I want to test a worker verticle that receives requests over EventBus and sends the results also over EventBus. A single request may result in 0,1,2,... responses - in general cases we don't know how many responses we'll get.
The business logic is that requests are acked once the processing is complete, however the responses are sent in "fire and forget" manner - therefore we only know the responses were sent, not necessarily that they were delivered already.
I am writing a test for this verticle.
The test code is planned to be like this:
1. set up consumer for responses
2. send a request
3. wait until request is acked by the worker verticle
4. wait until consumer finishes validating the responses
The problem here is step 4 - in general case we don't know if there are still some responses in flight or not.
A brute force solution is obviously to wait some reasonable time - a few milliseconds is usually enough. However. I'd prefer something more conceptual.
A solution that comes to my mind is this:
send some request for which we know for sure that there would be a single response;
wait until the consumer receives the corresponding response.
That should work, but I dislike the fact that I pump two messages through the SUT instead of just a single one.
A different solution would be to send one extra response from test code, once we have a confirmation that the request was processed - but would it be considered to be the same sender? The EventBus only guarantees delivery order from the same sender, not from different ones. The test doesn't run in cluster mode, all operations are performed on the same machine, though not necessarily in the same thread.
Yet another solution would be to somehow check that EventBus is now empty, but as I understand, this is not possible.
Is there any other (better) solution?
The solution I would choose now (after half a year more experience with vertx/EventBus) is to send two messages.
The second message would get acked only after the processing of the first one is complete.
This would only work if you have a single consumer so that your two messages can't be processed in parallel.
I'm running several batch updates (with about 200 entities each one) and I have a Quantum Leap subscribed to the CB to capture the historical data. It is supposed that each batch update should generate 200 different notifications, but, if I have set a throttle of "1", does this mean I will only receive the first notification and loose the other 199? Is this right? (just watching the QL, it seems to me that I'm loosing many notifications)
Entities are processed one by one during a batch update request. Thus, if you have 200 entities the update in each one triggers a subscription, then you will have 200 notifications being sent.
The throttling effect depends on the case. For instance:
If each entity triggers a different subscription, then they have any effect (as the trottling is evaluated by subscription)
If each entity triggers the same subscription and assuming that all the 200 notifications are send very fast (let's say, less than 1 second) then only the first one will be sent, and the 199 remaining ones will be lost.
In general, we don't recommend to use throttling due to this (and some other :) problems. It uses to be better to implement traffic flow control in the receiver.
The documentation of Subscription#cancel says that
Data may still be sent to meet previously signalled demand after calling cancel.
In which scenario would people expect the publisher to continue to send till previous signalled demand is met?
Also, if I don't want any new items to be sent after cancellation, what should I do?
Unless you are creating low level operators or Publishers, you don't have to worry about this.
In which scenario would people expect the publisher to continue to send till previous signalled demand is met?
None of the mainstream Reactive Streams libraries do that as they stop sending items eventually. RxJava 2 and Reactor 3 are pretty eager on this so you'd most likely have an extra item on a low-lever asynchronously issued cancellation. Akka Stream may signal more than that (last time I checked, they mix control and item signals and there is a configuration setting for max synchronous items per stream that can lead to multiple items being emitted before the cancellation takes effect).
Also, if I don't want any new items to be sent after cancellation, what should I do?
Depends on what you implement: a Publisher or a Subscriber.
In a Publisher the most eager method is to set a volatile boolean cancelled field and check that every time you are in some kind of emission loop.
In a Subscriber, you can have a boolean done field that is checked in each onXXX so that when you call Subscription.cancel() from onNext, any subsequent call will be ignored.
I know that it is possible to consume a SQS queue using multiple threads. I would like to guarantee that each message will be consumed once. I know that it is possible to change the visibility timeout of a message, e.g., equal to my processing time. If my process spend more time than the visibility timeout (e.g. a slow connection) other thread can consume the same message.
What is the best approach to guarantee that a message will be processed once?
What is the best approach to guarantee that a message will be processed once?
You're asking for a guarantee - you won't get one. You can reduce probability of a message being processed more than once to a very small amount, but you won't get a guarantee.
I'll explain why, along with strategies for reducing duplication.
Where does duplication come from
When you put a message in SQS, SQS might actually receive that message more than once
For example: a minor network hiccup while sending the message caused a transient error that was automatically retried - from the message sender's perspective, it failed once, and successfully sent once, but SQS received both messages.
SQS can internally generate duplicates
Simlar to the first example - there's a lot of computers handling messages under the covers, and SQS needs to make sure nothing gets lost - messages are stored on multiple servers, and can this can result in duplication.
For the most part, by taking advantage of SQS message visibility timeout, the chances of duplication from these sources are already pretty small - like fraction of a percent small.
If processing duplicates really isn't that bad (strive to make your message consumption idempotent!), I'd consider this good enough - reducing chances of duplication further is complicated and potentially expensive...
What can your application do to reduce duplication further?
Ok, here we go down the rabbit hole... at a high level, you will want to assign unique ids to your messages, and check against an atomic cache of ids that are in progress or completed before starting processing:
Make sure your messages have unique identifiers provided at insertion time
Without this, you'll have no way of telling duplicates apart.
Handle duplication at the 'end of the line' for messages.
If your message receiver needs to send messages off-box for further processing, then it can be another source of duplication (for similar reasons to above)
You'll need somewhere to atomically store and check these unique ids (and flush them after some timeout). There are two important states: "InProgress" and "Completed"
InProgress entries should have a timeout based on how fast you need to recover in case of processing failure.
Completed entries should have a timeout based on how long you want your deduplication window
The simplest is probably a Guava cache, but would only be good for a single processing app. If you have a lot of messages or distributed consumption, consider a database for this job (with a background process to sweep for expired entries)
Before processing the message, attempt to store the messageId in "InProgress". If it's already there, stop - you just handled a duplicate.
Check if the message is "Completed" (and stop if it's there)
Your thread now has an exclusive lock on that messageId - Process your message
Mark the messageId as "Completed" - As long as this messageId stays here, you won't process any duplicates for that messageId.
You likely can't afford infinite storage though.
Remove the messageId from "InProgress" (or just let it expire from here)
Some notes
Keep in mind that chances of duplicate without all of that is already pretty low. Depending on how much time and money deduplication of messages is worth to you, feel free to skip or modify any of the steps
For example, you could leave out "InProgress", but that opens up the small chance of two threads working on a duplicated message at the same time (the second one starting before the first has "Completed" it)
Your deduplication window is as long as you can keep messageIds in "Completed". Since you likely can't afford infinite storage, make this last at least as long as 2x your SQS message visibility timeout; there is reduced chances of duplication after that (on top of the already very low chances, but still not guaranteed).
Even with all this, there is still a chance of duplication - all the precautions and SQS message visibility timeouts help reduce this chance to very small, but the chance is still there:
Your app can crash/hang/do a very long GC right after processing the message, but before the messageId is "Completed" (maybe you're using a database for this storage and the connection to it is down)
In this case, "Processing" will eventually expire, and another thread could process this message (either after SQS visibility timeout also expires or because SQS had a duplicate in it).
Store the message, or a reference to the message, in a database with a unique constraint on the Message ID, when you receive it. If the ID exists in the table, you've already received it, and the database will not allow you to insert it again -- because of the unique constraint.
AWS SQS API doesn't automatically "consume" the message when you read it with API,etc. Developer need to make the call to delete the message themselves.
SQS does have a features call "redrive policy" as part the "Dead letter Queue Setting". You just set the read request to 1. If the consume process crash, subsequent read on the same message will put the message into dead letter queue.
SQS queue visibility timeout can be set up to 12 hours. Unless you have a special need, then you need to implement process to store the message handler in database to allow it for inspection.
You can use setVisibilityTimeout() for both messages and batches, in order to extend the visibility time until the thread has completed processing the message.
This could be done by using a scheduledExecutorService, and schedule a runnable event after half the initial visibility time. The code snippet bellow creates and executes the VisibilityTimeExtender every half of the visibilityTime with a period of half the visibility time. (The time should to guarantee the message to be processed, extended with visibilityTime/2)
private final ScheduledExecutorService scheduler = Executors.newScheduledThreadPool(1);
ScheduledFuture<?> futureEvent = scheduler.scheduleAtFixedRate(new VisibilityTimeExtender(..), visibilityTime/2, visibilityTime/2, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
VisibilityTimeExtender must implement Runnable, and is where you update the new visibility time.
When the thread is done processing the message, you can delete it from the queue, and call futureEvent.cancel(true) to stop the scheduled event.
I want to trigger at the exact same time through message receipt, some processes into different Actors. Considering my Actors possible heavily stacked mailBoxes, what would be the best method to implement this?
I'm assuming you want the actors to read the messages at the same time. This, of course is not possible (while an actor is processing a message he cannot be disturbed).
But you can make sure that your trigger message is the next message they will take from the mailbox. This can be achieved by using a priority mailbox, for example this one: http://doc.akka.io/api/akka/snapshot/index.html#akka.dispatch.UnboundedStablePriorityMailbox
The messages in the mailbox will be sorted by priority. If you give your trigger messages the highest priority, they will be processed first.