I know that subscription in Appsync works with mutation, which means whenever mutation gets invoked, subscription is also invoked which sends the message to all the subscribers.
What I want is that if there is any way, I can basically sends a message to the user directly from lambda using Appsync or any other way in real time? That is, I don't want user to refresh the page.
The use case can be, say, I have a standalone lambda which runs every hour and wants to notify users every hour about something. It is not part of any mutation or query.
You can attach a None DataSource to a mutation and send the information required for the subscription to be triggered within the mutation arguments.
for example let's assume you have the following schema
type Book {
bookId: Int
}
input BookInput {
bookId: Int
}
type mutation {
triggerBookUpdate(input: BookInput!): Book
}
type subscription {
onBookUpdate(bookId: Int!): Book
#aws_subscribe(mutations: ["triggerBookUpdate"])
}
then you attach the None DataSource to the resolver for the TriggerBookUpdate field and provide the following Request Mapping Template
#**
Resolvers with None data sources can locally publish events that fire
subscriptions or otherwise transform data without hitting a backend data source.
The value of 'payload' is forwarded to $ctx.result in the response mapping template.
*#
{
"version": "2017-02-28",
"payload": $utils.toJson($context.arguments.input)
}
and the Response Mapping Template
$util.toJson($ctx.result)
for more information check this Documentation
Related
I have a node app that uses the Watson Conversation service. I am able to successfully trigger a call to another API via a dialogue node using the JSON that it uses for the reply. However after reading up it seems I am doing it wrong. I am triggering my client server to make a REST call by adding an action property to the context.
{
"context": {
"action": "lookup"
},
"output": {}
}
When I get my result I add it onto the context object and pass it back to the conversation service. This seems to work ok, but it causes some issues.
1) having to manually delete these props after I trigger the thing I want
2) In conversation I must wait for user input even though I am not actually requesting user input on the front end but rather my client app is sending a message with no input text and the results of the REST call on the context object. This message which is returned to the conversation at the node where the action was triggered is what triggers the child nodes. It seems like there is a standardized way IBM wants you to make these programmatic calls regardless of if it's to an IBM cloud function, or your own client app. https://console.bluemix.net/docs/services/conversation/dialog-actions.html#dialog-actions
docs method:
{
"context": {
"variable_name" : "variable_value"
},
"actions": [
{
"name":"<actionName>",
"type":"client | server",
"parameters": {
"<parameter_name>":"<parameter_value>",
"<parameter_name>":"<parameter_value>"
},
"result_variable": "<result_variable_name>",
"credentials": "<reference_to_credentials>"
}
],
"output": {
"text": "response text"
}
}
Is this a new feature? I was referencing sample projects for my own app and I didn't see this pattern. By using this format will it tell the parent node to wait for a response to come back before trying to process the children? Will it prevent me from needing to delete properties off the context object so that I'm not calling the same action over and over with the same parameters in further turns of the conversation?
I am building a bot for for Facebook Messenger using Microsoft Bot Framework. I am planning to use CosmosDB for State Management and also as my backend data store. (I am not stuck to CosmosBD and can use any other store if needed)
I need to send daily/weekly proactive messages(push notifications) to users based on their time preference. I will capturing their time preference when they first interact with the bot.
What is the best way to deliver these notifications?
As I will be storing these preferences in CosmosDB, I am thinking using ComosDB trigger of creating an Azure Function and schedule it based on the user time preference. This Azure function will make a call to my webhook which will deliver these messages. If requried, I will change Function schedule when a user changes his/her preference.
My questions are:
Is this a good approach?
Are there any other alternatives (Notifications Hub?)
I should be able to set specific times for notifications (like at the top of the hour or something like that), does it make sense to schedule an Azure Function to run at these hours rather than creating a function based on user preference (I can actually combine these two approaches too)
Thank you in advance.
First, I don't think there's any "right" answer to be given here; it's going to depend a lot on your domain's specific needs. Scale is going to play a major factor in the design of this. Will you have 100 users? 10000 users? 1mil users? I'm going to assume you want to design for maximum scale up front, but it could be overkill.
First, based on what you've described, I don't think a CosmosDB trigger is necessarily the solution to your problem because that's only going to fire when the preference data is created/updated. I assume that, from that point forward, your function needs to continuously fire at the time slot they've opted into, correct?
So let's pretend you let people choose from the 24hrs in the day. A naïve approach would be to simply use a scheduled trigger that fires up every hour, queries the CosmosDB for all the documents where the preference is set to that particular hour and then begins sending out notifications from there. The problem is how you scale from there and deal with issues of idempotency in the face of failures.
First off, a timer trigger only ever spins up one instance. If you were to just go query the CosmosDB documents and start processing them one by one in the scope of that single trigger, you'd hit a ceiling relatively quickly on how many notifications you can scale to. Instead what you'd want to do is use that timer trigger to fan out the notifications to as many "worker" function instances as possible. The timer trigger can act as the orchestrator in the sense that it can own the query against the CosmosDB and then turn each document result it finds for that particular notification time window into a message that it places on a queue to be processed by a separate function which will scale out on its own.
There are actually a couple ways you can accomplish this with Azure Functions, it really depends on how early an adopter of technology you are comfortable with being.
The first is what I would call the "manual" way which would be done by simply using the existing Azure Storage Queue extension by taking an IAsyncCollector<YourNotificationWorkerMessage> as a parameter to the timer function that's bound to the worker queue and then pumping out the messages through that. Then you write a second companion function which uses a QueueTrigger, bind it to that same queue, and it will take care of processing each message. This second function is where you get the scaling, enabling process all of the queued messages as quickly as possible based on whatever scaling parameters you choose to configure. This is the "simplest" approach
The second approach would be to adopt the newer Durable Functions extension. With that model, you don't have to directly think about creating a worker queue. You simply kick off a new instance of your orchestrator function from the timer function and the orchestrator fans out the work by invoking N "concurrent" calls to an action for each notification. Now, it happens to distribute those calls using queues under the covers, but that's an implementation detail that you need no longer maintain yourself. Additionally, if the work of delivering the notification requires more involved work and/or retry logic, you might actually consider using a sub-orchestration instead of a simple action. Finally, another added benefit of this approach, is that you can "fan back in" to your main orchestrator function once all the notifications are delivered to do some follow up work... even if that's simply some kind of event logging that the notification cycle has completed for this hour.
Now, the challenge with either of these approach is actually dealing with failure in initially fetching the candidates for notification from CosmosDB, paging through the results and making sure you actually fan all of them out in an idempotent manner. You need to deal with possible hiccups as you page and you need to deal with the fact that your whole function could be torn down and you might have to restart. Perhaps on the initial run of the 8AM notifications you got through page 273 out of 371 pages and then you got hit with a complete network connectivity fail or the VM your function was running on suffered a power failure. You could resume, but you'd need to know that you left off on page 273 and that you actually processed the 27th record out of that page and start from there. Otherwise, you risk sending double notifications to your users. Maybe that's something you can accept, maybe it's not. Maybe you're ok with the 27 notifications on that page being duplicated as long as the first 272 pages aren't. Again, this is something you need to decide for your domain, but if you want to avoid this issue your orchestrator function will need to track its progress to ensure that it doesn't send out dupes. Again I would say Durable Functions has a leg up here as it comes with the ability to configure retries. Maintaining the state of a particular run is left up to the author in either approach though.
I use pro-active dialog extensively with botframwork and messenger without any issue. During your facebook approval process you simply need to inform them you will be sending notifications trough messenger with your bot. Usually if you use it to inform your user and stay away from promotional content you should be fine.
I also use azure function to trigger the pro-active dialog from a custom controller endpoint.
Bellow sample code for azure function:
public static void Run(TimerInfo notificationTrigger, TraceWriter log)
{
try
{
//Serialize request object
string timerInfo = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(notificationTrigger);
//Create a request for bot service with security token
HttpRequestMessage hrm = new HttpRequestMessage()
{
Method = HttpMethod.Post,
RequestUri = new Uri(NotificationEndPointUrl),
Content = new StringContent(timerInfo, Encoding.UTF8, "application/json")
};
hrm.Headers.Add("Authorization", NotificationApiKey);
log.Info(JsonConvert.SerializeObject(hrm));
//Call service
using (var client = new HttpClient())
{
Task task = client.SendAsync(hrm).ContinueWith((taskResponse) =>
{
HttpResponseMessage result = taskResponse.Result;
var jsonString = result.Content.ReadAsStringAsync();
jsonString.Wait();
if (result.StatusCode != System.Net.HttpStatusCode.OK)
{
//Throw what ever problem as an exception with details
throw new Exception($"AzureFunction - ERRROR - HTTP {result.StatusCode}");
}
});
task.Wait();
}
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
//TODO log
}
}
Bellow sample code for starting the pro-active dialog:
public static async Task Resume<T, R>(string resumptionCookie) where T : IDialog<R>, new()
{
//Deserialize reference to conversation
ConversationReference conversationReference = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<ConversationReference>(resumptionCookie);
//Generate message from bot to user
var message = conversationReference.GetPostToBotMessage();
var builder = new ContainerBuilder();
using (var scope = DialogModule.BeginLifetimeScope(Conversation.Container, message))
{
//From a cold start the service is not yet authenticated with dev bot azure services
//We thus must trust endpoint url.
if (!MicrosoftAppCredentials.IsTrustedServiceUrl(message.ServiceUrl))
{
MicrosoftAppCredentials.TrustServiceUrl(message.ServiceUrl, DateTime.MaxValue);
}
var botData = scope.Resolve<IBotData>();
await botData.LoadAsync(CancellationToken.None);
//This is our dialog stack
var task = scope.Resolve<IDialogTask>();
T dialog = scope.Resolve<T>(); //Resolve the dialog using autofac
try
{
task.Call(dialog.Void<R, IMessageActivity>(), null);
await task.PollAsync(CancellationToken.None);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
//TODO log
}
finally
{
//flush dialog stack
await botData.FlushAsync(CancellationToken.None);
}
}
}
Your dialog needs to be registered in autofac.
Your resumptionCookie needs to be saved in your db.
You might want to check FB policy regarding proactive messages
There’s a 24h limit but it might not be totally screwed in your case
https://developers.facebook.com/docs/messenger-platform/policy/policy-overview#standard_messaging
The question assumes the use of Event Sourcing.
When rebuilding current state by replaying events, event handlers should be idempotent. For example, when a user successfully updates their username, a UsernameUpdated event might be emitted, the event containing a newUsername string property. When rebuilding current state, the appropriate event handler receives the UsernameUpdated event and sets the username property on the User object to the newUsername property of the UsernameUpdated event object. In other words, the handling of the same message multiple times always yields the same result.
However, how does such an event handler work when integrating with external services? For example, if the user wants to reset their password, the User object might emit a PasswordResetRequested event, which is handled by a portion of code that issues a 3rd party with a command to send an SMS. Now when the application is rebuilt, we do NOT want to re-send this SMS. How is this situation best avoided?
There are two messages involved in the interaction: commands and events.
I do not regard the system messages in a messaging infrastructure the same as domain events. Command message handling should be idempotent. Event handlers typically would not need to be.
In your scenario I could tell the aggregate root 100 times to update the user name:
public UserNameChanged ChangeUserName(string username, IServiceBus serviceBus)
{
if (_username.Equals(username))
{
return null;
}
serviceBus.Send(new SendEMailCommand(*data*));
return On(new UserNameChanged{ Username = userName});
}
public UserNameChanged On(UserNameChanged #event)
{
_username = #event.UserName;
return #event;
}
The above code would result in a single event so reconstituting it would not produce any duplicate processing. Even if we had 100 UserNameChanged events the result would still be the same as the On method does not perform any processing. I guess the point to remember is that the command side does all the real work and the event side is used only to change the state of the object.
The above isn't necessarily how I would implement the messaging but it does demonstrate the concept.
I think you are mixing two separate concepts here. The first is reconstructing an object where the handlers are all internal methods of the entity itself. Sample code from Axon framework
public class MyAggregateRoot extends AbstractAnnotatedAggregateRoot {
#AggregateIdentifier
private String aggregateIdentifier;
private String someProperty;
public MyAggregateRoot(String id) {
apply(new MyAggregateCreatedEvent(id));
}
// constructor needed for reconstruction
protected MyAggregateRoot() {
}
#EventSourcingHandler
private void handleMyAggregateCreatedEvent(MyAggregateCreatedEvent event) {
// make sure identifier is always initialized properly
this.aggregateIdentifier = event.getMyAggregateIdentifier();
// do something with someProperty
}
}
Surely you wouldn't put code that talks to an external API inside an aggregate's method.
The second is replaying events on a bounded context which could cause the problem you are talking about and depending on your case you may need to divide your event handlers into clusters.
See Axon frameworks documentation for this point to get a better understanding of the problem and the solution they went with.
Replaying Events on a Cluster
TLDR; store the SMS identifier within the event itself.
A core principle of event sourcing is "idempotency". Events are idempotent, meaning that processing them multiple times will have the same result as if they were processed once. Commands are "non-idempotent", meaning that the re-execution of a command may have a different result for each execution.
The fact that aggregates are identified by UUID (with a very low percentage of duplication) means that the client can generate the UUIDs of newly created aggregates. Process managers (a.k.a., "Sagas") coordinate actions across multiple aggregates by listening to events in order to issue commands, so in this sense, the process manager is also a "client". Cecause the process manager issues commands, it cannot be considered "idempotent".
One solution I came up with is to include the UUID of the soon-to-be-created SMS in the PasswordResetRequested event. This allows the process manager to only create the SMS if it does not yet already exist, hence achieving idempotency.
Sample code below (C++ pseudo-code):
// The event indicating a password reset was successfully requested.
class PasswordResetRequested : public Event {
public:
PasswordResetRequested(const Uuid& userUuid, const Uuid& smsUuid, const std::string& passwordResetCode);
const Uuid userUuid;
const Uuid smsUuid;
const std::string passwordResetCode;
};
// The user aggregate root.
class User {
public:
PasswordResetRequested requestPasswordReset() {
// Realistically, the password reset functionality would have it's own class
// with functionality like checking request timestamps, generationg of the random
// code, etc.
Uuid smsUuid = Uuid::random();
passwordResetCode_ = generateRandomString();
return PasswordResetRequested(userUuid_, smsUuid, passwordResetCode_);
}
private:
Uuid userUuid_;
string passwordResetCode_;
};
// The process manager (aka, "saga") for handling password resets.
class PasswordResetProcessManager {
public:
void on(const PasswordResetRequested& event) {
if (!smsRepository_.hasSms(event.smsUuid)) {
smsRepository_.queueSms(event.smsUuid, "Your password reset code is: " + event.passwordResetCode);
}
}
};
There are a few things to note about the above solution:
Firstly, while there is a (very) low possibility that the SMS UUIDs can conflict, it can actually happen, which could cause several issues.
Communication with the external service is prevented. For example, if user "bob" requests a password reset that generates an SMS UUID of "1234", then (perhaps 2 years later) user "frank" requests a password reset that generates the same SMS UUID of "1234", the process manager will not queue the SMS because it thinks it already exists, so frank will never see it.
Incorrect reporting in the read model. Because there is a duplicate UUID, the read side may display the SMS sent to "bob" when "frank" is viewing the list of SMSes the system sent him. If the duplicate UUIDs were generated in quick succession, it is possible that "frank" would be able to reset "bob"s password.
Secondly, moving the SMS UUID generation into the event means you must make the User aggregate aware of the PasswordResetProcessManager's functionality (but not the PasswordResetManager itself), which increases coupling. However, the coupling here is loose, in that the User is unaware of how to queue an SMS, only that an SMS should be queued. If the User class were to send the SMS itself, you could run into the situation in which the SmsQueued event is stored while the PasswordResetRequested event is not, meaning that the user will receive an SMS but the generated password reset code was not saved on the user, and so entering the code will not reset the password.
Thirdly, if a PasswordResetRequested event is generated but the system crashes before the PasswordResetProcessManager can create the SMS, then the SMS will eventually be sent, but only when the PasswordResetRequested event is re-played (which might be a long time in the future). E.g., the "eventual" part of eventual consistency could be a long time away.
The above approach works (and I can see that it should also work in more complicated scenarious, like the OrderProcessManager described here: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/jj591569.aspx). However, I am very keen to hear what other people think about this approach.
I am struggling to receive pubsub events in my client. The client store (reflux) gets the data from a project using its id. As I understand it this automatically subscribes the Sails socket for realtime events (from version 0.10), but I don't see it happening.
Here's my client store getting data from sails
(this is ES6 syntax)
onLoadProject(id) {
var url = '/api/projects/' + id;
io.socket.get(url, (p, jwres) => {
console.log('loaded project', id);
this.project = p;
this.trigger(p);
});
io.socket.on("project", function(event){
console.log('realtime event', event);
});
},
Then I created a test "touch" action in my project controller, just to have the modifiedAt field updated.
touch: function(req, res){
var id = req.param('id');
Project.findOne(id)
.then(function(project) {
if (!project) throw new Error('No project with id ' + id);
return Project.update({id: id}, {touched: project.touched+1});
})
.then(function(){
// this should not be required right?
return Project.publishUpdate(id);
})
.done(function() {
sails.log('touched ok');
res.ok();
}, function(e) {
sails.log("touch failed", e.message, e.stack);
res.serverError(e.message);
});
}
This doesn't trigger any realtime event in my client code. I also added a manual Project.publishUpdate(), but this shouldn't be required right?
What am I missing?
-------- edit ----------
There was a complication a result of my model touched attribute, since I set it to 'number' instead of 'integer' and the ORM exception wasn't caught by the promise error handling without a catch() part. So the code above works, hurray! But the realtime events are received for every instance of Project.
So let me rephrase my question:
How can I subscribe the client socket to an instance instead of a model? I could check the id on the client side and retrieve the updated instance data but that seems inefficient since every client receives a notification about every project even though they only should care about a single one.
----- edit again ------
So nevermind. The reason I was getting updates from every instance is simply because at the start of my application I triggered a findAll to get a list of available projects. As a result my socket got subscribed for all of them. The workaround would be to either initiate that call via plain http instead of a socket, or use a separate controller action for retrieving the list (therefor bypassing the blueprint route). I picked the second option because in my case it's silly to fetch all project data prior to picking one.
So to answer my own question. The reason I was getting updates from every instance is simply because at the start of my application I triggered a findAll to get a list of available projects. As a result my socket got subscribed for all of them.
The workaround would be to either initiate that call via plain http instead of a socket, or use a separate controller action for retrieving the list (therefor bypassing the blueprint route). I picked the second option because in my case it's silly to fetch all resources data prior to selecting one.
Here's the function I used to list all resources, where I filter part of the data which is not relevant for browsing the list initially.
list: function(req, res) {
Project.find()
.then(function(projects) {
var keys = [
'id',
'name',
'createdAt',
'updatedAt',
'author',
'description',
];
return projects.map(function(project){
return _.pick(project, keys);
});
})
.catch(function (e){
res.serverError(e.message);
})
.done(function(list){
res.json(list);
}, function(e) {
res.serverError(e.message);
});
},
Note that when the user loads a resource (project in my case) and then switches to another resource, the client is will be subscribed to both resources. I believe it requires a request to an action where you unsubscribe the socket explicitly to prevent this. In my case this isn't such a problem, but I plan to solve that later.
I hope this is helpful to someone.
Each Sails.js model has the method publishAdd(). This notifies every listener, when a new record was added to a associated model.
This notification does not contain the newly created record. So I have to start another request from the client side to get the new record.
Is there a possibility, that Sails.js sends the new record with the notification, so I can reduce my request count?
Solution
I realized the accepted answer like that:
https://gist.github.com/openscript/7016c5fd8c5053b5e3a3
There's no way to get this record using the default publishAdd method. However, you can override that method and do the child record lookup in your implementation.
You can override publishAdd on a per-model basis by adding a publishAdd method to that model class, or override it for all models by adding the method to the config/models.js file.
I would start by copying the default publishAdd() method and then tweaking as necessary.
I know this is old, but I just had to solve this again, and didn't like the idea of dropping in duplicate code so if someone is looking for alternative, the trick is to update the model of the newly created record with an afterCreate: method.
Say you have a Game that you want to your Players to subscribe to. Games have notifications, a collection of text alerts that you only want players in the game to receive. To do this, subscribe to Game on the client by requesting it. Here I'm getting a particular game by calling game/gameId, then building my page based on what notifications and players are already on the model:
io.socket.get('/game/'+gameId, function(resData, jwres) {
let players = resData.players;
let notifications = resData.notifications;
$.each(players, function (k,v) {
if(v.id!=playerId){
addPartyMember(v);
}
});
$.each(notifications, function (k,v) {
addNotification(v.text);
});
});
Subscribed to game will only give the id's, as we know, but when I add a notification, I have both the Game Id and the notification record, so I can add the following to the Notification model:
afterCreate: function (newlyCreatedRecord, cb) {
Game.publishAdd(newlyCreatedRecord.game,'notifications',newlyCreatedRecord);
cb();}
Since my original socket.get subscribes to a particular game, I can publish only to those subscriber by using Game.publishAdd(). Now back on the client side, listen for the data coming back:
io.socket.on('game', function (event) {
if (event.attribute == 'notifications') {
addNotification(event.added.text);
}
});
The incoming records will look something like this:
{"id":"59fdd1439aee4e031e61f91f",
"verb":"addedTo",
"attribute" :"notifications",
"addedId":"59fef31ba264a60e2a88e5c1",
"added":{"game":"59fdd1439aee4e031e61f91f",
"text":"some messages",
"createdAt":"2017-11-05T11:16:43.488Z",
"updatedAt":"2017-11-05T11:16:43.488Z",
"id":"59fef31ba264a60e2a88e5c1"}}