I wrote a custom sampler in JMeter that takes a sql query and returns the response. I currently have a the CSV Data Set Config setup that takes a CSV file of sample users that I want to query in my custom sampler.
Here is my sampler and tree of files on JMeter.
I configured my jmeter test like this post stated here.
In my Sampler code, I'm extracting the inputs of the text area like this:
DbSampler.java:
public class CosmosDBSampler extends AbstractSampler {
private static final Logger logger = LoggerFactory.getLogger(CosmosDBSampler.class);
private static final String COSMOS_QUERY = "Cosmos.cosmosQuerys";
public void setCosmosQuery(String query) {
setProperty(COSMOS_QUERY, query);
}
public String getCosmosQuery() {
return getPropertyAsString(COSMOS_QUERY, "");
}
#Override
public SampleResult sample(Entry entry) {
SampleResult result = new SampleResult();
boolean isOK = false;
result.setSampleLabel("Cosmos Sampler");
result.sampleStart();
try {
// Cosmos Service constructor for entering config and query
CosmosService cosmosService = new CosmosService( getCosmosQuery());
// Kick off Query
JsonNode response = cosmosService.ReadCosmos();
// set response
result.setSamplerData(response.toString());
result.setResponseData(response.toString(), null);
result.setDataType(SampleResult.TEXT);
result.setResponseCodeOK();
result.setResponseMessage("OK");
result.getRequestHeaders();
result.getResponseHeaders();
isOK = true;
} catch (Exception ex) {
logger.debug("", ex);
result.setResponseCode("500");
result.setResponseMessage(ex.toString());
}
result.sampleEnd();
result.setSuccessful(isOK);
return result;
}
When the ${variable} gets executed, the error response is due to the db not being able to read $. It's not converting the variable to a string when executing the query.
Do I need to specify in the code that it should take a variable somewhere or is my configuration on JMeter need modifications? Let me know if I can give anymore information that would help. Thank you.
First of all double check that your ${name/firstName} variable has anticipated value using Debug Sampler and View Results Tree listener combination as if it doesn't - there is no sense in further analysis of your code.
If it does - make sure you're following steps from How to write a plugin for JMeter chapter, i.e. your Sampler GUI class should extend AbstractSamplerGui, your Sampler should extend AbstractSampler, you call JMeterGUIComponent.modifyTestElement() function, etc.
Your 5 lines of code are not sufficient for identifying the potential implementation or configuration problems.
Related
I'm completely new to reactor programming and I'm really struggling with migrating old integration tests since upgrading to the latest Spring Boot / State Machine.
Most Integration tests have the same basic steps :
Call a method that returns a Mono and starts a state Machine and returns an object containing a generated unique id as well as some other infos related to the initial request.
With the returned object call a method that verifies if a value has been updated in the database (using the information of the object retried in step 1)
Poll at a fixed interval the method that checks in the database if value has changed until either the value has changed or a predefined timeout occurs.
Check another table in the database if another object has been updated
Below an example:
#Test
void testEndToEnd() {
var instance = ServiceInstance.buildDefault();
var updateRequest = UpdateRequest.build(instance);
// retrieve an update Response related to the request
// since a unique id is generated when triggering the update request
// before starting a stateMachine that goes through different steps
var updateResponse = service.updateInstance(updateRequest).block();
await().alias("Check if operation was successful")
.atMost(Duration.ofSeconds(120))
.pollInterval(Duration.ofSeconds(2))
.until(() -> expectOperationState(updateResponse, OperationState.SUCCESS))
// check if values are updated in secondary table
assertValuesInTransaction(updateResponse);
}
This was working fine before but ever since the latest update where it fails with the exception :
java.lang.IllegalStateException: block()/blockFirst()/blockLast() are blocking, which is not supported in thread parallel-6
at reactor.core.publisher.BlockingSingleSubscriber.blockingGet(BlockingSingleSubscriber.java:83)
at reactor.core.publisher.Mono.block(Mono.java:1710)
I saw that a good practice to test reactor methods using StepVerifier but I do not see how I can reproduce the part done with Awaitability to poll to see if the value has changed in the DB since the method that checks in the DB returns a Mono and not a flux that keeps sending values.
Any idea on how to accomplish this or to make the spring stack accept blocking operations?
Thanks
My current stack :
Spring Boot 3.0.1
Spring State Machine 3.0.1
Spring 6
Junit 5.9.2
So as discussed in comments here is an example with comments. I used flatMap to subscribe to what expectOperationState returns. Also there is Mono.fromCallable used which check the value from some method and if it fails to emit anything in 3 seconds - the timeout exception is thrown. Also we could try to get rid of this boolean value from expectOperationState and refactor the code to just return Mono<Void> with completed signal but this basically shows how you can achieve what you want.
class TestStateMachine {
#Test
void testUntilSomeOperationCompletes() {
final Service service = new Service();
final UpdateRequest updateRequest = new UpdateRequest();
StepVerifier.create(service.updateInstance(updateRequest)
.flatMap(updateResponse -> expectOperationState(updateResponse, OperationState.SUCCESS))
)
.consumeNextWith(Assertions::assertTrue)
.verifyComplete();
}
private Mono<Boolean> expectOperationState(final UpdateResponse updateResponse, final OperationState success) {
return Mono.fromCallable(() -> {
while (true) {
boolean isInDb = checkValueFromDb(updateResponse);
if (isInDb) {
return true;
}
}
})
.publishOn(Schedulers.single())
//timeout if we not receive any value from callable within 3 seconds so that we do not check forever
.timeout(Duration.ofSeconds(3));
}
private boolean checkValueFromDb(final UpdateResponse updateResponse) {
return true;
}
}
class Service {
Mono<UpdateResponse> updateInstance(final UpdateRequest updateRequest) {
return Mono.just(new UpdateResponse());
}
}
Here is an example without using Mono<Boolean> :
class TestStateMachine {
#Test
void test() {
final Service service = new Service();
final UpdateRequest updateRequest = new UpdateRequest();
StepVerifier.create(service.updateInstance(updateRequest)
.flatMap(updateResponse -> expectOperationState(updateResponse, OperationState.SUCCESS).timeout(Duration.ofSeconds(3)))
)
.verifyComplete();
}
private Mono<Void> expectOperationState(final UpdateResponse updateResponse, final OperationState success) {
return Mono.fromCallable(() -> {
while (true) {
boolean isInDb = checkValueFromDb(updateResponse);
if (isInDb) {
//return completed Mono
return Mono.<Void>empty();
}
}
})
.publishOn(Schedulers.single())
//timeout if we not receive any value from callable within 3 seconds so that we do not check forever
.timeout(Duration.ofSeconds(3))
.flatMap(objectMono -> objectMono);
}
private boolean checkValueFromDb(final UpdateResponse updateResponse) {
return true;
}
}
Up until now I have done very basic things with smallrye Mutiny in Quarkus. Basically, I have one or two very small web services which only interact with a web application. These services return a Uni<Response>.
Now I'm writing a logging service I want my others to pass information to. In this logging service, I need to return a value to calling services. The logging service will return this value as a Uni<Integer>. What I'm struggling with is how to extract the return value in the calling service as an int.
Here is the function in the logging service
#GET
#Path("/requestid")
#Produces(MediaType.TEXT_PLAIN)
public Uni<Integer> getMaxRequestId(){
return service.getMaxRequestId();
}
public Uni<Integer> getMaxRequestId() {
Integer result = Integer.valueOf(em.createQuery("select MAX(request_id) from service_requests").getFirstResult());
if(result == null) {
result = 0;
}
return Uni.createFrom().item(result += 1);
}
And here is the client side code in the calling service
#Path("/requests")
public class RequestIdResource {
#RestClient
RequestIdServices service;
#GET
#Path("/requestid")
#Produces(MediaType.TEXT_PLAIN)
public Uni<Integer> getMaxRequestId(){
return service.getMaxRequestId();
}
}
public void filter(ContainerRequestContext requestContext) throws IOException {
int requestid = client.getMaxRequestId();
rm.name = ConfigProvider.getConfig().getValue("quarkus.application.name", String.class);
rm.server = requestContext.getUriInfo().getBaseUri().getHost();
rm.text = requestContext.getUriInfo().getPath(true);
rm.requestid = requestid;
}
Basically everything I have tried creates another Uni. Maybe I am simply using the concept all wrong. But how do I get the Integer out of the Uni so I can get the intValue?
You need to invoke a terminal operation, or use the value and continue the chain.
If you want to invoke a terminal operator you can invoke the await operation to make your code blocking and wait for the response.
If you want to merge this reactive invocation with another that is present in your client code, you can join or combine your actual Mutiny stream with the on coming from the response by using the combine method.
If you just want to use the value and do not retrieve it, you can suscribe and get the result.
If you have a multi you can call directly the method toList
Assuming that you want to have some timeouts involved and you want to get the actual Integer, you can go with the await method and a timeout.
We are using java 8 parallel stream to process a task, and we are submitting the task through ForkJoinPool#submit. We are not using jvm wide ForkJoinPool.commonPool, instead we are creating our own custom pool to specify the parallelism and storing it as static variable.
We have validation framework, where we subject a list of tables to a List of Validators, and we submit this job through the custom ForkJoinPool as follows:
static ForkJoinPool forkJoinPool = new ForkJoinPool(4);
List<Table> tables = tableDAO.findAll();
ModelValidator<Table, ValidationResult> validator = ValidatorFactory
.getInstance().getTableValidator();
List<ValidationResult> result = forkJoinPool.submit(
() -> tables.stream()
.parallel()
.map(validator)
.filter(result -> result.getValidationMessages().size() > 0)
.collect(Collectors.toList())).get();
The problem we are having is, in the downstream components, the individual validators which run on separate threads from our static ForkJoinPool rely on tenant_id, which is different for every request and is stored in an InheritableThreadLocal variable. Since we are creating a static ForkJoinPool, the threads pooled by the ForkJoinPool will only inherit the value of the parent thread, when it is created first time. But these pooled threads will not know the new tenant_id for the current request. So for subsequent execution these pooled threads are using old tenant_id.
I tried creating a custom ForkJoinPool and specifying ForkJoinWorkerThreadFactory in the constructor and overriding the onStart method to feed the new tenant_id. But that doesnt work, since the onStart method is called only once at creation time and not during individual execution time.
Seems like we need something like the ThreadPoolExecutor#beforeExecute which is not available in case of ForkJoinPool. So what alternative do we have if we want to pass the current thread local value to the statically pooled threads?
One workaround would be to create the ForkJoinPool for each request, rather than make it static but we wouldn't want to do it, to avoid the expensive nature of thread creation.
What alternatives do we have?
I found the following solution that works without changing any underlying code. Basically, the map method takes a functional interface which I am representing as a lambda expression. This expression adds a preExecution hook to set the new tenantId in the current ThreadLocal and cleaning it up in postExecution.
forkJoinPool.submit(tables.stream()
.parallel()
.map((item) -> {
preExecution(tenantId);
try {
return validator.apply(item);
} finally {
postExecution();
}
}
)
.filter(validationResult ->
validationResult.getValidationMessages()
.size() > 0)
.collect(Collectors.toList())).get();
The best option in my view would be to get rid of the thread local and pass it as an argument instead. I understand that this could be a massive undertaking though. Another option would be to use a wrapper.
Assuming that your validator has a validate method you could do something like:
public class WrappingModelValidator implements ModelValidator<Table. ValidationResult> {
private final ModelValidator<Table. ValidationResult> v;
private final String tenantId;
public WrappingModelValidator(ModelValidator<Table. ValidationResult> v, String tenantId) {
this.v = v;
this.tenantId = tenantId;
}
public ValidationResult validate(Table t) {
String oldValue = YourThreadLocal.get();
YourThreadLocal.set(tenantId);
try {
return v.validate(t);
} finally {
YourThreadLocal.set(oldValue);
}
}
}
Then you simply wrap your old validator and it will set the thread local on entry and restore it when done.
Iam using jcabi-aspects to retry connection to my URL http://xxxxxx:8080/hello till the connection comes back.As you know #RetryOnFailure by jcabi has two fields attempts and delay.
I want to perform the operation like attempts(12)=expiryTime(1 min=60000 millis)/delay(5 sec=5000 millis) on jcabi #RetryOnFailure.How do i do this.The code snippet is as below.
#RetryOnFailure(attempts = 12, delay = 5)
public String load(URL url) {
return url.openConnection().getContent();
}
You can combine two annotations:
#Timeable(unit = TimeUnit.MINUTE, limit = 1)
#RetryOnFailure(attempts = Integer.MAX_VALUE, delay = 5)
public String load(URL url) {
return url.openConnection().getContent();
}
#RetryOnFailure will retry forever, but #Timeable will stop it in a minute.
The library you picked (jcabi) does not have this feature. But luckily the very handy RetryPolicies from Spring-Batch have been extracted (so you can use them alone, without the batching):
Spring-Retry
One of the many classes you could use from there is TimeoutRetryPolicy:
RetryTemplate template = new RetryTemplate();
TimeoutRetryPolicy policy = new TimeoutRetryPolicy();
policy.setTimeout(30000L);
template.setRetryPolicy(policy);
Foo result = template.execute(new RetryCallback<Foo>() {
public Foo doWithRetry(RetryContext context) {
// Do stuff that might fail, e.g. webservice operation
return result;
}
});
The whole spring-retry project is very easy to use and full of features, like backOffPolicies, listeners, etc.
Boot Pros,
I recently started to program in spring-boot and I stumbled upon a question where I would like to get your opinion on.
What I try to achieve:
I created a Controller that exposes a GET endpoint, named nonBlockingEndpoint. This nonBlockingEndpoint executes a pretty long operation that is resource heavy and can run between 20 and 40 seconds.(in the attached code, it is mocked by a Thread.sleep())
Whenever the nonBlockingEndpoint is called, the spring application should register that call and immediatelly return an Operation ID to the caller.
The caller can then use this ID to query on another endpoint queryOpStatus the status of this operation. At the beginning it will be started, and once the controller is done serving the reuqest it will be to a code such as SERVICE_OK. The caller then knows that his request was successfully completed on the server.
The solution that I found:
I have the following controller (note that it is explicitely not tagged with #Async)
It uses an APIOperationsManager to register that a new operation was started
I use the CompletableFuture java construct to supply the long running code as a new asynch process by using CompletableFuture.supplyAsync(() -> {}
I immdiatelly return a response to the caller, telling that the operation is in progress
Once the Async Task has finished, i use cf.thenRun() to update the Operation status via the API Operations Manager
Here is the code:
#GetMapping(path="/nonBlockingEndpoint")
public #ResponseBody ResponseOperation nonBlocking() {
// Register a new operation
APIOperationsManager apiOpsManager = APIOperationsManager.getInstance();
final int operationID = apiOpsManager.registerNewOperation(Constants.OpStatus.PROCESSING);
ResponseOperation response = new ResponseOperation();
response.setMessage("Triggered non-blocking call, use the operation id to check status");
response.setOperationID(operationID);
response.setOpRes(Constants.OpStatus.PROCESSING);
CompletableFuture<Boolean> cf = CompletableFuture.supplyAsync(() -> {
try {
// Here we will
Thread.sleep(10000L);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {}
// whatever the return value was
return true;
});
cf.thenRun(() ->{
// We are done with the super long process, so update our Operations Manager
APIOperationsManager a = APIOperationsManager.getInstance();
boolean asyncSuccess = false;
try {asyncSuccess = cf.get();}
catch (Exception e) {}
if(true == asyncSuccess) {
a.updateOperationStatus(operationID, Constants.OpStatus.OK);
a.updateOperationMessage(operationID, "success: The long running process has finished and this is your result: SOME RESULT" );
}
else {
a.updateOperationStatus(operationID, Constants.OpStatus.INTERNAL_ERROR);
a.updateOperationMessage(operationID, "error: The long running process has failed.");
}
});
return response;
}
Here is also the APIOperationsManager.java for completness:
public class APIOperationsManager {
private static APIOperationsManager instance = null;
private Vector<Operation> operations;
private int currentOperationId;
private static final Logger log = LoggerFactory.getLogger(Application.class);
protected APIOperationsManager() {}
public static APIOperationsManager getInstance() {
if(instance == null) {
synchronized(APIOperationsManager.class) {
if(instance == null) {
instance = new APIOperationsManager();
instance.operations = new Vector<Operation>();
instance.currentOperationId = 1;
}
}
}
return instance;
}
public synchronized int registerNewOperation(OpStatus status) {
cleanOperationsList();
currentOperationId = currentOperationId + 1;
Operation newOperation = new Operation(currentOperationId, status);
operations.add(newOperation);
log.info("Registered new Operation to watch: " + newOperation.toString());
return newOperation.getId();
}
public synchronized Operation getOperation(int id) {
for(Iterator<Operation> iterator = operations.iterator(); iterator.hasNext();) {
Operation op = iterator.next();
if(op.getId() == id) {
return op;
}
}
Operation notFound = new Operation(-1, OpStatus.INTERNAL_ERROR);
notFound.setCrated(null);
return notFound;
}
public synchronized void updateOperationStatus (int id, OpStatus newStatus) {
iteration : for(Iterator<Operation> iterator = operations.iterator(); iterator.hasNext();) {
Operation op = iterator.next();
if(op.getId() == id) {
op.setStatus(newStatus);
log.info("Updated Operation status: " + op.toString());
break iteration;
}
}
}
public synchronized void updateOperationMessage (int id, String message) {
iteration : for(Iterator<Operation> iterator = operations.iterator(); iterator.hasNext();) {
Operation op = iterator.next();
if(op.getId() == id) {
op.setMessage(message);
log.info("Updated Operation status: " + op.toString());
break iteration;
}
}
}
private synchronized void cleanOperationsList() {
Date now = new Date();
for(Iterator<Operation> iterator = operations.iterator(); iterator.hasNext();) {
Operation op = iterator.next();
if((now.getTime() - op.getCrated().getTime()) >= Constants.MIN_HOLD_DURATION_OPERATIONS ) {
log.info("Removed operation from watchlist: " + op.toString());
iterator.remove();
}
}
}
}
The questions that I have
Is that concept a valid one that also scales? What could be improved?
Will i run into concurrency issues / race conditions?
Is there a better way to achieve the same in boot spring, but I just didn't find that yet? (maybe with the #Async directive?)
I would be very happy to get your feedback.
Thank you so much,
Peter P
It is a valid pattern to submit a long running task with one request, returning an id that allows the client to ask for the result later.
But there are some things I would suggest to reconsider :
do not use an Integer as id, as it allows an attacker to guess ids and to get the results for those ids. Instead use a random UUID.
if you need to restart your application, all ids and their results will be lost. You should persist them to a database.
Your solution will not work in a cluster with many instances of your application, as each instance would only know its 'own' ids and results. This could also be solved by persisting them to a database or Reddis store.
The way you are using CompletableFuture gives you no control over the number of threads used for the asynchronous operation. It is possible to do this with standard Java, but I would suggest to use Spring to configure the thread pool
Annotating the controller method with #Async is not an option, this does not work no way. Instead put all asynchronous operations into a simple service and annotate this with #Async. This has some advantages :
You can use this service also synchronously, which makes testing a lot easier
You can configure the thread pool with Spring
The /nonBlockingEndpoint should not return the id, but a complete link to the queryOpStatus, including id. The client than can directly use this link without any additional information.
Additionally there are some low level implementation issues which you may also want to change :
Do not use Vector, it synchronizes on every operation. Use a List instead. Iterating over a List is also much easier, you can use for-loops or streams.
If you need to lookup a value, do not iterate over a Vector or List, use a Map instead.
APIOperationsManager is a singleton. That makes no sense in a Spring application. Make it a normal PoJo and create a bean of it, get it autowired into the controller. Spring beans by default are singletons.
You should avoid to do complicated operations in a controller method. Instead move anything into a service (which may be annotated with #Async). This makes testing easier, as you can test this service without a web context
Hope this helps.
Do I need to make database access transactional ?
As long as you write/update only one row, there is no need to make this transactional as this is indeed 'atomic'.
If you write/update many rows at once you should make it transactional to guarantee, that either all rows are updated or none.
However, if two operations (may be from two clients) update the same row, always the last one will win.