I'm first to use webflux in my project, just want to set timeout in case of long period handle.
#GetMapping("/{id}")
private Mono<ResponseEntity<String>> getEmployeeById(#PathVariable
String id) {
return Mono.just(id).map(updateTweet -> {
try {
TimeUnit.SECONDS.sleep(10);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
return new ResponseEntity<>(updateTweet, HttpStatus.OK);
}).timeout(Duration.ofSeconds(3)).onErrorReturn(new ResponseEntity<>("0000", HttpStatus.OK));
}
expect:in 3 seconds later, this function will return.
actual results: in 10 seconds later, this function returned.
In your code the .map and .timeout are all in subscription thread. The .sleep(10) causes the currently executing thread to sleep (temporarily cease execution) for the 10s. So when 3s timeout the thread can't execute.
You should use publishOn shifts .map to scheduler thread.
#GetMapping("/{id}")
private Mono<ResponseEntity<String>> getEmployeeById(#PathVariable
String id) {
Scheduler singleThread = Schedulers.single();
return Mono.just(id).publishOn(singleThread).map(updateTweet -> {
try {
TimeUnit.SECONDS.sleep(10);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
return new ResponseEntity<>(updateTweet, HttpStatus.OK);
}).timeout(Duration.ofSeconds(3)).onErrorReturn(new ResponseEntity<>("0000", HttpStatus.OK));
}
What TimeUnit.SECONDS.sleep(10) does is invoke Thread.sleep(). This puts the current
Thread into sleep mode for 10 seconds.
Since you are doing this inside a map, the Thread that goes to sleep is the current thread. The code that waits for a timeOut is also on the current thread and so doesn't come into effect until the sleep times out. For this reason, you should avoid performing any Thread related operations when doing reactive programming.
If you want to simulate a long running process in the above code, you could either invoke an external API that you control that waits more than 3 seconds before sending a response, or use one of the delay* operators.
Related
I have a gRPC server written in C++ and a client written in Java.
Everything was working fine using a blocking stub. Then I decided that I want to change one of the calls to be asynchronous, so I created an additional stub in my client, this one is created with newStub(channel) as opposed to newBlockingStub(channel). I didn't make any changes on the server side. This is a simple unary RPC call.
So I changed
Empty response = blockingStub.callMethod(request);
to
asyncStub.callMethod(request, new StreamObserver<Empty>() {
#Override
public void onNext(Empty response) {
logInfo("asyncStub.callMethod.onNext");
}
#Override
public void onError(Throwable throwable) {
logError("asyncStub.callMethod.onError " + throwable.getMessage());
}
#Override
public void onCompleted() {
logInfo("asyncStub.callMethod.onCompleted");
}
});
Ever since then, onError is called when I use this RPC (Most of the time) and the error it gives is "CANCELLED: io.grpc.Context was cancelled without error". I read about forking Context objects when making an RPC call from within an RPC call, but that's not the case here. Also, the Context seems to be a server side object, I don't see how it relates to the client. Is this a server side error propagating back to the client? On the server side everything seems to complete successfully, so I'm at a loss as to why this is happening. Inserting a 1ms sleep after calling asyncStub.callMethod seems to make this issue go away, but defeats the purpose. Any and all help in understanding this would be greatly appreciated.
Some notes:
The processing time on the server side is around 1 microsecond
Until now, the round trip time for the blocking call was several hundred microseconds (This is the time I'm trying to cut down, as this is essentially a void function, so I don't need to wait for a response)
This method is called multiple times in a row, so before it used to wait until the previous one finished, now they just fire off one after the other.
Some snippets from the proto file:
service EventHandler {
rpc callMethod(Msg) returns (Empty) {}
}
message Msg {
uint64 fieldA = 1;
int32 fieldB = 2;
string fieldC = 3;
string fieldD = 4;
}
message Empty {
}
So it turns out that I was wrong. The context object is used by the client too.
The solution was to do the following:
Context newContext = Context.current().fork();
Context origContext = newContext.attach();
try {
// Call async RPC here
} finally {
newContext.detach(origContext);
}
Hopefully this can help someone else in the future.
How do I run an async task in a Kestrel process with a very long time interval (say daily or perhaps even longer)? The task needs to run in the memory space of the web server process to update some global variables that slowly go out of date.
Bad answers:
Trying to use an OS scheduler is a poor plan.
Calling await from a controller is not acceptable. The task is slow.
The delay is too long for Task.Delay() (about 16 hours or so and Task.Delay will throw).
HangFire, etc. make no sense here. It's an in-memory job that doesn't care about anything in the database. Also, we can't call the database without a user context (from a logged-in user hitting some controller) anyway.
System.Threading.Timer. It's reentrant.
Bonus:
The task is idempotent. Old runs are completely irrelevant.
It doesn't matter if a particular page render misses the change; the next one will get it soon enough.
As this is a Kestrel server we're not really worried about stopping the background task. It'll stop when the server process goes down anyway.
The task should run once immediately on startup. This should make coordination easier.
Some people are missing this. The method is async. If it wasn't async the problem wouldn't be difficult.
I am going to add an answer to this, because this is the only logical way to accomplish such a thing in ASP.NET Core: an IHostedService implementation.
This is a non-reentrant timer background service that implements IHostedService.
public sealed class MyTimedBackgroundService : IHostedService
{
private const int TimerInterval = 5000; // change this to 24*60*60 to fire off every 24 hours
private Timer _t;
public async Task StartAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
// Requirement: "fire" timer method immediatly.
await OnTimerFiredAsync();
// set up a timer to be non-reentrant, fire in 5 seconds
_t = new Timer(async _ => await OnTimerFiredAsync(),
null, TimerInterval, Timeout.Infinite);
}
public Task StopAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
_t?.Dispose();
return Task.CompletedTask;
}
private async Task OnTimerFiredAsync()
{
try
{
// do your work here
Debug.WriteLine($"{TimerInterval / 1000} second tick. Simulating heavy I/O bound work");
await Task.Delay(2000);
}
finally
{
// set timer to fire off again
_t?.Change(TimerInterval, Timeout.Infinite);
}
}
}
So, I know we discussed this in comments, but System.Threading.Timer callback method is considered a Event Handler. It is perfectly acceptable to use async void in this case since an exception escaping the method will be raised on a thread pool thread, just the same as if the method was synchronous. You probably should throw a catch in there anyway to log any exceptions.
You brought up timers not being safe at some interval boundary. I looked high and low for that information and could not find it. I have used timers on 24 hour intervals, 2 day intervals, 2 week intervals... I have never had them fail. I have a lot of them running in ASP.NET Core in production servers for years, too. We would have seen it happen by now.
OK, so you still don't trust System.Threading.Timer...
Let's say that, no... There is just no fricken way you are going to use a timer. OK, that's fine... Let's go another route. Let's move from IHostedService to BackgroundService (which is an implementation of IHostedService) and simply count down.
This will alleviate any fears of the timer boundary, and you don't have to worry about async void event handlers. This is also a non-reentrant for free.
public sealed class MyTimedBackgroundService : BackgroundService
{
private const long TimerIntervalSeconds = 5; // change this to 24*60 to fire off every 24 hours
protected override async Task ExecuteAsync(CancellationToken stoppingToken)
{
// Requirement: "fire" timer method immediatly.
await OnTimerFiredAsync(stoppingToken);
var countdown = TimerIntervalSeconds;
while (!stoppingToken.IsCancellationRequested)
{
if (countdown-- <= 0)
{
try
{
await OnTimerFiredAsync(stoppingToken);
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
// TODO: log exception
}
finally
{
countdown = TimerIntervalSeconds;
}
}
await Task.Delay(1000, stoppingToken);
}
}
private async Task OnTimerFiredAsync(CancellationToken stoppingToken)
{
// do your work here
Debug.WriteLine($"{TimerIntervalSeconds} second tick. Simulating heavy I/O bound work");
await Task.Delay(2000);
}
}
A bonus side-effect is you can use long as your interval, allowing you more than 25 days for the event to fire as opposed to Timer which is capped at 25 days.
You would inject either of these as so:
services.AddHostedService<MyTimedBackgroundService>();
I'm trying to get a responsive JavaFX graphical interface while executing a cmd command.
The command I'm executing is the following.
youtube-dl.exe --audio-format mp3 --extract-audio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2vy6pJSo9c
As you see this is a youtube-downloader that converts a youtube link to an mp3-file.
I want this to be executed in a second thread and not in the main FX thread.
I've solved this by implementing interface Callable in the class StartDownloadingThread.
#Override
public Process call() throws Exception {
Process p = null;
p = ExecuteCommand(localCPara1, localCPara2, localDirectory).start();
try {
Thread.sleep(30);
}catch (InterruptedException e){}
return p;
}
The method ExecuteCommand just returns a ProcessBuilder object.
I try to use Thread.sleep to make the program return to the main thread and thus making the application responsive. Unfortunately the program still freezes.
This is how the method call is called.
ExecutorService pool = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(2);
StartDownloadingThread callable = new StartDownloadingThread(parameter1, parameter2, directory);
Future future = pool.submit(callable);
Process p = (Process) future.get();
p.waitFor();
How do I make my GUI responsive using the interface Callable?
Using a executor to run a task just for you to use the get method of the Future that is returned when submitting the task does not actually free the original thread to continue with other tasks. Later you even use the waitFor method on the original thread, which is likely to take even more time than anything you do in your Callable.
For this purpose the Task class may be better suited, since it allows you to handle success/failure on the application thread using event handlers.
Also please make sure an ExecutorService is shut down after you're done submitting tasks.
Task<Void> task = new Task<Void>() {
#Override
protected Void call() throws Exception {
Process p = null;
p = ExecuteCommand(localCPara1, localCPara2, localDirectory).start();
// why are you even doing this?
try {
Thread.sleep(30);
}catch (InterruptedException e){}
// do the rest of the long running things
p.waitFor();
return null;
}
};
task.setOnSucceeded(event -> {
// modify ui to show success
});
task.setOnFailed(event -> {
// modify ui to show failure
});
ExecutorService pool = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(2);
pool.submit(task);
// add more tasks...
// shutdown the pool not keep the jvm alive because of the pool
pool.shutdown();
I am working on making a scheduler, just like Windows Scheduler using Quartz.Net.
In Windows Scheduler, there is an option to stop a task from running if it takes more than the specified time. I have to implement the same in my scheduler.
But I am not able to find any extension method/setting to configure Trigger or Job accordingly.
I request some inputs or suggestions for it.
You can write small code to set a custom timout running on another thread. Implement IInterruptableJob interface and make a call to its Interrupt() method from that thread when the job should be interrupted. You can modify the following sample code as per your need. Please make necessary checks/config inputs wherever required.
public class MyCustomJob : IInterruptableJob
{
private Thread runner;
public void Execute(IJobExecutionContext context)
{
int timeOutInMinutes = 20; //Read this from some config or db.
TimeSpan timeout = TimeSpan.FromMinutes(timeOutInMinutes);
//Run your job here.
//As your job needs to be interrupted, let us create a new task for that.
var task = new Task(() =>
{
Thread.Sleep(timeout);
Interrupt();
});
task.Start();
runner = new Thread(PerformScheduledWork);
runner.Start();
}
private void PerformScheduledWork()
{
//Do what you wish to do in the schedled task.
}
public void Interrupt()
{
try
{
runner.Abort();
}
catch (Exception)
{
//log it!
}
finally
{
//do what you wish to do as a clean up task.
}
}
}
I am new to Windows Workflow and trying to write a Long Running process.
I am also trying to limit how long this process can run for.
I am calling WorkflowInvoker.Invoke to trigger my Workflow passing it a small timespan for testing.
If I try this certain activities, this seems to work perfectly.
But If I use a CodeActivity, it seems to ignore my timeout entirely.
Why is this? And how do I cause my CodeActivity to timeout if it takes too long?
An example working with a Delay Activity:
(In this example the TimeOutException is thrown)
Activity wf = new Sequence()
{
Activities =
{
new Delay()
{
Duration = TimeSpan.FromSeconds(10)
},
}
};
try
{
WorkflowInvoker.Invoke(wf, TimeSpan.FromSeconds(5));
}
catch (TimeoutException ex)
{
Console.WriteLine(ex.Message);
}
An example trying to use a CodeActivity:
(In this example the TimeOutException is not thrown)
public class LongActivity : CodeActivity
{
protected override void Execute(CodeActivityContext context)
{
Thread.Sleep(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(10));
}
}
Activity wf = new Sequence()
{
Activities =
{
new LongActivity()
}
};
try
{
WorkflowInvoker.Invoke(wf, TimeSpan.FromSeconds(5));
}
catch (TimeoutException ex)
{
Console.WriteLine(ex.Message);
}
The workflow runtime can only take action when it is in charge and if your activity takes 10 seconds to execute, or sleep, the runtime can't do anything about it. It won't schedule any new activities though because there is no remaining time left and would throw a TimeoutException instead.
Normally when you have long running work you would use an asynchronous activity, either an AsyncCodeActivity or a NativeActivity with a bookmark so the runtime is in control and can abort the workflow.