i need a help for some really serious issue, so the thing is i have a e commerce site , where single user placing order at a time is working fine, but if more than one user try to order the same product, then i am getting this exception
org.grails.datastore.mapping.core.OptimisticLockingException: The instance was updated by another user while you were editing
Point : in.emkart.api.OrderAPIController.save(OrderAPIController.groovy:70)
so my my code is like
/** some code **/
if (product && orderContinue) {
product = updateQuantityForProduct(product)
order?.product = product
/** some code **/
try{
// some code
product.save() // line 70
// some code
}
catch(Exception e){
log.debug "unable to place order-->"+e /** exception --> (unable to place order-->org.grails.datastore.mapping.core.OptimisticLockingException: The instance was updated by another user while you were editing
Point : in.emkart.api.OrderAPIController.save(OrderAPIController.groovy:70) ) **/
}
what are the fixes that can help me to prevent this and also is this possible to keep the another user waiting or some kind of queue to maintain so that once previous order is complete then only next request goes on to place order.
Related
We have an enterprise DB that is replicated through many sites throughout the world. We would like our app to attempt to connect to one of the local sites, and if that site is down we want it to fall back to the enterprise DB. We'd like this behavior on each of our DB operations.
We are using Entity Framework, C#, and SQL Server.
At first I hoped I could just specify a "Failover Partner" in the connection string, but that only works in a mirrored DB environment, which this is not. I also looked into writing a custom IDbExecutionStrategy. But these strategies only allow you to specify the pattern for retrying a failed DB operation. It does not allow you to change the operation in any way like directing it to a new connection.
So, do you know of any good pattern for dealing with this type of operation, other than duplicating retry logic around each of our many DB operations?
Update on 2014-05-14:
I'll elaborate in response to some of the suggestions already made.
I have many places where the code looks like this:
try
{
using(var db = new MyDBContext(ConnectionString))
{
// Database operations here.
// var myList = db.MyTable.Select(...), etc.
}
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
// Log exception here, perhaps rethrow.
}
It was suggested that I have a routine that first checks each of the connections strings and returns the first one that successfully connects. This is reasonable as far as it goes. But some of the errors I'm seeing are timeouts on the operations, where the connection works but the DB has issues that keep it from completing the operation.
What I'm looking for is a pattern I can use to encapsulate the unit of work and say, "Try this on the first database. If it fails for any reason, rollback and try it on the second DB. If that fails, try it on the third, etc. until the operation succeeds or you have no more DBs." I'm pretty sure I can roll my own (and I'll post the result if I do), but I was hoping there might be a known way to approach this.
How about using some Dependency Injection system like autofac and registering there a factory for new context objects - it will execute logic that will try to connect first to local and in case of failure it will connect to enterprise db. Then it will return ready DbContext object. This factory will be provided to all objects that require it with Dependency Injection system - they will use it to create contexts and dispose of them when they are not needed any more.
" We would like our app to attempt to connect to one of the local sites, and if that site is down we want it to fall back to the enterprise DB. We'd like this behavior on each of our DB operations."
If your app is strictly read-only on the DB and data consistency is not absolutely vital to your app/users, then it's just a matter of trying to CONNECT until an operational site has been found. As M.Ali suggested in his remark.
Otherwise, I suggest you stop thinking along these lines immediately because you're just running 90 mph down a dead end street. As Viktor Zychla suggested in his remark.
Here is what I ended up implementing, in broad brush-strokes:
Define delegates called UnitOfWorkMethod that will execute a single Unit of Work on the Database, in a single transaction. It takes a connection string and one also returns a value:
delegate T UnitOfWorkMethod<out T>(string connectionString);
delegate void UnitOfWorkMethod(string connectionString);
Define a method called ExecuteUOW, that will take a unit of work and method try to execute it using the preferred connection string. If it fails, it tries to execute it with the next connection string:
protected T ExecuteUOW<T>(UnitOfWorkMethod<T> method)
{
// GET THE LIST OF CONNECTION STRINGS
IEnumerable<string> connectionStringList = ConnectionStringProvider.GetConnectionStringList();
// WHILE THERE ARE STILL DATABASES TO TRY, AND WE HAVEN'T DEFINITIVELY SUCCEDED OR FAILED
var uowState = UOWStateEnum.InProcess;
IEnumerator<string> stringIterator = connectionStringList.GetEnumerator();
T returnVal = default(T);
Exception lastException = null;
string connectionString = null;
while ((uowState == UOWStateEnum.InProcess) && stringIterator.MoveNext())
{
try
{
// TRY TO EXECUTE THE UNIT OF WORK AGAINST THE DB.
connectionString = stringIterator.Current;
returnVal = method(connectionString);
uowState = UOWStateEnum.Success;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
lastException = ex;
// IF IT FAILED BECAUSE OF A TRANSIENT EXCEPTION,
if (TransientChecker.IsTransient(ex))
{
// LOG THE EXCEPTION AND TRY AGAINST ANOTHER DB.
Log.TransientDBException(ex, connectionString);
}
// ELSE
else
{
// CONSIDER THE UOW FAILED.
uowState = UOWStateEnum.Failed;
}
}
}
// LOG THE FAILURE IF WE HAVE NOT SUCCEEDED.
if (uowState != UOWStateEnum.Success)
{
Log.ExceptionDuringDataAccess(lastException);
returnVal = default(T);
}
return returnVal;
}
Finally, for each operation we define our unit of work delegate method. Here an example
UnitOfWorkMethod uowMethod =
(providerConnectionString =>
{
using (var db = new MyContext(providerConnectionString ))
{
// Do my DB commands here. They will roll back if exception thrown.
}
});
ExecuteUOW(uowMethod);
When ExecuteUOW is called, it tries the delegate on each database until it either succeeds or fails on all of them.
I'm going to accept this answer since it fully addresses all of concerns raised in the original question. However, if anyone provides and answer that is more elegant, understandable, or corrects flaws in this one I'll happily accept it instead.
Thanks to all who have responded.
We have a HTTP end-point that takes a long time to run and can also be called concurrently by users. As part of this request, we update the model inside a synchronized block so that other (possibly concurrent) requests pick up that change.
E.g.
MyModel m = null;
synchronized (lockObject) {
m = MyModel.findById(id);
if (m.status == PENDING) {
m.status = ACTIVE;
} else {
//render a response back to user that the operation is not allowed
}
m.save(); //Is not expected to be called unless we set m.status = ACTIVE
}
//Long running operation continues here. It can involve further changes to instance "m"
The reason for the synchronized block is to ensure that even concurrent requests get to pick up the latest status. However, the underlying JPA does not commit my changes (m.save()) until the request is complete. Since this is a long-running request, I do not want to wait until the request is complete and still want to ensure that other callers are notified of the change in status. I tried to call "m.em().flush(); JPA.em().getTransaction().commit();" after m.save(), but that makes the transaction unavailable for the subsequent action as part of the same request. Can I just given "JPA.em().getTransaction().begin();" and let Play handle the transaction from then on? If not, what is the best way to handle this use-case?
UPDATE:
Based on the response, I modified my code as follows:
MyModel m = null;
synchronized (lockObject) {
m = MyModel.findById(id);
if (m.status == PENDING) {
m.status = ACTIVE;
} else {
//render a response back to user that the operation is not allowed
}
m.save(); //Is not expected to be called unless we set m.status = ACTIVE
}
new MyModelUpdateJob(m.id).now();
And in my job, I have the following line:
doJob() {
MyModel m = MyModel.findById(id);
print m.status; //This still prints the old status as-if m.save() had no effect...
}
What am I missing?
Put your update code in a job an call
new MyModelUpdateJob(id).now().get();
thus the update will be done in another transaction that is commited at the end of the job
ouch, as soon as you add more play servers, you will be in trouble. You may want to play with optimistic locking in your example or and I advise against it pessimistic locking....ick.
HOWEVER, looking at your code, maybe read the article Building on Quicksand. I am not sure you need a synchronized block in that case at all...try to go after being idempotent.
In your case if
1. user 1 and user 2 both call that method and it is pending, then it goes to active(Idempotent)
If user 1 or user 2 wins, well that would be like you had the synchronization block anyways.
I am sure however you have a more complex scenario not shown here, BUT READ that article Building on Quicksand as it really changes the traditional way of thinking and is how google and amazon and very large scale systems operate.
Another option for distributed transactions across play servers is zookeeper which the big large nosql guys use BUT only as a last resort ;) ;)
later,
Dean
I'm in the process of writing a query manager for a WinForms application that, among other things, needs to be able to deliver real-time search results to the user as they're entering a query (think Google's live results, though obviously in a thick client environment rather than the web). Since the results need to start arriving as the user types, the search will get more and more specific, so I'd like to be able to cancel a query if it's still executing while the user has entered more specific information (since the results would simply be discarded, anyway).
If this were ordinary ADO.NET, I could obviously just use the DbCommand.Cancel function and be done with it, but we're using EF4 for our data access and there doesn't appear to be an obvious way to cancel a query. Additionally, opening System.Data.Entity in Reflector and looking at EntityCommand.Cancel shows a discouragingly empty method body, despite the docs claiming that calling this would pass it on to the provider command's corresponding Cancel function.
I have considered simply letting the existing query run and spinning up a new context to execute the new search (and just disposing of the existing query once it finishes), but I don't like the idea of a single client having a multitude of open database connections running parallel queries when I'm only interested in the results of the most recent one.
All of this is leading me to believe that there's simply no way to cancel an EF query once it's been dispatched to the database, but I'm hoping that someone here might be able to point out something I've overlooked.
TL/DR Version: Is it possible to cancel an EF4 query that's currently executing?
Looks like you have found some bug in EF but when you report it to MS it will be considered as bug in documentation. Anyway I don't like the idea of interacting directly with EntityCommand. Here is my example how to kill current query:
var thread = new Thread((param) =>
{
var currentString = param as string;
if (currentString == null)
{
// TODO OMG exception
throw new Exception();
}
AdventureWorks2008R2Entities entities = null;
try // Don't use using because it can cause race condition
{
entities = new AdventureWorks2008R2Entities();
ObjectQuery<Person> query = entities.People
.Include("Password")
.Include("PersonPhone")
.Include("EmailAddress")
.Include("BusinessEntity")
.Include("BusinessEntityContact");
// Improves performance of readonly query where
// objects do not have to be tracked by context
// Edit: But it doesn't work for this query because of includes
// query.MergeOption = MergeOption.NoTracking;
foreach (var record in query
.Where(p => p.LastName.StartsWith(currentString)))
{
// TODO fill some buffer and invoke UI update
}
}
finally
{
if (entities != null)
{
entities.Dispose();
}
}
});
thread.Start("P");
// Just for test
Thread.Sleep(500);
thread.Abort();
It is result of my playing with if after 30 minutes so it is probably not something which should be considered as final solution. I'm posting it to at least get some feedback with possible problems caused by this solution. Main points are:
Context is handled inside the thread
Result is not tracked by context
If you kill the thread query is terminated and context is disposed (connection released)
If you kill the thread before you start a new thread you should use still one connection.
I checked that query is started and terminated in SQL profiler.
Edit:
Btw. another approach to simply stop current query is inside enumeration:
public IEnumerable<T> ExecuteQuery<T>(IQueryable<T> query)
{
foreach (T record in query)
{
// Handle stop condition somehow
if (ShouldStop())
{
// Once you close enumerator, query is terminated
yield break;
}
yield return record;
}
}
We're trying to play around with RIA Services. I can't seem to figure out how to delete a record. Here's the code I'm trying to use.
SomeDomainContext _SomeDomainContext = (SomeDomainContext)(productDataSource.DomainContext);
Product luckyProduct = (Product)(TheDataGrid.SelectedItem);
_SomeDomainContext.Products.Remove(luckyProduct);
productDataSource.SubmitChanges();
The removing the object from the Entity part works fine, but it doesn't seem to do anything to the DB. Am I using the objects like I'm supposed to, or is there a different way of saving things?
The error system is a little finicky. Try this o get the error if there is one and that will give you an idea. My problem was dependencies to other tables needing deletion first before the object could be. Ex: Tasks deleted before deleting the Ticket.
System.Windows.Ria.Data.SubmitOperation op = productDataSource.SubmitChanges();
op.Completed += new EventHandler(op_Completed);
void TicketsLoaded_Completed(object sender, EventArgs e) {
System.Windows.Ria.Data.SubmitOperation op = (System.Windows.Ria.Data.SubmitOperation)sender;
if (op.Error != null) {
ErrorWindow view = new ErrorWindow(op.Error);
view.Show();
}
}
In the code snippet above, I'd suggest using the callback parameter rather than an event handler.
productsDataSource.SubmitChanges(delegate(SubmitOperation operation) {
if (operation.HasError) {
MessageBox.Show(operation.Error.Message);
}
}, null);
The callback model is designed for the caller of Load/SubmitChanges, while the event is designed for other code that gets a reference to a LoadOperation/SubmitOperation.
Hope that helps...
I am trying to register to a "Device added/ Device removed" event using WMI. When I say device - I mean something in the lines of a Disk-On-Key or any other device that has files on it which I can access...
I am registering to the event, and the event is raised, but the EventType propery is different from the one I am expecting to see.
The documentation (MSDN) states : 1- config change, 2- Device added, 3-Device removed 4- Docking. For some reason I always get a value of 1.
Any ideas ?
Here's sample code :
public class WMIReceiveEvent
{
public WMIReceiveEvent()
{
try
{
WqlEventQuery query = new WqlEventQuery(
"SELECT * FROM Win32_DeviceChangeEvent");
ManagementEventWatcher watcher = new ManagementEventWatcher(query);
Console.WriteLine("Waiting for an event...");
watcher.EventArrived +=
new EventArrivedEventHandler(
HandleEvent);
// Start listening for events
watcher.Start();
// Do something while waiting for events
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(10000);
// Stop listening for events
watcher.Stop();
return;
}
catch(ManagementException err)
{
MessageBox.Show("An error occurred while trying to receive an event: " + err.Message);
}
}
private void HandleEvent(object sender,
EventArrivedEventArgs e)
{
Console.WriteLine(e.NewEvent.GetPropertyValue["EventType"]);
}
public static void Main()
{
WMIReceiveEvent receiveEvent = new WMIReceiveEvent();
return;
}
}
Well, I couldn't find the code. Tried on my old RAC account, nothing. Nothing in my old backups. Go figure. But I tried to work out how I did it, and I think this is the correct sequence (I based a lot of it on this article):
Get all drive letters and cache
them.
Wait for the WM_DEVICECHANGE
message, and start a timer with a
timeout of 1 second (this is done to
avoid a lot of spurious
WM_DEVICECHANGE messages that start
as start as soon as you insert the
USB key/other device and only end
when the drive is "settled").
Compare the drive letters with the
old cache and detect the new ones.
Get device information for those.
I know there are other methods, but that proved to be the only one that would work consistently in different versions of windows, and we needed that as my client used the ActiveX control on a webpage that uploaded images from any kind of device you inserted (I think they produced some kind of printing kiosk).
Oh! Yup, I've been through that, but using the raw Windows API calls some time ago, while developing an ActiveX control that detected the insertion of any kind of media. I'll try to unearth the code from my backups and see if I can tell you how I solved it. I'll subscribe to the RSS just in case somebody gets there first.
Well,
u can try win32_logical disk class and bind it to the __Instancecreationevent.
You can easily get the required info
I tried this on my system and I eventually get the right code. It just takes a while. I get a dozen or so events, and one of them is the device connect code.