What I found out was if you throw a FaultException from a new worker thread, it doesnt percolate up to the client but just crashes WCF.
Any solutions???
example:
var thread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(
delegate
{
new Killbot().KillAllHumans(); // Throws a FaultException
}));
The simplest way would be to wrap the call in a try-catch block and log the exception:
var thread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(
delegate
{
try
{
new Killbot().KillAllHumans(); // Throws a FaultException
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
System.Diagnostics.Trace.WriteLine(ex.ToString());
}
}));
If you want to handle the exception in your main thread you would have to use BeginInvoke and EndInvoke in combination with an AsyncCallback.
Personally I would not bother with background threads in a WCF service. A service is effectively a "background worker" anyway. All you need to do is ensure that any blocking calls you make inside the service don't affect other clients. You can do this by changing the concurrency mode:
[ServiceBehavior(ConcurrencyMode = ConcurrencyMode.Multiple)]
class MyServiceClass : IMyServiceContract {
public void KillAll() {
new Killbot().KillAllHumans(); // Throws a FaultException
}
}
When that is set, WCF will call your service methods on multiple threads with no attempt to synchronise them. As long as you write your code with this in mind, you can do all the blocking calls you want.
Related
As per Customizing Error Handling "Throwing the exception in the catch block will forward the message to the error queue. If that's not desired, remove the throw from the catch block to indicate that the message has been successfully processed." That's not true for me even if I simply swallow any kind of exception in a behavior:
public override async Task Invoke(IInvokeHandlerContext context, Func<Task> next)
{
try
{
await next().ConfigureAwait(false);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
}
}
I put a breakpoint there and made sure execution hit the catch block. Nevertheless after intimidate and delayed retries messages inevitably ends up in error queue. And I have no more Behaviours in the pipeline besides this one.
Only if I run context.DoNotContinueDispatchingCurrentMessageToHandlers(); inside the catch block it prevents sending error to the error queue, but it also prevents any further immediate and delayed retries.
Any idea on why it works in contravention of Particular NserviceBus documentation is very appreciated
NserviceBus ver. used: 6.4.3
UPDATE:
I want only certain type of exceptions not being sent to an error queue in NServiceBus 6, however to make test case more clear and narrow down the root cause of an issue I use just type Exception. After throwing exception, execution certainly hits the empty catch block. Here is more code to that:
public class EndpointConfig : IConfigureThisEndpoint
{
public void Customize(EndpointConfiguration endpointConfiguration)
{
endpointConfiguration.DefineEndpointName("testEndpoint");
endpointConfiguration.UseSerialization<XmlSerializer>();
endpointConfiguration.DisableFeature<AutoSubscribe>();
configure
.Conventions()
.DefiningCommandsAs(t => t.IsMatched("Command"))
.DefiningEventsAs(t => t.IsMatched("Event"))
.DefiningMessagesAs(t => t.IsMatched("Message"));
var transport = endpointConfiguration.UseTransport<MsmqTransport>();
var routing = transport.Routing();
var rountingConfigurator = container.GetInstance<IRountingConfiguration>();
rountingConfigurator.ApplyRountingConfig(routing);
var instanceMappingFile = routing.InstanceMappingFile();
instanceMappingFile.FilePath("routing.xml");
transport.Transactions(TransportTransactionMode.TransactionScope);
endpointConfiguration.Pipeline.Register(
new CustomFaultMechanismBehavior(),
"Behavior to add custom handling logic for certain type of exceptions");
endpointConfiguration.UseContainer<StructureMapBuilder>(c => c.ExistingContainer(container));
var recoverability = endpointConfiguration.Recoverability();
recoverability.Immediate(immediate =>
{
immediate.NumberOfRetries(2);
});
endpointConfiguration.LimitMessageProcessingConcurrencyTo(16);
recoverability.Delayed(delayed =>
{
delayed.NumberOfRetries(2);
});
endpointConfiguration.SendFailedMessagesTo("errorQueue");
...
}
}
public class CustomFaultMechanismBehavior : Behavior<IInvokeHandlerContext>
{
public override async Task Invoke(IInvokeHandlerContext context, Func<Task> next)
{
try
{
await next().ConfigureAwait(false);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
}
}
}
UPDATE 2
I think I know what's going on: message is handled by first handler that throws an exception which is caught by the Behavior catch block, but then NServiceBus runtime tries to instantiate second handler class which is also supposed to handle the message (it handles class the message is derived from). That's where another exception is thrown in a constructor of one of dependent class. StructureMap tries to instantiate the handler and all its dependent services declared in the constructor and in the process runs into the exception. And this exception is not caught by CustomFaultMechanismBehavior.
So my I rephrase my question now: Is there any way to suppress errors (ignore error queue) occurring inside constructor or simply during StructureMap classes initialization? Seems like the described way does not cover this kind of situations
Your behavior is activated on Handler invocation. This means you are catching exceptions happening inside the Handle method so any other exception, e.g. in the Constructor of the handler would not be caught.
To change the way you 'capture' the exceptions, you can change the way the behavior is activated, e.g. change it from Behavior<IInvokeHandlerContext> to Behavior<ITransportReceiveContext> which is activated when the transport receives a message. You can investigate on different stages and behaviors to see which one suits your purpose best.
I have a WCF service that receives messages from the Microsoft Message Queue (netMsmqBinding).
I want my service to recover if the message queue is unavailable. My code should fail to open the service, but then try again after a delay.
I have code to recognize the error when the queue is unavailable:
static bool ExceptionIsBecauseMsmqNotStarted(TypeInitializationException ex)
{
MsmqException msmqException = ex.InnerException as MsmqException;
return ((msmqException != null) && msmqException.HResult == (unchecked((int)(0xc00e000b))));
}
So this should be straightforward: I call ServiceHost.Open(), catch this exception, wait for a second or two, then repeat until my Open call is successful.
The problem is, if this exception gets thrown once, it continues to be thrown. The message queue might have become available, but my running process is in a bad state and I continue to get the TypeInitializationException until I shut down my process and restart it.
Is there a way around this problem? Can I make WCF forgive the queue and genuinely try to listen to it again?
Here is my service opening code:
public async void Start()
{
try
{
_log.Debug("Starting the data warehouse service");
while(!_cancellationTokenSource.IsCancellationRequested)
{
try
{
_serviceHost = new ServiceHost(_dataWarehouseWriter);
_serviceHost.Open();
return;
}
catch (TypeInitializationException ex)
{
_serviceHost.Abort();
if(!ExceptionIsBecauseMsmqNotStarted(ex))
{
throw;
}
}
await Task.Delay(1000, _cancellationTokenSource.Token);
}
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
_log.Error("Failed to start the service host", ex);
}
}
And here is the stack information. The first time it is thrown the stack trace of the inner exception is:
at System.ServiceModel.Channels.MsmqQueue.GetMsmqInformation(Version& version, Boolean& activeDirectoryEnabled)
at System.ServiceModel.Channels.Msmq..cctor()
And the top entries of the outer exception stack:
at System.ServiceModel.Channels.MsmqChannelListenerBase`1.get_TransportManagerTable()
at System.ServiceModel.Channels.TransportManagerContainer..ctor(TransportChannelListener listener)
Microsoft have made the source code to WCF visible, so now we can work out exactly what's going on.
The bad news: WCF is implemented in such a way that if the initial call to ServiceModel.Start() triggers a queueing error there is no way to recover.
The WCF framework includes an internal class called MsmqQueue. This class has a static constructor. The static constructor invokes GetMsmqInformation, which can throw an exception.
Reading the C# Programming Guide on static constructors:
If a static constructor throws an exception, the runtime will not invoke it a second time, and the type will remain uninitialized for the lifetime of the application domain in which your program is running.
There is a programming lesson here: Don't put exception throwing code in a static constructor!
The obvious solution lies outside of the code. When I create my hosting service, I could add a service dependency on the message queue service. However, I would rather fix this problem with code then configuration.
Another solution is to manually check that the queue is available using non-WCF code.
The method System.Messaging.MessageQueue.Exists returns false if the message queue service is unavailable. Knowing this, the following works:
private const string KNOWN_QUEUE_PATH = #".\Private$\datawarehouse";
private static string GetMessageQueuePath()
{
// We can improve this by extracting the queue path from the configuration file
return KNOWN_QUEUE_PATH;
}
public async void Start()
{
try
{
_log.Debug("Starting the data warehouse service");
string queuePath = GetMessageQueuePath();
while(!_cancellationTokenSource.IsCancellationRequested)
{
if (!(System.Messaging.MessageQueue.Exists(queuePath)))
{
_log.Warn($"Unable to find the queue {queuePath}. Will try again shortly");
await Task.Delay(60000, _cancellationTokenSource.Token);
}
else
{
_serviceHost = new ServiceHost(_dataWarehouseWriter);
_serviceHost.Open();
return;
}
}
}
catch(System.OperationCanceledException)
{
_log.Debug("The service start operation was cancelled");
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
_log.Error("Failed to start the service host", ex);
}
}
I'm looking at NServiceBus v3.3.0.0, in our MessageHandler it calls an external WCF service.
If the WCF service is called synchronously and that service throws an exception, NServiceBus handles it perfectly and retries the process as per configuration.
But, if the WCF service is called asynchronously and an exception is thrown then the subscriber process crashes.
So, for example, this handles the exception fine if service.Update throws
public class LeagueMessageHandler : IHandleMessages<LeagueMessage>
{
public void Handle(LeagueMessage message)
{
var service = new LeagueService.LeagueContractClient();
var league = service.Update(leagueDto);
}
}
but if the call to service.UpdateAsync throws an exception then the process crashes
public class LeagueMessageHandler : IHandleMessages<LeagueMessage>
{
public async void Handle(LeagueMessage message)
{
var service = new LeagueService.LeagueContractClient();
var league = await service.UpdateAsync(leagueDto);
}
}
The WCF service is just added as a Service Reference to the class library, it generates the Async method wrappers.
Edit after Adam and Udi comments.
It looks like the issue is unrelated to NServiceBus it's more to do with how console applications handle async methods throwing exceptions. Please see thread
Catch unhandled exceptions from async
Stephen Cleary has written this
http://nuget.org/packages/Nito.AsyncEx
which helps you roll your own SynchronisationContext which handles catching the exception. So the WCF call above is wrapped such...
var league = AsyncContext.Run(() => service.UpdateAsync(leagueDto));
when the exception gets thrown it is caught within that context and the console app no longer closes.
When you call it async, the exception happens on a different thread than the one that is processing the message. For that reason, there's no way for NServiceBus to know which message was the one to cause that exception, so it can't roll anything back.
When using NServiceBus, your overall architecture is already asynchronous - there really isn't any need to perform these WCF calls asynchronously.
I have a WCF service that's hosted in IIS, and uses a WS HTTP binding (the external service). This service ends up calling a second WCF service that's hosted in a Windows service, over Net TCP (the internal service). When the internal service throws a FaultException, the external service crashes rather than throwing it to the client. All the client sees is the connection being forcibly closed.
The internal service uses the Enterprise Library Validation Application Block to validate the incoming messages. When validation errors occur, the service throws a FaultException<ValidationFault>.
Both the internal and external service have a [FaultContract(typeof(ValidationFault)] attribute in the service contract. If I change the external service to just immediately throw a new FaultException<ValidaitonFault>, this gets back to the client fine. I can catch the exception from the internal service in the external service, but if I try to re-throw it, or even wrap it in a new exception and throw that, the whole Application Pool in IIS crashses. I can't see anything useful in the event log, so I'm not sure exactly what the problem is.
The client object the external service uses to communicate with the internal service is definitely being closed and disposed of correctly. How can I get the internal service's faults to propagate out to the client?
updated:
Below is a simplified version of the external service code. I can catch the validation fault from the internal service call. If I throw a brand new FaultException<ValidationFault>, everything is fine. If I use the caught exception, the connection to the external client is broken. The only difference I can see is when debugging the service - trying to use the caught exception results in a message box appearing when exiting the method, which says
An unhandled exception of type
'System.ServiceModel.FaultException`1'
occurred in mscorlib.dll
This doesn't appear if I throw a brand new exception. Maybe the answer is to manually copy the details of the validation fault into a new object, but this seems crazy.
public class ExternalService : IExternalService
{
public ExternalResponse DoSomething(ExternalRequest)
{
try
{
var response = new ExternalResponse();
using (var internalClient = new InternalClient())
{
response.Data = internalClient.DoSomething().Data;
}
return response;
}
catch (FaultException<ValidationFault> fEx)
{
// throw fEx; <- crashes
// throw new FaultException<ValidationFault>(
// fEx.Detail as ValidationFault); <- crashses
throw new FaultException<ValidationFault>(
new ValidationFault(new List<ValidationDetail> {
new ValidationDetail("message", "key", "tag") }),
"fault message", new FaultCode("faultCode"))); // works fine!
}
}
}
I have almost the exact design as you and hit a similar issue (not sure about a crash, though!).
If I remember correctly, even though the ValidationFault is a common class when the Fault travels over the wire the type is specific to the WCF interface. I think this is because of the namespace qualifiers on the web services (but this was a while back so I could be mistaken).
It's not terribly elegant, but what I did was to manually re-throw the exceptions:
try
{
DoStuff();
}
catch (FaultException<ValidationFault> fe)
{
HandleFault(fe);
throw;
}
...
private void HandleFault(FaultException<ValidationFault> fe)
{
throw new FaultException<ValidationFault>(fe.Detail as ValidationFault);
}
Well, it works if I do this, but there must be a better way...
This only seems to be a problem for FaultException<ValidationFault>. I can re-throw FaultException and FaultException<SomethingElse> objects with no problems.
try
{
DoStuff();
}
catch (FaultException<ValidationFault> fe)
{
throw this.HandleFault(fe);
}
...
private FaultException<ValidationFault> HandleFault(
FaultException<ValidationFault> fex)
{
var validationDetails = new List<ValidationDetail>();
foreach (ValidationDetail detail in fex.Detail.Details)
{
validationDetails.Add(detail);
}
return new FaultException<ValidationFault>(
new ValidationFault(validationDetails));
}
We are using WCF service
on the client side we are planning to explicitly close the connection
It seems there are more then one way of closing
Sample1:
In the finally block of the WCF service consumption use
if (client.State == CommunicationState.Faulted)
{
client.Abort();
}
client.Close();
Since if the service is in fault state we will not be able to call close()
Sample2:
using(ClientProxy proxy = new ClientProxy())
{
//call your service methods
}
in sample2 i am not sure what will happen if the service is in fault state, will it throw error closing the connection?
You have all the necessary information at hand - the resulting Best Practice to use and properly close/abort all your WCF client proxies would be:
YourClientProxy clientProxy = new YourClientProxy();
try
{
.. use your service
clientProxy.Close();
}
catch(FaultException)
{
clientProxy.Abort();
}
catch(CommunicationException)
{
clientProxy.Abort();
}
catch (TimeoutException)
{
clientProxy.Abort();
}
Catching the FaultException handles all cases when the service responsded with an error condition (and thus your channel is in a faulted state), and CommunicationException will handle all other communication-related exceptions that can occur, like network connectivity dropping etc.
The approach with the using() block won't work, since if an exception happens at the end of the block, when the Dispose() method calls the Close() method on the client proxy, you have no way to catching and handling that.
The 2nd sample using the "using" block is incorrect. The using block ensures that the Dispose method is called on the proxy object. The Dispose method in turn calls the Close method which will (try to) connect to the service which will throw an exception when the communication state is faulted. So your feelings/hunch are absolutely right. It would be nice if the proxy Dispose method used the code from your first sample but it doesn't so don't use the using block :)
In Juval Lowy's Excellent Programming WCF book he recommends:
try
{
ClientProxy clientProxy = new ClientProxy();
clientProxy.SomeMethod();
clientProxy.Close();
}
catch
{
proxy.Abort();
}
Use sample 1
Here is a good article on why you should not use using:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa355056.aspx