Is it okay to make HTTP requests to a counter party's external service from within a responder flow?
My use case is a Party invokes a "request-token" flow with an exchange node. That exchange node makes a HTTP request (on the responder flow) to move cash from that parties account to an exchange account in the external payment system. The event of the funds actually hitting the count and hence the issuance of the tokens would happen with another flow.
If it is not okay, what may be an alternative design to achieve the task?
It is not always a good idea to make HTTP request that way.
Unless you think very carefully about what happens when the previous checkpoint is replayed.so dedupe and idempotence are key considerations.plus what happens if target is down? plus this may exhaust the thread pool upon which the fibers operate.
Flows are run on fibers. CordaServices can spawn their own threads
threads can block on I/O, fibers can only do so for short periods and we make no guarantees about freeing resources, or ordering unless it is the DB. Also threads can register observables
The real challenge is restart-ability and for that they need to test the hell out of their code with a random kills.
You need to be aware that steps can be replayed in the event of a crash. this is true of any server-side work based system that restarts work.
Effectively, you should:
Step 1) execute an on-ledger Corda transaction to move one or more
assets into a locked state (analogous to XA 'prepare'). When
successfully notarised,
Step 2) execute the off-ledger transaction
with an idempotent call that succeeds or fails. When we know if it
succeeded or failed, move to
Step 3) execute a second Corda
transaction that either reverts the status of the asset or moves it
to its intended final state
Related
I am trying to use Axon's TrackingEventProcessor to replay our events.
While resetting the token, I am getting an UnableToClaimTokenException, since the service runs in a distributed setup.
Is there any way to solve this issue without using Axon Server?
Axon Server has nothing to do with the occurrence of the UnableToClaimTokenException, Axon Server just greatly simplifies the process of initiating a replay.
As the exception and javadoc of the TrackingEventProcessor state, you will need to stop all instances of a given TrackingEventProcessor prior to initiating a replay.
Thus, in a distributed set up, you will have to stop each and every duplication of the given TrackingEventProcessor prior to being able to actual call resetTokens on one of them.
Without Axon Server, that means you will have to create your own endpoints or CLI within your application to stop the given processors. To simplify this, you would essentially want to have a centralized dashboard which shows all occurrence of a given TrackingEventProcessor.
This is exactly what Axon Server is, hence simplifying the process tremendously.
Regardless, it's definitely doable to create this yourself.
Thus, when it comes to triggering a replay, you will first shut down each instance of the TEP prior to a reset.
I have 5 nodes & 1 Notary node corda private network and a web client with UI & RESTful services.
There are quite a few states and its attributes that are managed by users using the UI. I need to understand how to handle timeouts and avoid multiple updates or Errors
Scenario 1
User is viewing a specific un-consumed current state of a feature.
User performs an edit and updates the state
Upon receiving the request RESTful component use CORDA RPCClient to start the flow. It sets the timeout value e.g. 2 secs
CORDA flow runs the configured rules and it has to sync / collect signatures from all the participating nodes (4). Complete processing takes more than 2 secs (Some file processing, multiple states update etc. I can change the timeout to higher value based on specific use cases. It can surely happen anytime. Need to understand what is the recommended way of handling)
As time taken is higher than provided, CORDA RPCClient throws exception. For the RESTFul service / User transaction has failed.
Behind the scenes CORDA is processing and collecting signatures and updating nodes. From CORDA perspective everything looks fine and changed set is committed to the ledger.
Question:
Is there a way to know transaction submitted is in progress so RESTful service should wait
If user submits again we do check for transaction hash is the latest one associated with unconsumed state and reject if not (It was provided to UI while querying.
Any recommended way of handling.
Scenario 2
User viewing a specific un-consumed current state of a feature.
User performs an edit and updates the state
Upon receiving the request RESTful component use CORDA RPCClient to start the flow. It sets the timeout value e.g. 2 secs
CORDA flow runs the configured rules and it has to sync / collect signatures from all the participating nodes (4). One of the nodes is down or not reachable. Flow hangs / waits for the node to be live again.
RESTFul service / UI receives a timeout exception. User refreshes the view and submits the change again. Querying the current node will return old data and user will try to make change again and submit. Same will happen at CORDA layer transaction will be of latest unconsumed state (comparing the tx hash as state is not committed, it will proceed further and will hang / waits for the node to be live again. It waits for long time i have waited for a minute it did not quite trying.
Now the node comes up and will be syncing with peers. Notary will give exception as there are two states / requests pending to form the next state in chain. Transaction fails.
Question:
Is there a way to know transaction submitted is in progress so RESTful service should wait
Any recommended way of handling.
Is there a way to provide timeout values for node communication.
Do i need to keep monitoring if the node is active or not and accordingly tailor user experience.
Appreciate all the help and support for above issue. Please let me know if there is any additional information needed.
Timeouts
As of Corda 3.3, there is no way to set a timeout either on a Corda RPC request, a flow, or a message to another node. If another node is down when you try to contact it as part of a flow, the message will simply remain in your outbound message queue until it can be successfully delivered.
Checking flow progress
Each flow has a unique run ID. When you start a flow via RPC (e.g. using CordaRPCOps.startFlowDynamic), you get back a FlowHandle. The flow's unique run ID is then available via FlowHandle.id. Once you have this ID, you can check whether the flow is still in progress by checking whether it is still present in the list of current state machines (i.e. flows):
val flowInProgress = flowHandle.id in cordaRPCOps.stateMachinesSnapshot().map { it.id }
You can also monitor the state machine manager to wait until the flow completes, then get its result:
val flowUpdates = cordaRPCOps.stateMachinesFeed().updates
flowUpdates.subscribe {
if (it.id == flowHandle.id && it is StateMachineUpdate.Removed) {
val int = it.result.getOrThrow()
// Handle result.
}
}
Handling duplicate requests
The flow will throw an exception if you try and consume the same state twice, either when you query the vault to retrieve the state or when you try to notarise the transaction. I'd suggest letting the user start the flow again, then handling any double-spend errors appropriately and reflecting them on the front-end (e.g. via an error message and automatic refresh).
I'm currently investigating Rebus but being unable to find good documentation this process is proving difficult. I am hoping someone can help me understand this exciting product.
I have read that during message processing, if something goes wrong the message will return to the queue.
Is the message returned to the front of the queue or placed on the end? If placed on the front this will be problem because the queue in essence becomes blocked with a message that may not be able to be processed - at least until it times out or retries exceeded.
Does Rebus have support for an out-of-the-box separate Retry queue?
Can I specify the interval between retries?
Can I specify an exponential backoff interval for retries as in Apache ActiveMQ?
Thanks
1) The queue transaction is rolled back, effectively moving the message back in front - therefore, it will be immediately retried.
After 5 failed attempts (at least that is the default), Rebus will move the message to the error queue. The default retry mechanism is intentionally very swift - this way, the input queue will never be clogged by poisonous messages.
If you need more sophisticated retries, I suggest you tage a look at bus.Defer - it can defer delivery of a message to the future. It requires that you have a timeout manager(*) running though.
2) I guess that's what I call "error queue", except there's no retry :)
I did create a solution some time, though, where I coded a simple endpoint that would periodically empty the error queue and move all the messages back into the original source queue, as a form of crude automatic second-level retry mechanism.
3) No. NServiceBus has the concept of second-level retries, but this is something that I've never really needed (enough) with Rebus. But with Rebus, you're on your own here - it should be fairly easy to do some intelligent bus.Defer that can then be easily adapted to each kind of error that you're expecting.
4) See (3)
I hope that clarifies a bit :)
(*) The timeout manager can be a separate endpoint whose only job in life is to receive a message, hold on to it for a while (i.e. save it to a database), and then return it to the sender when the time has elapsed. The timeout manager can be hosted in-process though, but using the .Timeouts(t => t.???) configuration spell.
When considering a service in NServiceBus at what point do you start questioning how many messages handled by a service is too much and start to break these into a new service?
Consider the following: I have a sales service which can currently be broken into a few distinct business components, these are sales order validation, sales order processing, purchase order validation and purchase order processing.
There are currently about 20 message handlers and 2 sagas used within this service. My concern is that during high volume traffic from my website this can cause an initial spike in the messages to jump into the hundreds. Considering that the messages need to be processed in the order they are taken off the queue this can cause a delay for the last in the queue ( depending on what processing each message does).
When separating concerns within a service into smaller business components I find this makes things a little easier. Sure, it's a logical separation, but it seems to provide a layer of clarity and understanding. To me it seems it seems an easier option to do this than creating new services where in the end the more services I have the more maintenance I need to do.
Does anyone have any similar concerns to this?
I think you have actually answered you own question :)
As soon as the message volume reaches a point where the lag becomes an issue you could look to instance your endpoint. You do not necessarily need to reduce the number of handlers. You could simply install the service a number of times and have specific message types sent to the relevant endpoint by mapping.
So it becomes a matter of a simple instance installation and some config changes. So you can then either split messages on sending so that messages from a particular source end up on a particular endpoint (maybe priority) or on message type.
I happened to do the same thing on a previous project (not using NServiecBus though) where we needed document conversion messages coming from the UI to be processed ASAP. We simply installed the conversion service again with its own set of queues and changed the UI configuration to send the conversion messages to the new endpoint. The background conversion messages were still going to the previous endpoint. So here the source determined the separation.
Here is my scenario. BizTalk needs to transfer a file from a shared/central document library. First BizTalk receives an incoming message with a reference/path to this document in the library. Then it simply needs to read it out from this library and send it (potentially through different adapters). This is in essence, a scenario not so remote from the ClaimCheck EAI pattern.
Some ways to implement a claim check have been documented, noticeably BizTalk ESB Toolkit Claim Check, and BizTalk 2009: Dealing with Extremely Large Messages, Part I & Part II. These implementations do however take the assumption that the send pipeline can immediately read the stream that has been “checked in.”
That is not my case: the document will take some time before it is available in the shared library, and I cannot delay the initial received message. That leaves me with 2 options: either introduce some delay via an orchestration or ensure the send port will later on retry if the document is not there yet.
(A delay can only be introduced via an orchestration, there is no time-based subscriptions in BizTalk. Right?)
Since this a message-only flow I’d figure I could skip the orchestration. I have seen ways on how to have "Custom Retry Logic in Message Only Solution Using Pipeline" but what I need is not only a way to control the retry behavior (as performed by the adapter) but also to enforce it right from within the pipeline…
Every attempt I made so far just ended up with a suspended message that won’t be automatically retried even though the send adapter had retry configured… If this is indeed possible, then where/what should I do?
Oh right… and there is queuing… but unfortunately neither on premises nor in the cloud ;)
OK I may be pushing the limits… but just out of curiosity…
Many thanks for your help and suggestions!
I'm puzzled as to how this could be done without an Orch. The only way I can think of would be along the lines of:
The receive port for the initial messages just 'eats' the messages,
e.g. subscribing these messages to a dummy Send port with the Null Adapter,
ignoring them totally.
You monitor the Shared document library with a receive port, looking for any ? any new? document there.
Any located documents are subscribed by a send port and sent downstream.
An orchestration based approach would be along the lines of:
Orch is triggered by a receive of the Initial notification of an 'upcoming' new file to the library. If your initial notification is request response (e.g. exposed web service, you can immediately and synchronously issue the response)
Another receive port is used to do the monitoring of availability and retrieval of the file from shared library, correlating to the original notification message (e.g. by filename, or other key)
A mechanism to handle the retry if the document isn't available, and potentially an eventual timeout, e.g. if the document never makes it to the shared library.
And on success, a send port to then send the document downstream
Placing the delay shape in the Orch will offer more scalability than e.g. using Thread.Sleep() or similar in custom adapter or pipeline code, since BTS just calculates ad stamps the 'awaken' timestamp on the SQL record and can then dehydrate the orch, freeing up the thread.
The 'is the file there yet?' check can be done with a retry loop, delaying after each failed check, with a parallel branch with a timeout e.g. after an hour or so.
The polling interval can be controlled in the receive location, so I do not understand what you mean by there is no time based subscriptions in Biztalk. You also have a schedule window.
One way to introduce delay is to send that initial message to an internal webservice, which will simply post back the message to Biztalk after a specified time interval.
There are also loopback adapters, which simply post the message back into the messagebox. This can be ammended to add a delay.