Remember that the context of this discussion is achieving parallelism by not waiting - instead, you create promises in parallel, pass them on, and attach handlers at some later point, e.g. after collecting them in a Promise.all().

As I said, as long as you do standard stuff, which for try/catch in an async function and an "await" of all promises is the standard path.

Sometimes people create a promise without awaiting inside a try/catch, thinking they got errors handled, because they don't want to wait but start another promise-producing function right away. But that other function needs its own catch handler so they write another one below the first one and don't "await" to get both asynchronous promise-returning functions to run simultaneously without the second one having to wait for the first one, because what they do is independent (so far the thoughts are correct and good).

Since they use try/catch instead of the .then() and .catch() handler and they don't fully understand all the implications they run into this problem. It happened to me when I learned promises, after already having programmed with them for well over a year and feeling comfortable, and it just recently happened to some of my people (it no longer happens to me, it's the next generations turn...).

Other issues that make this exact problem insidious are:

- This problem can only be spotted when the promise is rejected. If your tests don't include that you will only see it when someone runs into this issue by chance, much later, maybe in production.

- Often it may not get fixed even after there is a rejected promise showing the problem. What time-limited stressed middle-level developers will do is solve the rejected promise but not the way it isn't caught. The code construct that lead to "uncaught promise rejection" will remain unfixed though, because as soon as the promise no longer rejects the code appears to work fine.