Assume that i have function called PlaceOrder, which when called inserts the order details into local DB and puts a message(order details) into a TIBCO EMS Queue.
Once message received, a TIBCO BW will then invoke some other system(say ExternalSystem) to pass on the order details.
Now the way i wrote my integration tests is
Call the Place Order
Sleep, and check details exists in local DB
Sleep and check details exists in ExternalSystem.
Is the above approach correct? Above test gives me confidence that, End to End integration is working, but are there any better way to test above scenario?
The problem you describe is quite common, and your approach is a very typical solution.
The problem with this solution is that if the delay is too short, your tests may sometimes pass and sometimes fail, but if the delay is very long, then your just wasteing time waiting, and with many tests, it can add a lot of delay. But unless you can get some signal to tell you the order arrived in the database, then you just have to wait.
You can reduce the delay by doing lots of checks with short intervals. If you're order is not there after timeout, then you would fail the test.
In "Growing Object-Oriented Software, Guided by Tests"*, there is a chapter on this very subject, so you might want to get a copy if you will be doing a lot of this sort of testing.
"There are two ways a test can observe the system: by sampling its observable
state or by listening for events that it sends out. Of these, sampling is
often the only option because many systems don’t send any monitoring
events. It’s quite common for a test to include both techniques to interact
with different “ends” of its system"
(*) http://my.safaribooksonline.com/book/software-engineering-and-development/software-testing/9780321574442
Related
I'm maintaining an event-sourced application that went far off the road I'm afraid.
In one case a command is received by an aggregate root that publishes an event that is handled by an event handler that needs to do 2 things:
send a command (cmd1) to another aggregate root that will publish an event that will create a number of sagas each firing of some commands that are eventually handled by a number of aggregates
send a second command (cmd2) that will also lead to all sorts of command/event/command sequences.
In schematic form:
cmd0 -> AR0 -> evt0 -> evtHandler -> cmd1 -> AR1 -> evt1 -> saga stuff and more cmds and evts
|-> cmd2 -> AR2 -> evt2 -> more saga stuff, cmds and evts
Everything happens in the same thread and everything happens in 1 transaction started at the first command handling.
Now the goal: all events, saga's, aggregate calls originated from the first command (cmd1) should happen first and then all events, saga's and aggregate calls originated from the second command (cmd2) should happen.
Here's the observation: cmd1 calls AR1 that published evt1 but after that cmd2 calls AR2 publishing evt2. All other events and commands originating from cmd1 are mingled with those from cmd2.
First I thought I could get away with it using the UnitOfWork but even explicitly creating a separate unit of work for handling cmd1 didn't solve the problem. Looking at the implementation in AbstractEventBus I see that the events are simply merged in the parent unit of work and thus end up being merged with the ones originating from cmd2.
Here's the question: Is there a way to first call cmd1 and wait until all effects originating from that command are handled before calling cmd2 while still preserving the transactional atomicity that I currently have?
To be completely honest with you Jan, the best would be if the components within your application don't rely to much on that order.
It essentially means you have distinct message handling components, which in essence could be different micro service, but they are all tied together as the order is important.
Ideally, you'd set up your components to work on their own.
So, aggregates handle a command and publish the result, done.
Sagas react to events, regardless of where they come from, and react on them with actions (e.g. command dispatching).
Embracing the eventuality would help here, as it will drop the entire requirement of waiting for one process to complete.
From a theoretical stance, that would be my response.
From a more pragmatic corner looking at your question, I'd like to point out that it sounds like a rabbit hole you are going in to. You don't only want cmd1 handling to be done, you want event handling on all sagas to be resolved, including commands coming out of that too, correct? Who's here to tell what the number of Sagas is? Or what the number of commands those saga dispatch need to be taken into account? These criteria will likely change over time, adding more an more stuff which needs to happen "in a single transaction".
Well, yes there are way to wait for processing from some parts, to pull them all in a single transaction. But to be honest with you, I wouldn't recommend taking that route, as it will only make using such a message based system more and more complex.
The crux is what all effects are. From the point of dispatching that command, you should only care if that exact command handles successfully yes or no, and that's where the concerns should end.
I know this does not give you a simple programmatic solution, as you need to adjust the design. But I think decoupling is the only right way to go hear.
That's my two cents to the situation, hope this helps you further in any way Jan.
Message Anticipation explanation update
In essence, the messages you'd use in an Axon application form a boundary. A boundary after which the components essentially don't have a clue what is going to handle those messages. The behaviour per message differs a little, but might clarify what opens you have too:
Commands - Commands are consistently routed to a single handle, on a single instance. Furthermore, you can anticipate a response, in the form of an OK or NOK. OK's mean the handler is void or the identifier of a created entity (like the aggregate itself). NOK's typically are the exceptions you throw from your command handling methods, which signal something went wrong or the command simply couldn't be executed and it should be let know to the dispatching end.
Events - Events will be broadcast to any component which has subscribed itself to the EventBus as being capable to handle a given event. Note that event handling is segregated in time from the actual publication point of the event. This means there is no way there are results from event handling which could (or should) be returned to the dispatcher of an event.
Queries - Query messages can be routed in several forms. Either a single component is best suited to answer the query (called Point-to-Point queries). You can also dispatch a query to several handlers and aggregate the results (called Scatter-Gather queries). Lastly, you can subscribe to query models by doing a "Subscription query", which is essentially a combination of a point-to-point followed up by a Flux of updates. Clearly, query dispatching would mean you are receiving a result from some component. It's just that you have freedom in the type of query you do. If any assurance is required about the "up-to-date"-ness of a query response should be part of the implementation of the query being sent and how it is handled by a #QueryHandler annotated method.
Hope this provides some additional clarity at what each of the messages do in an Axon application!
I want to implement some file io with the routines provided by MPI (in particular Open MPI).
Due to possible limitations of the environment, I wondered, if it is possible to limit the nodes, which are responsible for IO, so that all other nodes are required to perform a hidden mpi_send to this group of processes, to actually write the data. This would be nice in cases, where e.g. the master node is placed on a node with high-performance filesystem and the other nodes have only access to a low-performance filesystem, where the binaries are stored.
Actually, I already found some information, which might be helpful, but I couldn't find further information, how to actually implement these things:
1: There is an info key MPI_IO belonging to the communicator, which tells which ranks provide standard-conforming IO-routines. As this is listed as an environmental inquiry, I don't see, where I could modify this.
2: There is an info key io_nodes_list which seems to belong to file-related info-objects. Unfortunately, the possible values for this key are not documented and Open MPI doesn't seem to implement them in any way. Actually, I can't even get the filename from the info-object which is returned by mpi_file_get_info...
As a workaround, I could imagine two things: On the one hand, I could perform the IO with standard Fortran routines, or on the other hand, create a new communicator, which is responsible for IO. But in both cases, the processes, which are responsible for IO have to check for possible IO from the other processes to perform manual communication and file interaction.
Is there a nice and automatic way to restrict the IO to certain nodes? If yes, how could I implement this?
You explicitly asked about OpenMPI, but there are two MPI-IO implementations in OpenMPI. The old workhorse is ROMIO, the MPI-IO implementation shared among just about every MPI implementation. OpenMPI also has OMPIO, but I don't know a whole lot about tuning that one.
Next, if you want things to happen automatically for you, you'll have to use collective i/o. The independent I/O routines cannot send a message to anyone else -- they are independent and there's no way to know if the other side will be listening.
With those preliminaries out of the way...
You are asking about "i/o aggregaton". There is a bit of information here in the context of another optimization called "deferred open" (and which OMPIO calls Lazy Open)
https://press3.mcs.anl.gov/romio/2003/08/05/deferred-open/
In short, you can definitely say "only these N processes should do I/O", and then the collective I/O library will exchange data and make sure that happens. The optimization was developed some 15-odd years ago for just the situation you proposed: some nodes being better connected to storage than others (as was the case on the old ASCI Red machine, to give you a sense for how old this optimization is...)
I don't know where you got io_nodes_list. You probably want to use the MPI-IO info keys cb_config_list and cb_nodes
So, you've got a cluster with master1, master2, master3, and compute1, compute2, compute3 (or whatever the hostnames actually are). You can do something like this (in c, sorry. I'm not proficient in Fortran):
MPI_Info info;
MPI_File fh;
MPI_Info_create(&info);
MPI_Info_set(info, "cb_config_list", "master1:1,master2:1,master3:1");
MPI_File_open(MPI_COMM_WORLD, filename, MPI_MODE_CREATE|MPI_MODE_WRONLY, info, &fh)
With these hints, MPI_File_write_all will aggregate all the I/O through the MPI processes on master1, master2, and master3. ROMIO won't blow up your memory because it will chunk up the I/O into a smaller working set (specified with the "cb_buffer_size" hint: cranking this up, if you have the memory, is a good way to get better performance).
There is a ton of information about the hints you can set in the ROMIO users guide:
http://www.mcs.anl.gov/research/projects/romio/doc/users-guide/node6.html
I am learning about F# agents (MailboxProcessor).
I am dealing with a rather unconventional problem.
I have one agent (dataSource) which is a source of streaming data. The data has to be processed by an array of agents (dataProcessor). We can consider dataProcessor as some sort of tracking device.
Data may flow in faster than the speed with which the dataProcessor may be able to process its input.
It is OK to have some delay. However, I have to ensure that the agent stays on top of its work and does not get piled under obsolete observations
I am exploring ways to deal with this problem.
The first idea is to implement a stack (LIFO) in dataSource. dataSource would send over the latest observation available when dataProcessor becomes available to receive and process the data. This solution may work but it may get complicated as dataProcessor may need to be blocked and re-activated; and communicate its status to dataSource, leading to a two way communication problem. This problem may boil down to a blocking queue in the consumer-producer problem but I am not sure..
The second idea is to have dataProcessor taking care of message sorting. In this architecture, dataSource will simply post updates in dataProcessor's queue. dataProcessor will use Scanto fetch the latest data available in his queue. This may be the way to go. However, I am not sure if in the current design of MailboxProcessorit is possible to clear a queue of messages, deleting the older obsolete ones. Furthermore, here, it is written that:
Unfortunately, the TryScan function in the current version of F# is
broken in two ways. Firstly, the whole point is to specify a timeout
but the implementation does not actually honor it. Specifically,
irrelevant messages reset the timer. Secondly, as with the other Scan
function, the message queue is examined under a lock that prevents any
other threads from posting for the duration of the scan, which can be
an arbitrarily long time. Consequently, the TryScan function itself
tends to lock-up concurrent systems and can even introduce deadlocks
because the caller's code is evaluated inside the lock (e.g. posting
from the function argument to Scan or TryScan can deadlock the agent
when the code under the lock blocks waiting to acquire the lock it is
already under).
Having the latest observation bounced back may be a problem.
The author of this post, #Jon Harrop, suggests that
I managed to architect around it and the resulting architecture was actually better. In essence, I eagerly Receive all messages and filter using my own local queue.
This idea is surely worth exploring but, before starting to play around with code, I would welcome some inputs on how I could structure my solution.
Thank you.
Sounds like you might need a destructive scan version of the mailbox processor, I implemented this with TPL Dataflow in a blog series that you might be interested in.
My blog is currently down for maintenance but I can point you to the posts in markdown format.
Part1
Part2
Part3
You can also check out the code on github
I also wrote about the issues with scan in my lurking horror post
Hope that helps...
tl;dr I would try this: take Mailbox implementation from FSharp.Actor or Zach Bray's blog post, replace ConcurrentQueue by ConcurrentStack (plus add some bounded capacity logic) and use this changed agent as a dispatcher to pass messages from dataSource to an army of dataProcessors implemented as ordinary MBPs or Actors.
tl;dr2 If workers are a scarce and slow resource and we need to process a message that is the latest at the moment when a worker is ready, then it all boils down to an agent with a stack instead of a queue (with some bounded capacity logic) plus a BlockingQueue of workers. Dispatcher dequeues a ready worker, then pops a message from the stack and sends this message to the worker. After the job is done the worker enqueues itself to the queue when becomes ready (e.g. before let! msg = inbox.Receive()). Dispatcher consumer thread then blocks until any worker is ready, while producer thread keeps the bounded stack updated. (bounded stack could be done with an array + offset + size inside a lock, below is too complex one)
Details
MailBoxProcessor is designed to have only one consumer. This is even commented in the source code of MBP here (search for the word 'DRAGONS' :) )
If you post your data to MBP then only one thread could take it from internal queue or stack.
In you particular use case I would use ConcurrentStack directly or better wrapped into BlockingCollection:
It will allow many concurrent consumers
It is very fast and thread safe
BlockingCollection has BoundedCapacity property that allows you to limit the size of a collection. It throws on Add, but you could catch it or use TryAdd. If A is a main stack and B is a standby, then TryAdd to A, on false Add to B and swap the two with Interlocked.Exchange, then process needed messages in A, clear it, make a new standby - or use three stacks if processing A could be longer than B could become full again; in this way you do not block and do not lose any messages, but could discard unneeded ones is a controlled way.
BlockingCollection has methods like AddToAny/TakeFromAny, which work on an arrays of BlockingCollections. This could help, e.g.:
dataSource produces messages to a BlockingCollection with ConcurrentStack implementation (BCCS)
another thread consumes messages from BCCS and sends them to an array of processing BCCSs. You said that there is a lot of data. You may sacrifice one thread to be blocking and dispatching your messages indefinitely
each processing agent has its own BCCS or implemented as an Agent/Actor/MBP to which the dispatcher posts messages. In your case you need to send a message to only one processorAgent, so you may store processing agents in a circular buffer to always dispatch a message to least recently used processor.
Something like this:
(data stream produces 'T)
|
[dispatcher's BCSC]
|
(a dispatcher thread consumes 'T and pushes to processors, manages capacity of BCCS and LRU queue)
| |
[processor1's BCCS/Actor/MBP] ... [processorN's BCCS/Actor/MBP]
| |
(process) (process)
Instead of ConcurrentStack, you may want to read about heap data structure. If you need your latest messages by some property of messages, e.g. timestamp, rather than by the order in which they arrive to the stack (e.g. if there could be delays in transit and arrival order <> creation order), you can get the latest message by using heap.
If you still need Agents semantics/API, you could read several sources in addition to Dave's links, and somehow adopt implementation to multiple concurrent consumers:
An interesting article by Zach Bray on efficient Actors implementation. There you do need to replace (under the comment // Might want to schedule this call on another thread.) the line execute true by a line async { execute true } |> Async.Start or similar, because otherwise producing thread will be consuming thread - not good for a single fast producer. However, for a dispatcher like described above this is exactly what needed.
FSharp.Actor (aka Fakka) development branch and FSharp MPB source code (first link above) here could be very useful for implementation details. FSharp.Actors library has been in a freeze for several months but there is some activity in dev branch.
Should not miss discussion about Fakka in Google Groups in this context.
I have a somewhat similar use case and for the last two days I have researched everything I could find on the F# Agents/Actors. This answer is a kind of TODO for myself to try these ideas, of which half were born during writing it.
The simplest solution is to greedily eat all messages in the inbox when one arrives and discard all but the most recent. Easily done using TryReceive:
let rec readLatestLoop oldMsg =
async { let! newMsg = inbox.TryReceive 0
match newMsg with
| None -> oldMsg
| Some newMsg -> return! readLatestLoop newMsg }
let readLatest() =
async { let! msg = inbox.Receive()
return! readLatestLoop msg }
When faced with the same problem I architected a more sophisticated and efficient solution I called cancellable streaming and described in in an F# Journal article here. The idea is to start processing messages and then cancel that processing if they are superceded. This significantly improves concurrency if significant processing is being done.
I have a situation where a main orchestration is responsible for processing a convoy of messages. These messages belong to a set of customers, the orchestration will read the messages as they come in, and for each new customer id it finds, it will spin up a new orchestration that is responsible for processing the messages of a particular customer. I have to preserve the order of messages as they come in, so the newly created orchestrations should process the message it has and wait for additional messages from the main orchestration.
Tried different ways to tackle this, but was not able to successfuly implement it.
I would like to hear your opinions on how this could be done.
Thanks.
It sounds like what you want is a set of nested convoys. While it might be possible to get that working, it's going to... well, hurt. In particular, my first worry would be maintenance: any changes to the process would be a pain in the neck to make, and, much worse, deployment would really, really suck.
Personally, I would really try to find an alternative way to implement this and avoid the convoys if possible, but that would depend a lot on your specific scenario.
A few questions, if you don't mind:
What are your ordering requirements? For example, do you only need ordered processing for each customer on a single incoming batch, or across batches? If the latter, could you make do without the master orchestration and just force a single convoy'd instance per customer? Still not great, but would likely simplify things a lot.
What are you failure requirements with respect to ordering? Should it completely stop processing? Save message and keep going? What about retries?
Is ordering based purely on the arrival time of the message? Is there anything in the message that you could use to force ordering internally instead of relying purely on the arrival time?
What does the processing of the individual messages do? Is the ordering requirement only to ensure that certain preconditions are met when a specific message is processed (for example, messages represent some tree structure that requires parents are processed before children).
I don't think you need a master orchestration to start up the sub-orchestrations. I am assumin you are not talking about the master orchestration implmenting a convoy pattern. So, if that's the case, here's what I might do.
There is a brief example here on how to implment a singleton orchestration. This example shows you how to setup an orchestration that will only ever exist once. All the messages going to it will be lined up in order of receipt and processed one at a time. Your example differs in that you want to have this done by customer ID. This is pretty simple. Promote the customer ID in the inbound message and add it to the correlation type. Now, there will only ever be one instance of the orchestration per customer.
The problem with singletons is this. You have to kill them at some point or they will live forever as dehydrated orchestrations. So, you need to have them end. You can do this if there is a way for the last message for a given customer to signal the orchestration that it's time to die through an attribute or such. If this is not possible, then you need to set a timer. If no messags are received in x seconds, terminate the orch. This is all easy to do, but it can introduce Zombies. Zombies occur when that orchestration is in the process of being shut down when another message for that customer comes in. this can usually be solved by tweeking the time to wait. Regardless, it will cause the occasional Zombie.
A note fromt he field. We've done this and it's really not a great long term solution. We were receiving customer info updates and we had to ensure ordered processing. We did this singleton approach and it's been problematic from the Zombie issue and the exeption issue. If the Singleton orchestration throws an exception, it will block the processing for a all future messages for that customer. So - handle every single possible exception. The real solution would have been to have the far end system check the time stamps from the update messages and discard ones that were older than the last update. We wanted to go this way, but the receiving system didn't want to do this extra work.
So I'm a little confused by this terminology.
Everyone refers to "Asynchronous" computing as running different processes on seperate threads, which gives the illusion that these processes are running at the same time.
This is not the definition of the word asynchronous.
a⋅syn⋅chro⋅nous
–adjective
1. not occurring at the same time.
2. (of a computer or other electrical machine) having each operation started only after the preceding operation is completed.
What am I not understanding here?
It means that the two threads are not running in sync, that is, they are not both running on the same timeline.
I think it's a case of computer scientists being too clever about their use of words.
Synchronisation, in this context, would suggest that both threads start and end at the same time. Asynchrony in this sense, means both threads are free to start, execute and end as they require.
The word "synchronous" implies that a function call will be synchronized with some other event.
Asynchronous implies that no such synchronization occurs.
It seems like the definition that you have there should really be the definition for "concurrent," or something. That definition looks wrong.
PS:
Here is the wiktionary definition:
asynchronous
Not synchronous; occurring at different times.
(computing, of a request or a message) allowing the client to continue during processing.
Which just so happens to be the exact opposite of what you posted.
I believe that the term was first used for synchronous vs. asynchronous communication. There synchronous means that the two communicating parts have a common clock signal that they run by, so they run in parallel. Asynchronous communication instead has a ready signal, so one part asks for data and gets a signal back when it's available.
The terms was then adapted to processes, but as there are obvious differences some aspects of the terms work differently. For a single thread process the natural way to request for something to be done is to make a synchronous call that transfers control to the subprocess, and then control is returned when it's done, and the process continues.
An asynchronous call works just like asynchronous communication in the aspect that you send a request for something to be done, and the process doing it returns a signal when it's done. The difference in the usage of the terms is that for processes it's in the asynchronous processing that the processes runs in parallel, while for communication it is the synchronous communication that run in parallel.
So "computer or electrical machine" is really a too wide scope for making a correct definition of the term, as it's used in slightly different ways for different techniques.
I would guess it's because they are not synchronized ;)
In other words... if one process gets stopped, killed, or is waiting for something, the other will carry on
I think there's a slant that is slightly different to most of the answers here.
Asynchronous means "not happening at the same time".
In the specific case of threading:
Synchronous means "execute this code now".
Asynchronous means "enqueue this work on a different thread that will be executed at some indeterminate time in the future"
This usually allows you to "do two things at once" because of reasons like:
one thread is just waiting (e.g. for data to arrive on a serial port) so is asleep
You have multiple processors, so the two threads can run concurrently.
However, even with 128 processor cores, the case is the same: the work will be executed "at some time in the future" (if perhaps the very near future) rather than "now".
Your second definition is more helpful here:
2. [...] having each operation started only after the preceding operation is completed.
When you make an asynchronous call, that call might not be completed before the next operation is started. When the call is synchronous, it will be.
It really means that an asynchronous event is happening independently of other events whereas a synchronous event would be happening dependent of other events.
It's like: Flammable, Inflammable ( which mean the same thing )
Seriously -- it's just one of those quirks of the English language. It doesn't really make sense. You can try to explain it, but it would be just as easy to justify the reverse meanings.
Many of the answers here are not correct. IN-dependently has a beginning particle that says NOT dependently, just like A-synchronous, but the meaning of dependent and synchronous are not the same! :D
So three dependent persons would wait for an order, because they are dependent to the order, but they wait, so they are not synchronous.
In english and any other language with common roots with a, syn and chrono (italian: asincrono; spanish: asincrónico; french:
asynchrone; greek: a= not syn=together chronos=time)it means exactly the opposite.
The terminology is UTTERLY counter-intiutive. Async functions ARE synchronous, they happen at the same time, and that's their power. They DO NOT wait, they DO NOT depend, they DO NOT hold the user waiting, but all those NOTs refer to anything but synchronicity :)
The only answer possibly right is the CLOCK one, although it is still confusing. My personal interpretation is this story:
"A professor has an office, and he makes SYNCHRONOUS CALLS for students to come. He says out loud in the main university hall: 'Hey guys who wants to talk to me should come at 10 in the morning tomorrow.', or simply puts a sign saying the same stuff.
RESULT: at 10 in the morning you see a long queue. People had the same time so they came in in the same moment and they got "piled up in the process".
So the professor thinks it would be nice for students not to waste time in the queue (and do synchronous operations, that is, do parallel stuff in their lives at the same time, and that's where the confusion comes).
He decides students can substitute him in making ASYNCHRONOUS CALLS, that is, every time a student ends talking with him, the students may, e.g., call another student saying the professor is free to talk, in a room where students may do whatever they like in the meantime. So every student does not have a single SYNCHRONOUS CALL (10 in the morning, the same time for all) but they have 10, 10.10, 10.18, 10.27.. etc. according to the needed time for each discussion in the professor office."
Is that the meaning of having the same clock, #Guffa?