Env: Springboot-2.0.7.RELEASE (embedded tomcat-8.5.35), JDK-1.8.0_181, micrometer-registry-prometheus-1.0.8
Desc: using #Timed on controller method and WebMvcMetricsFilter with custom WebMvcTagsProvider.
Demo project: https://github.com/kenix/resp-mix
If PrometheusMeterRegistry already created a meter with a set of tags, it won't create another meter with same name and a set of different tags. It throws IllegalArgumentException with the aforementioned reason. This happens after the normal processing of request, which is successful (response now has the converted JSON). The exception isn't caught in spring's WebMvcMetricsFilter (i.e. catch the exception in its catch-clause. BTW, ControllerAdvice doesn't help), but is caught by tomcat's StandardHostValve, which renders his own error message (it cannot know where this exception is from) into response too. This leads to an illegal JSON as the rendered result.
Question 1: should WebMvcMetricsFilter catch and handle this Exception thrown by PrometheusMeterRegistry and not throw it further up?
Question 2: have seen that exception in filter chain before hitting the actual processing is handled as expected. What about exception after a successful actual processing? Any references?
To trigger this case:
curl -i localhost:8080/hi/foo/there
curl -i localhost:8080/hi/blah/there
Question 1: No, WebMvcTagsProvider handles HTTP Exceptions.
Question 2: Try using ControllerAdvice and catch the IllegalArgumentException there.
Having:
Velocity template or macro
some object
How to validate the object (#if) and fail (stop further processing) in a way that is easily tracable to the place of failure (like throwing exception in Java).
I am looking for something like this:
#if ( ! $context.treasureMap.containsKey('gold'))
#fail('no golden treasure here')
#end
Background
I am writing a maven site page. The velocity context is injected by maven and contains POM information. I want to test existence of some information from effective pom. When the information is not available, I want to fail.
Requirements
fail Velocity processing > fail site generation > fail maven build.
error message should lead to the place of failure so the site should be fixed
preferably no configuration (no extensions, just constructs/tools contained in plain Velocity)
Tried
Strict Reference Mode
Unwanted configuration, do not want to fail on every occasion.
#evaluate('#end') aka syntax error
(Chose #end as most descriptive to my intent) Basically what I want. Fails the processing and maven build but the error message does not lead back to failure location:
ParseException: Encountered "#end" at line 1, column 1..
You need to make a method call which produce exception.See explanation:
The only place where one could run into trouble within Velocity is if there is a call to a method which throws an exception during runtime. For example, this VTL defines a String $foo and then attempts to call its substring() method on it would throw an IndexOutOfBoundsException:
#set ($foo = "bar")
#set ($bar = $foo.substring(0,10))
When the exception is thrown, the parser will stop processing and throw that exception up the stack tree where it can be caught in the method that caused the parser to execute. At that point, the exception can be handled gracefully.
I forked Codeception/Codeception and added a Command module check that throws an exception.
When testing, this exception causes the test to fail but I'm running a test to force the exception and failure, to make sure it catches it.
Here's the edit to src/Codeception/Command/GenerateSuite.php
if ($this->containsInvalidCharacters ($suite)) {
throw new \Exception("Suite name '{$suite}' contains invalid characters. ([A-Za-z0-9_]).");
}
When updating tests/cli/GenerateSuiteCept.php when I run the command $I->executeCommand('generate:suite invalid-suite'); it fails because I'm throwing the exception in src/Codeception/Command/GenerateSuite.php in the first place.
Here is the addition to tests/cli/GenerateSuiteCept.php:
$I->executeCommand('generate:suite invalid-dash-suite');
When I run it, it says it failed. However, I want it to pass because I'm deliberately adding the dash to verify it catches invalid characters. What is the best way to do that? I'm wary of a try/catch block in these tests. I'm not sure if that is the best way to do that.
After looking at the other Codeception tests, I found this to be a better way than throwing an exception:
if ($this->containsInvalidCharacters ($suite)) {
$output->writeln("<error>Suite name '{$suite}' contains invalid characters. ([A-Za-z0-9_]).</error>");
return;
}
So I modified the test to:
$I->expect ('suite is not created due to dashes');
$I->executeCommand('generate:suite invalid-dash-suite');
$I->seeInShellOutput('contains invalid characters');
Solution:
A bit of tracing showed the CommunicationException was being thrown because there was an issue with my exception T not serializing correctly; because, two layers deep, I had an anonymously typed object, which was unserializable. Removing it and bubbling up the changes appeared to fix it. There was somethinge else small I did before that, but I can't remember for the life of me what it was, only that it wasn't done in the config.
I was getting messages from my traces such as:
Type 'RebuiltWCFService.Requests.HelloWorldRequest' with data contract name 'HelloWorldRequest:http://schemas.datacontract.org/2004/07/RebuiltWCFService.Requests' is not expected.
Consider using a DataContractResolver or add any types not known statically to the list of known types - for example, by using the KnownTypeAttribute attribute or by adding them to the list of known types passed to DataContractSerializer.
Original post
I've encountered a seemingly strange issue today that I just cant't find an answer to!
The problem: my service is throwing a CommunicationException when I throw a FaultException! It does not do this if I don't throw an exception.
In my service, I'm properly defining the fault contracts:
[OperationContract]
[FaultContract(typeof(Faults.HelloWorldFault))]
Responses.HelloWorldResponse HelloWorld(Requests.HelloWorldRequest parameter);
Then under error conditions I'm throwing an exception of the correct type:
if (_errors.Count() > 0)
{
Faults.HelloWorldFault fault = new Faults.HelloWorldFault(_errors);
throw new FaultException<Faults.HelloWorldFault>(fault, new FaultReason("There are one or more errors in the request. Check the 'Errors' property for more detaisl"));
}
And then I'm catching it on the client end:
try
{
response = client.HelloWorld(new BasicService.HelloWorldRequest() { Number = 49 });
client.Close();
Console.WriteLine(String.Format("Response message: {0}, Response number: {1}", response.Message, response.Number));
}
catch (FaultException<BasicService.HelloWorldFault> ex)
{
...
}
That all seems OK to me, and like it should work. However, as soon as I go to test my error clauses (by providing bad data, such as a missing field), the whole thing dies on me. When I throw my FaultException, the service instead throws a CommunicationException with the message
An error occurred while receiving the HTTP response to http://localhost:8732/Design_Time_Addresses/RebuiltWCFService/Service1/.
This could be due to the service endpoint binding not using the HTTP protocol.
This could also be due to an HTTP request context being aborted by the server (possibly due to the service shutting down).
See server logs for more details.
Can anybody offer some insight on this one? I am using the basicHttp binding, and I've also tried it with wsHttp. I will post my config file upon request.
A FaultException is a child of CommunicationException. So there is nothing wrong in what's happening in your code.
If you are uncertain about what the exception is while handling, it is usually reported as CommunicationException. If you want to handle your specific exception in your own way, use the following structure.
try
{ ... }
catch (FaultException<MyDemoException> me)
{ ... }
catch (FaultException fe)
{ ... }
catch (CommunicationException ce)
{ ... }
catch (Exception ex)
{ ... }
In the above structure, Exception is parent of CommunicationException. CommunicationException is the parent of FaultException and so on.
System.Object
System.Exception
System.SystemException
System.ServiceModel.CommunicationException
System.ServiceModel.FaultException
System.ServiceModel.FaultException<TDetail>
System.ServiceModel.Web.WebFaultException<T>
Thanks guys, you helped me to understand the issue in a better way. My observation: I kept a List MyData - to hold any generic/dynamic collection, that was unable to serialize, so resulting to close the connection, so the communication exception.
When I removed the List from Fault Contract, and throw Fault style, it was clearly giving Fault contract exception, instead of communication exception.
Hope it helps,
HydTechie.
I ran into this problem because I had one or more breakpoints in the wrong place. I removed all breakpoints with Debug..Delete all Breakpoints (Ctrl-Alt-F9), and all of the CommunicationException exceptions disappeared and were replaced with the correct messages coming back.
Yes, the timeout is 60 seconds, so this never should have occurred, so it was probably some weird artifact of Visual Studio 2012.
I've been working on this for about a day and a half now, and searched numberous blogs and help articles on the Web. I found several questions on SO related to this error, but I didn't think they quite applied to my situation (or in some cases, unfortunately, I couldn't understand them well enough to implement :P). I'm not sure I can describe this well enough for help... but here goes:
We have a .NET app to track our resources. There's an export function to copy a resource to the time tracking system and the billing system; this accesses a stored procedure that links to the time and billing databases.
I recently moved the billing system database to a new server (original server: Server 2003 SP2, SQL 2005; new server: Server 2008 R2, SQL 2008 R2). I have a Linked Server set up that points to the 2008 databases. I updated the stored procedure to point to the 2008 server, and then I got an error about MSDTC and RPC (http://www.safnet.com/writing/tech/archives/2007/06/server_myserver.html). I enabled 'rpc/rpc out' on the Linked Server and set MSDTC to allow Network Access (something like this: http://www.sqlwebpedia.com/content/msdtc-troubleshooting).
Now I'm getting the above, when I try to run the export function: "This SqlTransaction has completed; it is no longer usable." What seems odd to me is that when I just run the stored procedure (from SSMS), it says it completes successfully.
Has anyone seen this before? Have I missed something in the configuration? I keep going over the same pages, and the only thing I found was that I didn't reboot after making the MSDTC changes (mentioned in here: http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/forums/en-US/adodotnetdataproviders/thread/7172223f-acbe-4472-8cdf-feec80fd2e64/).
I can post part or all of the stored procedure, if it would help... please let me know.
I believe this error message is due to a "zombie transaction".
Look for possible areas where the transacton is being committed twice (or rolled back twice, or rolled back and committed, etc.). Does the .Net code commit the transaction after the SP has already committed it? Does the .Net code roll it back on encountering an error, then attempt to roll it back again in a catch (or finally) clause?
It's possible an error condition was never being hit on the old server, and thus the faulty "double rollback" code was never hit. Maybe now you have a situation where there is some configuration error on the new server, and now the faulty code is getting hit via exception handling.
Can you debug into the error code? Do you have a stack trace?
I had this recently after refactoring in a new connection manager. A new routine accepted a transaction so it could be run as part of a batch, problem was with a using block:
public IEnumerable<T> Query<T>(IDbTransaction transaction, string command, dynamic param = null)
{
using (transaction.Connection)
{
using (transaction)
{
return transaction.Connection.Query<T>(command, new DynamicParameters(param), transaction, commandType: CommandType.StoredProcedure);
}
}
}
It looks as though the outer using was closing the underlying connection thus any attempts to commit or rollback the transaction threw up the message "This SqlTransaction has completed; it is no longer usable."
I removed the usings added a covering test and the problem went away.
public IEnumerable<T> Query<T>(IDbTransaction transaction, string command, dynamic param = null)
{
return transaction.Connection.Query<T>(command, new DynamicParameters(param), transaction, commandType: CommandType.StoredProcedure);
}
Check for anything that might be closing the connection while inside the context of a transaction.
Had the exact same problem and just could not find the right solution.
Hope this helps somebody.
I have an .NET Core 3.1 WebApi with EF Core. Upon receiving multiple calls at the same time, the applications was trying to add and save changes to the database at the same time.
In my case the problem was that the table that the data would be saved in, did not have a primary key set.
Somehow EF Core missed when the migration was ran from the application that the ID in the model was supposed to be a primary key.
I found the problem by opening the SQL Profiler and seeing that all transactions was successfully submitted to the database (from the application) but only one new row was created. The profiler also showed that some type of deadlock was happening but I couldn't see much more in the trace logs of the profiler.
On further inspection I noticed that the primary key identifier was missing on the column "Id".
The exceptions I got from my application was:
This SqlTransaction has
completed; it is no longer usable.
and/or
An exception has been raised that is likely due to a transient
failure. Consider enabling transient error resiliency by adding
'EnableRetryOnFailure()' to the 'UseSqlServer' call.
I have the same problem. This error occurs because conection pooling. When exists two or more users acess the system the connetion pooling reuse a connetion and the transation too. If the first user execute commit ou rollback the transaction is no longe usable.
I have recently ran across similar situation. To debug in any VS IDE version, open exceptions from Debug (Ctrl + D, E) - check all checkboxes against the column "Thrown", and run the application in debug mode. I have realized that one of the tables was not imported properly in the new database, so internal Sql Exception was killing the connection, thus results into this error.
Gist of the story is, If Previously working code returns this error on a new database, this could be database schema missing issue, realize by above debugging tip,
Hope It Helps,
HydTechie
Also check for any long running processes executed from your .NET app against the DB. For example you may be calling a stored procedure or query which does not have enough time to finish which can show in your logs as:
Execution Timeout Expired. The timeout period elapsed prior to
completion of the operation or the server is not responding.
This SqlTransaction has completed; it is no longer usable.
Check the command timeout settings
Try to run a trace (profiler) and see what is happening on the DB side...
In my case the problem was that one of the queries included in the transaction was raising an exception, and even though the exception was "gracefully" handled, it still managed to roll back the entire transaction.
My pseudo-code was like:
var transaction = connection.BeginTransaction();
for(all the lines in a file)
{
try{
InsertLineInTable(); // INSERT statement might fail and throw an exception
}
catch {
// notify the user about the error on line x and continue
}
}
// Commit and Rollback will fail if one of the queries
// in InsertLineInTable threw an exception
if(CheckTableForErrors())
{
transaction.Commit();
}
else
{
transaction.Rollback();
}
Here is a way to detect Zombie transaction
SqlTransaction trans = connection.BeginTransaction();
//some db calls here
if (trans.Connection != null) //Detecting zombie transaction
{
trans.Commit();
}
Decompiling the SqlTransaction class, you will see the following
public SqlConnection Connection
{
get
{
if (this.IsZombied)
return (SqlConnection) null;
return this._connection;
}
}
I notice if the connection is closed, the transOP will become zombie, thus cannot Commit.
For my case, it is because I have the Commit() inside a finally block, while the connection was in the try block. This arrangement is causing the connection to be disposed and garbage collected. The solution was to put Commit inside the try block instead.
For what it's worth, I've run into this on what was previously working code. I had added SELECT statements in a trigger for debug testing and forgot to remove them. Entity Framework / MVC doesnt play nice when other stuff is output to the "grid". Make sure to check for any rogue queries and remove them.
In my case, I've some codes which need to execute after committing the transaction, at the same try-catch block. One of the codes threw
an error then try block handed over the error to its catch block which contains the transaction rollback.
It will show a similar error. For example, look at the code structure below :
SqlTransaction trans = null;
try{
trans = Con.BeginTransaction();
// your codes
trans.Commit();
//your codes having errors
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
trans.Rollback(); //transaction roll back
// error message
}
finally
{
// connection close
}
Hope it will help someone :)