Consider we have the following class:
[AutomaticRetry(Attempts = 3)]
public class EmailSender : IEmailSender
{
[ErrorReporting(Attempts = 1)]
public async Task Send()
{
}
}
public interface IEmailSender
{
Task Send();
}
And we enqueue job in this way:
backgroundJobClient.Enqueue<IEmailSender>(s => s.Send());
Just to mention, I use SimpleInjector and it's Hangfire job activator.
First of all Attempts property from AutomaticRetry attribute is not taken into account. When it comes to ErrorReporting custom attribute it is not executed at all.
Seems Hangfire checks defined attributes just on registered type (interface in my case) not the instance type that will be resolved.
In my case IEmailSender is defined in seperate project. I believe one solution would be to keep it together with EmailSender and custom attributes implementation, plus define attributes on interface level but I wouldn't like to do it in this way since my Hangfire jobs are processed in Windows Service and jobs themselves are enqueued by clients (using interfaces) so there is no need for clients to know anything about implementation.
Do you have any idea how I could solve this issue in a good way? Can we somehow configure those filters when creating BackgroundJobServer in Windows Service?
I solved it in this way:
https://gist.github.com/rwasik/80f1dc1b7bbb8b8a9b47192f0dfd4664
If you have any other ideas please let me know.
Related
Hello i am trying to do a trail log for some of my API endpoints.These logs are generated when the endpoint is called.I would like the writing of the logs to be done in an asynchrouns manner (as lightweight as possible) as to not affect the performance of my usual logic.
I was thinking to have a component that is injectable and can be called anywhere in my endpoints when a log is produced.The problem is that i seem to not find a suitable async solution:
Important service that needs not be obstructed by delays
public interface IImportantInterface
{
Task DoSomethingUndistrubedAsync(string value);
}
**Wrapper around Redis pub-sub**
public interface IIOService{
Task PublishAsync( object obj);
}
Controller
public class Controller
{
private IImportantInterface importantService;
private Publisher publisher;
[HttpPost]
public async Task SomeEndpointAsync(){
this.publisher.Publish([some_log]);
await this.importantService.DoSomethingUndisturbedAsync([something]);
}
public Controller(IImportantInterface importantService)
{
this.importantService=importantService;
}
}
Now comes the real problem.How do i make the smallest footprint for my Publisher.I came up with 3 scenarios but two of them are unfeasible due to going out of scope:
Attempt 1
Transient Service with Task scoped to method:
public class Publisher{
private IIOService writeService{get;set;}
public async Task PublishAsync(object obj){
Task t1=Task.Run(async()=>await writeService.PublishAsync(obj)); //t1 might not finished when method exits
}
}
Task t1 might not finish by the time the method ends.
Attempt 2
Task embedded in Transient Service
public class Publisher{ //publisher might get discarded when calling controller gets out of scope
private Task t1;
private IIOService writeService{get;set;}
public async Task PublishAsync(object obj){
t1=Task.Run(async ()=> this.IIOService.writeService(obj));
}
}
Now task will not get collected after method scope , but it might not finish by the time the calling Controller method class gets out of scope
Attempt 3
Singleton object with a ConcurrentQueue of Tasks that get enqueued.
This would not get out of scope but when would i clear the items?
public class Publisher{
private ConcurrentQueue<Task> Queue;
public async Task PublishAsync(object obj){
this.Queue.Enqueue();
}
}
P.S I want to publish these logs in a common place.From that place the target is to get published to a Redis database using the pub-sub functionality.
Should i just write to Redis ?
Hello i am trying to do a trail log for some of my API endpoints.These logs are generated when the endpoint is called.I would like the writing of the logs to be done in an asynchrouns manner (as lightweight as possible) as to not affect the performance of my usual logic.
I strongly recommend that you use an existing and exhaustively-tested logging library, of which there are many with modern capabilities such as semantic logging and async-compatible implicit state.
Modern logging libraries generally have a singleton kind of design, where logs are kept in-memory (and logging methods are synchronous). Then there is a separate "processor" which publishes these messages to a collector. If you insist on writing your own logging framework (why?), I would recommend you take the same approach as all the other highly successful logging frameworks.
I am using spring webflux to call one service from another via Schedulers.elastic()
Mono<Integer> anaNotificationCountObservable = wrapWithRetryForFlux(wrapWithTimeoutForFlux(
notificationServiceMediatorFlux.getANANotificationCountForUser(userId).subscribeOn(reactor.core.scheduler.Schedulers.elastic())
)).onErrorReturn(0);
In main thread i am setting one InhertitableThreadLocal variable and in the child thread I am trying to access it and it is working fine.
This is my class for storing threadlocal
#Component
public class RequestCorrelation {
public static final String CORRELATION_ID = "correlation-id";
private InheritableThreadLocal<String> id = new InheritableThreadLocal<>();
public String getId() {
return id.get();
}
public void setId(final String correlationId) {
id.set(correlationId);
}
public void removeCorrelationId() {
id.remove();
}
}
Now the issue is first time its working fine meaning the value i am setting in threadlocal is passed to other services.
But second time also, it is using old id(generated in last request).
I tried using Schedulers.newSingle() instead of elastic(), then its working fine.
So think since elastic() is re-using threads, thats why it is not able to clear / or it is re-using.
How should i resolve issue.
I am setting thread local in my filter and clearing the same in myfiler
requestCorrelation.setId(UUID.randomUUID().toString());
chain.doFilter(req,res)
requestCorrelation.removeCorrelationId();
You should never tie resources or information to a particular thread when leveraging a reactor pipeline. Reactor is itself scheduling agnostic; developers using your library can choose to schedule work on another scheduler - if you decide to force a scheduling model you might lose performance benefits.
Instead you can store data inside the reactor context. This is a map-like structure that’s tied to the subscriber and independent of the scheduling arrangement.
This is how projects like spring security and micrometer store information that usually belongs in a threadlocal.
I have a base abstract context which has a couple hundred shared objects, and then 2 "implementation" contexts which both inherit from the base and are designed to be used by different tenants in a .net core application. A tenant object is injected into the constructor for OnConfiguring to pick up which connection string to use.
public abstract class BaseContext : DbContext
{
protected readonly AppTenant Tenant;
protected BaseContext (AppTenant tenant)
{
Tenant = tenant;
}
}
public TenantOneContext : BaseContext
{
public TenantOneContext(AppTenant tenant)
: base(tenant)
{
}
}
In startup.cs, I register the DbContexts like this:
services.AddDbContext<TenantOneContext>();
services.AddDbContext<TenantTwoContext>();
Then using the autofac container and th Multitenant package, I register tenant specific contexts like this:
IContainer container = builder.Build();
MultitenantContainer mtc = new MultitenantContainer(container.Resolve<ITenantIdentificationStrategy>(), container);
mtc.ConfigureTenant("1", config =>
{
config.RegisterType<TenantOneContext>().AsSelf().As<BaseContext>();
});
mtc.ConfigureTenant("2", config =>
{
config.RegisterType<TenantTwoContext>().AsSelf().As<BaseContext>();
});
Startup.ApplicationContainer = mtc;
return new AutofacServiceProvider(mtc);
My service layers are designed around the BaseContext being injected for reuse where possible, and then services which require specific functionality use the TenantContexts.
public BusinessService
{
private readonly BaseContext _baseContext;
public BusinessService(BaseContext context)
{
_baseContext = context;
}
}
In the above service at runtime, I get an exception "No constructors on type 'BaseContext' can be found with the constructor finder 'Autofac.Core.Activators.Reflection.DefaultConstructorFinder'". I'm not sure why this is broken....the AppTenant is definitely created as I can inject it other places successfully. I can make it work if I add an extra registration:
builder.RegisterType<TenantOneContext>().AsSelf().As<BaseContext>();
I don't understand why the above registration is required for the tenant container registrations to work. This seems broken to me; in structuremap (Saaskit) I was able to do this without adding an extra registration, and I assumed using the built in AddDbContext registrations would take care of creating a default registration for the containers to overwrite. Am I missing something here or is this possibly a bug in the multitenat functionality of autofac?
UPDATE:
Here is fully runable repo of the question: https://github.com/danjohnso/testapp
Why is line 66 of Startup.cs needed if I have lines 53/54 and lines 82-90?
As I expected your problem has nothing to do with multitenancy as such. You've implemented it almost entirely correctly, and you're right, you do not need that additional registration, and, btw, these two (below) too because you register them in tenant's scopes a bit later:
services.AddDbContext<TenantOneContext>();
services.AddDbContext<TenantTwoContext>();
So, you've made only one very small but very important mistake in TenantIdentitifcationStrategy implementation. Let's walk through how you create container - this is mainly for other people who may run into this problem as well. I'll mention only relevant parts.
First, TenantIdentitifcationStrategy gets registered in a container along with other stuff. Since there's no explicit specification of lifetime scope it is registered as InstancePerDependency() by default - but that does not really matter as you'll see. Next, "standard" IContainer gets created by autofac's buider.Build(). Next step in this process is to create MultitenantContainer, which takes an instance of ITenantIdentitifcationStrategy. This means that MultitenantContainer and its captive dependency - ITenantIdentitifcationStrategy - will be singletons regardless of how ITenantIdentitifcationStrategy is registered in container. In your case it gets resolved from that standard "root" container in order to manage its dependencies - well, this is what autofac is for anyways. Everything is fine with this approach in general, but this is where your problem actually begins. When autofac resolves this instance it does exactly what it is expected to do - injects all the dependencies into TenantIdentitifcationStrategy's constructor including IHttpContextAccessor. So, right there in the constructor you grab an instance of IHttpContext from that context accessor and store it for using in tenant resolution process - and this is a fatal mistake: there's no http request at this time, and since TenantIdentitifcationStrategy is a singleton it means that there will not ever be one for it! So, it gets null request context for the whole application lifespan. This effectively means that TenantIdentitifcationStrategy will not be able to resolve tenant identifier based on http requests - because it does not actually analyze them. Consequently, MultitenantContainer will not be able to resolve any tenant-specific services.
Now when the problem is clear, its solution is obvious and trivial - just move fetching of request context context = _httpContextAccessor.HttpContext to TryIdentifyTenant() method. It gets called in the proper context and will be able to access request context and analyze it.
PS. This digging has been highly educational for me since I had absolutely no idea about autofac's multi-tenant concept, so thank you very much for such an interesting question! :)
PPS. And one more thing: this question is just a perfect example of how important well prepared example is. You provided very good example. Without it no one would be able to figure out what the problem is since the most important part of it was not presented in the question - and sometimes you just don't know where this part actually is...
I am in the process of migrating NServiceBus up to v6 and am at a roadblock in the process of removing reference to IBus.
We build upon a common library for many of our applications (Website, Micro Services etc) and this library has the concept of IEventPublisher which is essentially a Send and Publish interface. This library has no knowledge of NSB.
We can then supply the implementation of this IEventPublisher using DI from the application, this allows the library's message passing to be replaced with another technology very easily.
So what we end up with is an implementation similar to
public class NsbEventPublisher : IEventPublisher
{
IEndpointInstance _instance;
public NsbEventPublisher(IEndpointInstance endpoint)
{
instance = endpoint;
}
public void Send(object message)
{
instance.Send(message, sendOptions);
}
public void Publish(object message)
{
instance.Publish(message, sendOptions);
}
}
This is a simplification of what actually happens but illustrates my problem.
Now when the DI container is asked for an IEventPublisher it knows to return a NsbEventPublisher and it knows to resolve the IEndpointInstance as we bind this in the bootstrapper for the website to the container as a singleton.
All is fine and my site runs perfect.
I am now migrating the micro-services (running in NSB.Host) and the DI container is refusing to resolve IEndpointInstance when resolving the dependencies within a message handler. Reading the docs this is intentional and I should be using IMessageHandlerContext when in a message handler.
https://docs.particular.net/nservicebus/upgrades/5to6/moving-away-from-ibus
The docs even elude to the issue I have in the bottom example around the class MyContextAccessingDependency. The suggestion is to pass the message context through the method which puts a hard dependency on the code running in the context of a message handler.
What I would like to do is have access to a sender/publisher and the DI container can give me the correct implementation. The code does not need any concept of the caller and if it was called from a message handler or from a self hosted application that just wants to publish.
I see that there is two interfaces for communicating with the "Bus" IPipelineContext and IMessageSession which IMessageHandlerContext and IEndpointInstance interfaces extend respectively.
What I am wondering is there some unification of the two interfaces that gets bound by NSB into the container so I can accept an interface that sends/publishes messages. In a handler it is an IMessageHandlerContext and on my self hosted application the IEndPointInstance.
For now I am looking to change my implementation of IEventPublisher depending on application hosting. I was just hoping there might be some discussion about how this approach is modeled without a reliable interface to send/publish irrespective of what initiated the execution of the code path.
A few things to note before I get to the code:
The abstraction over abstraction promise, never works. I have never seen the argument of "I'm going to abstract ESB/Messaging/Database/ORM so that I can swap it in future" work. ever.
When you abstract message sending functionality like that, you'll lose some of the features the library provides. In this case, you can't perform 'Conversations' or use 'Sagas' which would hinder your overall experience, e.g. when using monitoring tools and watching diagrams in ServiceInsight, you won't see the whole picture but only nugets of messages passing through the system.
Now in order to make that work, you need to register IEndpointInstance in your container when your endpoint starts up. Then that interface can be used in your dependency injection e.g. in NsbEventPublisher to send the messages.
Something like this (depending which IoC container you're using, here I assume Autofac):
static async Task AsyncMain()
{
IEndpointInstance endpoint = null;
var builder = new ContainerBuilder();
builder.Register(x => endpoint)
.As<IEndpointInstance>()
.SingleInstance();
//Endpoint configuration goes here...
endpoint = await Endpoint.Start(busConfiguration)
.ConfigureAwait(false);
}
The issues with using IEndpointInstance / IMessageSession are mentioned here.
I'm finding a solution to resolve an instance per method call.
Something like that:
public class ServiceAPI
{
public void ServiceAction()
{
//Call certain repository action
// Ex:
Kernel.Get<RepositoryA>().Insert();
}
}
public class RepositoryA
{
public void Insert(object a)
{
//Get logger per service call ?
var logger = Kernel.Get<RepositoryA>().Insert();
}
}
I wanna the logger instance created one time per service call and it will be used throughout the repository.
I try with Ninject.Extensions.NamedScope extensions but it haven't worked yet.
Can you have any way to deal with this scenario ?
It is not possible to achieve this by using a scoping mechanism. (InCallScope(), InNamedScope(...),...).
Scoping is only relevant when ninject is calling the constructor of a type.
Ninject cannot - ever - replace the instance that is already passed to an object.
If you want to do this you have to program it yourself.
Here's two design alternatives how you can achieve what you want:
instantiate an object tree per method invocation. If there's some service infrastructure like WCF or Web-API there are probably hooks which can be used to do so.
replace the object which should be instantiated per method call by a proxy. The proxy can then use Ninject to create the target for each method call and execute the method on it.
For proxying you can use tools like Castle DynamicProxy or LinFu. There's also Ninject.Extensions.Interception which may also be helpful.