I am looking for a document/diagram that shows states a workflow goes through (Idle, Complete, Aborted, Deleted, Unloaded, Unhandled Exception)
Yes, I lmgtfy'd it already.
Workflow goes through various states depending on whether you're using persistence service or not. For a diagram you can have a look at: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/moustafa/archive/2006/03/02/542459.aspx The only thing that has been missed in the article is when a workflow is cancelled. The only difference between Cancel and Terminate is that terminating workflow requires a reason whereas canceling it does not require one.
There really aren't any diagrams out there believe it or not. However, here is an article that explains it textually -- http://dotnetrobert.com/?q=node/100 -- quite well.
Related
we're looking into using the new feature of Axon, dead letter queue(DLQ).
In our previous application (axon 4.5x) we have a lot of eventhandlers updating projections. Our default is to rethrow exceptions when they occur, which will trigger a rollback for the database updates. Perhaps not the best practice to rely on this behaviour (because it can not rollback everything, eg sending an email from event can not be reverted of course)
This behaviour seems to get lost when introducing DLQ in our applications, which has big impact on our current application flow (projections are updated when they previously weren't). This makes upgrading not that easy.
Is it possible to still get the old behaviour(transaction rolled back in case of exceptions) together with DLQ processing?
What we tried was building a test application to test the new DLQ features. While playing around all looks fine in case of exceptions (they were moved to dlq) but the projections still got updated (not rolled back as before)
We throw an exception after the .save() of the projection simulating a database failure to see if events involved (we have multiple eventhandlers for an event updating projections) got rolled back.
You need to choose here, #davince. Storing a dead-letter in the dead-letter queue similarly requires a database transaction.
To ensure the token still progresses and the dead letter is entered, the framework uses the existing transaction.
Furthermore, in practical terms event handling was successful.
Hence, a rollback for some of the parts wouldn't be feasible.
The best way to deal with this, as is mentioned in the Reference Guide, is to make your event handlers idempotent:
Before configuring a SequencedDeadLetterQueue it is vital to validate whether your event handling functions are idempotent.
As a processing group consists of several Event Handling Components
(as explained in the intro of this chapter), some handlers may succeed
in event handling while others will not. As a configured dead-letter
queue does not stall event handling, a failure in one Event Handling
Component does not cause a rollback for other event handlers.
Furthermore, as the dead-letter support is on the processing group
level, dead-letter processing will invoke all event handlers for that
event within the processing group.
Thus, if your event handlers are not idempotent, processing letters may result in undesired side effects.
Hence, we strongly recommend making your event handlers idempotent when using the dead-letter queue.
The principle of exactly-once delivery is no longer guaranteed; at-least-once delivery is the reality to cope with.
I understand this requires some rework on your end, #davince. Although the feature is powerful, it comes with a certain level of responsibility before you use it.
I hope the above clarifies this for you.
Added, I'd like to point out that the version upgrade in itself does not require you to use the dead-letter queue. Hence, this change shouldn't impose any strains for updating to the latest release.
Update 1
Sometimes you need to think about an issue a bit longer.. I was just wondering the following things about your setup. Perhaps I can help out on that front:
What storage mechanism do you use to store projections in?
Where are you storing your tokens?
Where are you planning to store your dead-letters?
How are you invoking the storage layer from your event handlers?
Update 2
Thanks for sharing that you're using PostgreSQL for your projections, tokens, and dead letters. And that you're using JPA entities for storage.
It gives more certainty about your setup, as it may impact how your system would react in case of a rollback.
However, as it's rather vanilla/regular, the shared comment from the Reference Guide still applies.
This, sadly enough, means some work on your end, #davince. I hope the road forward to start using the SequencedDeadLetterQueue from Axon Framework is clear.
By the way, if you ever have recommendations on how the framework or the documentation may be improved, be sure to file issues in GitHub here and here, respectively.
I am using an Axon Event Tracking processor. Sometimes events take longer that 10 seconds to process.
This seems to cause the message to be processed again and this appears in the log "Releasing claim of token X/0 failed. It was owned by another node."
If I up the number of segments it does not log this BUT the event is still processed twice so I think this might be misleading. (I think I was mistaken about this)
I have tried adjusting the fetchDelay, cleanupDelay and tokenClaimInterval. None of which has fixed this. Is there a property or something that I am missing?
Edit
The scenario taking longer than 10 seconds is making a HTTP request to an external service.
I'm using axon 4.1.2 with all default configuration when using with Spring auto configuration. I cannot see the Releasing claim on token and preparing for retry in [timeout]s log.
I was having this issue with a single segment and 2 instances of the application. I realised I hadn't increased the number of segments like I thought I had.
After further investigation I have discovered that adding an additional segment seems to have stopped this. Even if I have for example 2 segments and 6 applications it still doesn't reappear, however I'm not sure how this is different to my original scenario of 1 segment and 2 application?
I didn't realise it would be possible for multiple threads to grab the same tracking token and process the same event. It sounds like the best action would be to put an idem-potency check before the HTTP call?
The Releasing claim of token [event-processor-name]/[segment-id] failed. It was owned by another node. message can only occur in three scenarios:
You are performing a merge operation of two segments which fails because the given thread doesn't own both segments.
The main event processing loop of the TrackingEventProcessor is stopped, but releasing the token claim fails because the token is already claimed by another thread.
The main event processing loop has caught an Exception, making it retry with a exponential back-off, and it tries to release the claim (which might fail with the given message).
I am guessing it's not options 1 and 2, so that would leave us with option 3. This should also mean you are seeing other WARN level messages, like:
Releasing claim on token and preparing for retry in [timeout]s
Would you be able to share whether that's the case? That way we can pinpoint a little better what the exact problem is you are encountering.
By the way, very likely you have several processes (event handling threads of the TrackingEventProcessor) stealing the TrackingToken from one another. As they're stealing an un-updated token, both (or more) will handled the same event. Hence why you see the event handler being invoked twice.
Obviously undesirable behavior and something we should resolve for you. I would like to ask you to provide answers to my comments under the question, as right now I have to little to go on. Let us figure this out #Dan!
Update
Thanks for updating your question #dan, that's very helpful.
From what you've shared, I am fairly confident that both instances are stealing the token from one another. This does depend though on whether both are using the same database for the token_entry table (although I am assuming they are).
If they are using the same table, then they should "nicely" share their work, unless one of them takes to long. If it takes to long, the token will be claimed by another process. This other process in this case is the thread of the TEP of your other application instance. The "claim timeout" is defaulted to 10 seconds, which also corresponds with the long running event handling process.
This claimTimeout is adjustable though, by invoking the Builder of the JpaTokenStore/JdbcTokenStore (depending on which you are using / auto wiring) and calling the JpaTokenStore.Builder#claimTimeout(TemporalAmount) method. And, I think this would be required on your end, giving the fact you have a long running operation.
There are of course different ways of tackling this. Like, making sure the TEP is only ran on a single instance (not really fault tolerant though), or offloading this long running operation to a schedule task which is triggered by the event.
But, I think we've found the issue at least, so I'd suggest to tweak the claimTimeout and see if the problem persists.
Let us know if this resolves the problem on your end #dan!
My ChangeFeedProcessor's IChangeFeedObserver.CloseAsync callback was invoked with ChangeFeedObserverCloseReason as "ObserverError". So, far I have seen this error only once and I am not sure how to repro it. What causes this error? Is there a way to diagnose this more? Is there any recommended action that one should take after receiving this error?
From your question, I understand you are using Change Feed Processor.
That Close reason is provided when the code in your ProcessChangesAsync implementation throws an unhandled exception.
Basically, if that happens, it means your code had an error processing the changes so:
The Observer is closed, releasing the Lease
The lease becomes available to be picked by any Host instance
The lease gets picked up by a Host, an Observer started, the same batch of changes gets sent to be processed
If the nature of your error was transient, then this time it will work (hopefully). If its not transient, then you will again face an ObserverError.
As a rule of thumb, always try to manage your exceptions if possible, if not, it will be treated as a temporary scenario and will get eventually retried as I described.
Also please next time give more context, describe which libraries and versions you are using and provide some related code. It will help a lot understanding and diagnosing.
I was wondering if there is any way you can be aware inside an orchestration that it has just been resumed? I'm logging processing steps and errors from the orchestration, and it would be nice if in the error log you would see something like "Step 2 failed", and then as the next entry "Orchestration resumed at step 2".
Is there maybe some global property that is set after a resume?
So...first some advice...
"I'm logging processing steps and errors from the orchestration"
Don't waste your time with this. Totally serious. I've seen people put hours into this and the result is never useful and almost always causes more problem that it will ever help you solve. Most important, BizTalk Tracking already does this.
Now, in practical terms, you will already know if the Orchestration was suspended so you're trying to log something that you already know. And even if you do manage to logs this, again, it won't help.
Basically, you will be much better off learning how to use the built in tools, such as Tracking and the Event Log instead of spending time on something that will, trust me, never help you. Meaning, it's a net negative.
For an orchestration to be resumed, it first would have to become suspended.
As far as I know, there are 3 ways to suspend an orchestration:
A suspend shape was encountered
An exception occurred
The orchestration is manually suspended using the BizTalk Administration Console.
The first 2 cases can be easily done programmatically either by setting a variable before the suspend shape or in your exception handling.
For the last case, which doesn't occur often, I'm not sure if that is possible.
I want to pull messages off a MQS queue in a C client, and would love to do so asynchronously so I don't have to start (explicitly) multithreading. The messages will be forwarded to another system that acts "transactionally" but is completely incompatible with XA. So I'd like to have a way to explicitly commit (and thereby remove) a message that's been successfully handed off to the other system, and not commit if this failed, so that the last message is retained for a more successful later attempt.
I've read about the SYNCPOINT option and understand how I'd use that around a regular GET, but I haven's seen any hints on how to make asynchronous message retrieval have transactional behavior like this. Any hints, please?
I think you are describing using the asynchronous callback capability, ie you register a routine to be called when a message arrives, and ask for any get to be under syncpoint... An explanation of how some of it works is in here, https://share.confex.com/share/117/webprogram/Handout/Session9513/share_advanced_mqi.pdf page 4+
Effectively you get called with the MQ message under syncpoint, do your processing with another system, then commit or rollback the message before returning.
Be aware without the use of e.g. XA 2 phase commit, there is always going to be the windows of e.g. committing to the external system and a power outage means the message under the unit of work gets rolled back inside MQ as you didnt have time to perform the commit.
Edit: my misunderstanding, didn't realise that the application was using a callback to retrieve messages, which is indeed fully asynchronous behavior. Disregard the answer below.
Do MQGET with MQGMO_SYNCPOINT, then issue either MQCMIT or MQBACK.
"Asynchronous" and "synchronous" may be misnomers - these are your patterns of using MQ - whether you wait for a reply message or not, these patterns do not affect how MQ processes your calls. Transaction management (unit of work management) works across any MQI calls that use SYNCPOINT, no matter if they are part of a request/reply pattern or not.