I have a workflow application which throws error when i try to invoke a event using ExternalDataExchangeService.
Workflow with id "866568ab-ca1b-4404-a2f1-2c8704539ef4" not found in state persistence store.
Event "QAEngOrTLReject" on interface type "RecipeChangeService.IRecipeChangeService" for instance id "866568ab-ca1b-4404-a2f1-2c8704539ef4" cannot be delivered.
Here is my implementation code for it - Please help I am stuck :(
Below is the interface and data exchange event args -
public class RecipeChangeService : IRecipeChangeService{
#region IRecipeChangeService Members
public event EventHandler QAEngOrTLApprove;
public event EventHandler QAEngOrTLReject;
public bool QAEngOrTLApproved(Guid instanceId, ResponseDataObject rdo) {
if (QAEngOrTLApprove != null) {
QAEngOrTLApprove(this, new XMESWFRecipeResponseDataEventArgs(rdo, instanceId));
return true;
}return false;
}
public bool QAEngOrTLRejected(Guid instanceId, ResponseDataObject rdo) {
if (QAEngOrTLReject != null) {
QAEngOrTLReject(this, new XMESWFRecipeResponseDataEventArgs(rdo,instanceId));
return true;
} return false;
}
}
[Serializable]
public class XMESWFRecipeResponseDataEventArgs : ExternalDataEventArgs {
public readonly ResponseDataObject rdo = null;
public XMESWFRecipeResponseDataEventArgs(ResponseDataObject rdo, Guid instanceId)
: base(instanceId)
{
this.rdo = rdo;
}
}
The event is raised using -
IRecipeChangeService s =
ExceptionServices.GetExceptionService(WorkflowExceptionType.RecipeChange)
as IRecipeChangeService;
s.QAEngOrTLApproved(new Guid(instanceId), rdo);
Thanks .
Do us a favour and please make sure the code is readable.
There can be a number of reasons the workflow cannot be found. First of all you will also see this error if there is no persistence service and the workflow isn't in memory. Another thing to check is if the workflow hasn't completed yet. This can be either as the result of some other event or because of an unhandled error.
Related
I'm trying to set a user's attribute after they register in my custom Keycloak extension. My event listener implementation looks as follows:
#AutoService(EventListenerProviderFactory.class)
public class EventListener implements EventListenerProvider {
private final KeycloakSession session;
public EventListener(KeycloakSession session) {
this.session = session;
}
#Override
public void onEvent(Event event) {
if (event.getType() != EventType.REGISTER)
return;
RealmModel realm = session.realms().getRealm(event.getRealmId());
UserModel user = session.users().getUserById(realm, event.getUserId());
user.setSingleAttribute("hello", "world");
}
#Override
public void onEvent(AdminEvent event, boolean includeRepresentation) {
}
#Override
public void close() {
}
}
My extension is recognized by Keycloak and successfully triggers onEvent() when an event occurs (hence why I didn't include the factory class).
However, the attribute isn't added to the user. How do I actually persist the changes to the user?
While searching for a solution to the above, I came across this discussion of a very similar issue. Extending RegistrationUserCreation instead of EventListenerProvider and using the solution given by #dvlpphb did actually manage to solve my problem; however, the solution only worked when overriding the RegistrationUserCreation's validate() method, which is called every time the user attempts to register.
If anyone knows a way to set a user attribute without EventListenerProvider through RegistrationUserCreation's success() callback, that would also solve my issue.
Thank you!
I working on a Quarkus + MongoDB Reactive+ Mutiny application. I have a Person object and Event Object. I am creating a new event for a person. My uri looks like this
POST /person/{personId}/event
I need to first check if the person exists in MongoDB. If the person exists then save event. If person does not exist then create a Error Status and return. I am tried everything but I am stuck and getting error that required return type is Uni but required type is Uni. I tried with transformToUni as well but it did not work. Also tried few other ways like onItemOrFailure() etc. but nothing seems to work.
Here's the full Code.
public class EventResource {
#Inject
EventRepository eventRepository;
#Inject
PersonRepository personRepository;
#POST
#Path("/{person_id}/event")
public Uni<Response> create(Event event, #PathParam("person_id") String personId){
//Check if personId exist.
Uni<Person> uniPerson = personRepository.getPersonById(personId);
//THIS WORKS BUT ON FAILURE IS TREATED WHEN ERROR IS RAISED FOR EeventRepository.craete() and not if person is not found.
/*return uniPerson.onItem().ifNotNull()
.transformToUni(pid -> eventRepository.create(event, pid.getId()))
.onItem().transform(e -> Response.ok().entity(e).build())
.onFailure()
.recoverWithItem(f-> {
AStatus status = createErrorStatus(f.getMessage());
return Response.serverError().entity(status).build();
});
*/
Uni<Response> eventResp = uniPerson.onItem().transform(person -> {
if(person==null)
return Response.serverError().build();
else{
return eventRepository.create(event, person.getId())
.onItem().transform(event1 -> Response.ok(event1).build());
}
});
return eventResp;
}
You can use mutiny ifNull:
#POST
#Path("/{person_id}/event")
public Uni<Response> create(Event event, #PathParam("person_id") String personId){
return personRepository
.getPersonById(personId)
.onItem().ifNotNull().transformToUni(person -> createEvent(event, person))
.onItem().ifNull().continueWith(this::personNotFound)
// This onFailure will catch all the errors
.onFailure()
.recoverWithItem(f-> {
AStatus status = createErrorStatus(f.getMessage());
return Response.serverError().entity(status).build();
});
}
private Uni<Response> createEvent(Event event, Person person) {
return eventRepository
.create(event, person.getId())
.map( e -> Response.ok().entity(e).status(CREATED).build())
}
private Response personNotFound() {
return Response.serverError().build();
}
The error you are seeing is because when the item is not null, you are returning a Uni<Uni<Response>>. This is one way to fix it:
Uni<Response> eventResp = uniPerson
.chain(person -> {
if (person==null)
return Uni.createFrom().item(Response.serverError().build());
else {
return eventRepository
.create(event, person.getId())
.map(event1 -> Response.ok(event1).build());
}
});
I'm using map and chain because they are shorter, but you can replace them with onItem().transform(...) and onItem().transformToUni(...).
I created a .net core web api project. It has gotten kinda big and I want to program a "delete" operation which deletes a lot of stuff from the database. Since there are a lot of things to delete, this will be a long running process. So I thought maybe I can run this in the background and just write status updates somewhere for the user to see whats happening.
I googled this and I found BackgroundWorkerQueue and thought this might be my solution.
So I registered the service and everything and here is my method that calls it:
public class DeleteController : ControllerBase {
private readonly BackgroundWorkerQueue _backgroundWorkerQueue;
public AdminController(BackgroundWorkerQueue backgroundWorkerQueue){
_backgroundWorkerQueue = backgroundWorkerQueue;
}
public async Task<ActionResult> HugeDeleteMethod(int id)
{
// some prechecks here...
// and here I thought I'd start the background task
_backgroundWorkerQueue.QueueBackgroundWorkItem(async token =>
{
var a = _context.StatusTable.Find(id);
a.Status += "Blablablabla\n";
_context.StatusTable.Update(a);
await _context.SaveChangesAsync();
//now start doing delete operations
});
}
}
And that class looks like this:
public class BackgroundWorkerQueue
{
private ConcurrentQueue<Func<CancellationToken, Task>> _workItems = new ConcurrentQueue<Func<CancellationToken, Task>>();
private SemaphoreSlim _signal = new SemaphoreSlim(0);
public async Task<Func<CancellationToken, Task>> DequeueAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
await _signal.WaitAsync(cancellationToken);
_workItems.TryDequeue(out var workItem);
return workItem;
}
public void QueueBackgroundWorkItem(Func<CancellationToken, Task> workItem)
{
if (workItem == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(workItem));
}
_workItems.Enqueue(workItem);
_signal.Release();
}
}
There is also a DeleteService, which is also called in my startup, but I am not sure what it does:
public class DeleteService : BackgroundService
{
private readonly BackgroundWorkerQueue queue;
public NukeService(BackgroundWorkerQueue queue)
{
this.queue = queue;
}
protected override async Task ExecuteAsync(CancellationToken stoppingToken)
{
while (!stoppingToken.IsCancellationRequested)
{
var workItem = await queue.DequeueAsync(stoppingToken);
await workItem(stoppingToken);
}
}
}
Both are added in my startup.cs:
services.AddHostedService<DeleteService>();
services.AddSingleton<BackgroundWorkerQueue>();
Well, maybe I'm going about this all wrong. This is never called it seems, the StatusTable field "Status" is always empty. So how do I do this?
You just need to subclass BackgroundService class or implement IHostedService and than register your service as hosted service.
This will run a service in the background. Than in your service you can leverage the BlockingQueue that will perform tasks only when they are added, e.g. like this:
public class MyService : BackgroundService {
private readonly BlockingCollection<long> queue;
public MyService(){
this.queue = new BlockingCollection<long>();
Task.Run(async () => await this.Execute());
}
public void AddId(long id) {
this.queue.Add(id);
}
private async Task Execute()
{
foreach (var id in this.queue.GetConsumingEnumerable())
{
... do your stuff ...
}
}
}
services.AddHostedService<MyService>();
Here is the docu: Background services in .net core
I am new to MvvmCross and I have a question.
I noticed that the following binding code works in one way only:
{ this, "{'CurrentIndex':{'Path':'CurrentIndex','Mode':'TwoWay'}}" }
CurrentIndex is an Int Property in the View
CurrentIndex is also an Int Property in the ViewModel
This way works!
ViewModel => View
But not this way!
View => ViewModel
I have a collection of ViewControllers and my goal was to call a DeleteCommand for the CurrentIndex in the viewModel.
However,
"Android and Touch 2 way bindings are incomplete"
Reference: MvvmCross experiences, hindsight, limitations?
My guess is the TwoWay mode only works for Controls (UILabel, UITextfield, ...) but not for Properties.
So, is there a good way to make it works in both ways? Or Are there any alternatives to my problem?
Patrick
In order for a binding to transfer any value between a View to a ViewModel, then it needs to hook into some event when the value changes.
In the ViewModel, this event is always the event in the INotifyProperty interface.
In the View/Activity, there is one single pattern employed - so each binding has to hook into a separate event. For example, the Text on EditText is hooked up using the TextChanged event (see MvxEditTextTextTargetBinding.cs) while the value in a SeekBar is hooked up using a Listener object rather than an event (see MvxSeekBarProgressTargetBinging.cs).
So if you wanted to implement this two-way binding for your activity, then you could do this by:
declaring an event - CurrentIndexChanged - in your activity (MyActivity) which is fired whenever CurrentIndex changes
declare a custom binding for your MyActivity which programmatically links CurrentIndex and CurrentIndexChanged
adding the custom binding to the binding registry during Setup
For example, your activity might include:
public event EventHandler CurrentIndexChanged;
private int _currentIndex;
public int CurrentIndex
{
get { return _currentIndex; }
set { _currentIndex = value; if (CurrentIndexChanged != null) CurrentIndexChanged(this, EventArgs.Empty); }
}
And you might then declare a binding class like:
public class MyBinding : MvxPropertyInfoTargetBinding<MyActivity>
{
public MyBinding (object target, PropertyInfo targetPropertyInfo)
: base(target, targetPropertyInfo)
{
View.CurrentIndexChanged += OnCurrentIndexChanged;
}
public override MvxBindingMode DefaultMode
{
get
{
return MvxBindingMode.TwoWay;
}
}
private void OnCurrentIndexChanged(object sender, EventArgs ignored)
{
FireValueChanged(View.CurrentIndex);
}
protected override void Dispose(bool isDisposing)
{
base.Dispose(isDisposing);
if (isDisposing)
{
View.CurrentIndexChanged -= OnCurrentIndexChanged;
}
}
}
And you'd need to tell the binding system about this binding in setup like:
registry.RegisterFactory(new MvxSimplePropertyInfoTargetBindingFactory(typeof(MyBinding), typeof(MyActivity), "CurrentIndex"));
However... at a practical level, if you are operating in C# rather than in XML, then you might be better off in this case using C# to simply update the ViewModel rather than using declarative binding in this case.
To be clear... in this case, I would most probably just write the Activity property as:
public int CurrentIndex
{
get { return _currentIndex; }
set { _currentIndex = value; ViewModel.CurrentIndex = value; }
}
Or... I'd consider not having this property in the Activity at all.
If it helps, there's some more information on custom bindings in:
MonoTouch MVVMCross binding to instance variables
In MvvmCross how do I do custom bind properties
Hope this helps! IMHO the bindings are there to help you when you're working in XML - you don't have to use them...
Stuart
UPDATE If you are going to do lots of these and follow the same name pattern - using property named X with changed EventHandler event named XChanged then something like this might work - it uses reflection to find the event automagically:
public class MyBinding<T> : MvxPropertyInfoTargetBinding<T>
where T : class
{
private readonly PropertyInfo _propertyInfo;
private readonly EventInfo _eventInfo;
public MyBinding(object target, PropertyInfo targetPropertyInfo)
: base(target, targetPropertyInfo)
{
_propertyInfo = targetPropertyInfo;
var eventName = _propertyInfo.Name + "Changed";
_eventInfo = View.GetType().GetEvent(eventName);
if (_eventInfo == null)
{
throw new MvxException("Event missing " + eventName);
}
if (_eventInfo.EventHandlerType != typeof(EventHandler))
{
throw new MvxException("Event type mismatch for " + eventName);
}
var addMethod = _eventInfo.GetAddMethod();
addMethod.Invoke(View, new object[] { new EventHandler(OnChanged) });
}
public override MvxBindingMode DefaultMode
{
get
{
return MvxBindingMode.TwoWay;
}
}
private void OnChanged(object sender, EventArgs ignored)
{
var value = _propertyInfo.GetValue(View, null);
FireValueChanged(value);
}
protected override void Dispose(bool isDisposing)
{
base.Dispose(isDisposing);
if (isDisposing)
{
var removeMethod = _eventInfo.GetRemoveMethod();
removeMethod.Invoke(View, new object[] { new EventHandler(OnChanged) });
}
}
}
This question relates to my other post.
Ok so after a bit more messing around I decided to do it this way. Which seems to work fine when I run it, although I'm getting the following error in NUnit: Could not load file or assembly 'Castle.Core, Version=1.0.3.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=407dd0808d44fbdc' or one of its dependencies. The located assembly's manifest definition does not match the assembly reference. (Exception from HRESULT: 0x80131040) So not sure what is happening there???
Just wanted to know what others thought about the design and if there are any obvious 'no no's' or improvements. I.e. Is the constructor of the base handler a good place to instantiate the windsor component or is there a better place to do this? As I said in the original post the idea behind doing things this way was to keep the components nicely decoupled and to make unit testing easy. I should also add I'm new to unit testing, mocking. Thanks!
public abstract class BaseHttpHandler : IHttpHandler
{
private HttpContext _httpContext;
private ILogger _logger;
private IDataRepository _dataRepository;
protected HttpRequest Request { get { return _httpContext.Request; } }
protected HttpResponse Response { get { return _httpContext.Response; } }
protected bool IsRequestFromUAD { get { return Request.UserAgent == null ? false : Request.UserAgent.Equals("UAD"); } }
protected ILogger Logger { get { return _logger; } }
protected IDataRepository DataRepository { get { return _dataRepository; } }
public virtual bool IsReusable { get { return false; } }
public BaseHttpHandler()
{
var container = new WindsorContainer(new XmlInterpreter(new ConfigResource("castle")));
_logger = container.Resolve<ILogger>();
_dataRepository = container.Resolve<IDataRepository>();
}
public void ProcessRequest(HttpContext context)
{
_httpContext = context;
ProcessRequest(new HttpContextWrapper(context));
}
public abstract void ProcessRequest(HttpContextBase context);
}
public class UADRecordHttpHandler : BaseHttpHandler
{
public override void ProcessRequest(HttpContextBase context)
{
if (IsRequestFromUAD)
{
using (var reader = new StreamReader(context.Request.InputStream))
{
string data = reader.ReadToEnd();
if (Logger != null)
Logger.Log(data);
if(DataRepository != null)
DataRepository.Write(data);
context.Response.Write(data);
}
}
else
ReturnResponse(HttpStatusCode.BadRequest);
}
}
That's a very bad thing to do, what you're doing here. You should have one instance of the container per application, while with this code you will have one per each request.
About the error in NUnit: make sure you don't have other versions of Castle assemblies in the GAC. If so, uninstall them.
About your BaseHttpHandler: the problem with this implementation is that you're creating a new container. Instead, use a single container per application, like Krzysztof said. Use a static service locator, e.g. CommonServiceLocator. (I never recommend this but it's one of the few places where it does make sense).