I am new to AXON framework and are using it for our development. We have a requirement where command (command side) is created for the persisting data, for the same event is triggered which is consumed at query side. Now we need to have a response back to command side from query side which says if the record is persisted into database successfully (custom successful message) or if failed then the reason of the failure (custom exception message as response). Kindly help if there is any way to achieve such scenario.
Here command side and query side are 2 different micro-services and we are using Rabbit Mq for event driven technique.
Thanks in advance
I think that what you are asking is if there is a way for the command and event to be processed in a single transaction?
If you use a subscribing event processor, running in the same JVM, the event is processed synchronously and the whole transaction is rolled back in case of an exception in an event handler. This is not the case here, because you have loosely coupled separate services, which is good.
It's best practice for the aggregate with the command handler to have all the information available to decide whether or not the command can successfully be processed, and when an event is applied, this is a signal that it has happened, and the other services (the query side in this case) have to be informed. It's not good practice for a query module to overrule this ("you say it happened, I say it didn't"). If there is an error in the query side, you fix it, and replay the event.
If it really is an error in the event handler that the whole system must know about, that is really a separate event. You can apply such an event directly on the event bus and notify the whole system. Something like this:
#Autowired
private EventBus eventBus;
(...)
CatastrophicFailureEvent failureEvent = new CatastrophicFailureEvent("OH NO!");
eventBus.publish(GenericEventMessage.asEventMessage(failureEvent));
I think you might need to reconsider your architecture. Keep in mind that events should encapsulate the irreversible state changes of your system. These state changes should not be questioned after they have happened. Your query side should only need to care about projecting these valid state changes that your command side has decided on.
If you need to check whether a user already existed, you need to do this on the command side in your aggregate. The aggregate can keep a list of all the existing usernames and throw an exception if an invalid command is given. The command response (tip: using the sendAndWait() method on the CommandGateway returns a response) can then be used as the system to inform your user about the success/failure of its action.
The following flow might solve your problem, but keep in mind that the user will get a callback on the success of the action even though the query side might not have processed its result yet. This part is eventually consistent.
Command Side:
Request from frontend handled by a Controller class and creates an corresponding command
The above command is invoked and handled by a command handler which creates the corresponding event or throws an exception if the user already exists.
The invoker of the command is informed about the success of the command or the exception is handled and the error shown to the user.
The above event is published through rabbit mq event bus if the command was successful.
Query side:
The event that is published in the step 4 is consumed by the event handler in query side. No checks or validations should be necessary, since they were already handled on the command side.
#Mzzl
Series of activities
Command Side:
1. Request from frontend handled by a Controller class and creates an corresponding command
2. The above command is invoked and handled by a command handler which in return create corresponding event
3. The above event is then published through rabbit mq event bus.
Query Side:
4. The event that is published in the step 3 is consumed by the event handler in query side.
5. The event handler has the logic to perform db transaction (lets assume add a user). Once a user is added then a success message or failure message (lets assume user already available in the DB so could not create duplicate entry) should flow from query side to command side and eventually back to UI as a repsonse.
I'm not sure I've fully understand your issue (especially the microservice part :)),
but if your problem is related to having the query side up to date after the command execution, then you can have a look at this project.
In this example, you can see that he uses a SubscriptionQueryResult in conjunction with a QueryUpdateEmitter (see here)
Basically you will subscribe to query side changes before the command is issued, and you will block after the command execution until the query side send a notification when it is up to date.
This way you can avoid the eventual consistency.
Related
We want to log every occurrence of a handler running to completion and we're wondering what's the cleanest way to do it.
More specifically, when a Handler completes, we want to write some basic information like the type of the message that was processed etc, to a Db.
One way to do it is by creating and sending a new message (publishing an event) at the end of each handler.
But we're wondering if there is another way to do this without "polluting" the message handlers with those extra line of code :) For example, if after a Handler runs to completion, another method defined elsewhere would pick up execution and handle the logic of writing to the database.
Hope I made myself clear enough. Thanks
You could use the auditing pipeline and forward the audit messages to your audit queue and handle a copy of all messages there...
Here is some more info: https://docs.particular.net/nservicebus/operations/auditing?version=core_7.2
Does that make sense?
I have a task that can be started by the user, that could take hours to run, and where there's a reasonable chance that the user will start the task multiple times during a run.
I've broken the processing of the task up into smaller batches, but the way the data looks it's very difficult to tell what's still to be processed. I batch it using messages that each process a bite sized chunk of the data.
I have thought of using a Saga to control access to starting this process, with a Saga property called Processing that I set at the start of the handler and then unset at the end of the handler. The handler does some work and sends the messages to process the data. I check the value at the start of the handler, and if it's set, then just return.
I'm using Azure storage for Saga storage, if it makes a difference for the next bit. I'm also using NSB 6
I have a few questions though:
Is this the correct approach to re-entrancy with NSB?
When is a change to Saga data persisted? (and is it different depending on the transport?)
Following on from the above, if I set a Saga value in a handler, wait a while and then reset it to its original value will it change the persistent storage at all?
Seem to be cross posted in the Particular Software google group:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/particularsoftware/p-qD5merxZQ
Sagas are very often used for such patterns. The saga instance would track progress and guard that the (sub)tasks aren't invoked multiple times but could also take actions if the expected task(s) didn't complete or is/are over time.
The saga instance data is stored after processing the message and not when updating any of the saga data properties. The logic you described would not work.
The correct way would be having a saga that orchestrates your process and having regular handlers that do the actual work.
In the saga handle method that creates the saga check if the saga was already created or already the 'busy' status and if it does not have this status send a message to do some work. This will guard that the task is only initiated once and after that the saga is stored.
The handler can now do the actual task, when it completes it can do a 'Reply' back to the saga
When the saga receives the reply it can now start any other follow up task or raise an event and it can also 'complete'.
Optimistic concurrency control and batched sends
If two message are received that create/update the same saga instance only the first writer wins. The other will fail because of optimistic concurrency control.
However, if these messages are not processed in parallel but sequential both fail unless the saga checks if the saga instance is already initialized.
The following sample demonstrates this: https://github.com/ramonsmits/docs.particular.net/tree/azure-storage-saga-optimistic-concurrency-control/samples/azure/storage-persistence/ASP_1
The client sends two identical message bodies. The saga is launched and only 1 message succeeds due to optimistic concurrency control.
Due to retries eventually the second copy will be processed to but the saga checks the saga data for a field that it knows would normally be initialized by by a message that 'starts' the saga. If that field is already initialized it assumes the message is already processed and just returns:
It also demonstrates batches sends. Messages are not immediately send until the all handlers/sagas are completed.
Saga design
The following video might help you with designing your sagas and understand the various patterns:
Integration Patterns with NServiceBus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BK8JPp8prXc
Keep in mind that Azure Storage isn't transactional and does not provide locking, it is only atomic. Any work you do within a handler or saga can potentially be invoked more than once and if you use non-transactional resources then make sure that logic is idempotent.
So after a lot of testing
I don't believe that this is the right approach.
As Archer says, you can manipulate the saga data properties as much as you like, they are only saved at the end of the handler.
So if the saga receives two simultaneous messages the check for Processing will pass both times and I'll have two processes running (and in my case processing the same data twice).
The saga within a saga faces a similar problem too.
What I believe will work (and has done during my PoC testing) is using a database unique index to help out. I'm using entity framework and azure sql, so database access is not contained within the handler's transaction (this is the important difference between the database and the saga data). The database will also operate across all instances of the endpoint and generally seems like a good solution.
The table that I'm using has each of the columns that make up the saga 'id', and there is a unique index on them.
At the beginning of the handler I retrieve a row from the database. If there is a row, the handler returns (in my case this is okay, in others you could throw an exception to get the handler to run again). The first thing that the handler does (before any work, although I'm not 100% sure that it matters) is to write a row to the table. If the write fails (probably because of the unique constraint being violated) the exception puts the message back on the queue. It doesn't really matter why the database write fails, as NSB will handle it.
Then the handler does the work.
Then remove the row.
Of course there is a chance that something happens during processing of the work, so I'm also using a timestamp and another process to reset it if it's busy for too long. (still need to define 'too long' though :) )
Maybe this can help someone with a similar problem.
I have an NServiceBus handler that creates a new sql connection and new sql command.
However, the command that is executed is not being committed to the database until after the whole process is finished.
It's like there is a hidden sql transaction in the handler itself.
I moved my code into a custom console application without nservicebus and the sql command executed and saved immediately. Unlike in nservicebus where it doesn't save until the end of the handler.
Indeed every handler is wrapped in a transaction, the default transaction guarantee is relying on DTC. That is intentional :)
If you disable it then you might get duplicate messages or lose some data, so that must be done carefully. You can disable transactions using endpoint configuration API instead of using options in connection string.
Here you can find more information about configuration and available guarantees http://docs.particular.net/nservicebus/transports/transactions.
Unit of work
Messages should be processed as a single unit of work. Either everything succeeds or fails.
If you want to have multiple units of work executed then
create multiple endpoints
or send multiple messages
This also has the benefit that these can potentially be processed in parallel.
Please note, that creating multiple handlers WILL NOT have this effect. All handlers on the same endpoint will be part of the same unit of work thus transaction.
Immediate dispatch
If you really want to send a specific message when the sending of the message must not be part of the unit of work then you can immediately send it like this:
using (new TransactionScope(TransactionScopeOption.Suppress))
{
var myMessage = new MyMessage();
bus.Send(myMessage);
}
This is valid for V5, for other versions its best to look at the documentation:
http://docs.particular.net/nservicebus/messaging/send-a-message#dispatching-a-message-immediately
Enlist=false
This is a workaround that MUST NOT be used to circumvent a specific transactional configuration as is explained very well by Tomasz.
This can result in data corruption because the same messsage can be processed multiple times in case of error recovery while then the same database action will be performed again.
Found the solution.
In my connection string I had to add Enlist=False
As mentioned by #wlabaj Setting Enlist=False will indeed make sure that a transaction opened in the handler will be different from transaction used by the transport to receive/send messages.
It is however important to note that it changes the message processing semantics. By default, when DTC is used, receive/send and any transactional operations inside a handler will be commited/rolled-back atomically. With Enlist=False it's not the case so it's possible that there will be more than one handler transaction being committed for the same message. Consider following scenario as a sample case when it can happen:
message is received (transport transaction gets started)
message is successfully processed inside the handler (handler transaction committed successfully)
transport transaction fails and message is moved back to the input queue
message is received second time
message is successfully processed inside the handler
...
The behavior with Enlist-False setting is something that might a be desirable behavior in your case. That being said I think it's worth clarifying what are the consequences in terms of message processing semantics.
I have a feature I'm attempting to implement using NServiceBus but not sure the pattern to use here. (I'm fairly new to NServiceBus)
I'll try to explain where my uncertainty comes from:
User interaction triggers MVC controller to send a command to perform a domain operation. This command raises an event to notify others that this occurred.
A handler that subscribes to this event determines whether or not another domain operation should occur.
This is where I'm unclear as to the proper pattern to follow. At this point should the event handler:
just make the changes required?
send a new command to do it? If so, send it back to the originating service/process?
another option?
Part of me is wondering if I should be using an in-proc domain event to handle this, but I don't think the first command should have to wait on the second one before it returns. In fact it could happen much later. That is why I went the route of using the bus to handle it async. Also, an email will need to be generated once the second operation finishes. Should that be triggered from yet another event/command?
Any and all guidance appreciated.
If there is no need to wait for the second action then yes, it should be done asynchronously so the processing of the first command should publish an NServiceBus event. The handler for that event would (likely) be hosted in a separate endpoint which would then just do the work - no need to send another command there.
To add to Udi's answer, I would only turn around and send a command back to the originating service if the service at the originating endpoint is really the one that should be responsible for the behavior of that command. Otherwise, the service (endpoint) receiving the event should just do what it needs to do in response to the event (which sounds like your case).
I have a WF4 Service with a flowchart as the root activity. It contains multiple correlated receive activites and decision branching to step through an approval process. The receive activities work perfectly until I try and use one as the trigger for a pick branch.
I am running tracking so can see that the receive is opened and in the persistance I can see the associated bookmark. When I send a client message with the receive type it does not trigger. I have a delay pick branch that fires OK but then the subsequent receive also does not work.
I have checked these receive activities individually and they work OK when not used as the pick trigger. I have tried the pick within a Sequence and a While but no difference.
I cannot see any difference between my implementation and may examples on the web. Am I missing something extra required when the receive is encapsulated by a pick branch?
There is nothing special about a PickBranch trigger that would cause a receive to behave differently so I suspect it is something with the Receive itself. What kind of errors are you seeing at the client application?