I have two scripts which generate messages in one queue, one of the scripts would like the queue to generate an additional message once the message has been successfully ack'd - note this is not RPC I want to do additional processing optionally once the first message has completed successfully, but until the first message has been processed successfully I cannot do the second round of processing.
Does anyone have any experience doing this? My initial thought is to send additional parameters to the initial message identifying the "next steps" but this seems a little hackish so I was hoping for a better solution.
check my answer to this question:
RabbitMQ get message send confirm
This functionality should allow you to do what you want.
Related
I'm trying to use RabbitMQ in a more unconventional way (though at this point i can pick any other message queue implementation if needed)
I have one queue (I can have more if needed) that where customers are fetching N messages asynchronous. After they do their work I send the results from the client to the db.
I have two problems: first I don't want that they will work on the same message, second I want to grantee that I wont lose messages in case that my customer will close the browser or just stop working.
I looked at the documentation and saw the TTL which was perfect for me if I could alter that message that got timeout isn't going to be deleted but to move to another queue. can't find a way to alter this.
Moreover I looked at the confirmation option which in the first glance looked what I wanted,that mechanism is working like this: when the consumer gets a message he send confirmation to queue, I thought I can delay this confirm and send it when the work is done on the client side.
my problem was that I can't program the queue that if any message didn't get confirm then return it to the queue (or to another).
I also find how to do a scheduled message but it didn't help either because I don't want that the message will be inserted to the queue in five min,I want that when a customer will receive a message it will be locked in the queue for 5 min until confirm to delete is set otherwise return it to the queue.
Can I do temporary queue that enables my mechanism?
If someone can help with one of the problems or suggest another architecture or option to do it in another MQ it would be great.
Resources:
confirmation:
http://www.rabbitmq.com/blog/2011/02/10/introducing-publisher-confirms/
post about locks but his problem was a batcher component:
Locks and batch fetch messages with RabbitMq
TTL:
https://www.rabbitmq.com/ttl.html
Schedule a message:
https://www.rabbitmq.com/blog/2015/04/16/scheduling-messages-with-rabbitmq/
my problem was that I can't program the queue that if any message
didnt get confirm then return it to the queue (or to another).
RabbitMQ does this anyhow, so all you have to do is switch off the auto-ack flag, you figured this out
I thought I can delay this confirm and send it when the work is done
on the client side.
so just send the ACK once you've finished with processing the message.
All the unacknowledged messages remain in the queue and are re-delivered to next consumer (or the same one when it's up again, depending on your setup)
TL;DR: I need to "replay" dead letter messages back into their original queues once I've fixed the consumer code that was originally causing the messages to be rejected.
I have configured the Dead Letter Exchange (DLX) for RabbitMQ and am successfully routing rejected messages to a dead letter queue. But now I want to look at the messages in the dead letter queue and try to decide what to do with each of them. Some (many?) of these messages should be replayed (requeued) to their original queues (available in the "x-death" headers) once the offending consumer code has been fixed. But how do I actually go about doing this? Should I write a one-off program that reads messages from the dead letter queue and allows me to specify a target queue to send them to? And what about searching the dead letter queue? What if I know that a message (let's say which is encoded in JSON) has a certain attribute that I want to search for and replay? For example, I fix a defect which I know will allow message with PacketId: 1234 to successfully process now. I could also write a one-off program for this I suppose.
I certainly can't be the first one to encounter these problems and I'm wondering if anyone else has already solved them. It seems like there should be some sort of Swiss Army Knife for this sort of thing. I did a pretty extensive search on Google and Stack Overflow but didn't really come up with much. The closest thing I could find were shovels but that doesn't really seem like the right tool for the job.
Should I write a one-off program that reads messages from the dead letter queue and allows me to specify a target queue to send them to?
generally speaking, yes.
you could set up a delayed re-try to resend the message back to the original queue, using a combination of the delay message exchange plugin.
but this would only automate the retries on an interval, and you may not have fixed the problem before the retries happen.
in some circumstances this is ok - like when the error is caused by an external resource being temporarily unavailable.
in your case, though, i believe your thoughts on creating an app to handle the dead letters is the best way to go, for several reasons:
you need to search through the messages, which isn't possible RMQ
this means you'll need a database to store the messages from the DLX/queue
because you're pulling the messages out of the DLX/queue, you'll need to ensure you get all the header info from the message so that you can re-publish to the correct queue when the time comes.
I certainly can't be the first one to encounter these problems and I'm wondering if anyone else has already solved them.
and you're not!
there are many solutions to this problem that all come down to the solution you've suggested.
some larger "service bus" implementations have this type of feature built in to them. i believe NServiceBus (or the SaaS version of it) has this built in, for example - though I'm not 100% sure of it.
if you want to look into this further, do some search for the term "poison message" - this is generally the term used for this situation. I've found a few things on google with a quick search, that may help you down the path:
http://lists.rabbitmq.com/pipermail/rabbitmq-discuss/2013-January/025019.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20170809194056/http://tafakari.co.ke/2014/07/rabbitmq-poison-messages/
https://web.archive.org/web/20170809170555/http://kjnilsson.github.io/blog/2014/01/30/spread-the-poison/
hope that helps!
I am looking for a way to tell if NSB is still processing a message, including any internally triggered events/commands, so that within automated tests I can wait until a process has completed before moving on to the next step.
What is the best way to do this?
As long as you have auditing turned on, check to see when the message you sent the endpoint-under-test appears in the audit queue. When the message is in the audit queue, you can know that it has been successfully processed by the endpoint.
I'm taking message from queue, processing it and for some messages at some point I understand that I have to wait for several seconds before trying to process it.
Options are:
I can call sleep() and wait, but sometimes there could hundrends of messages, and luanching that many workers is not an option.
I can simply requeue message, but is it a good idea? I will be processing it again and again with the same result. (Processing includes DB queuring, etc)
I can send myself a new message, including timestamp to know if it's time to process a message or not. So on arriaval I'm just going to check timestamp and if it's good procceed to usual processing.
Obviously, third way it better, but should I send this messages to the same exchange/queues, or is it a good idea to create different exchange "processing_pass2"? Or may be there are some built-in functionality #rabbitMQ to perform such a task? Requeue message to appear again after given number of seconds?
In our scenario I'm thinking of using the pub sub technique. However I don't know which is the better option.
1 ########
A web service of ours will publish a message that something has happened when it is called externally, ExternalPersonCreatedMessage!
This message will contain a field that represents the destinations to process the message into (multiple allowed).
Various subscribers will subscribe. These subscribers will filter the message to see if any action is required by checking the destination field.
2 ########
A web service of ours will parse the incoming call and publish specific types of messages depending on the destinations supplied in the field. i.e. many Destination[n]PersonCreatedMessage messages would be created.
Subscribers will subscribe to only the specific message they care for. i.e. not having to filter any messages
QUESTIONS
Which of the above is the better option and why? And how do I stop myself from making RequestMessages. From what I've read/seen I should be trying to structure this in a way of PersonCreated, PersonDeleted i.e. SOMETHING HAS HAPPENED and NOT in the REQUEST SOMETHING TO HAPPEN form such as CreatePerson or DeletePerson
Are my thoughts correct? I've been looking for guidance on how to structure messages and making sure I don't go down a wrong path but have found no guidance out there on do's and dont's. Can any one help and guide? I want to try and get this correct from the off :)
Based on the integration scenario in the referenced article, it appears to me that you may need a Saga to complete the workflow of accept message -> operate on message -> send confirmation. In the case that the confirmation is sent immediately after the operation, you could use NSBs message handler pipeline feature which allows you to chain handlers in a specified sequence such as...
First<FilterHandler>.Then<DoWorkHandler>().AndThen<SendConfirmationHandler>();
In terms of the content filtering, you can do this although you incur some transport overhead, meaning the queue will have to accept the message and the process will always call the first handler on every message(you can short-circuit the above pipeline at any point). It may be the case that what you really want is a Distributor/Worker setup where all Workers are the same and you can handle some load.
If you truly have different endpoints with completely different logic, then I would have the Publisher process(only accepts and Publishes message) do the work of translating the inbound message to something else a Subscriber can then be interested in. If then you find that a given Published message only ever has 1 Subscriber, then you don't need to Publish at all, you need to just Bus.Send() to the correct endpoint.
The way NServiceBus handles pub-sub is more like your option two.
A publisher service has an input queue and a subscription store.
A subscriber service has an input queue
The subscriber, on start-up will send a subscription message to the input queue of the publisher
The subscription message contains the type of message subscriber is interested in and the subscribers queue address
The publisher records the subscription in the subscription store.
The publisher receives a message.
The publisher evaluates the message type against the list of subscriptions
For each match found the publisher sends the message to the queue address.
In my opinion, you should stop thinking about destinations. Messages are messages. They should not have any inherent destination information in them. The subscription mechanism defines the addressing/routing requirements for the solution.