
    console.log('All Done. Final result: ', result);
  }
});

function asyncLoop(obj) {
  var limit = obj.limit,
    asyncLoopFunction = obj.asyncLoopFunction,
    initialArgs = obj.initialArgs || {},
    callback = obj.callback,
    i = 0;

  function done(result) {
    i++;
    if (i < limit) {
      triggerAsync(result);
    } else {
      callback(result);
    }
  }

  function triggerAsync(prevResult) {
    asyncLoopFunction(done, i, prevResult);
  }

  triggerAsync(initialArgs); // init
}

Espandi lo snippet

Question 11

Puoi usare async awaitintrodotto in ES7:

for ( /* ... */ ) {
    let result = await someFunction(param1, param2);
}
alert("For cycle ended");

Funziona solo se someFunctionrestituisce una promessa!

Se someFunctionnon restituisci una promessa, puoi fargli restituire una promessa da solo in questo modo:

function asyncSomeFunction(param1,praram2) {
  return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
    someFunction(praram1,praram2,(result)=>{
      resolve(result);
    })
  })
}

Quindi sostituire questa riga await someFunction(param1, param2);conawait asynSomeFunction(param1, param2);

Si prega di comprendere le promesse prima di scrivere il async awaitcodice!

Question 12

http://cuzztuts.blogspot.ro/2011/12/js-async-for-very-cool.html

MODIFICARE:

collegamento da github: https://github.com/cuzzea/lib_repo/blob/master/cuzzea/js/functions/core/async_for.js

function async_for_each(object,settings){
var l=object.length;
    settings.limit = settings.limit || Math.round(l/100);
    settings.start = settings.start || 0;
    settings.timeout = settings.timeout || 1;
    for(var i=settings.start;i<l;i++){
        if(i-settings.start>=settings.limit){
            setTimeout(function(){
                settings.start = i;
                async_for_each(object,settings)
            },settings.timeout);
            settings.limit_callback ? settings.limit_callback(i,l) : null;
            return false;
        }else{
            settings.cbk ? settings.cbk(i,object[i]) : null;
        }
    }
    settings.end_cbk?settings.end_cbk():null;
    return true;
}

Questa funzione consente di creare un'interruzione percentuale nel ciclo for utilizzando settings.limit. La proprietà limit è solo un numero intero, ma quando impostata come array.length * 0.1, questo farà sì che settings.limit_callback venga chiamato ogni 10%.

/*
 * params:
 *  object:         the array to parse
 *  settings_object:
 *      cbk:            function to call whenwhen object is found in array
 *                          params: i,object[i]
 *      limit_calback:  function to call when limit is reached
 *                          params: i, object_length
 *      end_cbk:        function to call when loop is finished
 *                          params: none
 *      limit:          number of iteration before breacking the for loop
 *                          default: object.length/100
 *      timeout:        time until start of the for loop(ms)
 *                          default: 1
 *      start:          the index from where to start the for loop
 *                          default: 0
 */

esempio:

var a = [];
a.length = 1000;
async_for_each(a,{
    limit_callback:function(i,l){console.log("loading %s/%s - %s%",i,l,Math.round(i*100/l))}
});

Question 13

Una promessa soluzione basata su libreria:

/*
    Since this is an open question for JS I have used Kris Kowal's Q promises for the same
*/

var Q = require('q');
/*
    Your LOOP body
    @success is a parameter(s) you might pass
*/
var loopBody = function(success) {
    var d = Q.defer(); /* OR use your favorite promise library like $q in angular */
    /*
        'setTimeout' will ideally be your node-like callback with this signature ... (err, data) {}
        as shown, on success you should resolve 
        on failure you should reject (as always ...) 
    */
    setTimeout(function(err, data) {
        if (!err) {
            d.resolve('success');
        } else {
            d.reject('failure');
        }
    }, 100); //100 ms used for illustration only 
    return d.promise;
};

/*
    function to call your loop body 
*/
function loop(itr, fn) {
    var def = Q.defer();
    if (itr <= 0) {
        def.reject({ status: "un-successful " });
    } else {
        var next = loop.bind(undefined, itr - 1, fn); // 'next' is all there is to this 
        var callback = fn.bind(undefined /*, a, b, c.... */ ); // in case you want to pass some parameters into your loop body
        def.promise = callback().then(def.resolve, next);
    }
    return def.promise;
}
/*
    USAGE: loop(iterations, function(){})
    the second argument has to be thenable (in other words return a promise)
    NOTE: this loop will stop when loop body resolves to a success
    Example: Try to upload file 3 times. HURRAY (if successful) or log failed 
*/

loop(4, loopBody).then(function() {
    //success handler
    console.log('HURRAY')
}, function() {
    //failed 
    console.log('failed');
});

Question 14

Avevo bisogno di chiamare alcuni Xtempi di funzione asincrona , ogni iterazione deve essere avvenuta dopo che la precedente era stata eseguita, quindi ho scritto una piccola libreria che può essere usata in questo modo:

// https://codepen.io/anon/pen/MOvxaX?editors=0012
var loop = AsyncLoop(function(iteration, value){
  console.log("Loop called with iteration and value set to: ", iteration, value);

  var random = Math.random()*500;

  if(random < 200)
    return false;

  return new Promise(function(resolve){
    setTimeout(resolve.bind(null, random), random);
  });
})
.finished(function(){
  console.log("Loop has ended");
});

Ogni volta che viene chiamata la funzione loop definita dall'utente, ha due argomenti, l'indice di iterazione e il valore di ritorno della chiamata precedente.

Questo è un esempio di output:

"Loop called with iteration and value set to: " 0 null
"Loop called with iteration and value set to: " 1 496.4137048207333
"Loop called with iteration and value set to: " 2 259.6020382449663
"Loop called with iteration and value set to: " 3 485.5400568702862
"Loop has ended"