I am reading akkaScala documentation, there is an example (p. 171 bottom)
// imports added for compilation
import scala.concurrent.{ExecutionContext, Future}
import ExecutionContext.Implicits.global
class Some {
}
object Some {
def main(args: Array[String]) {
// Create a sequence of Futures
val futures = for (i <- 1 to 1000) yield Future(i * 2)
val futureSum = Future.fold(futures)(0)(_ + _)
futureSum foreach println
}
}
I run it, but nothing happened. I mean that nothing was in console output. What is wrong?
You don't wait for the future to complete, so you create a race between the program exiting and the futures completing and the side-effect running. On your machine, the future seems to lose the race, on the commenters' who say "it works", the future is winning the race.
You can use Await to block on a future and wait for it to complete. This is something you should only be doing "at the ends of the world", you should very rarely actually be using Await...
// imports added for compilation
import scala.concurrent.{ExecutionContext, Future}
import ExecutionContext.Implicits.global
import scala.concurrent.duration._ // for the "1 second" syntax
import scala.concurrent.Await
class Some {
}
object Some {
def main(args: Array[String]) {
// Create a sequence of Futures
val futures = for (i <- 1 to 1000) yield Future(i * 2)
val futureSum = Future.fold(futures)(0)(_ + _)
// we map instead of foreach, to make sure that the side-effect is part of the future
// and we "await" for the future to complete (for 1 second)
Await.result(futureSum map println, 1 second)
}
}
As others have stated, the issue is the race condition where the futures are competing with the program terminating. The JVM has a concept of daemon threads. It waits for non-daemon threads to terminate but not daemon threads. So if you want to wait for threads to complete, use non-daemon threads.
The way threads are created for scala futures is using an implicit scala.concurrent.ExecutionContext. The one you use (import ExecutionContext.Implicits.global) starts daemon threads. However, it is possible to use non-daemon threads. So if you use an ExecutionContext with non-daemon threads, it will wait, which in your case is reasonable behaviour. Naively:
import scala.concurrent.Future
import scala.concurrent.ExecutionContextExecutor
import scala.concurrent.ExecutionContext
class MyExecutionContext extends ExecutionContext {
override def execute(runnable:Runnable) = {
val t = new Thread(runnable)
t.setDaemon(false)
t.start()
}
override def reportFailure(t:Throwable) = t.printStackTrace
}
object Some {
implicit lazy val context: ExecutionContext = new MyExecutionContext
def main(args: Array[String]) {
// Create a sequence of Futures
val futures = for (i <- 1 to 1000) yield Future(i * 2)
val futureSum = Future.fold(futures)(0)(_ + _)
futureSum foreach println
}
}
Careful with using the above ExecutionContext in production because it doesn't use a thread pool and can create unbounded threads, but the message is: you can control everything about the threads behind Futures through an ExecutionContext. Explore the various scala and akka contexts to find what you need, or if nothing suits, write your own.
Both of the following statement at the end of main function would help your need. As the above answers said, allow the future to complete. Main thread is different from the Future thread, as main completes, it terminates before Future thread.
Thread.sleep(500) //... Simple solution
Await.result(futureSum, Duration(500, MILLISECONDS)) //...have to import scala.concurrent.duration._ to use Duration object.
Related
I've inherited some code from an ex-coworker where he started using futures (in Scala) to process some data in Databricks.
I split it into chunks that complete in a similar time period. However there is no output, and I know they aren't using onSuccess or Await or anything.
The thing is, the code finishes running (doesn't return output) but the block in Databricks keeps executing until the thread.sleep() part.
I'm new to Scala and futures and am not sure how I can just exit the notebook once all the futures finish running (should i just use dbutils.notebook.exit() after the future blocks?)
Code is below:
import scala.concurrent.{Future, blocking, Await}
import java.util.concurrent.Executors
import scala.concurrent.ExecutionContext
import com.databricks.WorkflowException
val numNotebooksInParallel = 15
// If you create too many notebooks in parallel the driver may crash when you submit all of the jobs at once.
// This code limits the number of parallel notebooks.
implicit val ec = ExecutionContext.fromExecutor(Executors.newFixedThreadPool(numNotebooksInParallel))
val ctx = dbutils.notebook.getContext()
// The simplest interface we can have but doesn't
// have protection for submitting to many notebooks in parallel at once
println("starting parallel jobs... hang tight")
Future {
process("pro","bseg")
process("prc","bkpf")
process("prc","bseg")
process("pr4","bkpf")
process("pr4","bseg")
println("done with future1")
}
Future {
process("pr5","bkpf")
process("pr5","bseg")
process("pri","bkpf")
process("pri","bseg")
process("pr9","bkpf")
println("done with future2")
}
Future {
process("pr9","bseg")
process("prl","bkpf")
process("prl","bseg")
process("pro","bkpf")
println("done with future3")
}
println("finished futures - yay! :)")
Thread.sleep(5*60*60*1000)
println("thread timed out after 5 hrs... hope it all finished.")
One would typically save the futures as values:
val futs = Seq(
Future {
process("pro","bseg")
// and so on
},
// then the other futures
)
and then operate on the futures:
import scala.concurrent.Await
import scala.concurrent.duration._
Await.result(Future.sequence(futs), 5.hours)
Future.sequence will stop at the first one that fails or once they've all succeeded. If you want them all to run even if one fails, you could do something like
Await.result(
futs.foldLeft(Future.unit) { (_, f) =>
f.recover {
case _ => ()
}
},
5.hours
)
I'm working on an application that has a couple of long-running streams going, where it subscribes to data about a certain entity and processes that data. These streams should be up 24/7, so we needed to handle failures (network issues etc).
For that purpose, we've wrapped our sources in RestartingSource.
I'm now trying to verify this behaviour, and while it looks like it functions, I'm struggling to create a test where I push in some data, verify that it processes correctly, then send an error, and verify that it reconnects after that and continues processing.
I've boiled that down to this minimal case:
import akka.actor.ActorSystem
import akka.stream.ActorMaterializer
import akka.stream.scaladsl.{RestartSource, Sink, Source}
import akka.stream.testkit.TestPublisher
import org.scalatest.concurrent.Eventually
import org.scalatest.{FlatSpec, Matchers}
import scala.concurrent.duration._
import scala.concurrent.ExecutionContext
class MinimalSpec extends FlatSpec with Matchers with Eventually {
"restarting a failed source" should "be testable" in {
implicit val sys: ActorSystem = ActorSystem("akka-grpc-measurements-for-test")
implicit val mat: ActorMaterializer = ActorMaterializer()
implicit val ec: ExecutionContext = sys.dispatcher
val probe = TestPublisher.probe[Int]()
val restartingSource = RestartSource
.onFailuresWithBackoff(1 second, 1 minute, 0d) { () => Source.fromPublisher(probe) }
var last: Int = 0
val sink = Sink.foreach { l: Int => last = l }
restartingSource.runWith(sink)
probe.sendNext(1)
eventually {
last shouldBe 1
}
probe.sendNext(2)
eventually {
last shouldBe 2
}
probe.sendError(new RuntimeException("boom"))
probe.expectSubscription()
probe.sendNext(3)
eventually {
last shouldBe 3
}
}
}
This test consistently fails on the last eventually block with Last failure message: 2 was not equal to 3. What am I missing here?
Edit: akka version is 2.5.31
I figured it out after having had a look at the TestPublisher code. Its subscription is a lazy val. So when RestartSource detects the error, and executes the factory method () => Source.fromPublisher(probe) again, it gets a new Source, but the subscription of the probe is still pointing to the old Source. Changing the code to initialize both a new Source and TestPublisher works.
I have an Rest API provided by akka-http. In some cases I need to get data from an external database (Apache HBase), and I would like the query to fail if the database takes too long to deliver the data.
One naïve way is to wrap the call inside a Future and then block it with an Await.result with the needed duration.
import scala.concurrent.duration._
import scala.concurrent.{Await, Future}
object AsyncTest1 extends App {
val future = Future {
getMyDataFromDB()
}
val myData = Await.result(future, 100.millis)
}
The seems to be inefficient as this implementation needs two threads. Is There an efficient way to do this ?
I have another use case where I want to send multiple queries in parallel and then aggregates the results, with the same delay limitation.
val future1 = Future {
getMyDataFromDB1()
}
val future2 = Future {
getMyDataFromDB2()
}
val foldedFuture = Future.fold(
Seq(future1, future2))(MyAggregatedData)(myAggregateFunction)
)
val myData = Await.result(foldedFuture, 100.millis)
Same question here, what is the most efficient way to implement this ?
Thanks for your help
One solution would be to use Akka's after function which will let you pass a duration, after which the future throws an exception or whatever you want.
Take a look here. It demonstrates how to implement this.
EDIT:
I guess I'll post the code here in case the link gets broken in future:
import scala.concurrent._
import scala.concurrent.duration._
import ExecutionContext.Implicits.global
import scala.util.{Failure, Success}
import akka.actor.ActorSystem
import akka.pattern.after
val system = ActorSystem("theSystem")
lazy val f = future { Thread.sleep(2000); true }
lazy val t = after(duration = 1 second, using = system.scheduler)(Future.failed(new TimeoutException("Future timed out!")))
val fWithTimeout = Future firstCompletedOf Seq(f, t)
fWithTimeout.onComplete {
case Success(x) => println(x)
case Failure(error) => println(error)
}
I wrote this method:
import scala.concurrent._
import ExecutionContext.Implicits.global
import scala.util.{ Success, Failure }
object FuturesSequence extends App {
val f1 = future {
1
}
val f2 = future {
2
}
val lf = List(f1, f2)
val seq = Future.sequence(lf)
seq.onSuccess {
case l => println(l)
}
}
I was expecting Future.sequence to gather a List[Future] into a Future[List] and then wait for every futures (f1 and f2 in my case) to complete before calling onSuccess on the Future[List] seq in my case.
But after many runs of this code, it prints "List(1, 2)" only once in a while and I can't figure out why it does not work as expected.
Try this for once,
import scala.concurrent._
import java.util.concurrent.Executors
import scala.util.{ Success, Failure }
object FuturesSequence extends App {
implicit val exec = ExecutionContext.fromExecutor(Executors.newCachedThreadPool)
val f1 = future {
1
}
val f2 = future {
2
}
val lf = List(f1, f2)
val seq = Future.sequence(lf)
seq.onSuccess {
case l => println(l)
}
}
This will always print List(1,2). The reason is simple, the exec above is an ExecutionContext of threads (not daemon threads) where as in your example the ExecutionContext was the default one implicitly taken from ExecutionContext.Implicits.global which contains daemon threads.
Hence being daemon, the process doesn't wait for seq future to be completed and terminates. if at all seq does get completed then it prints. But that doesn't happen always
The application is exiting before the future is completes.
You need to block until the future has completed. This can be achieved in a variety of ways, including changing the ExecutionContext, instantiating a new ThreadPool, Thread.sleep etc, or by using methods on scala.concurrent.Await
The simplest way for your code is by using Await.ready. This blocks on a future for a specified amount of time. In the modified code below, the application waits for 5 seconds before exiting.
Note also, the extra import scala.concurrent.duration so we can specify the time to wait.
import scala.concurrent._
import scala.concurrent.duration._
import java.util.concurrent.Executors
import scala.util.{ Success, Failure }
object FuturesSequence extends App {
val f1 = future {
1
}
val f2 = future {
2
}
val lf = List(f1, f2)
val seq = Future.sequence(lf)
seq.onSuccess {
case l => println(l)
}
Await.ready(seq, 5 seconds)
}
By using Await.result instead, you can skip the onSuccess method too, as it will return the resulting list to you.
Example:
val seq: List[Int] = Await.result(Future.sequence(lf), 5 seconds)
println(seq)
I need to process multiple data values in parallel ("SIMD"). I can use the java.util.concurrent APIs (Executors.newFixedThreadPool()) to process several values in parallels using Future instances:
import java.util.concurrent.{Executors, Callable}
class ExecutorsTest {
private class Process(value: Int)
extends Callable[Int] {
def call(): Int = {
// Do some time-consuming task
value
}
}
val executorService = {
val threads = Runtime.getRuntime.availableProcessors
Executors.newFixedThreadPool(threads)
}
val processes = for (process <- 1 to 1000) yield new Process(process)
val futures = executorService.invokeAll(processes)
// Wait for futures
}
How do I do the same thing using Actors? I do not believe that I want to "feed" all of the processes to a single actor because the actor will then execute them sequentially.
Do I need to create multiple "processor" actors with a "dispatcher" actor that sends an equal number of processes to each "processor" actor?
If you just want fire-and-forget processing, why not use Scala futures?
import scala.actors.Futures._
def example = {
val answers = (1 to 4).map(x => future {
Thread.sleep(x*1000)
println("Slept for "+x)
x
})
val t0 = System.nanoTime
awaitAll(1000000,answers: _*) // Number is timeout in ms
val t1 = System.nanoTime
printf("%.3f seconds elapsed\n",(t1-t0)*1e-9)
answers.map(_()).sum
}
scala> example
Slept for 1
Slept for 2
Slept for 3
Slept for 4
4.000 seconds elapsed
res1: Int = 10
Basically, all you do is put the code you want inside a future { } block, and it will immediately return a future; apply it to get the answer (it will block until done), or use awaitAll with a timeout to wait until everyone is done.
Update: As of 2.11, the way to do this is with scala.concurrent.Future. A translation of the above code is:
import scala.concurrent._
import duration._
import ExecutionContext.Implicits.global
def example = {
val answers = Future.sequence(
(1 to 4).map(x => Future {
Thread.sleep(x*1000)
println("Slept for "+x)
x
})
)
val t0 = System.nanoTime
val completed = Await.result(answers, Duration(1000, SECONDS))
val t1 = System.nanoTime
printf("%.3f seconds elapsed\n",(t1-t0)*1e-9)
completed.sum
}
If you can use Akka, take a look at the ActorPool support: http://doc.akka.io/routing-scala
It lets you specify parameters about how many actors you want running in parallel and then dispatches work to those actors.