I have a question about handling deserialization exceptions in Spring Cloud Stream while processing batches (i.e. batch-mode: true).
Per the documentation here, https://docs.spring.io/spring-kafka/docs/2.5.12.RELEASE/reference/html/#error-handling-deserializer, (looking at the implementation of FailedFooProvider), it looks like this function should return a subclass of the original message.
Is the intent here that a list of both Foo's and BadFoo's will end up at the original #StreamListener method, and then it will be up to the code (i.e. me) to sort them out and handle separately? I suspect this is the case, as I've read that the automated DLQ sending isn't desirable for batch error handling, as it would resubmit the whole batch.
And if this is the case, what if there is more than one message type received by the app via different #StreamListener's, say Foo's and Bar's. What type should the value function return in that case? Below is the pseudo code to illustrate the second question?
#StreamListener
public void readFoos(List<Foo> foos) {
List<> badFoos = foos.stream()
.filter(f -> f instanceof BadFoo)
.map(f -> (BadFoo) f)
.collect(Collectors.toList());
// logic
}
#StreamListener
public void readBars(List<Bar> bars) {
// logic
}
// Updated to return Object and let apply() determine subclass
public class FailedFooProvider implements Function<FailedDeserializationInfo, Object> {
#Override
public Object apply(FailedDeserializationInfo info) {
if (info.getTopics().equals("foo-topic") {
return new BadFoo(info);
}
else if (info.getTopics().equals("bar-topic") {
return new BadBar(info);
}
}
}
Yes, the list will contain the function result for failed deserializations; the application needs to handle them.
The function needs to return the same type that would have been returned by a successful deserialization.
You can't use conditions with batch listeners. If the list has a mixture of Foos and Bars, they all go to the same listener.
I am trying to handle gRPC errors properly (Java, Spring-boot app).
Basically, I need too transfer error details from gRPC server to client, but I find it hard to understand the proper usage of StreamObserver.onError();
The method doc says:
"Receives a terminating error from the stream. May only be called once
and if called it must be the last method called. In particular if an
exception is thrown by an implementation of onError no further calls
to any method are allowed."
What does this "no further calls are allowed" mean? In the app that I maintain, they call other gRPC methods and they get java.lang.IllegalStateException: call already closed which is just fine, as per documentation.
I am wondering - should I (the developer) terminate the current java method (which usus gRPC calls) after an error is received? Like for example throwing an exception to stop execution. Or it is expected tht gRPC is going to terminate the execution.. (something like throwing an exception from gRPC)
Basically how do I properly use onError() and what should I expect and handle if I call it?
I need an explanation of its usage and effects.
There are two StreamObserver instances involved. One is for the inbound direction, which is the StreamObserver instance you implement and pass to the gRPC library. This is the StreamObserver containing your logic for how to handle responses. The other is for the outbound direction, which is the StreamObserver instance that gRPC library returns to you when calling the RPC method. This is the StreamObserver that you use to send requests. Most of the time, these two StreamObservers are interacting with each other (e.g., in a fully duplexed streaming call, the response StreamObserver usually calls the request StreamObserver's onNext() method, this is how you achieve ping-pong behavior).
"no further calls are allowed" means you should not call any more onNext(), onComplete() and/or onError() on the outbound direction StreamObserver when the inbound StreamObserver's onError() method is invoked, even if your implementation for the inbound onError() throws an exception. Since the inbound StreamObserver is invoked asynchronously, it has nothing to do with your method that encloses the StreamObserver's implementation.
For example:
public class HelloWorld {
private final HelloWorldStub stub;
private StreamObserver<HelloRequest> requestObserver;
...
private void sendRequest(String message) {
requestObserver.onNext(HelloRequest.newBuilder.setMessage(message).build());
}
public void start() {
stub.helloWorld(new StreamObserver<HelloResponse> {
#Override
public void onNext(HelloResponse response) {
sendRequest("hello from client");
// Optionally you can call onCompleted() or onError() on
// the requestObserver to terminate the call.
}
#Override
public void onCompleted() {
// You should not call any method on requestObserver.
}
#Override
public void onError(Throwable error) {
// You should not call any method on requestObserver.
}
});
}
}
It has nothing to do with the start() method.
The doc is also mentioning that you should not do things like
try {
requestObserver.onCompleted();
} catch(RuntimeException e) {
requestObserver.onError();
}
It's mostly for user's own StreamObserver implementations. StreamObserver's returned by gRPC never throws.
I've extracted a template for GRPC streaming which sort of abstracts away a lot of the GRPC boilerplate that also addresses the the logic for onError. In the DechunkingStreamObserver
I use the following general pattern for GRPC streaming which is something along the lines of
META DATA DATA DATA META DATA DATA DATA
An example of where I would use it would be to take one form and transform it to another form.
message SavedFormMeta {
string id = 1;
}
message SavedFormChunk {
oneof type {
SavedFormMeta meta = 1;
bytes data = 2;
}
}
rpc saveFormDataStream(stream SavedFormChunk) returns (stream SavedFormChunk) {}
I use a flag that would track the inError state to prevent further processing and catch exceptions on the onNext and onComplete both of which I redirect to onError which forwards the error to the server side.
The code below pulls the GRPC semantics and takes lamdas that do the processing.
/**
* Dechunks a GRPC stream from the request and calls the consumer when a complete object is created. This stops
* further processing once an error has occurred.
*
* #param <T> entity type
* #param <R> GRPC chunk message type
* #param <S> GRPC message type for response streams
*/
class DechunkingStreamObserver<T, R, S> implements StreamObserver<R> {
/**
* This function takes the current entity state and the chunk and returns a copy of the combined result. Note the combiner may modify the existing data, but may cause unexpected behaviour.
*/
private final BiFunction<T, R, T> combiner;
/**
* A function that takes in the assembled object and the GRPC response observer.
*/
private final BiConsumer<T, StreamObserver<S>> consumer;
/**
* Predicate that returns true if it is a meta chunk indicating a start of a new object.
*/
private final Predicate<R> metaPredicate;
/**
* this function gets the meta chunk and supplies a new object.
*/
private final Function<R, T> objectSupplier;
/**
* GRPC response observer.
*/
private final StreamObserver<S> responseObserver;
/**
* Currently being processed entity.
*/
private T current = null;
/**
* In error state. Starts {#code false}, but once it is set to {#code true} it stops processing {#link #onNext(Object)}.
*/
private boolean inError = false;
/**
* #param metaPredicate predicate that returns true if it is a meta chunk indicating a start of a new object.
* #param objectSupplier this function gets the meta chunk and supplies a new object
* #param combiner this function takes the current entity state and the chunk and returns a copy of the combined result. Note the combiner may modify the existing data, but may cause unexpected behaviour.
* #param consumer a function that takes in the assembled object and the GRPC response observer.
* #param responseObserver GRPC response observer
*/
DechunkingStreamObserver(
final Predicate<R> metaPredicate,
final Function<R, T> objectSupplier,
final BiFunction<T, R, T> combiner,
final BiConsumer<T, StreamObserver<S>> consumer,
final StreamObserver<S> responseObserver) {
this.metaPredicate = metaPredicate;
this.objectSupplier = objectSupplier;
this.combiner = combiner;
this.consumer = consumer;
this.responseObserver = responseObserver;
}
#Override
public void onCompleted() {
if (inError) {
return;
}
try {
if (current != null) {
consumer.accept(current, responseObserver);
}
responseObserver.onCompleted();
} catch (final Exception e) {
onError(e);
}
}
#Override
public void onError(final Throwable throwable) {
responseObserver.onError(throwable);
inError = true;
}
#Override
public void onNext(final R chunk) {
if (inError) {
return;
}
try {
if (metaPredicate.test(chunk)) {
if (current != null) {
consumer.accept(current, responseObserver);
}
current = objectSupplier.apply(chunk);
} else {
current = combiner.apply(current, chunk);
}
} catch (final Exception e) {
onError(e);
}
}
}
I have 4 lamdas
Predicate<R> metaPredicate which takes in a chunk and returns whether the chunk is meta or not.
Function<R, T> objectSupplier which takes in a meta chunk and creates a new object that is used by your module.
BiFunction<T, R, T> combiner, which takes in a data chunk and the current object and returns a new object that contains the combination.
BiConsumer<T, StreamObserver<S>> consumer which will consume a completed object. It also passes in a stream observer in the case of sending new objects in response.
the only thing you want to do is mark as return after calling the responseObserver.onError(); like below. because there is nothing to do after sending the error.
if(condition){
responseObserver.onError(StatusProto.toStatusException(status));
//this is the required part
return;
}else{
responseObserver.onComplete(DATA);
}
I have a scenario. (Windows Forms, C#, .NET)
There is a main form which hosts some user control.
The user control does some heavy data operation, such that if I directly call the UserControl_Load method the UI become nonresponsive for the duration for load method execution.
To overcome this I load data on different thread (trying to change existing code as little as I can)
I used a background worker thread which will be loading the data and when done will notify the application that it has done its work.
Now came a real problem. All the UI (main form and its child usercontrols) was created on the primary main thread. In the LOAD method of the usercontrol I'm fetching data based on the values of some control (like textbox) on userControl.
The pseudocode would look like this:
CODE 1
UserContrl1_LoadDataMethod()
{
if (textbox1.text == "MyName") // This gives exception
{
//Load data corresponding to "MyName".
//Populate a globale variable List<string> which will be binded to grid at some later stage.
}
}
The Exception it gave was
Cross-thread operation not valid: Control accessed from a thread other than the thread it was created on.
To know more about this I did some googling and a suggestion came up like using the following code
CODE 2
UserContrl1_LoadDataMethod()
{
if (InvokeRequired) // Line #1
{
this.Invoke(new MethodInvoker(UserContrl1_LoadDataMethod));
return;
}
if (textbox1.text == "MyName") // Now it won't give an exception
{
//Load data correspondin to "MyName"
//Populate a globale variable List<string> which will be binded to grid at some later stage
}
}
But it still seems that I've come back to square one. The Application again
becomes unresponsive. It seems to be due to the execution of line #1 if condition. The loading task is again done by the parent thread and not the third that I spawned.
I don't know whether I perceived this right or wrong.
How do I resolve this and also what is the effect of execution of Line#1 if block?
The situation is this: I want to load data into a global variable based on the value of a control. I don't want to change the value of a control from the child thread. I'm not going to do it ever from a child thread.
So only accessing the value so that the corresponding data can be fetched from the database.
As per Prerak K's update comment (since deleted):
I guess I have not presented the question properly.
Situation is this: I want to load data into a global variable based on the value of a control. I don't want to change the value of a control from the child thread. I'm not going to do it ever from a child thread.
So only accessing the value so that corresponding data can be fetched from the database.
The solution you want then should look like:
UserContrl1_LOadDataMethod()
{
string name = "";
if(textbox1.InvokeRequired)
{
textbox1.Invoke(new MethodInvoker(delegate { name = textbox1.text; }));
}
if(name == "MyName")
{
// do whatever
}
}
Do your serious processing in the separate thread before you attempt to switch back to the control's thread. For example:
UserContrl1_LOadDataMethod()
{
if(textbox1.text=="MyName") //<<======Now it wont give exception**
{
//Load data correspondin to "MyName"
//Populate a globale variable List<string> which will be
//bound to grid at some later stage
if(InvokeRequired)
{
// after we've done all the processing,
this.Invoke(new MethodInvoker(delegate {
// load the control with the appropriate data
}));
return;
}
}
}
Threading Model in UI
Please read the Threading Model in UI applications (old VB link is here) in order to understand basic concepts. The link navigates to page that describes the WPF threading model. However, Windows Forms utilizes the same idea.
The UI Thread
There is only one thread (UI thread), that is allowed to access System.Windows.Forms.Control and its subclasses members.
Attempt to access member of System.Windows.Forms.Control from different thread than UI thread will cause cross-thread exception.
Since there is only one thread, all UI operations are queued as work items into that thread:
If there is no work for UI thread, then there are idle gaps that can be used by a not-UI related computing.
In order to use mentioned gaps use System.Windows.Forms.Control.Invoke or System.Windows.Forms.Control.BeginInvoke methods:
BeginInvoke and Invoke methods
The computing overhead of method being invoked should be small as well as computing overhead of event handler methods because the UI thread is used there - the same that is responsible for handling user input. Regardless if this is System.Windows.Forms.Control.Invoke or System.Windows.Forms.Control.BeginInvoke.
To perform computing expensive operation always use separate thread. Since .NET 2.0 BackgroundWorker is dedicated to performing computing expensive operations in Windows Forms. However in new solutions you should use the async-await pattern as described here.
Use System.Windows.Forms.Control.Invoke or System.Windows.Forms.Control.BeginInvoke methods only to update a user interface. If you use them for heavy computations, your application will block:
Invoke
System.Windows.Forms.Control.Invoke causes separate thread to wait till invoked method is completed:
BeginInvoke
System.Windows.Forms.Control.BeginInvoke doesn't cause the separate thread to wait till invoked method is completed:
Code solution
Read answers on question How to update the GUI from another thread in C#?.
For C# 5.0 and .NET 4.5 the recommended solution is here.
You only want to use Invoke or BeginInvoke for the bare minimum piece of work required to change the UI. Your "heavy" method should execute on another thread (e.g. via BackgroundWorker) but then using Control.Invoke/Control.BeginInvoke just to update the UI. That way your UI thread will be free to handle UI events etc.
See my threading article for a WinForms example - although the article was written before BackgroundWorker arrived on the scene, and I'm afraid I haven't updated it in that respect. BackgroundWorker merely simplifies the callback a bit.
I know its too late now. However even today if you are having trouble accessing cross thread controls? This is the shortest answer till date :P
Invoke(new Action(() =>
{
label1.Text = "WooHoo!!!";
}));
This is how i access any form control from a thread.
I have had this problem with the FileSystemWatcher and found that the following code solved the problem:
fsw.SynchronizingObject = this
The control then uses the current form object to deal with the events, and will therefore be on the same thread.
I find the check-and-invoke code which needs to be littered within all methods related to forms to be way too verbose and unneeded. Here's a simple extension method which lets you do away with it completely:
public static class Extensions
{
public static void Invoke<TControlType>(this TControlType control, Action<TControlType> del)
where TControlType : Control
{
if (control.InvokeRequired)
control.Invoke(new Action(() => del(control)));
else
del(control);
}
}
And then you can simply do this:
textbox1.Invoke(t => t.Text = "A");
No more messing around - simple.
Controls in .NET are not generally thread safe. That means you shouldn't access a control from a thread other than the one where it lives. To get around this, you need to invoke the control, which is what your 2nd sample is attempting.
However, in your case all you've done is pass the long-running method back to the main thread. Of course, that's not really what you want to do. You need to rethink this a little so that all you're doing on the main thread is setting a quick property here and there.
The cleanest (and proper) solution for UI cross-threading issues is to use SynchronizationContext, see Synchronizing calls to the UI in a multi-threaded application article, it explains it very nicely.
Follow the simplest (in my opinion) way to modify objects from another thread:
using System.Threading.Tasks;
using System.Threading;
namespace TESTE
{
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
public Form1()
{
InitializeComponent();
}
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
Action<string> DelegateTeste_ModifyText = THREAD_MOD;
Invoke(DelegateTeste_ModifyText, "MODIFY BY THREAD");
}
private void THREAD_MOD(string teste)
{
textBox1.Text = teste;
}
}
}
A new look using Async/Await and callbacks. You only need one line of code if you keep the extension method in your project.
/// <summary>
/// A new way to use Tasks for Asynchronous calls
/// </summary>
public class Example
{
/// <summary>
/// No more delegates, background workers etc. just one line of code as shown below
/// Note it is dependent on the XTask class shown next.
/// </summary>
public async void ExampleMethod()
{
//Still on GUI/Original Thread here
//Do your updates before the next line of code
await XTask.RunAsync(() =>
{
//Running an asynchronous task here
//Cannot update GUI Thread here, but can do lots of work
});
//Can update GUI/Original thread on this line
}
}
/// <summary>
/// A class containing extension methods for the Task class
/// Put this file in folder named Extensions
/// Use prefix of X for the class it Extends
/// </summary>
public static class XTask
{
/// <summary>
/// RunAsync is an extension method that encapsulates the Task.Run using a callback
/// </summary>
/// <param name="Code">The caller is called back on the new Task (on a different thread)</param>
/// <returns></returns>
public async static Task RunAsync(Action Code)
{
await Task.Run(() =>
{
Code();
});
return;
}
}
You can add other things to the Extension method such as wrapping it in a Try/Catch statement, allowing caller to tell it what type to return after completion, an exception callback to caller:
Adding Try Catch, Auto Exception Logging and CallBack
/// <summary>
/// Run Async
/// </summary>
/// <typeparam name="T">The type to return</typeparam>
/// <param name="Code">The callback to the code</param>
/// <param name="Error">The handled and logged exception if one occurs</param>
/// <returns>The type expected as a competed task</returns>
public async static Task<T> RunAsync<T>(Func<string,T> Code, Action<Exception> Error)
{
var done = await Task<T>.Run(() =>
{
T result = default(T);
try
{
result = Code("Code Here");
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Console.WriteLine("Unhandled Exception: " + ex.Message);
Console.WriteLine(ex.StackTrace);
Error(ex);
}
return result;
});
return done;
}
public async void HowToUse()
{
//We now inject the type we want the async routine to return!
var result = await RunAsync<bool>((code) => {
//write code here, all exceptions are logged via the wrapped try catch.
//return what is needed
return someBoolValue;
},
error => {
//exceptions are already handled but are sent back here for further processing
});
if (result)
{
//we can now process the result because the code above awaited for the completion before
//moving to this statement
}
}
This is not the recommended way to solve this error but you can suppress it quickly, it will do the job . I prefer this for prototypes or demos . add
CheckForIllegalCrossThreadCalls = false
in Form1() constructor .
You need to look at the Backgroundworker example:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.componentmodel.backgroundworker.aspx
Especially how it interacts with the UI layer. Based on your posting, this seems to answer your issues.
Here is an alternative way if the object you are working with doesn't have
(InvokeRequired)
This is useful if you are working with the main form in a class other than the main form with an object that is in the main form, but doesn't have InvokeRequired
delegate void updateMainFormObject(FormObjectType objectWithoutInvoke, string text);
private void updateFormObjectType(FormObjectType objectWithoutInvoke, string text)
{
MainForm.Invoke(new updateMainFormObject(UpdateObject), objectWithoutInvoke, text);
}
public void UpdateObject(ToolStripStatusLabel objectWithoutInvoke, string text)
{
objectWithoutInvoke.Text = text;
}
It works the same as above, but it is a different approach if you don't have an object with invokerequired, but do have access to the MainForm
I found a need for this while programming an iOS-Phone monotouch app controller in a visual studio winforms prototype project outside of xamarin stuidio. Preferring to program in VS over xamarin studio as much as possible, I wanted the controller to be completely decoupled from the phone framework. This way implementing this for other frameworks like Android and Windows Phone would be much easier for future uses.
I wanted a solution where the GUI could respond to events without the burden of dealing with the cross threading switching code behind every button click. Basically let the class controller handle that to keep the client code simple. You could possibly have many events on the GUI where as if you could handle it in one place in the class would be cleaner. I am not a multi theading expert, let me know if this is flawed.
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
private ExampleController.MyController controller;
public Form1()
{
InitializeComponent();
controller = new ExampleController.MyController((ISynchronizeInvoke) this);
controller.Finished += controller_Finished;
}
void controller_Finished(string returnValue)
{
label1.Text = returnValue;
}
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
controller.SubmitTask("Do It");
}
}
The GUI form is unaware the controller is running asynchronous tasks.
public delegate void FinishedTasksHandler(string returnValue);
public class MyController
{
private ISynchronizeInvoke _syn;
public MyController(ISynchronizeInvoke syn) { _syn = syn; }
public event FinishedTasksHandler Finished;
public void SubmitTask(string someValue)
{
System.Threading.ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(state => submitTask(someValue));
}
private void submitTask(string someValue)
{
someValue = someValue + " " + DateTime.Now.ToString();
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(5000);
//Finished(someValue); This causes cross threading error if called like this.
if (Finished != null)
{
if (_syn.InvokeRequired)
{
_syn.Invoke(Finished, new object[] { someValue });
}
else
{
Finished(someValue);
}
}
}
}
Simple and re-usable way to work around this problem.
Extension Method
public static class FormExts
{
public static void LoadOnUI(this Form frm, Action action)
{
if (frm.InvokeRequired) frm.Invoke(action);
else action.Invoke();
}
}
Sample Usage
private void OnAnyEvent(object sender, EventArgs args)
{
this.LoadOnUI(() =>
{
label1.Text = "";
button1.Text = "";
});
}
Along the same lines as previous answers,
but a very short addition that Allows to use all Control properties without having cross thread invokation exception.
Helper Method
/// <summary>
/// Helper method to determin if invoke required, if so will rerun method on correct thread.
/// if not do nothing.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="c">Control that might require invoking</param>
/// <param name="a">action to preform on control thread if so.</param>
/// <returns>true if invoke required</returns>
public bool ControlInvokeRequired(Control c, Action a)
{
if (c.InvokeRequired) c.Invoke(new MethodInvoker(delegate
{
a();
}));
else return false;
return true;
}
Sample Usage
// usage on textbox
public void UpdateTextBox1(String text)
{
//Check if invoke requied if so return - as i will be recalled in correct thread
if (ControlInvokeRequired(textBox1, () => UpdateTextBox1(text))) return;
textBox1.Text = ellapsed;
}
//Or any control
public void UpdateControl(Color c, String s)
{
//Check if invoke requied if so return - as i will be recalled in correct thread
if (ControlInvokeRequired(myControl, () => UpdateControl(c, s))) return;
myControl.Text = s;
myControl.BackColor = c;
}
this.Invoke(new MethodInvoker(delegate
{
//your code here;
}));
For example to get the text from a Control of the UI thread:
Private Delegate Function GetControlTextInvoker(ByVal ctl As Control) As String
Private Function GetControlText(ByVal ctl As Control) As String
Dim text As String
If ctl.InvokeRequired Then
text = CStr(ctl.Invoke(
New GetControlTextInvoker(AddressOf GetControlText), ctl))
Else
text = ctl.Text
End If
Return text
End Function
Same question : how-to-update-the-gui-from-another-thread-in-c
Two Ways:
Return value in e.result and use it to set yout textbox value in backgroundWorker_RunWorkerCompleted event
Declare some variable to hold these kind of values in a separate class (which will work as data holder) . Create static instance of this class adn you can access it over any thread.
Example:
public class data_holder_for_controls
{
//it will hold value for your label
public string status = string.Empty;
}
class Demo
{
public static data_holder_for_controls d1 = new data_holder_for_controls();
static void Main(string[] args)
{
ThreadStart ts = new ThreadStart(perform_logic);
Thread t1 = new Thread(ts);
t1.Start();
t1.Join();
//your_label.Text=d1.status; --- can access it from any thread
}
public static void perform_logic()
{
//put some code here in this function
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
//statements here
}
//set result in status variable
d1.status = "Task done";
}
}
Simply use this:
this.Invoke((MethodInvoker)delegate
{
YourControl.Property= value; // runs thread safe
});
Action y; //declared inside class
label1.Invoke(y=()=>label1.Text="text");
There are two options for cross thread operations.
Control.InvokeRequired Property
and second one is to use
SynchronizationContext Post Method
Control.InvokeRequired is only useful when working controls inherited from Control class while SynchronizationContext can be used anywhere. Some useful information is as following links
Cross Thread Update UI | .Net
Cross Thread Update UI using SynchronizationContext | .Net
Parts of our UI uses IObservableElementEnumerable.EnumerableChanged in order to update if the user e.g. deletes a domain object from a folder.
When the UI is disposed, we unsubscribe from the event... or so we thought. It turns out that the unsubscribe doesn't have any effect, and our event handler is still called. This caused a number of odd bugs, but also leads to memory leaks.
The only time unsubscription works, is if we store the IObservableElementEnumerable reference instead of calling IObservableElementEnumerableFactory.GetEnumerable(obj) again. But this, in turn, is likely to keep a live reference to the folder object, which will break if the folder itself is deleted by the user.
This is particularly puzzling as the GetEnumerable() documentation clearly states: "It is expected that subsequent calls with the same domain object will yield the same instance of IObservableElementEnumerable." Is this not to be interpreted as a guarantee?
Should there be any reason for unsubscription not working?
The following code replicates the issue on Petrel 2011 (add to a simple plugin with a menu extension, or get the full solution here (DropBox)):
using System;
using System.Linq;
using System.Windows.Forms;
using Slb.Ocean.Core;
using Slb.Ocean.Petrel;
using Slb.Ocean.Petrel.Basics;
using Slb.Ocean.Petrel.UI;
namespace ObservableElementEnumerable
{
public class OEEForm : Form
{
private Droid _droid;
private bool _disposed;
public OEEForm()
{
IInput input = PetrelProject.Inputs;
IIdentifiable selected = input.GetSelected<object>().FirstOrDefault() as IIdentifiable;
if (selected == null)
{
PetrelLogger.InfoOutputWindow("Select a folder first");
return;
}
_droid = selected.Droid;
GetEnumerable().EnumerableChanged += enumerable_EnumerableChanged;
PetrelLogger.InfoOutputWindow("Enumerable subscribed");
}
protected override void Dispose(bool disposing)
{
base.Dispose(disposing);
if (disposing && !_disposed)
{
GetEnumerable().EnumerableChanged -= enumerable_EnumerableChanged;
PetrelLogger.InfoOutputWindow("Enumerable unsubscribed (?)");
_droid = null;
_disposed = true;
}
}
IObservableElementEnumerable GetEnumerable()
{
if (_disposed)
throw new ObjectDisposedException("OEEForm");
object obj = DataManager.Resolve(_droid);
IObservableElementEnumerableFactory factory = CoreSystem.GetService<IObservableElementEnumerableFactory>(obj);
IObservableElementEnumerable enumerable = factory.GetEnumerable(obj);
return enumerable;
}
void enumerable_EnumerableChanged(object sender, ElementEnumerableChangeEventArgs e)
{
PetrelLogger.InfoOutputWindow("Enumerable changed");
if (_disposed)
PetrelLogger.InfoOutputWindow("... but I am disposed and unsubscribed!");
}
}
public static class Menu1
{
public static void OEEBegin1_ToolClick(object sender, System.EventArgs e)
{
OEEForm f = new OEEForm();
f.Show();
}
}
}
To replicate:
Run Petrel with the plugin
Load a project with a folder with objects
Select the folder
Activate the plugin menu item
With the popup open, delete an object in the folder
Close the Form popping up
Delete an object in the folder
The message log should clearly show that the event handler is still called after the form is disposed.
You already keep a reference to the underlying enumerable by connecting the event. Events are references as well. Just keep a reference to the enumerable and unsubscribe from the same instance as the one you subscribe to.
To deal with the issue of objects that are deleted by the user you need to listen to the delete event.
I am using gwt and postgres for my project. On the front end i have few widgets whose data i am trying to save on to tables at the back-end when i click on "save project" button(this also takes the name for the created project).
In the asynchronous callback part i am setting more than one table. But it is not sending the data properly. I am getting the following error:
org.postgresql.util.PSQLException: ERROR: insert or update on table "entitytype" violates foreign key constraint "entitytype_pname_fkey"
Detail: Key (pname)=(Project Name) is not present in table "project".
But when i do the select statement on project table i can see that the project name is present.
Here is how the callback part looks like:
oksave.addClickHandler(new ClickHandler(){
#Override
public void onClick(ClickEvent event) {
if(erasync == null)
erasync = GWT.create(EntityRelationService.class);
AsyncCallback<Void> callback = new AsyncCallback<Void>(){
#Override
public void onFailure(Throwable caught) {
}
#Override
public void onSuccess(Void result){ }
};
erasync.setProjects(projectname, callback);
for(int i = 0; i < boundaryPanel.getWidgetCount(); i++){
top = new Integer(boundaryPanel.getWidget(i).getAbsoluteTop()).toString();
left = new Integer(boundaryPanel.getWidget(i).getAbsoluteLeft()).toString();
if(widgetTitle.startsWith("ATTR")){
type = "regular";
erasync.setEntityAttribute(name1, name, type, top, left, projectname, callback);
} else{
erasync.setEntityType(name, top, left, projectname, callback);
}
}
}
Question:
Is it wrong to set more than one in the asynchronous callback where all the other tables are dependent on a particular table?
when i say setProjects in the above code isn't it first completed and then moved on to the next one?
Please any input will be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
With that foreign key constraint, you must make sure the erasync.setProjects(...) has completed before you insert the rest of the stuff.
I suggest doing the erasync.setEntityAttribute(...) magic in (or from) an onsuccess callback instead of jumping right to it.
You're firing several request in which (guessing from the error message) really should be called in sequence.
Any time you call more than one rpc call; try to think that you should be able to rearrange them in any order (because that's allmost what actually happens because they're asynchronous)... If running them in reverse order does not make sense; you cannot fire them sequentially!
Two ways to fix your problem:
Nesting:
service.callFirst(someData, new AsyncCallback<Void> callback = new AsyncCallback<Void>(){
#Override
public void onFailure(Throwable caught) {/*Handle errors*/}
#Override
public void onSuccess(Void result){
service.callSecond(someOtherData, new AsyncCallback<Void> callback = new AsyncCallback<Void>(){
/* onSuccess and onFailure for second callback here */
});
}
});
Or creating one service call that does both (Recommended):
service.callFirstAndSecond(someData, someOtherData, new AsyncCallback<Void> callback = new AsyncCallback<Void>(){
#Override
public void onFailure(Throwable caught) {/*Handle errors*/}
#Override
public void onSuccess(Void result){
/* Handle success */
}
});
The second option is most likely going to be much less messy, as several nested asynch callbacks quickly grows quite wide and confusing, also you make just one request.
Because of nature of Async, don't assume setProjects(...) method will be called on the server before setEntityAttribute or setEntityType.
Personally, I prefer to have a Project class which contains all necessary info, for example:
public class Project{
private String projectName;
private List attributes = new ArrayList();
.. other properties
// Getter & Setter methods
}
Then send to the server in one round trip:
Project project = new Project();
project.setProjectName(..);
// Set other properties
erasync.saveProjects(project, callback);