I have read the set-based consistency validation blog and I want to validate through a dispatch interceptor. I follow the example, but I use reactive repository and it doesn't really work for me. I have tried both block and not block. with block it throws error, but without block it doesn't execute anything. here is my code.
class SubnetCommandInterceptor : MessageDispatchInterceptor<CommandMessage<*>> {
#Autowired
private lateinit var privateNetworkRepository: PrivateNetworkRepository
override fun handle(messages: List<CommandMessage<*>?>): BiFunction<Int, CommandMessage<*>, CommandMessage<*>> {
return BiFunction<Int, CommandMessage<*>, CommandMessage<*>> { index: Int?, command: CommandMessage<*> ->
if (CreateSubnetCommand::class.simpleName == (command.payloadType.simpleName)){
val interceptCommand = command.payload as CreateSubnetCommand
privateNetworkRepository
.findById(interceptCommand.privateNetworkId)
// ..some validation logic here ex.
// .filter { network -> network.isSubnetOverlap() }
.switchIfEmpty(Mono.error(IllegalArgumentException("Requested subnet is overlap with the previous subnet.")))
// .block() also doesn't work here it throws error
// block()/blockFirst()/blockLast() are blocking, which is not supported in thread reactor-
}
command
}
}
}
Subscribing to a reactive repository inside a message dispatcher is not really recommended and might lead to weird behavior as underling ThreadLocal (used by Axox) is not adapted to be used in reactive programing
Instead, check out Axon's Reactive Extension and reactive interceptors section.
For example what you might do:
reactiveCommandGateway.registerDispatchInterceptor(
cmdMono -> cmdMono.flatMap(cmd->privateNetworkRepository
.findById(cmd.privateNetworkId))
.switchIfEmpty(
Mono.error(IllegalArgumentException("Requested subnet is overlap with the previous subnet."))
.then(cmdMono)));
Related
I have a function in my ViewModel in which I subscribe to some updates, I want to write a test that will check that after the subscribe is triggered, the specific function is called from the subscribe.
Here is how the function looks:
fun subscribeToTablesUpdates() {
dataManager.getTablesList()
.subscribeOn(Schedulers.io())
.observeOn(AndroidSchedulers.mainThread())
.subscribe { tablesList ->
updateTablesState(tablesList)
}
}
And this is the test that I wrote:
#Test
fun subscribeToTablesListTest() {
val mockedTablesList = mockk<List<Table>()
every {
viewModel.dataManager.getTablesList()
} returns Observable.just(mockedTablesList)
viewModel.subscribeToTablesUpdates()
verify {
viewModel.updateTablesState(mockedTablesList)
}
}
The issue is that I receive assertion exception without any another info and I don't know how to fix that.
Edit 1: subscribeToTableUpdates() is calling from the init block of ViewModel.
So basically the test itself was done right, but there were linking issue. Since the function of the VM was called from the init block the subscription happened only once, and that created a situation when at the time when I mocked the data service, the observer was already subscribed to the other service. Since the init block is called only once, there is no way to change the implementation of the data service to that observer.
After all this investigation the one thing which I successfully forgot came to my mind again: extract every external dependencies to constructors, so further you could substitute it for the test without any problems like this.
I'm fairly new to kotlin coroutines, and I have what I think is a somewhat esoteric use case related to how runBlocking and coroutine contexts interact.
To start with, a simple example. Let's say I've got a dead simple context element. Nothing fancy.
class ExampleContext(val s: String) : AbstractCoroutineContextElement(Key) {
companion object Key : CoroutineContext.Key<ExampleContext>
}
When I run these examples, they behave exactly the way I'd expect them to:
runBlocking(ExampleContext("foo")) {
println(coroutineContext[ExampleContext.Key]?.s) // prints "foo
}
runBlocking(ExampleContext("foo")) {
launch {
println(coroutineContext[ExampleContext.Key]?.s) // prints "foo"
}
}
runBlocking(ExampleContext("foo")) {
launch(ExampleContext("bar")) {
println(coroutineContext[ExampleContext.Key]?.s) // prints "bar"
}
}
When I do this it prints null (as I would expect it to, because it runBlocking defaults to having EmptyContext in its constructor):
runBlocking(ExampleContext("foo")) {
runBlocking {
println(coroutineContext[ExampleContext.Key]?.s) // prints null
}
}
So here's my conundrum. The docs (and all the guidance I've found on the web) basically say don't do this: runBlocking is supposed to be run at the outermost layer of the coroutine logic and that's it. No nesting. What I'm working on is a library that needs to populate some context for access inside code that I don't own that gets called later (basically, you can think of it like an interceptor). The rough pseudocode looks a little like this:
class MyLibrary(otherPeoplesLogic: OtherPeoplesBusinessLogic) {
fun <IN, OUT> execute(input: IN): OUT {
... do my library's thing, including adding in a custom context element ...
try {
return otherPeoplesLogic.execute(input)
} finally {
... do my library's cleanup ...
}
}
}
To support coroutines in OtherPeoplesBusinessLogic, all I'd really have to do is add runBlocking like this:
class MyLibrary(otherPeoplesLogic: OtherPeoplesBusinessLogic) {
fun <IN, OUT> execute(input: IN): OUT {
... do my library's thing ...
runBlocking(myCustomContext) {
try {
return otherPeoplesLogic.execute(input)
} finally {
... do my library's cleanup ...
}
}
}
}
So long as all OtherPeoplesBusinessLogic::execute does is launch/async/etc, everything is fine: myCustomContext will be accessible. What I'm worried about is what happens if OtherPeoplesBusinessLogic::execute (which I'm not in control of) misbehaves and does its own runBlocking call with no context argument passed at all: what I think will happen is that myCustomContext will just silently get dropped like the example above. Not good, because it needs to be accessible.
Phew. A lot of explanation. Thanks for bearing with me. :)
So my ultimate question here is this: is there anything I can do (outside of scolding the users of my library to not call runBlocking) to prevent an accidental nested runBlocking call from dropping my context? Or am I just out of luck here and should scrap the whole idea?
I'm drawing a blank on how to do this in project reactor with Spring Boot:
class BakerUserDetails(val bakerUser: Mono<BakerUser>): UserDetails {
override fun getPassword(): String {
TODO("Not yet implemented")
// return ???.password
}
override fun getUsername(): String {
TODO("Not yet implemented")
// return ???.username
}
}
How do I make this work? Do I just put bakerUser.block().password and bakerUser.block().username and all, or is there a better way to implement these methods?
Currently, I'm doing something like this but it seems strange:
private var _user: BakerUser? = null
private var user: BakerUser? = null
get() {
if(_user == null){
_user = bakerUser.block()
}
return _user
}
override fun getAuthorities(): MutableCollection<out GrantedAuthority> {
return mutableSetOf(SimpleGrantedAuthority("USER"))
}
override fun getPassword(): String {
return user!!.password!!
}
im not well versed at Kotlin, but i can tell you that you should not pass in a Monoto the UserDetails object.
A Mono<T> is sort of like a future/promise. Which means that there is nothing in it. So if you want something out of it, you either block which means we wait, until there is something in it, or we subscribe, which basically means we wait async until there is something in it. Which can be bad. Think of it like starting a job on the side. What happens if you start a job and you quit the program, well the job would not be executed.
Or you do something threaded, and the program returns/exits, well main thread dies, all threads die, and nothing happend.
We usually in the reactive world talk about Publishers and Consumers. So a Flux/Mono is a Publisher and you then declare a pipelinefor what to happen when something is resolved. And to kick off the process the consumerneeds to subscribe to the producer.
Usually in a server world, this means that the webpage, that does the request, is the consumer and it subscribes to the server which in this case is the publisher.
So what im getting at, is that you, should almost never subscribe in your application, unless, your application is the one that starts the consumption. For instance you have a cron job in your server that consumes another server etc.
lets look at your problem:
You have not posted your code so im going to do some guesswork here, but im guessing you are getting a user from a database.
public Mono<BakerUserDetails> loadUserByUsername(String username) {
Mono<user> user = userRepository.findByUsername(username);
// Here we declare our pipline, flatMap will map one object to another async
Mono<BakerUserDetails> bakerUser = user.flatMap(user -> Mono.just(new BakerUserDetails(user));
return bakerUser;
}
i wrote this without a compiler from the top of my head.
So dont pass in the Mono<T> do your transformations using different operators like map or flatMap etc. And dont subscribe in your application unless your server is the final consumer.
I understand that in Kotlin there is no such thing as "Non-local variables" or "Global Variables" I am looking for a way to modify variables in another "Scope" in Kotlin by using the function below:
class Listres(){
var listsize = 0
fun gatherlistresult(){
var listallinfo = FirebaseStorage.getInstance()
.getReference()
.child("MainTimeline/")
.listAll()
listallinfo.addOnSuccessListener {
listResult -> listsize += listResult.items.size
}
}
}
the value of listsize is always 0 (logging the result from inside of the .addOnSuccessListener scope returns 8) so clearly the listsize variable isn't being modified. I have seen many different posts about this topic on other sites , but none fit my usecase.
I simply want to modify listsize inside of the .addOnSuccessListener callback
This method will always be returned 0 as the addOnSuccessListener() listener will be invoked after the method execution completed. The addOnSuccessListener() is a callback method for asynchronous operation and you will get the value if it gives success only.
You can get the value by changing the code as below:
class Demo {
fun registerListResult() {
var listallinfo = FirebaseStorage.getInstance()
.getReference()
.child("MainTimeline/")
.listAll()
listallinfo.addOnSuccessListener {
listResult -> listsize += listResult.items.size
processResult(listsize)
}
listallinfo.addOnFailureListener {
// Uh-oh, an error occurred!
}
}
fun processResult(listsize: Int) {
print(listResult+"") // you will get the 8 here as you said
}
}
What you're looking for is a way to bridge some asynchronous processing into a synchronous context. If possible it's usually better (in my opinion) to stick to one model (sync or async) throughout your code base.
That being said, sometimes these circumstances are out of our control. One approach I've used in similar situations involves introducing a BlockingQueue as a data pipe to transfer data from the async context to the sync context. In your case, that might look something like this:
class Demo {
var listSize = 0
fun registerListResult() {
val listAll = FirebaseStorage.getInstance()
.getReference()
.child("MainTimeline/")
.listAll()
val dataQueue = ArrayBlockingQueue<Int>(1)
listAll.addOnSuccessListener { dataQueue.put(it.items.size) }
listSize = dataQueue.take()
}
}
The key points are:
there is a blocking variant of the Queue interface that will be used to pipe data from the async context (listener) into the sync context (calling code)
data is put() on the queue within the OnSuccessListener
the calling code invokes the queue's take() method, which will cause that thread to block until a value is available
If that doesn't work for you, hopefully it will at least inspire some new thoughts!
Here is an example to illustrate my confusion:
fun main() = runBlocking(Dispatchers.Default + CoroutineName("Main")) {
val broadcaster = BroadcastChannel<Int>(Channel.BUFFERED)
val flow = withContext(CoroutineName("InitialFlowCreation")) {
broadcaster.asFlow()
.map {
println("first mapping in context: $coroutineContext")
it * 10
}
.broadcastIn(CoroutineScope(Dispatchers.Default + CoroutineName("BroadcastIn")))
.asFlow()
}
val updatedFlow = withContext(CoroutineName("UpdatedFlowCreation")) {
flow.map {
println("second mapping in context: $coroutineContext")
it * 10
}
.flowOn(Dispatchers.Default + CoroutineName("FlowOn"))
}
launch(CoroutineName("Collector")) {
updatedFlow.collect {
println("Collecting $it in context: $coroutineContext")
}
}
delay(1_000)
launch(CoroutineName("OriginalBroadcast")) {
for (i in 1..10) {
broadcaster.send(i)
println("Sent original broadcast from: $coroutineContext")
delay(1_000)
}
}
return#runBlocking
}
This produces the following output (truncated):
Sent original broadcast from: [CoroutineName(OriginalBroadcast), StandaloneCoroutine{Active}#3a14b06a, DefaultDispatcher]
first mapping in context: [CoroutineName(InitialFlowCreation), UndispatchedCoroutine{Completed}#40202c08, DefaultDispatcher]
second mapping in context: [CoroutineName(UpdatedFlowCreation), UndispatchedCoroutine{Completed}#6cf04ddc, DefaultDispatcher]
Collecting 100 in context: [CoroutineName(Collector), StandaloneCoroutine{Active}#6ac9d4b5, DefaultDispatcher]
The documentation states things in various places that causes me to be confused by this result.
In Flow we have "Use channelFlow if the collection and emission of a flow are to be separated into multiple coroutines. It encapsulates all the context preservation work and allows you to focus on your domain-specific problem, rather than invariant implementation details. It is possible to use any combination of coroutine builders from within channelFlow." I know I'm not actually using the channelFlow function but a ChannelFlow is being created internally when we call broadcastIn so the same principals should apply.
I thought the first invocation of map would be run in the "OriginalBroadcast" context and the second would either be run in the "BroadcastIn" context or the "Collector" context but instead they are both run in the context where they are called. I don't understand why this is happening, shouldn't the context of map be where it is collected in order to be broadcast or the context where it is finally collected, not the context where map is called? Also the call to flowOn has no effect. What context preservation work is being encapsulated here?
Also am I correct that in a chain of flow.broadcastIn(...).asFlow().map{...}.broadcastIn(...).asFlow() the two BroadcastChannels created will not be fused? Trying to make sure I'm not missing something.
I guess what I'm really looking for is inclusive documentation of in what situation Channels are fused, how they are fused, and what context the operators that are called between ChannelFlow operators will run in.
The context preservation only applies to operations on flows, e.g. the code in flow { ... } builder works in the same context that calls collect(). The context is not preserved when operating via channels by the very nature of channels. Channels are communication primitives that are designed for communication between different coroutines.
It means that when you call broadcaster.send in one coroutine it will be received in another coroutine, in a coroutine that collects from the corresponding flow.
The documentation on channelFlow simply means that you don't have to worry about context preservation violation, which is non-trivial to ensure if you were to write such a primitive yourself.