how do you catch lower level exceptions from quickfix which appear in the messages log but aren't caught by fromAdmin
You don't. This is by design.
If the message is rejected by the transport layer, it's because there is something fundamentally wrong with it. Maybe it's garbled and can't be decoded, maybe the sequence numbers are wrong, or maybe something else crazy happened.
Whatever the case, your application logic can not fix it, and should not attempt to. If the problem is in your app, it'll be something that requires code-fixes.
"But I want to log the error!"
You don't need to log it at the application layer. Choose a log monitor tool and set it to watch your message log for 35=3.
The answer is the 35=AG message is getting to fromAdmin() but the data dictionary was inconsistent with the provider data dictionary, which generated a further 35=3 reject message, and prevented the processing of the 35=AG. Once the data dictionary is consistent removing the 35=3 reject message then you can handle the 35=AG message using fromAdmin() if you want to.
I think that's good...
Related
I am facing the same issue as
Kafka Streams Deserialization Handler
After using logandcontinue, still on restarting server the corrupt messages show up everytime.
It looks like this jira issue is still open and needs to be addressed to fix the problem you are describing: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-6502
It only happens when you have a series of records in error though. As soon as you have a good record coming in, the offset moves along. Therefore, as a workaround, you can probably send a good record that will not cause an error maybe?
I'm making a simple mmorpg server with IOCP.
I implemented a simple movement function so I tested with dummy clients(also IOCP).
Everything works fine only when few clients are connected. After around 500~1000 clients are connected, some dummy clients occasionally read weird data. I checked that server sends data as I expected but when it comes to dummy clients reading them, they read random data.
My guess is that it could be related to operation system's recv buffer being overflowed but I'm only guessing right now... I have no idea how to check them.
Any suggestion would be very thankful!
The problem with too many WSASends doesn't usually manifest as corrupted data; that's more likely to be a bug in your code. Perhaps your problem is caused by you failing to manage the lifetime of the buffer that is being used to send data correctly? It needs to stay stable until you get the completion for the WSASend call. If you were reusing it sooner than that then you would corrupt the data being sent.
The reason this may show up when you have lots of WSASends outstanding to lots of clients is that the send operations may be taking longer to complete and so make it more likely that your bug will be hit...
It doesn't matter how many WSASends you issue as long as your clients are able to receive the data as fast as you can send it. As soon as you are sending faster than they can receive then there will be problems. I address these problems in this answer.
Hello fellow programmers, I wish everyone a good morning.
The Situation
Laravel is great. Laravel Mail queues and the beanstalkd integration is great. It took me almost no time to get everything working. The sun is shining and its not raining. Its awesome.
Except when an exception is thrown while sending an email. Then thise mail is processed again and again and again and the exception is also thrown again and again and again.
Infinite loop.
I think I wouldnt even notice this if I wouldn't have seeded the database with invalid data. Validation usually would have taken care of that, that emails like 361FlorindaMatthäi#gmail.com dont end up with the folowing exception:
[Swift_RfcComplianceException]
Address in mailbox given [361FlorindaMatthäi#gmail.com] does not
comply with RFC 2822, 3.6.2.
But what validation wouldnt have taken care for is for example, when my mandrill account reaches its limits or my server looses internet connection, whatever. An Exception sends it into an infinite loop.
In the world where the sun is shining and everything is great the job has to be marked as buried or suspended and the next email should be processed. An infinite loop with an invalid email address is not great.
Basicly your application doesnt send out any emails anymore. This guy has roughly the same issue.
How can I fix this? Has anyone else encountered this Error?
Any Help is much appreciated.
You just need to travel Laravel how many times to try a specific job, before deciding it has failed:
php artisan queue:daemon --tries=3
This way, it will stop processing that specific job after 3 tries.
The hard part of any queue-based system is dealing with the errors, I've run tens of millions of jobs through BeanstalkD and many more through other systems like SQS.
With this Swift_RfcComplianceException exception it's clear that the job will never be able to succeed, and so trying it again would be futile.
Some other problems might be able to be recovered, but in either event, you have to wrap the code in a try/catch block and do what you can.
Since there is no way to 'fix' this particular issue, I would record what happened (the name of the exception and any message, and the data) to a log to check on, and then delete or bury the job. If you store the job-id in the log when it is buried it, you can go back and delete or kick that particular job again later - this would be after being able to change what happens to the job (rather than having it fail again).
Getting into CQRS and I understand that you have commands (app layer) and events (from the domain).
In the simple case where events are to update the read model, do read model updates fail? If there is no "bug" then I cannot see them failing and as I am using EventStore, I know there is a commit flag which will retry failures.
So my question is do I have to do anything in addition to EventStore to handle failures?
Coming from a world where you do everything in one transaction and now things are done separately is worrying me.
Of course there may be cases where a published event will fail in the read models.
You have to make sure you can detect that and solve it.
The nice thing is that you can replay all the events again and again so you have the chance not only to fix the error. You can also test the fix by replaying every single event if you want.
I use NServiceBus as my publishing mechanism which allows me to use an error queue. Using my other logging tools together with the error queue I can easily determine what happened since I have the error log and the actual message that caused the error in the first place.
I am using C# and .Net Framework 1.1 (yes its old but I inherited this stuff and can't convert up). I places messages on a transactional queue but it does not get on the queue about 50% of the time. Running workgroup and Windows/XP Professional with all service packs installed. I don't see any messages in the dead letter queue either.
Any ideas where to look?
If it isn't hitting the queue at all and isn't going to the dead-letter queue, it suggests the item isn't being sent to the queue. You should be able to confirm that this is the case by switching on the journal for the queue.
Assuming it isn't hitting the queue, it is probably a transaction issue. I would check that you are definitely committing the message to the queue every time. Make sure there aren't any exceptions being thrown and swallowed that causes the transaction to roll back or never be committed (essentially the same thing). Also make sure there aren't any conditional statements that mean the commit gets skipped.
I would add some logging around every location where a transaction is started, committed and rolled back and also around any location where you are creating a message. You can then review you log to see the order of events and see what's going astray.
Another option would be to remove all of the transaction code and test the code against a non-transactional queue. If the messages all appear then it is a transactional problem. If not, the issue is elsewhere.
I use MSMQ a lot and the one thing I have learned through experience is that it works really well and the weak point is me :-)