One of the step in my job is having an exception and hence the job is failing with the EXIT_CODE "FAILED". Now I want to set the EXIT_MESSAGE as well, I did the following but the message is not getting set.. Any ideas??
chunkContext.getStepContext().getStepExecution().getJobExecution().setExitStatus(ExitStatus.FAILED);
ExitStatus es = jobExecution.getExitStatus();
es = exitStatus.**addExitDescription**("CUSTOM EXCEPTION MESSAGE");
chunkContext.getStepContext().getStepExecution().getJobExecution().setExitStatus(es);
I also tried the following but didn't work.
setExitStatus(new ExitStatus("FAILED","CUSTOM EXCEPTION MESSAGE"));
The way to manipulate the exit status of a job (aka the Job's ExitStatus) is via a JobExecutionLisener. The way you're attempting to manipulate it is using a copy of the real thing. We do that so that rollback can be implemented cleanly. You can read more about the JobExecutionListener in the documentation here: http://docs.spring.io/spring-batch/apidocs/org/springframework/batch/core/JobExecutionListener.html
Gotcha!!!
Adding the listener at the job level and then giving a custom EXIT_CODE made it work.
Thanks Michael.
public class SampleJobListener implements JobExecutionListener {
#Override
public void beforeJob(JobExecution jobExecution) {
}
#Override
public void afterJob(JobExecution jobExecution) {
// Setting the exception in batch EXIT MESSAGE
jobExecution.setExitStatus(new ExitStatus("ERROR","Exception in JOB"));
}
}
Related
I'm trying to execute the following SQL statement every time the Database Session gets refreshed. I have a Spring Boot 2.0.1.RELEASE with JPA application and a PostgreSQL Database.
select set_config('SOME KEY', 'SOME VALUE', false);
As the PostgreSQL documentation states the is_local parameter is used to indicate that this configuration value will apply just for the current transaction -if true- or will be attached to the session (as I require) -if false-
The problem is that I'm not aware when Hibernate/Hikari are refreshing the db session, so, in practice, the application start failing when it has a couple of minutes running, as you can imagine...
My approach -that is not working yet- is to implement a EmptyInterceptor, for that I have added a DatabaseCustomizer class to inject my hibernate.session_factory.interceptor properly in a way that Spring can fill out all my #Autowires
DatabaseInterceptor.class
#Component
public class DatabaseInterceptor extends EmptyInterceptor {
#Autowired
private ApplicationContext context;
#Override
public void afterTransactionBegin(Transaction tx) {
PersistenceService pc = context.getBean(PersistenceService.class);
try {
pc.addPostgresConfig("SOME KEY", "SOME VALUE");
System.out.println("Config added...");
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
DatabaseCustomizer.class
#Component
public class DatabaseCustomizer implements HibernatePropertiesCustomizer {
#Autowired
private DatabaseInterceptor databaseInterceptor;
#Override
public void customize(Map<String, Object> hibernateProperties) {
hibernateProperties.put("hibernate.session_factory.interceptor", databaseInterceptor);
}
}
Obviously, there is a problem with this approach because when I #Override the afterTransactionBegin method to start another transaction I get an Infinite loop.
I tried to look something inside that Transaction tx that could help to be sure that this transaction is not being generated by my own addPostgresConfig but there is not much on it.
Is there something else I could try to achieve this?
Thanks in advance,
I have several UI-Components which have listeners. All these listeners invoke method dialogChanged(). My goal is to make some long processing in this method and don't let the UI freeze. According to Lars Vogel it is possible to do this with help of UISynchronize being injected during runtime. But it fails for me, field of this type is not being injected and i get a NullPointerException. Here's relevant part of my code:
#Inject UISynchronize sync;
Job job = new Job("My Job") {
#Override
protected IStatus run(IProgressMonitor arg0)
{
sync.asyncExec(new Runnable()
{
#Override
public void run()
{
updateStatus("Checking connection...");
if (bisInstallDirSelected)
bisSettingsChanged();
else
jarSettingsChanged();
}
});
return Status.OK_STATUS;
}
};
protected void dialogChanged()
{
job.schedule();
}
The methods updateStatus(String s), bisSettingsChanged() and jarSettingsChanged() interact with UI, to be presice, they use method setErrorMessage(String newMessage) of superclass org.eclipse.jface.wizard.WizardPage
I'd appreciate if somebody could tell me what I am doing wrong or suggest a better way to handle this problem.
You can only use #Inject in classes that the e4 application model creates (such as the class for a Part or a Command Handler).
You can also use ContextInjectionFactory to do injection on your own classes.
For classes where injection has not been done you can use the 'traditional' way of running code in the UI thread:
Display.getDefault().asyncExec(runnable);
I want to test the automatically rolling back of an transaction. Therefore, I implemented a simple bean[src] that throws an system exception which should result in an automatically roll back[1]. I also implemented the interface SessionSynchronization so I can affect the rollback with the method afterCompletion. But the argument of this method is true which I expect to be false in regards to the specs[2].
Am I missing something or is this a bug in JBoss 7? I already searched the bug tracker but did not find anything ... maybe I used the wrong words?
If this is not a bug: are there any settings regarding to set the afterCompletion parameter to false if a system or an application exception occures?
[1]: "There are two ways to roll back a container-managed transaction. First, if a system exception is thrown, the container will automatically roll back the transaction. Second, by invoking the setRollbackOnly method of the EJBContext interface, the bean method instructs the container to roll back the transaction. If the bean throws an application exception, the rollback is not automatic but can be initiated by a call to setRollbackOnly." http://docs.oracle.com/javaee/6/tutorial/doc/bncij.html
[2]: "The afterCompletion method notifies a stateful session bean instance that a transaction commit protocol has completed, and tells the instance whether the transaction has been committed or rolled back." http://docs.oracle.com/javaee/6/api/javax/ejb/SessionSynchronization.html
[src]:
#Stateful
#LocalBean
public class RollbackTestBean implements RollbackTest, SessionSynchronization {
int counter = 0;
int counterBuffer = 0;
private final Logger logger = Logger.getLogger(this.getClass().getName());
#Override
public int getCounter() {
return counter;
}
#Override
public void throwSystemException() throws SystemException {
counter++;
throw new SystemException();
}
#Override
public void afterBegin() throws EJBException, RemoteException {
logger.info("[TX]: after begin");
counterBuffer = counter;
}
#Override
public void afterCompletion(boolean success) throws EJBException, RemoteException {
logger.info("[TX]: after completion: " + success);
if (!success)
counter = counterBuffer;
}
#Override
public void beforeCompletion() throws EJBException, RemoteException {
logger.info("[TX]: before completion");
}
}
There are two SystemExceptions
org.omg.CORBA.SystemException subclass of RuntimeException
javax.transaction.SystemException subclass of Exception
I hope you are using org.omg.CORBA.SystemException
EJB3.1 spec says, if its RuntimeException or ApplicationException, the transaction needs to be rolled back.
As far as I can see, ApplcationException is handled correctly in JBoss 7.1.1, but not RuntimeException.
With RuntimeException, there is a similar issue reported when remove() is called on Statefull bean, reference here. I am getting the same error message when I try to throw RuntimeException. Its fixed in Verion 7.1.3 I think. But I have not tested myself.
You can try 7.1.3, if you are looking for a fix. If you have your Exception and wants transaction rollback, use
#ApplicationException(rollback=true)
Maddy
We read most of our data from a DB. Sometimes the result-set is empty, and for that case we want the job to stop immediately, and not hand over to a writer. We don't want to create a file, if there is no input.
Currently we achieve this goal with a Step-Listener that returns a certain String, which is the input for a transition to either the next business-step or a delete-step, which deletes the file we created before (the file contains no real data).
I'd like the job to end after the reader realizes that there is no input?
New edit (more elegant way)
This approach is to elegantly move to the next step or end the batch application when the file is not found and prevent unwanted steps to execute (and their listeners too).
-> Check for the presence of file in a tasklet, say FileValidatorTasklet.
-> When the file is not found set some exit status (enum or final string) , here we have set EXIT_CODE
sample tasklet
public class FileValidatorTasklet implements Tasklet {
static final String EXIT_CODE = "SOME_EXIT_CODE";
static final String EXIT_DESC = "SOME_EXIT_DESC";
#Override
public RepeatStatus execute(StepContribution stepContribution, ChunkContext chunkContext) throws Exception {
boolean isFileFound = false;
//do file check and set isFileFound
if(!isFileFound){
stepContribution.setExitStatus(new ExitStatus(EXIT_CODE, EXIT_DESC));
}
return RepeatStatus.FINISHED;
}
}
-> In the job configuration of this application after executing FileValidatorTasklet, check for the presence of the EXIT_CODE.
-> Provide the subsequent path for this job if the code is found else the normal flow of the job.( Here we are simply terminating the job if the EXIT_CODE is found else continue with the next steps)
sample config
public Job myJob(JobBuilderFactory jobs) {
return jobs.get("offersLoaderJob")
.start(fileValidatorStep).on(EXIT_CODE).end() // if EXIT_CODE is found , then end the job
.from(fileValidatorStep) // else continue the job from here, after this step
.next(step2)
.next(finalStep)
.end()
.build();
}
Here we have taken advantage of conditional step flow in spring batch.
We have to define two separate path from step A. The flow is like A->B->C or A->D->E.
Old answer:
I have been through this and hence I am sharing my approach. It's better to
throw new RunTimeException("msg");.
It will start to terminate the Spring Application , rather than exact terminate at that point. All methods like close() in ( reader/writer) would be called and destroy method of all the beans would be called.
Note: While executing this in Listener, remember that by this point all the beans would have been initialized and code in their initialization (like afterPropertySet() ) would have executed.
I think above is the correct way, but if you are willing to terminate at that point only, you can try
System.exit(1);
It would likely be cleaner to use a JobExecutionDecider and based on the read count from the StepExecution set a new FlowExecutionStatus and route it to the end of the job.
Joshua's answer addresses the stopping of the job instead of transitioning to the next business step.
Your file writer might still create the file unnecessarily. You can create something like a LazyItemWriter with a delegate (FlatFileItemWriter) and it will only call delegate.open (once) if there's a call to write method. Of course you have to check if delegate.close() needs to be called only if the delegate was previously opened. This makes sure that no empty file is created and deleting it is no longer a concern.
I have the same question as the OP. I am using all annotations, and if the reader returns as null when no results (in my case a File) are found, then the Job bean will fail to be initialized with an UnsatisfiedDependencyException, and that exception is thrown to stdout.
If I create a Reader and then return it w/o a File specified, then the Job will be created. After that an ItemStreamException is thrown, but it is thrown to my log, as I am past the Job autowiring and inside the Step at that point. That seems preferable, at least for what I am doing.
Any other solution would be appreciated.
NiksVij Answer works for me, i implemented it like this:
#Component
public class FileValidatorTasklet implements Tasklet {
private final ImportProperties importProperties;
#Autowired
public FileValidatorTasklet(ImportProperties importProperties) {
this.importProperties = importProperties;
}
#Override
public RepeatStatus execute(StepContribution contribution, ChunkContext chunkContext) throws Exception {
String folderPath = importProperties.getPathInput();
String itemName = importProperties.getItemName();
File currentItem = new File(folderPath + File.separator + itemName);
if (currentItem.exists()) {
contribution.setExitStatus(new ExitStatus("FILE_FOUND", "FILE_FOUND"));
} else {
contribution.setExitStatus(new ExitStatus("NO_FILE_FOUND", "NO_FILE_FOUND"));
}
return RepeatStatus.FINISHED;
}
}
and in the Batch Configuration:
#Bean
public Step fileValidatorStep() {
return this.stepBuilderFactory.get("step1")
.tasklet(fileValidatorTasklet)
.build();
}
#Bean
public Job tdZuHostJob() throws Exception {
return jobBuilderFactory.get("tdZuHostJob")
.incrementer(new RunIdIncrementer())
.listener(jobCompletionNotificationListener)
.start(fileValidatorStep()).on("NO_FILE_FOUND").end()
.from(fileValidatorStep()).on("FILE_FOUND").to(testStep()).end()
.build();
}
I'm working on trying to get an AsyncController to work in OrchardProject. The current version I'm using is 2.2.4.9.0.
I've had 2 people eyeball my code: http://www.pastie.org/2117952 (AsyncController) which works fine in a regular MVC3 vanilla application.
Basically, I can route to IndexCompleted, but I can't route to Index. I am going to assume i'm missing something in the Autofac configuration of the overall project.
I think the configuration is in the global.asax: http://pastie.org/2118008
What I'm looking for is some guidance on if this is the correct way to implement autofac for AsyncControllers, or if there is something/someplace else I need to implement/initialize/etc.
~Dan
Orchard appears to register its own IActionInvoker, called Orchard.Mvc.Filters.FilterResolvingActionInvoker.
This class derives from ControllerActionInvoker. At a guess, in order to support async actions, it should instead derive from AsyncControllerActionInvoker.
Hope this helps!
Nick
The Autofac setup looks ok, and as long as you can navigate to something I cannot say that your assumption makes sense. Also, the pattern you are using for initialization in global.asax is used by others too.
The AsyncController requires that async methods come in pairs, in your case IndexAsync & IndexCompleted. These together represent the Index action. When you say you can navigate to IndexCompleted, do you mean that you open a url "..../IndexCompleted"?
Also, and this I cannot confirm from any documentation, but I would guess that AsyncController requires that all actions are async. Thus, your NewMessage action causes trouble and should be converted to an async NewMessageAsync & NewMessageCompleted pair.
I did too needed to have AsyncController which I easily changed FilterResolvingActionInvoker to be based on AsyncControllerActionInvoker instead of ControllerActionInvoker.
But there was other problems because of automatic transaction disposal after completion of request. In AsyncController starting thread and the thread that completes the request can be different which throws following exception in Dispose method of TransactionManager class:
A TransactionScope must be disposed on the same thread that it was created.
This exception is suppressed without any logging and really was hard to find out. In this case session remains not-disposed and subsequent sessions will timeout.
So I made dispose method public on ITransactionManager and now in my AsyncController, whenever I need a query to database I wrap it in:
using (_services.TransactionManager) {
.....
}
new TransactionManager :
public interface ITransactionManager : IDependency, IDisposable {
void Demand();
void Cancel();
}
public class TransactionManager : ITransactionManager {
private TransactionScope _scope;
private bool _cancelled;
public TransactionManager() {
Logger = NullLogger.Instance;
}
public ILogger Logger { get; set; }
public void Demand() {
if (_scope == null) {
Logger.Debug("Creating transaction on Demand");
_scope = new TransactionScope(
TransactionScopeOption.Required,
new TransactionOptions {
IsolationLevel = IsolationLevel.ReadCommitted
});
_cancelled = false;
}
}
void ITransactionManager.Cancel() {
Logger.Debug("Transaction cancelled flag set");
_cancelled = true;
}
void IDisposable.Dispose() {
if (_scope != null) {
if (!_cancelled) {
Logger.Debug("Marking transaction as complete");
_scope.Complete();
}
Logger.Debug("Final work for transaction being performed");
try {
_scope.Dispose();
}
catch {
// swallowing the exception
}
Logger.Debug("Transaction disposed");
}
_scope = null;
}
}
Please notice that I have made other small changes to TransactionManager.
I tried the AsyncControllerActionInvoker route as well to no avail. I would get intermittent errors from Orchard itself with the following errors:
Orchard.Exceptions.DefaultExceptionPolicy - An unexpected exception was caught
System.TimeoutException: The operation has timed out.
at System.Web.Mvc.Async.AsyncResultWrapper.WrappedAsyncResult`1.End()
at System.Web.Mvc.Async.ReflectedAsyncActionDescriptor.EndExecute(IAsyncResult asyncResult)
at System.Web.Mvc.Async.AsyncControllerActionInvoker.<>c__DisplayClass3f.<BeginInvokeAsynchronousActionMethod>b__3e(IAsyncResult asyncResult)
at System.Web.Mvc.Async.AsyncResultWrapper.WrappedAsyncResult`1.End()
at System.Web.Mvc.Async.AsyncControllerActionInvoker.EndInvokeActionMethod(IAsyncResult asyncResult)
at System.Web.Mvc.Async.AsyncControllerActionInvoker.<>c__DisplayClass37.<>c__DisplayClass39.<BeginInvokeActionMethodWithFilters>b__33()
at System.Web.Mvc.Async.AsyncControllerActionInvoker.<>c__DisplayClass4f.<InvokeActionMethodFilterAsynchronously>b__49()
at System.Web.Mvc.Async.AsyncControllerActionInvoker.<>c__DisplayClass4f.<InvokeActionMethodFilterAsynchronously>b__49()
at System.Web.Mvc.Async.AsyncControllerActionInvoker.<>c__DisplayClass4f.<InvokeActionMethodFilterAsynchronously>b__49()
NHibernate.Util.ADOExceptionReporter - While preparing SELECT this_.Id as Id236_2_, this_.Number as Number236_2_,...<blah blah blah>
NHibernate.Util.ADOExceptionReporter - The connection object can not be enlisted in transaction scope.
So I don't think just wrapping your own database calls with a transaction object will help. The innards of Orchard would have to modified as well.
Go vote for this issue if you want AsyncControllers supported in Orchard:
https://orchard.codeplex.com/workitem/18012