I'm trying to figure out how to log handled exceptions. Currently the exception thrown from an Activity will be swallowed (for example if there are DI errors when trying to create the Acitivity).
What can I do to log the caught exceptions?
Initially(
When(UpdateRequested)
.Activity(x => x.OfType<HandleUpdateRequestActivity>())
.TransitionTo(Updating)
.Catch<Exception>(then => then.Finalize())
);
(Sorry for spamming the MassTransit tag lately :) )
First, simply to correct the terminology, it isn't swallowed, it's handled.
The code above is catching the exception. If you want to log it, well, log it.
.Catch<Exception>(then =>
then.Then(context => Log(context.Exception))
.Finalize())
Related
What is the best practice for handling exceptions in MassTransit 3+ with regard to Request/Response pattern? The docs here mention that if a ResponseAddress exists on a message, the Fault message will be sent to that address, but how does one consumer/receive the messages at that address? The ResponseAddress for Bus.Request seems to be an auto-generated MassTransit address that I don't have control over, so I don't know how to access the exception thrown in the main consumer. What am I missing? Here's my code to register the consumer and its fault consumer using Unity container:
cfg.ReceiveEndpoint(host, "request_response_queue", e =>
{
e.Consumer<IConsumer<IRequestResponse>>(container);
e.Consumer(() => container.Resolve<IMessageFaultConsumer<IRequestResponse>>() as IConsumer<Fault<IRequestResponse>>);
});
And here's my attempt at a global message fault consumer:
public interface IMessageFaultConsumer<TMessage>
{
}
public class MessageFaultConsumer<TMessage> : IConsumer<Fault<TMessage>>, IMessageFaultConsumer<TMessage>
{
public Task Consume(ConsumeContext<Fault<TMessage>> context)
{
Console.WriteLine("MessageFaultConsumer");
return Task.FromResult(0);
}
}
This approach DOES work when I use Bus.Publish as opposed to Bus.Request. I also looked into creating an IConsumeObserver and putting my global exception logging code into the ConsumeFault method, but that has the downside of being invoked every exception prior to the re-tries giving up. What is the proper way to handle exceptions for request/response?
First of all, the request/response support in MassTransit is meant to be used with the .Request() method, or the request client (MessageRequestClient or PublishRequestClient). With these methods, if the consumer of the request message throws an exception, that exception is packaged into the Fault<T>, which is sent to the ResponseAddress. Since the .Request() method, and the request client are both asynchronous, using await will throw an exception with the exception data from the fault included. That's how it is designed, await the request and it will either complete, timeout, or fault (throw an exception upon await).
If you are trying to put in some global "exception handler" code for logging purposes, you really should log those at the service boundary, and an observer is the best way to handle it. This way, you can just implement the ConsumeFault method, and log to your event sink. However, this is synchronous within the consumer pipeline, so recognize the delay that could be introduced.
The other option is to of course just consume Fault<T>, but as you mentioned, it does not get published when the request client is used with the response address in the header. In this case, perhaps your requester should publish an event indicating that operation X faulted, and you can log that -- at the business context level versus the service level.
There are many options here, it's just choosing the one that fits your use case best.
Looking for advice on error handling using spring IntegrationFlows. I have a set up with many flows with a mixture of routing, transformations and channels this is fully working.
Currently for error handling I catch all checked expectations that a given .handle(..) may throw and re-throw them as a Runtime exception. This causes the exception to hit my error channel, where I deal with the problem. I am looking to see if this is how the use of channels and Integrations flows was designed.
return IntegrationFlows.from("test")
.handle(X.class, (p, h) -> process(p))
.handle(More::EndPorcess)
.get();
Sorry, what is the question though?
It isn't regular Java, so there is something in between operators. It is message channel. And that is really designed to end up in the errorChannel if there is no ability to bubble exception as a StackTrace: http://docs.spring.io/spring-integration/docs/4.3.5.RELEASE/reference/html/configuration.html#namespace-errorhandler
I have an xamarin.android with xamarin.insights intergrated.
Right now every time I handle error manually (try/catch) I'm adding information about environment (staging/production):
try
{
ExceptionThrowingFunction();
}
catch (Exception exception)
{
exception.Data["Environment"] = "staging";
throw;
}
But this information is missing in case if error handled by xamarin.insights itself (in case of crash).
It is possible to add additional exception data in case of crash?
docs reference I used
From reading the docs page reference that you mentioned, I still get the impression that you have to call the .Report method as well as in:-
Insights.Report(exception, new Dictionary <string, string> {
{"Some additional info", "foobar"}
});
What I believe they are saying in this example:-
try {
ExceptionThrowingFunction();
}
catch (Exception exception) {
exception.Data["AccountType"] = "standard";
throw;
}
Is that you have the ability when any Exception is encountered, to package additional information that you can later send to the Insights server, as the Data property of the Exception is just a Key/Value Dictionary.
So if you had an Exception several layers deep, you can choose to re-throw the Exception with additional information contained within it that you will later send to the Insights server.
At a higher level, you can then take the Exception that was thrown deeper down the call-hierarchy and then call the Insights.Report, with:-
Insights.Report(
{the rethrown exception in your higher up try..catch block},
{rethrown exception}.Data
);
that will then send all the additional Key/Value information previously captured.
From seeing your last part of your question though it looks like you are interested in Insights handling and sending this additional .Data automatically should there be an unhandled exception.
If it is not currently being sent, then perhaps suggest to them that this can be sent also? As it sounds a feasible request for this to automatically be sent as well incase of an unhandled exception.
Update 1:-
Yes - I understand about the unhandled exception scenario now that you are referring to.
I have not dealt with this component directly, so there may be hooks / event handlers or something already defined where you can tap into this, and execute some custom code just prior to this being sent.
If this is not available, then perhaps suggest this to them to include as its a Beta product?
Alternatively, you could still achieve this yourself by capturing the unhandled exceptions just prior to them falling. You'd have to code this however on each platform.
For instance on Windows Phone in the App class there is Application_UnhandledException(object sender, ApplicationUnhandledExceptionEventArgs e) to which you could then supplement the Exception thrown with this extra .Data.
For Android you could take a look at this post that describes how to catch uncaughtException that will help you in capturing the unhandled exceptions.
Whether just supplementing the Exception in these handlers above is enough all depends on how they've written their hook into this, as to how well it behaves and whether it is executed first, prior to their implementation.
You will have to try and see if it does. If it doesn't behave well, allowing you to supplement extra data prior to the automatic call to Insights, you have another fallback solution, to just do the .Report call manually within these unhandled exception handlers yourself to make this work and supplement the extra .Data to achieve your aim.
In our application we have error handling mechanism, where we throw runtime exceptions on an error. I noticed a strange behavior and I want to understand the mechanism underlying this one
1) Situation 1: Exception thrown from ServiceActivator is converted to MessageHandlingException
When an error occurs in a ServiceActivator, we throw an exception. The message we get on ErrorChannel has PayLoad as org.springframework.integration.MessageHandlingException and actual exception thrown as cause
2) Situation 2: Exception thrown from Filter is not masked with MessageHandlingException
When an error occurs in Filter, and we throw exception, then PayLoad is actual exception, and is not masked with org.springframework.integration.MessageHandlingException
I have a few questions:
Why exception throwing from ServiceActivator behaves differently than in Filter
Are there some "best practices" around error handling in Spring-integration projects, while utilizing the errorChannel and related infrastructure
Update 1:
Filter extends AbstractFileListFilter which is part of a filter chain- a custom CompositeFileFilter which implements FileListFilter
CompositeFileFilter is being used by a file:inbound-channel-adapter and which passes the output to a Channel declared below:
<int:channel
id="channelForFilesComingIn"
datatype="java.io.File"
>
<int:dispatcher task-executor="dispatchExecutor" />
</int:channel>
Update 2:
Whet we are trying to do is read files from filesystem and process them. In file reading part, using file:inbound-channel-adapter with a CompositeFilter which filters files which are not completely uploaded or don't meet naming standards.
After all filters pass, file is handed over to a ServiceActivator for processing
In any of above (Filter chain or Service) , if there is an error condition, it has to be reported to DB and by email. For achieving this we are throwing ApplicationException which are caught by errorChannel, and passed to specialized channels.
Just to make it clear, a MessageHandlingException is thrown (wraps user exception) when a Message HANDLER fails - a message handler is something that HANDLES a message.
If an exception is thrown in the MessageSource, there is no message yet so a MessageHandlingException (or any MessagingException) does not apply.
Instead, the poll fails and the exception is thrown back to the poller.
If you want to handle exceptions in a polled endpoint (MessageSource), you need to give the poller an ErrorHandlingTaskExecutor, to which you can provide an ErrorHandler and do what you want with the exception, but since there is no message yet, it is the original exception thrown by the MessageSource.
If you want to send it to the error channel, you'll need to do that in your custom ErrorHandler.
Imagine you have some code that could potentially throw an exception. For example, you try
to send an e-mail message to a mail server, or write a file to disk while you’re not sure if you have the right permissions to do so. What kind of exception handling strategy would you use to avoid the exception from being displayed in the browser? What code would you need?
All languages that can throw exceptions have some manner by which to catch them.
They often look something like this:
try
{
some_risky_thing();
}
catch(Exception e)
{
handle_the_exception();
}
By catching the exception you stop it's propagation up the call stack (where it will eventually find the user).
In order to stop all exceptions getting to the user put one of these at the very top level you have available. Then you can catch any stray exceptions you've missed and do something more appropriate than throw them at the user (like log them somewhere discretely).
It depends.
For those cases, I would probably wrap the code that can throw the exception in a try/catch block. Different languages call this construct something different - sometimes it's try/catch/finally, others it's try/except.
However, it's easy to abuse exceptions and exception handling. A few things that you need to avoid are using exception handling for flow control, handling exceptions too soon (keep passing them up the call stack until they can be appropriately handled), and treating non-exceptional conditions as exceptional.