Firstly I am new WF (v4), but I can see the benefits, it's just the learning curve that is holding me back at the moment so I need your help.
Take my scenario, I have a business requirement to send a series of emails at various intervals. So I have created a sequential workflow in a workflow service with the appropriate delays between each mail send. The workflow is started by a Recieve call. This part seems to work fine.
However I want a have a second Receive call that effectively stops workflow so no more emails sent.
To try and achieve this I configured a Pick control with 2 branches. Branch 1 has a Receive with StartEmails which starts my delayed sequence of emails as describe before. Branch 2 contains a second Receive 'StopEmails, however my breakpoint never gets hit on the StopEmails Receive. I beleieve I have setup the correct correlation and CanCreatedInstance is set to false.
Is it that I can't make a second call while the first branch is in a delay (waiting) state?
Any pointers would be appreciated.
After a little more digging on SO, I believe I found my answer. see this post Workflow foundation 4.0 message correlation and error reporting
I was correct in my thinking that it was the delay in my first branch was what was blocking my second Receive request from being executed. Replacing my Pick with a Parallel container solved the problem. Makes sense when you think about it!
Parallel container to the rescue!
Related
We have a service hook created for one of our projects in ADO. It was going fine until last weekend. Suddenly few webhooks started queued and I am not sure how to force it to get processed. Can someone help me if there is a way to force those items to get processed.
Thanks,
Venu
I am afraid that you cannot get that you want during process.
Under the process, the queued service hooks will not be picked again and will not be processed again.
When the main thread, such as a work item, is running, you cannot forcefully intervene or exit the content that is already queued.
And there is a similar issue also discussing about this situation.
And waiting service hooks are actually coupled, which also depends on your memory, because they actually run in memory. If there are occasional memory loss and other problems during execution, this cannot ensure that all service hooks can be executed as expected.
Or you should interrupt the current process and reduce the service hooks for it. But it is not a good solution.
So it is the best way to add a function that can handle the queued service hooks in the process. But currently there is no such function. Therefore we recommend you submit the suggestion ticket to the Team to suggest them add that feature.
I´m just trying to wrap my head around CQRS(/ES). I have not done anything serious with CQRS. Probably I´m just missing something very fundamental right now. Currently, I´m reading "Exploring CQRS and Event Sourcing". There is one sentence that somehow puzzles me in regards to commands:
"A single recipient processes a command."
I´ve seen this also in the CQRS sample application from Greg Young (FakeBus.cs) where an exception is thrown when more then one command handler is registered for any command type.
For me, this is an indication that this is a fundamental principle for CQRS (or Commands?). What is the reason? For me, it is somewhat counter-intuitive.
Imagine I have two components that need to perform some action in response to a command (it doesn´t matter if I have two instances of the same component or two independent components). Then I would need to create a handler that delegates the command to these components.
In my opinion, this is introducing an unnecessary dependency. In terms of CQRS, a command is nothing more than a message that is sent. I don´t get the reason why there should be only one handler for this message.
Can someone tell me what I am missing here? There is probably a very good reason for this that I just don´t see right now.
Regards
I am by no means an expert myself with CQRS, but perhaps I can help shed some light.
"A single recipient processes a command.", What is the reason?
One of the fundamental reasons for this is transactional consistency. A command needs to be handled in one discrete (and isolated) part of the application so that it can be committed in a single transaction. As soon as you start to have multiple handlers, distributing the application beyond a single process (and maintaining transactional consistency) is nearly impossible. So, while you could design that way, it is not recommended.
Hope this helps.
Imagine I have two components that need to perform some action in response to a command (it doesn´t matter if I have two instances of the same component or two independent components). Then I would need to create a handler that delegates the command to these components.
That's the responsibility of events.
A command must be handled by one command handler and must change the state for a single aggregate root. The aggregate root then raises one or more events indicating that something happened. These events can have multiple listeners that perform desired actions.
For example, you have a PurchaseGift command. Your command handler loads the Purchase aggregate root and performs the desired operation raising a GiftPurchased event. You can have one or more listeners to the GiftPurchase event, one for sending an email to the buyer confirming the operation and another to send the gift by mail.
I've got a Backbone web application that talks to a RESTful PHP server. For PUT and POST it matters in which order the requests arrive at the server and for GET it matters in which order the responses arrive at the client.
The web application does not need to be used concurrently by multiple users, but what might happen is that the user changes its name twice really fast. Then the order in which the server processes PUT /name/Ann and PUT /name/Bea determines whether the name is set to Ann or Bea.
Backbone.Safesync and Backbone.Sync.AjaxQueue are two libraries that try to solve this problem. Doesn't Safesync only solve the problem with GET? Sync.AjaxQueue is outdated, but might serve as inspiration to implement a custom queued sync function. Making sync synchronous would solve the problem. If a request is only sent after the previous response is received, then only one request is processed at a time.
Any advice on how to proceed?
BTW: I don't think using PATCH requests would solve anything, because in my example the same attribute is changed twice.
There's a few ways to solve this, here's two:
add a timestamp to all requests, store it in the DB as "modified" and let the server check whether the timestamp of the new request is later than the one in the DB in order to be valid
use Promises to delay the second request from being made before the first one is responded on, there's a promise/deferred mechanism built into jquery, but you can also use a 3rd party one, for instance Q or when
If you can afford the delay, an easy approach is to set the async option to false when you call whatever method you're calling that results in the Backbone.sync. For example, in the appropriate model(s) simply override the default sync method to include the additional option.
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 have a web application that I am adding workflow functionality to using Windows Workflow Foundation. I have based my solution around K. Scott Allen's Orders Workflow example on OdeToCode. At the start I didn't realise the significance of the caveat "if you use Delay activities with and configure active timers for the manual scheduling service, these events will happen on a background thread that is not associated with an HTTP request". I now need to use Delay activities and it doesn't work as is with his solution architecture. Has anyone come across this and found a good solution to this? The example is linked to from a lot of places but I haven't seen anyone else come across this issue and it seems like a bit of a show stopper to me.
Edit: The problem is that the results from the workflow are returned to the the web application via HttpContext. I am using the ManualWorkflowSchedulerService with the useActiveTimers and this works fine for most situations because workflow events are fired from the web app and HttpContext still exists when the workflow results are returned and the web app can continue processing. When a delay activity is used processing happens on a background thread and when it tries to return results to the web app, there is no valid HttpContext (because there has been no Http Request), so further processing fails. That is, the webapp is trying to process the workflow results but there has been no http request.
I think I need to do all post Delay activity processing within the workflow rather than handing off to the web app.
Cheers.
You didn't describe the problem you are having. But maybe this is of some help.
You can use the ManualWorkflowSchedulerService with the useActiveTimers and the workflow will continue on another thread. Normally this is fine because your HTTP request has already finished and it doesn't really matter.
If however you need full control the workflow runtime will let you get a handle on all loaded workflows using the GetLoadedWorkflows() function. This will return acollection of WorkflowInstance objects. usign these you can can call the GetWorkflowNextTimerExpiration() to check which is expired. If one is you can manually resume it. In this case you want to use the ManualWorkflowSchedulerService with the useActiveTimers=false so you can control the last thread as well. However in most cases using useActiveTimers=true works perfectly well.