I have a process where I have 3 sequential user tasks (something like Task 1 -> Task 2 -> Task 3). So, to validate the Task 3, I have to validate the Task 1, then the Task 2.
My goal is to implement a workaround to go back in an execution of a process instance thanks to a Command like suggested in this link. The problem is I started to implement the command by it does not work as I want. The algorithm should be something like:
Retrieve the task with the passed id
Get the process instance of this task
Get the historic tasks of the process instance
From the list of the historic tasks, deduce the previous one
Create a new task from the previous historic task
Make the execution to point to this new task
Maybe clean the task pointed before the update
So, the code of my command is like that:
public class MoveTokenCmd implements Command<Void> {
protected String fromTaskId = "20918";
public MoveTokenCmd() {
}
public Void execute(CommandContext commandContext) {
HistoricTaskInstanceEntity currentUserTaskEntity = commandContext.getHistoricTaskInstanceEntityManager()
.findHistoricTaskInstanceById(fromTaskId);
ExecutionEntity currentExecution = commandContext.getExecutionEntityManager()
.findExecutionById(currentUserTaskEntity.getExecutionId());
// Get process Instance
HistoricProcessInstanceEntity historicProcessInstanceEntity = commandContext
.getHistoricProcessInstanceEntityManager()
.findHistoricProcessInstance(currentUserTaskEntity.getProcessInstanceId());
HistoricTaskInstanceQueryImpl historicTaskInstanceQuery = new HistoricTaskInstanceQueryImpl();
historicTaskInstanceQuery.processInstanceId(historicProcessInstanceEntity.getId()).orderByExecutionId().desc();
List<HistoricTaskInstance> historicTaskInstances = commandContext.getHistoricTaskInstanceEntityManager()
.findHistoricTaskInstancesByQueryCriteria(historicTaskInstanceQuery);
int index = 0;
for (HistoricTaskInstance historicTaskInstance : historicTaskInstances) {
if (historicTaskInstance.getId().equals(currentUserTaskEntity.getId())) {
break;
}
index++;
}
if (index > 0) {
HistoricTaskInstance previousTask = historicTaskInstances.get(index - 1);
TaskEntity newTaskEntity = createTaskFromHistoricTask(previousTask, commandContext);
currentExecution.addTask(newTaskEntity);
commandContext.getTaskEntityManager().insert(newTaskEntity);
AtomicOperation.TRANSITION_CREATE_SCOPE.execute(currentExecution);
} else {
// TODO: find the last task of the previous process instance
}
// To overcome the "Task cannot be deleted because is part of a running
// process"
TaskEntity currentUserTask = commandContext.getTaskEntityManager().findTaskById(fromTaskId);
if (currentUserTask != null) {
currentUserTask.setExecutionId(null);
commandContext.getTaskEntityManager().deleteTask(currentUserTask, "jumped to another task", true);
}
return null;
}
private TaskEntity createTaskFromHistoricTask(HistoricTaskInstance historicTaskInstance,
CommandContext commandContext) {
TaskEntity newTaskEntity = new TaskEntity();
newTaskEntity.setProcessDefinitionId(historicTaskInstance.getProcessDefinitionId());
newTaskEntity.setName(historicTaskInstance.getName());
newTaskEntity.setTaskDefinitionKey(historicTaskInstance.getTaskDefinitionKey());
newTaskEntity.setProcessInstanceId(historicTaskInstance.getExecutionId());
newTaskEntity.setExecutionId(historicTaskInstance.getExecutionId());
return newTaskEntity;
}
}
But the problem is I can see my task is created, but the execution does not point to it but to the current one.
I had the idea to use the activity (via the object ActivityImpl) to set it to the execution but I don't know how to retrieve the activity of my new task.
Can someone help me, please?
Unless somethign has changed in the engine significantly the code in the link you reference should still work (I have used it on a number of projects).
That said, when scanning your code I don't see the most important command.
Once you have the current execution, you can move the token by setting the current activity.
Like I said, the code in the referenced article used to work and still should.
Greg
Referring the same link in your question, i would personally recommend to work with the design of you your process. use an exclusive gateway to decide whether the process should end or should be returned to the previous task. if the generation of task is dynamic, you can point to the same task and delete local variable. Activiti has constructs to save your time from implementing the same :).
Related
Our web app allows the end-user to set the queue of recurring jobs on the UI. (We create a queue for each server (use server name) and allow users to choose server to run)
How the job is registered:
RecurringJob.AddOrUpdate<IMyTestJob>(input.Id, x => x.Run(), input.Cron, TimeZoneInfo.Local, input.QueueName);
It worked properly, but sometimes we check the log on Production and found that it runs on the wrong queue (server). We don't have more access to Production so that we try to reproduce at Development but it's not happened.
To temporarily fix this issue, we need to get the queue name when the job running, then compare it with the current server name and stop it when they are diferent.
Is it possible and how to get it from PerformContext?
Noted: We use HangFire version: 1.7.9 and ASP.NET Core 3.1
You may have a look at https://github.com/HangfireIO/Hangfire/pull/502
A dedicated filter intercepts the queue changes and restores the original queue.
I guess you can just stop the execution in a very similar filter, or set a parameter to cleanly stop execution during the IElectStateFilter.OnStateElection phase by changing the CandidateState to FailedState
Maybe your problem comes from an already existing filter which messes up with the queues.
Here is the code from the link above :
public class PreserveOriginalQueueAttribute : JobFilterAttribute, IApplyStateFilter
{
public void OnStateApplied(ApplyStateContext context, IWriteOnlyTransaction transaction)
{
var enqueuedState = context.NewState as EnqueuedState;
// Activating only when enqueueing a background job
if (enqueuedState != null)
{
// Checking if an original queue is already set
var originalQueue = JobHelper.FromJson<string>(context.Connection.GetJobParameter(
context.BackgroundJob.Id,
"OriginalQueue"));
if (originalQueue != null)
{
// Override any other queue value that is currently set (by other filters, for example)
enqueuedState.Queue = originalQueue;
}
else
{
// Queueing for the first time, we should set the original queue
context.Connection.SetJobParameter(
context.BackgroundJob.Id,
"OriginalQueue",
JobHelper.ToJson(enqueuedState.Queue));
}
}
}
public void OnStateUnapplied(ApplyStateContext context, IWriteOnlyTransaction transaction)
{
}
}
I have found the simple solution: since we have known the Recurring Job Id, we can get its information from JobStorage and compare it with the current queue (current server name):
public bool IsCorrectQueue()
{
List<RecurringJobDto> recurringJobs = Hangfire.JobStorage.Current.GetConnection().GetRecurringJobs();
var myJob = recurringJobs.FirstOrDefault(x => x.Id.Equals("My job Id"));
var definedQueue = myJob.Queue;
var currentServerQueue = string.Concat(Environment.MachineName.ToLowerInvariant().Where(char.IsLetterOrDigit));
return definedQueue == "default" || definedQueue == currentServerQueue;
}
Then check it inside the job:
public async Task Run()
{
//Check correct queue
if (!IsCorrectQueue())
{
Logger.Error("Wrong queue detected");
return;
}
//Job logic
}
I am building a Capacited Vehicle Routing Problem with Time Windows, but with one small difference when compared to the one provided in examples from the documentation: I don't have a depot. Instead, each order has a pickup step, and a delivery step, in two different locations.
(like in the Vehicle Routing example from the documentation, the previousStep planning variable has the CHAINED graph type, and its valueRangeProviderRefs includes both Drivers, and Steps)
This difference adds a couple of constraints:
the pickup and delivery steps of a given order must be handled by the same driver
the pickup must be before the delivery
After experimenting with constraints, I have found that it would be more efficient to implement two types of custom moves:
assign both steps of an order to a driver
rearrange the steps of a driver
I am currently implementing that first custom move. My solver's configuration looks like this:
SolverFactory<RoutingProblem> solverFactory = SolverFactory.create(
new SolverConfig()
.withSolutionClass(RoutingProblem.class)
.withEntityClasses(Step.class, StepList.class)
.withScoreDirectorFactory(new ScoreDirectorFactoryConfig()
.withConstraintProviderClass(Constraints.class)
)
.withTerminationConfig(new TerminationConfig()
.withSecondsSpentLimit(60L)
)
.withPhaseList(List.of(
new LocalSearchPhaseConfig()
.withMoveSelectorConfig(CustomMoveListFactory.getConfig())
))
);
My CustomMoveListFactory looks like this (I plan on migrating it to an MoveIteratorFactory later, but for the moment, this is easier to read and write):
public class CustomMoveListFactory implements MoveListFactory<RoutingProblem> {
public static MoveListFactoryConfig getConfig() {
MoveListFactoryConfig result = new MoveListFactoryConfig();
result.setMoveListFactoryClass(CustomMoveListFactory.class);
return result;
}
#Override
public List<? extends Move<RoutingProblem>> createMoveList(RoutingProblem routingProblem) {
List<Move<RoutingProblem>> moves = new ArrayList<>();
// 1. Assign moves
for (Order order : routingProblem.getOrders()) {
Driver currentDriver = order.getDriver();
for (Driver driver : routingProblem.getDrivers()) {
if (!driver.equals(currentDriver)) {
moves.add(new AssignMove(order, driver));
}
}
}
// 2. Rearrange moves
// TODO
return moves;
}
}
And finally, the move itself looks like this (nevermind the undo or the isDoable for the moment):
#Override
protected void doMoveOnGenuineVariables(ScoreDirector<RoutingProblem> scoreDirector) {
assignStep(scoreDirector, order.getPickupStep());
assignStep(scoreDirector, order.getDeliveryStep());
}
private void assignStep(ScoreDirector<RoutingProblem> scoreDirector, Step step) {
StepList beforeStep = step.getPreviousStep();
Step afterStep = step.getNextStep();
// 1. Insert step at the end of the driver's step list
StepList lastStep = driver.getLastStep();
scoreDirector.beforeVariableChanged(step, "previousStep"); // NullPointerException here
step.setPreviousStep(lastStep);
scoreDirector.afterVariableChanged(step, "previousStep");
// 2. Remove step from current chained list
if (afterStep != null) {
scoreDirector.beforeVariableChanged(afterStep, "previousStep");
afterStep.setPreviousStep(beforeStep);
scoreDirector.afterVariableChanged(afterStep, "previousStep");
}
}
The idea being that at no point I'm doing an invalid chained list manipulation:
However, as the title and the code comment indicate, I am getting a NullPointerException when I call scoreDirector.beforeVariableChanged. None of my variables are null (I've printed them to make sure). The NullPointerException doesn't occur in my code, but deep inside Optaplanner's inner workings, making it difficult for me to fix it:
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.NullPointerException
at org.drools.core.common.NamedEntryPoint.update(NamedEntryPoint.java:353)
at org.drools.core.common.NamedEntryPoint.update(NamedEntryPoint.java:338)
at org.drools.core.impl.StatefulKnowledgeSessionImpl.update(StatefulKnowledgeSessionImpl.java:1579)
at org.drools.core.impl.StatefulKnowledgeSessionImpl.update(StatefulKnowledgeSessionImpl.java:1551)
at org.optaplanner.core.impl.score.stream.drools.DroolsConstraintSession.update(DroolsConstraintSession.java:49)
at org.optaplanner.core.impl.score.director.stream.ConstraintStreamScoreDirector.afterVariableChanged(ConstraintStreamScoreDirector.java:137)
at org.optaplanner.core.impl.domain.variable.inverserelation.SingletonInverseVariableListener.retract(SingletonInverseVariableListener.java:96)
at org.optaplanner.core.impl.domain.variable.inverserelation.SingletonInverseVariableListener.beforeVariableChanged(SingletonInverseVariableListener.java:46)
at org.optaplanner.core.impl.domain.variable.listener.support.VariableListenerSupport.beforeVariableChanged(VariableListenerSupport.java:170)
at org.optaplanner.core.impl.score.director.AbstractScoreDirector.beforeVariableChanged(AbstractScoreDirector.java:430)
at org.optaplanner.core.impl.score.director.AbstractScoreDirector.beforeVariableChanged(AbstractScoreDirector.java:390)
at test.optaplanner.solver.AssignMove.assignStep(AssignMove.java:98)
at test.optaplanner.solver.AssignMove.doMoveOnGenuineVariables(AssignMove.java:85)
at org.optaplanner.core.impl.heuristic.move.AbstractMove.doMove(AbstractMove.java:35)
at org.optaplanner.core.impl.heuristic.move.AbstractMove.doMove(AbstractMove.java:30)
at org.optaplanner.core.impl.score.director.AbstractScoreDirector.doAndProcessMove(AbstractScoreDirector.java:187)
at org.optaplanner.core.impl.localsearch.decider.LocalSearchDecider.doMove(LocalSearchDecider.java:132)
at org.optaplanner.core.impl.localsearch.decider.LocalSearchDecider.decideNextStep(LocalSearchDecider.java:116)
at org.optaplanner.core.impl.localsearch.DefaultLocalSearchPhase.solve(DefaultLocalSearchPhase.java:70)
at org.optaplanner.core.impl.solver.AbstractSolver.runPhases(AbstractSolver.java:98)
at org.optaplanner.core.impl.solver.DefaultSolver.solve(DefaultSolver.java:189)
at test.optaplanner.OptaPlannerService.testOptaplanner(OptaPlannerService.java:68)
at test.optaplanner.App.main(App.java:13)
Is there something I did wrong? It seems I am following the documentation for custom moves fairly closely, outside of the fact that I am using exclusively java code instead of drools.
The initial solution I feed to the solver has all of the steps assigned to a single driver. There are 15 drivers and 40 orders.
In order to bypass this error, I have tried a number of different things:
remove the shadow variable annotation, turn Driver into a problem fact, and handle the nextStep field myself => this makes no difference
use Simulated Annealing + First Fit Decreasing construction heuristics, and start with steps not assigned to any driver (this was inspired by looking up the example here, which is more complete than the one from the documentation) => the NullPointerException appears on afterVariableChanged instead, but it still appears.
a number of other things which were probably not very smart
But without a more helpful error message, I can't think of anything else to try.
Thank you for your help
Basically I have a static custom queue of objects I want to process. From multiple threads, I need to kick off a singular Task that will process the queued objects, stopping the task when all items are dequeued.
Some psuedo code:
static CustomQueue _customqueue;
static Task _processQueuedItems;
public static void EnqueueSomething(object something) {
_customqueue.Enqueue(something);
StartProcessingQueue();
}
static void StartProcessingQueue() {
if(_processQueuedItems != null) {
_processQueuedItems = new Task(() => {
while(_customqueue.Any()) {
var stuffToDequeue = _customqueue.Dequeue();
/* do stuff */
}
});
_processQueuedItems.Start();
}
if(_processQueuedItems.Status != TaskStatus.Running) {
_processQueuedItems.Start();
}
}
If it makes a difference my custom queue is a queue that essentially holds items until they reach a certain age, then allows them to dequeue. Everytime an item is touched its timer starts again. I know this piece works fine.
The part I'm struggling with is the parallelism. (Clearly, I don't know what I'm doing here). What I want is to have one thread process the queue until it's complete, then go away. If another call comes in it doesn't start a new thread unless it has to.
I hope that explains my issue okay.
You might want to consider using BlockingCollection<T> here. You could make your custom queue implement IProducerConsumerCollection, in which case BC could use it directly.
You'd then just need to start a long running Task to call blockingCollection.GetConsumingEnumerable() and process the items in a foreach. The task will automatically block when the collection is empty, and restart when a new item is Enqueued.
(Note: this is an over-simplified scenario to demonstrate my coding issue.)
I have the following class interface:
public class CustomerService
{
Task<IEnumerable<Customer>> FindCustomersInArea(String areaName);
Task<Customer> GetCustomerByName(String name);
:
}
This is the client-side of a RESTful API which loads a list of Customer objects from the server then exposes methods that allows client code to consume and work against that list.
Both of these methods work against the internal list of Customers retrieved from the server as follows:
private Task<IEnumerable<Customer>> LoadCustomersAsync()
{
var tcs = new TaskCompletionSource<IEnumerable<Customer>>();
try
{
// GetAsync returns Task<HttpResponseMessage>
Client.GetAsync(uri).ContinueWith(task =>
{
if (task.IsCanceled)
{
tcs.SetCanceled();
}
else if (task.IsFaulted)
{
tcs.SetException(task.Exception);
}
else
{
// Convert HttpResponseMessage to desired return type
var response = task.Result;
var list = response.Content.ReadAs<IEnumerable<Customer>>();
tcs.SetResult(list);
}
});
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
tcs.SetException(ex);
}
}
The Client class is a custom version of the HttpClient class from the WCF Web API (now ASP.NET Web API) because I am working in Silverlight and they don't have an SL version of their client assemblies.
After all that background, here's my problem:
All of the methods in the CustomerService class use the list returned by the asynchronous LoadCustomersAsync method; therefore, any calls to these methods should wait (asynchronously) until the LoadCustomers method has returned and the appopriate logic executed on the returned list.
I also only want one call made from the client (in LoadCustomers) at a time. So, I need all of the calls to the public methods to wait on the same internal task.
To review, here's what I need to figure out how to accomplish:
Any call to FindCustomersInArea and GetCustomerByName should return a Task that waits for the LoadCustomersAsync method to complete. If LoadCustomersAsync has already returned (and the cached list still valid), then the method may continue immediately.
After LoadCustomersAsync returns, each method has additional logic required to convert the list into the desired return value for the method.
There must only ever be one active call to LoadCustomersAsync (of the GetAsync method within).
If the cached list expires, then subsequent calls will trigger a reload (via LoadCustomersAsync).
Let me know if you need further clarification, but I'm hoping this is a common enough use case that someone can help me work out the logic to get the client working as desired.
Disclaimer: I'm going to assume you're using a singleton instance of your HttpClient subclass. If that's not the case we need only modify slightly what I'm about to tell you.
Yes, this is totally doable. The mechanism we're going to rely on for subsequent calls to LoadCustomersAsync is that if you attach a continuation to a Task, even if that Task completed eons ago, you're continuation will be signaled "immediately" with the task's final state.
Instead of creating/returning a new TaskCompletionSource<T> (TCS) every time from the LoadCustomerAsync method, you would instead have a field on the class that represents the TCS. This will allow your instance to remember the TCS that last represented the call that represented a cache-miss. This TCS's state will be signaled exactly the same as your existing code. You'll add the knowledge of whether or not the data has expired as another field which, combined with whether the TCS is currently null or not, will be the trigger for whether or not you actually go out and load the data again.
Ok, enough talk, it'll probably make a lot more sense if you see it.
The Code
public class CustomerService
{
// Your cache timeout (using 15mins as example, can load from config or wherever)
private static readonly TimeSpan CustomersCacheTimeout = new TimeSpan(0, 15, 0);
// A lock object used to provide thread safety
private object loadCustomersLock = new object();
private TaskCompletionSource<IEnumerable<Customer>> loadCustomersTaskCompletionSource;
private DateTime loadCustomersLastCacheTime = DateTime.MinValue;
private Task<IEnumerable<Customer>> LoadCustomersAsync()
{
lock(this.loadCustomersLock)
{
bool needToLoadCustomers = this.loadCustomersTaskCompletionSource == null
||
(this.loadCustomersTaskCompletionSource.Task.IsFaulted || this.loadCustomersTaskCompletionSource.Task.IsCanceled)
||
DateTime.Now - this.loadCustomersLastCacheTime.Value > CustomersService.CustomersCacheTimeout;
if(needToLoadCustomers)
{
this.loadCustomersTaskCompletionSource = new TaskCompletionSource<IEnumerable<Customer>>();
try
{
// GetAsync returns Task<HttpResponseMessage>
Client.GetAsync(uri).ContinueWith(antecedent =>
{
if(antecedent.IsCanceled)
{
this.loadCustomersTaskCompletionSource.SetCanceled();
}
else if(antecedent.IsFaulted)
{
this.loadCustomersTaskCompletionSource.SetException(antecedent.Exception);
}
else
{
// Convert HttpResponseMessage to desired return type
var response = antecedent.Result;
var list = response.Content.ReadAs<IEnumerable<Customer>>();
this.loadCustomersTaskCompletionSource.SetResult(list);
// Record the last cache time
this.loadCustomersLastCacheTime = DateTime.Now;
}
});
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
this.loadCustomersTaskCompletionSource.SetException(ex);
}
}
}
}
return this.loadCustomersTaskCompletionSource.Task;
}
Scenarios where the customers aren't loaded:
If it's the first call, the TCS will be null so the TCS will be created and customers fetched.
If the previous call faulted or was canceled, a new TCS will be created and the customers fetched.
If the cache timeout has expired, a new TCS will be created and the customers fetched.
Scenarios where the customers are loading/loaded:
If the customers are in the process of loading, the existing TCS's Task will be returned and any continuations added to the task using ContinueWith will be executed once the TCS has been signaled.
If the customers are already loaded, the existing TCS's Task will be returned and any continuations added to the task using ContinueWith will be executed as soon as the scheduler sees fit.
NOTE: I used a coarse grained locking approach here and you could theoretically improve performance with a reader/writer implementation, but it would probably be a micro-optimization in your case.
I think you should change the way you call Client.GetAsync(uri). Do it roughly like this:
Lazy<Task> getAsyncLazy = new Lazy<Task>(() => Client.GetAsync(uri));
And in your LoadCustomersAsync method you write:
getAsyncLazy.Value.ContinueWith(task => ...
This will ensure that GetAsync only gets called once and that everyone interested in its result will receive the same task.
I've recently started working on a new application which will utilize task parallelism. I have just begun writing a tasking framework, but have recently seen a number of posts on SO regarding the new System.Threading.Tasks namespace which may be useful to me (and I would rather use an existing framework than roll my own).
However looking over MSDN I haven't seen how / if, I can implement the functionality which I'm looking for:
Dependency on other tasks completing.
Able to wait on an unknown number of tasks preforming the same action (maybe wrapped in the same task object which is invoked multiple times)
Set maximum concurrent instances of a task since they use a shared resource there is no point running more than one at once
Hint at priority, or scheduler places tasks with lower maximum concurrent instances at a higher priority (so as to keep said resource in use as much as possible)
Edit ability to vary the priority of tasks which are preforming the same action (pretty poor example but, PredictWeather (Tommorrow) will have a higher priority than PredictWeather (NextWeek))
Can someone point me towards an example / tell me how I can achieve this? Cheers.
C# Use Case: (typed in SO so please for give any syntax errors / typos)
**note Do() / DoAfter() shouldn't block the calling thread*
class Application ()
{
Task LeafTask = new Task (LeafWork) {PriorityHint = High, MaxConcurrent = 1};
var Tree = new TaskTree (LeafTask);
Task TraverseTask = new Task (Tree.Traverse);
Task WorkTask = new Task (MoreWork);
Task RunTask = new Task (Run);
Object SharedLeafWorkObject = new Object ();
void Entry ()
{
RunTask.Do ();
RunTask.Join (); // Use this thread for task processing until all invocations of RunTask are complete
}
void Run(){
TraverseTask.Do ();
// Wait for TraverseTask to make sure all leaf tasks are invoked before waiting on them
WorkTask.DoAfter (new [] {TraverseTask, LeafTask});
if (running){
RunTask.DoAfter (WorkTask); // Keep at least one RunTask alive to prevent Join from 'unblocking'
}
else
{
TraverseTask.Join();
WorkTask.Join ();
}
}
void LeafWork (Object leaf){
lock (SharedLeafWorkObject) // Fake a shared resource
{
Thread.Sleep (200); // 'work'
}
}
void MoreWork ()
{
Thread.Sleep (2000); // this one takes a while
}
}
class TaskTreeNode<TItem>
{
Task LeafTask; // = Application::LeafTask
TItem Item;
void Traverse ()
{
if (isLeaf)
{
// LeafTask set in C-Tor or elsewhere
LeafTask.Do(this.Item);
//Edit
//LeafTask.Do(this.Item, this.Depth); // Deeper items get higher priority
return;
}
foreach (var child in this.children)
{
child.Traverse ();
}
}
}
There are numerous examples here:
http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/ParExtSamples
There's a great white paper which covers a lot of the details you mention above here:
"Patterns for Parallel Programming: Understanding and Applying Parallel Patterns with the .NET Framework 4"
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=86b3d32b-ad26-4bb8-a3ae-c1637026c3ee&displaylang=en
Off the top of my head I think you can do all the things you list in your question.
Dependencies etc: Task.WaitAll(Task[] tasks)
Scheduler: The library supports numerous options for limiting number of threads in use and supports providing your own scheduler. I would avoid altering the priority of threads if at all possible. This is likely to have negative impact on the scheduler, unless you provide your own.