I am relatively new to grails and am building an event management app. I have an issue that one of my domain classes is not saved after calling the .save() method, but only during testing.
So simplified I have 3 domain classes: Person, Event and Participation. The one that I have issues with is Participation:
class Participation implements Serializable {
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1
Person person
Event event
static Participation create(Person person, Event event, boolean flush = false) {
def instance = new Participation(person: person, event: event)
instance.save([failOnError: true, flush: flush])
instance
}
static constraints = {
person nullable: false
event nullable: false, validator: { Event e, Participation pt ->
if (pt.person?.id) {
if (Participation.exists(pt.person.id, e.id)) {
return ['participation.exists']
}
}
}
}
static mapping = {
id composite: ['person', 'event']
version false
}
}
I am trying to test what happens if a Person joins an Event that is already full, this is handled in the service:
#Transactional
class UserService {
def join(Person p, Event e) {
if (e.getParticipants().size() >= e.maxParticipants) {
throw new EventFullException()
}
Participation.create(p, e)
}
}
My test looks as follows:
class UserServiceSpec extends HibernateSpec implements ServiceUnitTest<UserService>{
void "a person cannot join a full event"() {
when:
Person p1 = save(new Person(name: "Test1"))
Person p2 = save(new Person(name: "Test2"))
Event e = save(new Event(name: "Event", start: LocalDateTime.now().plusDays(1), maxParticipants: 1))
service.join(p1, e)
then:
// Participation for some reason not saved ):
shouldFail(EventFullException) {
service.join(p2, e)
}
}
private def save(domain) {
domain.save flush: true, failOnError: true
}
What I see is that the Event and Person domain objects are saved as expected but for the Participation object the (IntelliJ) Debugger displays "unsaved" next to it. This is also the case if I call def part = save(new Participation(p1, e)) directly. So e.getParticipants().size() is 0 when join(...) is called the second time and the error is not thrown.
The whole thing works when I run the application normally and test this manually in the browser.
What am I missing here? Thanks for the help.
You may need to annotate your test class with #Mock([Participation, Person, Event]).
Related
Hangfire DisableConcurrentExecution attribute not working as expected.
I have one method and that can be called with different Id. I want to prevent concurrent execution of method if same Id is passed.
string jobName= $"{Id} - Entry Job";
_recurringJobManager.AddOrUpdate<EntryJob>(jobName, j => j.RunAsync(Id, Null), "0 2 * * *");
My EntryJob interface having RunAsync method.
public class EntryJob: IJob
{
[DisableConcurrentExecution(3600)] <-- Tried here
public async Task RunAsync(int Id, SomeObj obj)
{
//Some coe
}
}
And interface look like this
[DisableConcurrentExecution(3600)] <-- Tried here
public interface IJob
{
[DisableConcurrentExecution(3600)] <-- Tried here
Task RunAsync(int Id, SomeObj obj);
}
Now I want to prevent RunAsync method to call multiple times if Id is same. I have tried to put DisableConcurrentExecution on top of the RunAsync method at both location inside interface declaration and also from where Interface is implemented.
But it seems like not working for me. Is there any way to prevent concurrency based on Id?
The existing implementation of DisableConcurrentExecution does not support this. It will prevent concurrent executions of the method with any args. It would be fairly simple to add support in. Note below is untested pseudo-code:
public class DisableConcurrentExecutionWithArgAttribute : JobFilterAttribute, IServerFilter
{
private readonly int _timeoutInSeconds;
private readonly int _argPos;
// add additional param to pass in which method arg you want to use for
// deduping jobs
public DisableConcurrentExecutionAttribute(int timeoutInSeconds, int argPos)
{
if (timeoutInSeconds < 0) throw new ArgumentException("Timeout argument value should be greater that zero.");
_timeoutInSeconds = timeoutInSeconds;
_argPos = argPos;
}
public void OnPerforming(PerformingContext filterContext)
{
var resource = GetResource(filterContext.BackgroundJob.Job);
var timeout = TimeSpan.FromSeconds(_timeoutInSeconds);
var distributedLock = filterContext.Connection.AcquireDistributedLock(resource, timeout);
filterContext.Items["DistributedLock"] = distributedLock;
}
public void OnPerformed(PerformedContext filterContext)
{
if (!filterContext.Items.ContainsKey("DistributedLock"))
{
throw new InvalidOperationException("Can not release a distributed lock: it was not acquired.");
}
var distributedLock = (IDisposable)filterContext.Items["DistributedLock"];
distributedLock.Dispose();
}
private static string GetResource(Job job)
{
// adjust locked resource to include the argument to make it unique
// for a given ID
return $"{job.Type.ToGenericTypeString()}.{job.Method.Name}.{job.Args[_argPos].ToString()}";
}
}
I have a hierarchy of actors in Akka.Net and am wondering whether I've chosen the right way to do something, or if there are better/simpler ways to achieve what I want.
My specific example is that I'm constructing a User actor in response to a user logging into the system, and when constructing this actor there are two pieces of data I need in order to complete the construction of the actor.
If this were regular .NET code I might have something like the following...
public Task<User> LoadUserAsync (string username)
{
IProfileService profileService = ...;
IMessageService messageService = ...;
var loadProfileTask = profileService.GetUserProfileAsync(username);
var loadMessagesTask = messageService.GetMessagesAsync(username);
Task.WaitAll(loadProfileTask, loadMessagesTask);
// Now construct the user from the result of both tasks
var user = new User
{
Profile = loadProfileTask.Result,
Messages = loadMessagesTask.Result
}
return Task.FromResult(user);
}
Here I use WaitAll to wait for the subordinate tasks to complete, and let them run concurrently.
My question is - if I wanted to do the same in Akka.Net, would the following be the most regular way to do this? Pictorially I've created the following...
When I create my User actor, I then construct a (temporary) User Loader Actor, whose job it is to get the full user details by calling to the Profile actor and the Messages actor. The leaf actors that get the data are as follows...
public class UserProfileLoader : ReceiveActor
{
public UserProfileLoader()
{
Receive<LoadUserRequest>(msg =>
{
// Load the user profile from somewhere
var profile = new UserProfile();
// And respond to the Sender
Sender.Tell(profile);
Self.Tell(PoisonPill.Instance);
});
}
}
public class UserMessagesLoader : ReceiveActor
{
public UserMessagesLoader()
{
Receive<LoadUserRequest>(msg =>
{
// Load the messages from somewhere
var messages = new List<Message>();
// And respond to the Sender
Sender.Tell(messages);
Self.Tell(PoisonPill.Instance);
});
}
}
It doesn't really matter where they get the data from for this discussion, but both simply respond to a request by returning some data.
Then I have the actor that coordinates the two data gathering actors...
public class UserLoaderActor : ReceiveActor
{
public UserLoaderActor()
{
Receive<LoadUserRequest>(msg => LoadProfileAndMessages(msg));
Receive<UserProfile>(msg =>
{
_profile = msg;
FinishIfPossible();
});
Receive<List<Message>>(msg =>
{
_messages = msg;
FinishIfPossible();
});
}
private void LoadProfileAndMessages(LoadUserRequest msg)
{
_originalSender = Sender;
Context.ActorOf<UserProfileLoader>().Tell(msg);
Context.ActorOf<UserMessagesLoader>().Tell(msg);
}
private void FinishIfPossible()
{
if ((null != _messages) && (null != _profile))
{
_originalSender.Tell(new LoadUserResponse(_profile, _messages));
Self.Tell(PoisonPill.Instance);
}
}
private IActorRef _originalSender;
private UserProfile _profile;
private List<Message> _messages;
}
This just creates the two subordinate actors, sends them a message to get cracking, and then waits for both to respond before sending back all the data that's been gathered to the original requestor.
So, does this seem like a reasonable way to coordinate two disparate responses, in order to combine them? Is there an easier way to do this than craft it up myself?
Thanks in advance for your responses!
Thanks folks, so I've now simplified the actor significantly into the following, based on both Roger and Jeff's suggestions...
public class TaskBasedUserLoader : ReceiveActor
{
public TaskBasedUserLoader()
{
Receive<LoadUserRequest>(msg => LoadProfileAndMessages(msg));
}
private void LoadProfileAndMessages(LoadUserRequest msg)
{
var originalSender = Sender;
var loadPreferences = this.LoadProfile(msg.UserId);
var loadMessages = this.LoadMessages(msg.UserId);
Task.WhenAll(loadPreferences, loadMessages)
.ContinueWith(t => new UserLoadedResponse(loadPreferences.Result, loadMessages.Result),
TaskContinuationOptions.AttachedToParent & TaskContinuationOptions.ExecuteSynchronously)
.PipeTo(originalSender);
}
private Task<UserProfile> LoadProfile(string userId)
{
return Task.FromResult(new UserProfile { UserId = userId });
}
private Task<List<Message>> LoadMessages(string userId)
{
return Task.FromResult(new List<Message>());
}
}
The LoadProfile and LoadMessages methods will ultimately call a repository to get the data, but for now I have a succinct way to do what I wanted.
Thanks again!
IMHO that's a valid process, as you fork action and then join it.
BTW you could use this.Self.GracefulStop(new TimeSpan(1)); instead of sending poison pill.
You could use a combination of Ask, WhenAll and PipeTo:
var task1 = actor1.Ask<Result1>(request1);
var task2 = actor2.Ask<Result2>(request2);
Task.WhenAll(task1, task2)
.ContinueWith(_ => new Result3(task1.Result, task2.Result))
.PipeTo(Self);
...
Receive<Result3>(msg => { ... });
I've been dealing with a score corruption error for few days with no apparent reason. The error appears only on FULL_ASSERT mode and it is not related to the constraints defined on the drools file.
Following is the error :
014-07-02 14:51:49,037 [SwingWorker-pool-1-thread-4] TRACE Move index (0), score (-4/-2450/-240/-170), accepted (false) for move (EMP4#START => EMP2).
java.util.concurrent.ExecutionException: java.lang.IllegalStateException: Score corruption: the workingScore (-3/-1890/-640/-170) is not the uncorruptedScore (-3/-1890/-640/-250) after completedAction (EMP3#EMP4 => EMP4):
The corrupted scoreDirector has 1 ConstraintMatch(s) which are in excess (and should not be there):
com.abcdl.be.solver/MinimizeTotalTime/level3/[org.drools.core.reteoo.InitialFactImpl#4dde85f0]=-170
The corrupted scoreDirector has 1 ConstraintMatch(s) which are missing:
com.abcdl.be.solver/MinimizeTotalTime/level3/[org.drools.core.reteoo.InitialFactImpl#4dde85f0]=-250
Check your score constraints.
The error appears every time after several steps are completed for no apparent reason.
I'm developing a software to schedule several tasks considering time and resources constraints.
The whole process is represented by a directed tree diagram such that the nodes of the graph represent the tasks and the edges, the dependencies between the tasks.
To do this, the planner change the parent node of each node until he finds the best solution.
The node is the planning entity and its parent the planning variable :
#PlanningEntity(difficultyComparatorClass = NodeDifficultyComparator.class)
public class Node extends ProcessChain {
private Node parent; // Planning variable: changes during planning, between score calculations.
private String delay; // Used to display the delay for nodes of type "And"
private int id; // Used as an identifier for each node. Different nodes cannot have the same id
public Node(String name, String type, int time, int resources, String md, int id)
{
super(name, "", time, resources, type, md);
this.id = id;
}
public Node()
{
super();
this.delay = "";
}
public String getDelay() {
return delay;
}
public void setDelay(String delay) {
this.delay = delay;
}
#PlanningVariable(valueRangeProviderRefs = {"parentRange"}, strengthComparatorClass = ParentStrengthComparator.class, nullable = false)
public Node getParent() {
return parent;
}
public void setParent(Node parent) {
this.parent = parent;
}
public int getId() {
return id;
}
public void setId(int id) {
this.id = id;
}
/*public String toString()
{
if(this.type.equals("AND"))
return delay;
if(!this.md.isEmpty())
return Tools.excerpt(name+" : "+this.md);
return Tools.excerpt(name);
}*/
public String toString()
{
if(parent!= null)
return Tools.excerpt(name) +"#"+parent;
else
return Tools.excerpt(name);
}
public boolean equals( Object o ) {
if (this == o) {
return true;
} else if (o instanceof Node) {
Node other = (Node) o;
return new EqualsBuilder()
.append(name, other.name)
.append(id, other.id)
.isEquals();
} else {
return false;
}
}
public int hashCode() {
return new HashCodeBuilder()
.append(name)
.append(id)
.toHashCode();
}
// ************************************************************************
// Complex methods
// ************************************************************************
public int getStartTime()
{
try{
return Graph.getInstance().getNode2times().get(this).getFirst();
}
catch(NullPointerException e)
{
System.out.println("getStartTime() is null for " + this);
}
return 10;
}
public int getEndTime()
{ try{
return Graph.getInstance().getNode2times().get(this).getSecond();
}
catch(NullPointerException e)
{
System.out.println("getEndTime() is null for " + this);
}
return 10;
}
#ValueRangeProvider(id = "parentRange")
public Collection<Node> getPossibleParents()
{
Collection<Node> nodes = new ArrayList<Node>(Graph.getInstance().getNodes());
nodes.remove(this); // We remove this node from the list
if(Graph.getInstance().getParentsCount(this) > 0)
nodes.remove(Graph.getInstance().getParents(this)); // We remove its parents from the list
if(Graph.getInstance().getChildCount(this) > 0)
nodes.remove(Graph.getInstance().getChildren(this)); // We remove its children from the list
if(!nodes.contains(Graph.getInstance().getNt()))
nodes.add(Graph.getInstance().getNt());
return nodes;
}
/**
* The normal methods {#link #equals(Object)} and {#link #hashCode()} cannot be used because the rule engine already
* requires them (for performance in their original state).
* #see #solutionHashCode()
*/
public boolean solutionEquals(Object o) {
if (this == o) {
return true;
} else if (o instanceof Node) {
Node other = (Node) o;
return new EqualsBuilder()
.append(name, other.name)
.append(id, other.id)
.isEquals();
} else {
return false;
}
}
/**
* The normal methods {#link #equals(Object)} and {#link #hashCode()} cannot be used because the rule engine already
* requires them (for performance in their original state).
* #see #solutionEquals(Object)
*/
public int solutionHashCode() {
return new HashCodeBuilder()
.append(name)
.append(id)
.toHashCode();
}
}
Each move must update the graph by removing the previous edge and adding the new edge from the node to its parent, so i'm using a custom change move :
public class ParentChangeMove implements Move{
private Node node;
private Node parent;
private Graph g = Graph.getInstance();
public ParentChangeMove(Node node, Node parent) {
this.node = node;
this.parent = parent;
}
public boolean isMoveDoable(ScoreDirector scoreDirector) {
List<Dependency> dep = new ArrayList<Dependency>(g.getDependencies());
dep.add(new Dependency(parent.getName(), node.getName()));
return !ObjectUtils.equals(node.getParent(), parent) && !g.detectCycles(dep) && !g.getParents(node).contains(parent);
}
public Move createUndoMove(ScoreDirector scoreDirector) {
return new ParentChangeMove(node, node.getParent());
}
public void doMove(ScoreDirector scoreDirector) {
scoreDirector.beforeVariableChanged(node, "parent"); // before changes are made
//The previous edge is removed from the graph
if(node.getParent() != null)
{
Dependency d = new Dependency(node.getParent().getName(), node.getName());
g.removeEdge(g.getDep2link().get(d));
g.getDependencies().remove(d);
g.getDep2link().remove(d);
}
node.setParent(parent); // the move
//The new edge is added on the graph (parent ==> node)
Link link = new Link();
Dependency d = new Dependency(parent.getName(), node.getName());
g.addEdge(link, parent, node);
g.getDependencies().add(d);
g.getDep2link().put(d, link);
g.setStepTimes();
scoreDirector.afterVariableChanged(node, "parent"); // after changes are made
}
public Collection<? extends Object> getPlanningEntities() {
return Collections.singletonList(node);
}
public Collection<? extends Object> getPlanningValues() {
return Collections.singletonList(parent);
}
public boolean equals(Object o) {
if (this == o) {
return true;
} else if (o instanceof ParentChangeMove) {
ParentChangeMove other = (ParentChangeMove) o;
return new EqualsBuilder()
.append(node, other.node)
.append(parent, other.parent)
.isEquals();
} else {
return false;
}
}
public int hashCode() {
return new HashCodeBuilder()
.append(node)
.append(parent)
.toHashCode();
}
public String toString() {
return node + " => " + parent;
}
}
The graph does define multiple methods that are used by the constraints to calculate the score for each solution like the following :
rule "MinimizeTotalTime" // Minimize the total process time
when
eval(true)
then
scoreHolder.addSoftConstraintMatch(kcontext, 1, -Graph.getInstance().totalTime());
end
On other environment modes, the error does not appear but the best score calculated is not equal to the actual score.
I don't have any clue as to where the problem could come from. Note that i already checked all my equals and hashcode methods.
EDIT : Following ge0ffrey's proposition, I used collect CE in "MinimizeTotalTime" rule to check if the error comes again :
rule "MinimizeTotalTime" // Minimize the total process time
when
ArrayList() from collect(Node())
then
scoreHolder.addSoftConstraintMatch(kcontext, 0, -Graph.getInstance().totalTime());
end
At this point, no error appears and everything seems ok. But when I use "terminate early", I get the following error :
java.util.concurrent.ExecutionException: java.lang.IllegalStateException: Score corruption: the solution's score (-9133) is not the uncorruptedScore (-9765).
Also, I have a rule that doesn't use any method from the Graph class and seems to respect the incremental score calculation but returns another score corruption error.
The purpose of the rule is to make sure that we don't use more resources that available:
rule "addMarks" //insert a Mark each time a task starts or ends
when
Node($startTime : getStartTime(), $endTime : getEndTime())
then
insertLogical(new Mark($startTime));
insertLogical(new Mark($endTime));
end
rule "resourcesLimit" // At any time, The number of resources used must not exceed the total number of resources available
when
Mark($startTime: time)
Mark(time > $startTime, $endTime : time)
not Mark(time > $startTime, time < $endTime)
$total : Number(intValue > Global.getInstance().getAvailableResources() ) from
accumulate(Node(getEndTime() >=$endTime, getStartTime()<= $startTime, $res : resources), sum($res))
then
scoreHolder.addHardConstraintMatch(kcontext, 0, (Global.getInstance().getAvailableResources() - $total.intValue()) * ($endTime - $startTime) );
end
Following is the error :
java.util.concurrent.ExecutionException: java.lang.IllegalStateException: Score corruption: the workingScore (-193595) is not the uncorruptedScore (-193574) after completedAction (DWL_CM_XX_101#DWL_PA_XX_180 => DWL_PA_XX_180):
The corrupted scoreDirector has 4 ConstraintMatch(s) which are in excess (and should not be there):
com.abcdl.be.solver/resourcesLimit/level0/[43.0, 2012, 1891]=-2783
com.abcdl.be.solver/resourcesLimit/level0/[45.0, 1870, 1805]=-1625
com.abcdl.be.solver/resourcesLimit/level0/[46.0, 1805, 1774]=-806
com.abcdl.be.solver/resourcesLimit/level0/[45.0, 1774, 1762]=-300
The corrupted scoreDirector has 3 ConstraintMatch(s) which are missing:
com.abcdl.be.solver/resourcesLimit/level0/[43.0, 2012, 1901]=-2553
com.abcdl.be.solver/resourcesLimit/level0/[45.0, 1870, 1762]=-2700
com.abcdl.be.solver/resourcesLimit/level0/[44.0, 1901, 1891]=-240
Check your score constraints.
A score rule that has a LHS of just "eval(true)" is inherently broken. Either that constraint is always broken, for the exact same weight, and there really is no reason to evaluate it. Or it is sometimes broken (or always broken but for different weights) and then the rule needs to refire accordingly.
Problem: the return value of Graph.getInstance().totalTime() changes as the planning variables change value. But Drools just looks at the LHS as planning variables change and it sees that nothing in the LHS has changed so there's no need to re-evaluate that score rule, when the planning variables change. Note: this is called incremental score calculation (see docs), which is a huge performance speedup.
Subproblem: The method Graph.getInstance().totalTime() is inherently not incremental.
Fix: translate that totalTime() function into a DRL function based on Node selections. You 'll probably need to use accumulate. If that's too hard (because it's a complex calculation of the critical path or so), try it anyway (for incremental score calculation's sake) or try a LHS that does a collect over all Nodes (which is like eval(true) but it will be refired every time.
I'm using Struts2. I have two web forms that have the same code. I would like to eliminate one form. Here is the structure of my Struts project.
\Web Pages
form.jsp
\WEB-INF
\Content
error.jsp
form.jsp
success.jsp
\Source Packages
\action
MyAction.java
MyAction.java
package action;
import com.opensymphony.xwork2.ActionSupport;
import org.apache.struts2.convention.annotation.*;
public class MyAction extends ActionSupport {
#Action(value = "foo", results = {
#Result(name = "input", location = "form.jsp"),
#Result(name = "success", location = "success.jsp"),
#Result(name = "error", location = "error.jsp")
})
public String execute() throws Exception {
if (user.length() == 1) {
return "success";
} else {
return "error";
}
}
private String user = "";
public void validate() {
if (user.length() == 0) {
addFieldError("user", getText("user required"));
}
}
public String getUser() {
return user;
}
public void setUser(String user) {
this.user = user;
}
}
I tried to eliminate form.jsp under \Web Pages by adding a new action method to MyAction.java.
#Action(value="bar", results = {
#Result(name = "success", location = "form.jsp"),
})
public String another() {
return "success";
}
But I got the following error when I go to http : //localhost .../bar.action
HTTP Status 404 - No result defined for action action.MyAction and result input
Your MyAction has an implementation of validate(), which means it is validation aware.
What's happening is that you're calling another, but validate() is kicking in (as it's in the interceptor stack). Validation is failing, and therefore sending to INPUT result, which is not defined in another.
You should
Add #SkipValidation to the another method if you don't want validation there
Add the INPUT result to another() if you want a default input result
On a more general note, when you get that kind of error (No result defined for action X and result input) it usually means you're either having validation errors, parameter population errors (eg: an exception in preparable).
I was using the following code within a class and creating an instance of that class from within my main form (Main.vb):
Dim count As Integer = Main.DbDataSet.Accounts.Count
This was returning the count of accounts within my database.
After changing the code so that I could run this in a background thread to save locking up the program, as more data is processed after this point, the count was returning 0 each time.
Is it possible to access my DbDataSet within a threaded process (Another class)?
From your description, I presume you have to read more on threading. This is to ensure that you are aware that you are playing with a double edged blade (Threading). There are few good material which you can find in net. Namely threading in C#.
Now, with the limited knowledge on what you are trying to do at your end; following code plot a blue print on how the code should look like.
class YourForm
{
private DataSet dataSet;
public int Count { get; set; }
SynchronizationContext runningContext;
public YourForm()
{
}
void FillData()
{
//fill your dataset with required data
}
void ProcessInWorker()
{
runningContext=SynchronizationContext.Current;
Two secondClass = new Two();
secondClass.DoWork +=secondClass_DoWork;
secondClass.RunWorkerCompleted +=secondClass_RunWorkerCompleted;
YourRequest re=new YourRequest()
{
DatasetToSend=dataSet
}
secondClass.RunWorkerAsync(re);
}
void secondClass_RunWorkerCompleted(object sender, RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs e)
{
if (e.Error != null) throw e.Error;
YourResponse cResponse = e.Result as YourResponse;
if (cResponse == null) return;
dataSet = cResponse.RefilledData;//latest data will be here on completion of worker thread.
//if you want you can update latest count in some UI control say txtRecordCount
runningContext.Post(new SendOrPostCallback(delegate
{
txtRecordCount.Text=//give your row count here;
}), null);
}
void secondClass_DoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
try
{
YourRequest cRequest = e.Argument as YourRequest;
cRequest.DatasetToSend = RefillData();
YourResponse cResponse=new YourResponse()
{
RefilledData=cRequest.DatasetToSend
};
e.Result = cResponse;
}
catch
{
throw
}
}
DataSet RefillData()
{
//put your logic here to refill the data in dataset
//return the dataset;
}
}
class Two : BackgroundWorker
{
//sub classing background worker and rest of your own
//logic which you are planning for second class.
}
class YourRequest
{
public YourRequest ()
{
}
public DataSet DatasetToSend{get;set;}
}
class YourResponse
{
public YourResponse()
{
}
public DataSet RefilledData { get; set; }
}