For automation, I do
CALL TRANSACTION 'MR11' USING BDCDATA
UPDATE 'S'
MODE 'N'
MESSAGES INTO P_MESSTAB
When there is some problem on the selection screen of MR11, the error messages are written into P_MESSTAB.
But when errors occur later in the processing, MR11 shows an error protocol without using the MESSAGE command. In this case, the error messages are not written into P_MESSTAB so the caller has no clue what went wrong.
Any idea how the caller can get the error messages of the error protocol of MR11?
There is a BAPI available for transaction MR11.
==> BAPI_GRIRDOC_CREATEMULTIPLE
Messages are available in the Return-Parameter-Table. The BAPI is well documented. I would recommend always use BAPI's instead of CALL TRANSACTION, if available.
Related
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.
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.
While debugging my NServiceBus enabled application, I have certain messages that are reported in the console as "failed maximum number of times".
When I attach a debugger to the handler, everything is working as I would expect. The handler throws no exceptions.
The handler does however create an SQLTransaction, and is intentionally rolling the transaction back as part of the handling for some message scenarios. It seems to be that it is the messages that are getting transactions rolled back are the ones that are being reported as failed.
Is there some relationship between SQLTransactions and NServiceBus that would cause NServiceBus to recognize that a rollback has occurred?
I know that sounds unlikely, but cant think of anything else that might cause the message fail at this stage?
My guess (without seeing the exception error message) is that your error comes from handling SQL transactions manually.
If you're running NServiceBus with default settings, message handling occurs inside a .NET TransactionScope, also known as an "ambient transaction". It's likely that your SQL transaction gets enlisted in the ambient transaction, and thus your manually rolling back the transaction will result in an error.
The "idiomatic NServiceBus way" (at least of you're ok with ambient transaction and DTC), is to let NServiceBus do all the transaction handling. Therefore, you should either let your handler A) do its work, or B) throw an exception.
In both cases, the ambient transaction will ensure that any enlisted transactions will be committed/rolled back, depending on A or B.
It's my understanding we have essentially 2 kinds of exceptions when using NServiceBus.
Environmental : Meaning any required component is not currently available. Usually resulting in a full rollback of the transaction. This is the description I see behind the rollback within NServiceBus Documentation (Including putting the message back on the bus - which sounds fantastic). How do I do this?
Validation : A message is being processed that cannot succeed because of business logic, rules, etc. Where in I want to rollback all database interaction but there's no value in keeping the command in the queue. In which case I just want to roll back the NHibernate section of the transaction - not the MSMQ portion. How do I do this? Typically I would perform validation before any single message is processed but when you have multiple messages bound together into a single transaction and you want to roll them all back this isn't possible via pre-validation.
My assumption is either the answer is insanely obvious and I've overlooked it or what I'm trying to do isn't possible (in regards to the Validation exception).
NSB takes care of getting the message out of the way by moving it to an error queue(v2.5). In v3 this functionality is enhanced and will give you more options to handle faults(DB, custom, etc.). The error queue is configured in your app.config.
In my experience, it's easiest (and probably also more appropriate) to ensure that messages have a very high probability that they can succeed when they participate in a distributed transaction.
Therefore, most validation logic should already have been carried out when you dispatch the command message, and rollback is reserved for the truly exceptional case.
If your client cannot perform the validation, maybe you should insert a validation service in front of your current service. This validation service could route invalid command messages somewhere else before they reach the real service.
Thank you for your answers. I believe the answer lies somewhere between the two.
We are unfortunately unable to implement a validation service but we've simply added better upfront validation to the message processing logic.
Unfortunately until we get to v3 we are currently unable to use the Error Queue as we are utilizing the message response functionality to alert integrators of issues with their messages. And throwing an unhandled error prevents any responses from being generated.
Does anyone know how one can automatically reply to messages with status MSGW that block a job on an IBM i-series (AS/400)?
I'm using the jt400/jtopen library to access a program on an AS/400 from Java. I'm using the com.ibm.as400.access.ProgramCall class, which works fine, unless the program fails for some reason. As with almost any program, failures will happen sometimes, but unfortunately, in this case, it does not result in a status message or an exception. Instead, the calling thread just hangs. What's worse, any call to the AS/400 to get information on the Job (another class in jt400 that mostly does what you would expect) backing the queue will hang as well.
I could of course monitor the thread in which the call runs and simply kill it after waiting for a while, but that's a last resort. Getting an error message back from the system would be nice.
You could try execute this command before invoke your pcml with com.ibm.as400.access.CommandCall.run() method:
CHGJOB INQMSGRPY(*DFT)
It sets 'C' as default answer for all messages.
but you should ensure you have log of the messages in order to know the problem which generates this message
Regards,
I don't believe Java can directly trap errors that occur on the other side of that API. What I've done is to 'harden' the RPG (IBM i side) program so that it monitors for errors rather than let the default error handler get them. When an error occurs, the RPG program gracefully terminates and passes back an error code or even the entire message back to the Java application.
I've found that you can use the timeout mechanism of ExecutorService to interrupt a ProgramCall in MSGW.
You must discard the AS400 object afterwards, and the server job is still in MSGW, but at least you can continue on the Javaside.
(You need to use a separate AS400 object if you want to investigate on the hanging job.)