Difference between `return await promise` and `return promise`

Given the code samples below, is there any difference in behavior, and, if so, what are those differences?

return await promise

async function delay1Second() {
  return (await delay(1000));
}

return promise

async function delay1Second() {
  return delay(1000);
}

As I understand it, the first would have error-handling within the async function, and errors would bubble out of the async function's Promise. However, the second would require one less tick. Is this correct?

This snippet is just a common function to return a Promise for reference.

function delay(ms) {
  return new Promise((resolve) => {
    setTimeout(resolve, ms);
  });
}

Most of the time, there is no observable difference between return and return await. Both versions of delay1Second have the exact same observable behavior (but depending on the implementation, the return await version might use slightly more memory because an intermediate Promise object might be created).

However, as @PitaJ pointed out, there is one case where there is a difference: if the return or return await is nested in a try-catch block. Consider this example

async function rejectionWithReturnAwait () {
  try {
    return await Promise.reject(new Error())
  } catch (e) {
    return 'Saved!'
  }
}

async function rejectionWithReturn () {
  try {
    return Promise.reject(new Error())
  } catch (e) {
    return 'Saved!'
  }
}

In the first version, the async function awaits the rejected promise before returning its result, which causes the rejection to be turned into an exception and the catch clause to be reached; the function will thus return a promise resolving to the string "Saved!".

The second version of the function, however, does return the rejected promise directly without awaiting it within the async function, which means that the catch case is not called and the caller gets the rejection instead.

As other answers mentioned, there is likely a slight performance benefit when letting the promise bubble up by returning it directly — simply because you don’t have to await the result first and then wrap it with another promise again. However, no one has talked about tail call optimization yet.

Tail call optimization, or “proper tail calls”, is a technique that the interpreter uses to optimize the call stack. Currently, not many runtimes support it yet — even though it’s technically part of the ES6 Standard — but it’s possible support might be added in the future, so you can prepare for that by writing good code in the present.

In a nutshell, TCO (or PTC) optimizes the call stack by not opening a new frame for a function that is directly returned by another function. Instead, it reuses the same frame.

async function delay1Second() {
  return delay(1000);
}

Since delay() is directly returned by delay1Second(), runtimes supporting PTC will first open a frame for delay1Second() (the outer function), but then instead of opening another frame for delay() (the inner function), it will just reuse the same frame that was opened for the outer function. This optimizes the stack because it can prevent a stack overflow (hehe) with very large recursive functions, e.g., fibonacci(5e+25). Essentially it becomes a loop, which is much faster.

PTC is only enabled when the inner function is directly returned. It’s not used when the result of the function is altered before it is returned, for example, if you had return (delay(1000) || null), or return await delay(1000).

But like I said, most runtimes and browsers don’t support PTC yet, so it probably doesn’t make a huge difference now, but it couldn’t hurt to future-proof your code.

Read more in this question: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/49165805/node-js-are-there-optimizations-for-tail-calls-in-async-functions

Noticeable difference: Promise rejection gets handled at different places

• return somePromise will pass somePromise to the call site, and await somePromise to settle at call site (if there is any). Therefore, if somePromise is rejected, it will not be handled by the local catch block, but the call site's catch block.

async function foo () {
  try {
    return Promise.reject();
  } catch (e) {
    console.log('IN');
  }
}

(async function main () {
  try {
    let a = await foo();
  } catch (e) {
    console.log('OUT');
  }
})();
// 'OUT'

• return await somePromise will first await somePromise to settle locally. Therefore, the value or Exception will first be handled locally. => Local catch block will be executed if somePromise is rejected.

async function foo () {
  try {
    return await Promise.reject();
  } catch (e) {
    console.log('IN');
  }
}

(async function main () {
  try {
    let a = await foo();
  } catch (e) {
    console.log('OUT');
  }
})();
// 'IN'

Reason: return await Promise awaits both locally and outside, return Promise awaits only outside

Detailed Steps:

return Promise

async function delay1Second() {
  return delay(1000);
}

1. call delay1Second();

const result = await delay1Second();

2. Inside delay1Second(), function delay(1000) returns a promise immediately with [[PromiseStatus]]: 'pending. Let's call it delayPromise.

async function delay1Second() {
  return delayPromise;
// delayPromise.[[PromiseStatus]]: 'pending'
// delayPromise.[[PromiseValue]]: undefined
}

3. Async functions will wrap their return value inside Promise.resolve()(Source). Because delay1Second is an async function, we have:

const result = await Promise.resolve(delayPromise); 
// delayPromise.[[PromiseStatus]]: 'pending'
// delayPromise.[[PromiseValue]]: undefined

4. Promise.resolve(delayPromise) returns delayPromise without doing anything because the input is already a promise (see MDN Promise.resolve):

const result = await delayPromise; 
// delayPromise.[[PromiseStatus]]: 'pending'
// delayPromise.[[PromiseValue]]: undefined

5. await waits until the delayPromise is settled.

• IF delayPromise is fulfilled with PromiseValue=1:

const result = 1; 

• ELSE is delayPromise is rejected:

// jump to catch block if there is any

return await Promise

async function delay1Second() {
  return await delay(1000);
}

1. call delay1Second();

const result = await delay1Second();

2. Inside delay1Second(), function delay(1000) returns a promise immediately with [[PromiseStatus]]: 'pending. Let's call it delayPromise.

async function delay1Second() {
  return await delayPromise;
// delayPromise.[[PromiseStatus]]: 'pending'
// delayPromise.[[PromiseValue]]: undefined
}

3. Local await will wait until delayPromise gets settled.

• Case 1: delayPromise is fulfilled with PromiseValue=1:

async function delay1Second() {
  return 1;
}

const result = await Promise.resolve(1); // let's call it "newPromise"

const result = await newPromise; 
// newPromise.[[PromiseStatus]]: 'resolved'
// newPromise.[[PromiseValue]]: 1

const result = 1; 

• Case 2: delayPromise is rejected:

// jump to catch block inside `delay1Second` if there is any
// let's say a value -1 is returned in the end

const result = await Promise.resolve(-1); // call it newPromise

const result = await newPromise;
// newPromise.[[PromiseStatus]]: 'resolved'
// newPromise.[[PromiseValue]]: -1

const result = -1;

Glossary:

• Settle: Promise.[[PromiseStatus]] changes from pending to resolved or rejected

This is a hard question to answer, because it depends in practice on how your transpiler (probably babel) actually renders async/await. The things that are clear regardless:

• Both implementations should behave the same, though the first implementation may have one less Promise in the chain.

• Especially if you drop the unnecessary await, the second version would not require any extra code from the transpiler, while the first one does.

So from a code performance and debugging perspective, the second version is preferable, though only very slightly so, while the first version has a slight legibility benefit, in that it clearly indicates that it returns a promise.

here i leave some code practical for you can undertand it the diferrence

 let x = async function () {
  return new Promise((res, rej) => {
    setTimeout(async function () {
      console.log("finished 1");
      return await new Promise((resolve, reject) => { // delete the return and you will see the difference
        setTimeout(function () {
          resolve("woo2");
          console.log("finished 2");
        }, 5000);
      });
      res("woo1");
    }, 3000);
  });
};

(async function () {
  var counter = 0;
  const a = setInterval(function () { // counter for every second, this is just to see the precision and understand the code
    if (counter == 7) {
      clearInterval(a);
    }

    console.log(counter);
    counter = counter + 1;
  }, 1000);
  console.time("time1");
  console.log("hello i starting first of all");
  await x();
  console.log("more code...");
  console.timeEnd("time1");
})();

the function "x" just is a function async than it have other fucn if will delete the return it print "more code..."

the variable x is just an asynchronous function that in turn has another asynchronous function, in the main of the code we invoke a wait to call the function of the variable x, when it completes it follows the sequence of the code, that would be normal for "async / await ", but inside the x function there is another asynchronous function, and this returns a promise or returns a" promise "it will stay inside the x function, forgetting the main code, that is, it will not print the" console.log ("more code .. "), on the other hand if we put" await "it will wait for every function that completes and finally follows the normal sequence of the main code.

below the "console.log (" finished 1 "delete the" return ", you will see the behavior.

Here is a typescript example that you can run and convince yourself that you need that "return await"

async function  test() {
    try {
        return await throwErr();  // this is correct
        // return  throwErr();  // this will prevent inner catch to ever to be reached
    }
    catch (err) {
        console.log("inner catch is reached")
        return
    }
}

const throwErr = async  () => {
    throw("Fake error")
}


void test().then(() => {
    console.log("done")
}).catch(e => {
    console.log("outer catch is reached")
});

In our project we decided to allways use 'return await'. The argument is that "the risk of forgetting to add the 'await' when later on a try-catch block is put around the return expression justifies having the redundant 'await' now."