fix(useFetch): fix incorrect chainCallbacks behavior

[GODLiangCY]

Description

fixes #2225, #1310

Additional context

Like @imaverickk metioned in #2225, there's another solution: use Promise.all(). I'm not sure which one is better

Transforming for-await loops to the configured target environment ("es2017") is not supported yet. Thus Promise.all() seems to be the only solution?

---

What is the purpose of this pull request?

• Bug fix
• New Feature
• Documentation update
• Other

Before submitting the PR, please make sure you do the following

• Read the Contributing Guidelines.
• Read the Pull Request Guidelines.
• Check that there isn't already a PR that solves the problem the same way to avoid creating a duplicate.
• Provide a description in this PR that addresses what the PR is solving, or reference the issue that it solves (e.g. fixes #123).
• Ideally, include relevant tests that fail without this PR but pass with it.

[imaverickk]

Promise.all() is parallel, and to ensure that the order of execution is predictable, it should probably look like this.

function chainCallbacks<T = any>(...callbacks: (((ctx: T) => void | Partial<T> | Promise<void | Partial<T>>) | undefined)[]) {
  return async (ctx: T) => {
    await callbacks.reduce((prevCallback, callback)=>{
      return prevCallback.then(async ()=>{
        if (callback)
          ctx = { ...ctx, ...(await callback(ctx)) }
      })
    }, Promise.resolve())
    return ctx
  }
}

[GODLiangCY]

Promise.all() is parallel, and to ensure that the order of execution is predictable, it should probably look like this.

function chainCallbacks<T = any>(...callbacks: (((ctx: T) => void | Partial<T> | Promise<void | Partial<T>>) | undefined)[]) {
  return async (ctx: T) => {
    await callbacks.reduce((prevCallback, callback)=>{
      return prevCallback.then(async ()=>{
        if (callback)
          ctx = { ...ctx, ...(await callback(ctx)) }
      })
    }, Promise.resolve())
    return ctx
  }
}

Oh, you're right! And it makes sense that executing callback in order. Really appreciate for your review!

[webfansplz]

Thanks for your contribution! Would you mind add a test cases for it ?

[GODLiangCY]

Sure

[wheatjs]

Seem okay to me