i am overriding the dnsEnd() function in EventListener:
#Override
public void dnsEnd(Call call, String domainName, List<InetAddress> inetAddressList) {
inetAddressList.forEach(address -> {
logger.debug("checking if url ({}) is in allowlist", address.toString());
if (!allowlist.contains(address)) {
call.cancel();
}
});
}
i know, in the documentation it says not to alter call parameters etc:
"All event methods must execute fast, without external locking, cannot throw exceptions, attempt to mutate the event parameters, or be re-entrant back into the client. Any IO - writing to files or network should be done asynchronously."
but, as i don't care about the call if it is trying to get to an address outside the allowlist, i fail to see the issue with this implementation.
I want to know if anyone has experience with this, and why it may be an issue?
I tested this and it seems to work fine.
This is fine and safe. Probably the strangest consequence of this is the canceled event will be triggered by the thread already processing the DNS event.
But cancelling is not the best way to constrain permitted IP addresses to a list. You can instead implement the Dns interface. Your implementation should delegate to Dns.SYSTEM and them filter its results to your allowlist. That way you don't have to worry about races on cancelation.
Related
I was refactoring some of my code into a service and I was going to roll async all the way through down to my EmailService's Send() method.
I was about to replace Send() with SendAsync() and noticed the extra callback parameter.
Well decided to dig in and read about it a little more in depth here:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.net.mail.smtpclient.sendasync?view=netcore-3.1#definition
I think this would be useful to set up logging to database on an error:
if (e.Error != null)
{
Console.WriteLine("[{0}] {1}", token, e.Error.ToString());
// TODO: Log error to DB
}
e.Cancel would never happen.
The only thing I would be concerned about is logging errors and message sent.
Because the example console program says message sent even though if I have say a port wrong and the message doesn't go through.
The only time it would report the error is for an ArgumentNullException or InvalidOperationException.
So logging message sent could be erroneous.
But there is no way to check for sure if a message goes since it returns void and not a success bool. I guess this is better than putting the Send() in a try/catch which would be more expensive.
One alternative is to setup the callback to an empty SendCompletedCallback() and just have this:
private static void SendCompletedCallback(object sender, AsyncCompletedEventArgs e)
{
// Do nothing
}
Then we get the benefit of Async non blocking in our emails and have the infrastructure set up for a callback if we ever need it.
But we are not forced to add any funtionality at the moment.
Am I right in thinking this through here.
I think I am going with this approach.
I found the
SendMailAsync()
method works best.
You don't need a callback or a user token.
Easy to implement and non-blocking.
I have a NIFI-Processor that subscribes to a few tags on a OPC UA server.
I'm struggling to find a way to terminate the subscription. My plan was to just keep it running until I decide to stop the processor.
I tried defining functions for #OnStopped, #OnUnscheduled and #OnDisabled, but they never get called when I stop or disable the processor.
I'm on NIFI 1.7 so I can terminate the processor's thread, but my #OnStopped, #OnUnscheduled and #OnDisabled functions still don't get called.
Does terminating the thread mean that the thread won't return from onTrigger in a fashion that allows calling the above mentioned lifecycle methods?
EDIT: As requested, my method with annotation:
#OnStopped
private void OnStopped() {
getLogger().info("Subscriptions cleared - stopped");
miloOpcUAService.clearSubscriptions();
}
Your method has to have public visibility, otherwise the scheduler (which uses reflection) can't find it to invoke it.
I've been working with spring-boot 2.0.0.RC1 using the webflux starter (spring-boot-starter-webflux). I created a simple controller that returns a infinite flux. I would like that the Publisher only does its work if there is a client (Subscriber). Let's say I have a controller like this one:
#RestController
public class Demo {
#GetMapping(value = "/")
public Flux<String> getEvents(){
return Flux.create((FluxSink<String> sink) -> {
while(!sink.isCancelled()){
// TODO e.g. fetch data from somewhere
sink.next("DATA");
}
sink.complete();
}).doFinally(signal -> System.out.println("END"));
}
}
Now, when I try to run that code and access the endpoint http://localhost:8080/ with Chrome, then I can see the data. However, once I close the browser the while-loop continues since no cancel event has been fired. How can I terminate/cancel the streaming as soon as I close the browser?
From this answer I quote that:
Currently with HTTP, the exact backpressure information is not
transmitted over the network, since the HTTP protocol doesn't support
this. This can change if we use a different wire protocol.
I assume that, since backpressure is not supported by the HTTP protocol, it means that no cancel request will be made either.
Investigating a little bit further, by analyzing the network traffic, showed that the browser sends a TCP FIN as soon as I close the browser. Is there a way to configure Netty (or something else) so that a half-closed connection will trigger a cancel event on the publisher, making the while-loop stop?
Or do I have to write my own adapter similar to org.springframework.http.server.reactive.ServletHttpHandlerAdapter where I implement my own Subscriber?
Thanks for any help.
EDIT:
An IOException will be raised on the attempt to write data to the socket if there is no client. As you can see in the stack trace.
But that's not good enough, since it might take a while before the next chunk of data will be ready to send and therefore it takes the same amount of time to detect the gone client. As pointed out in Brian Clozel's answer it is a known issue in Reactor Netty. I tried to use Tomcat instead by adding the dependency to the POM.xml. Like this:
<dependency>
<groupId>org.springframework.boot</groupId>
<artifactId>spring-boot-starter-tomcat</artifactId>
</dependency>
Although it replaces Netty and uses Tomcat instead, it does not seem reactive due to the fact that the browser does not show any data. However, there is no warning/info/exception in the console. Is spring-boot-starter-webflux as of this version (2.0.0.RC1) supposed to work together with Tomcat?
Since this is a known issue (see Brian Clozel's answer), I ended up using one Flux to fetch my real data and having another one in order to implement some sort of ping/heartbeat mechanism. As a result, I merge both together with Flux.merge().
Here you can see a simplified version of my solution:
#RestController
public class Demo {
public interface Notification{}
public static class MyData implements Notification{
…
public boolean isEmpty(){…}
}
#GetMapping(value = "/", produces = MediaType.TEXT_EVENT_STREAM_VALUE)
public Flux<ServerSentEvent<? extends Notification>> getNotificationStream() {
return Flux.merge(getEventMessageStream(), getHeartbeatStream());
}
private Flux<ServerSentEvent<Notification>> getHeartbeatStream() {
return Flux.interval(Duration.ofSeconds(2))
.map(i -> ServerSentEvent.<Notification>builder().event("ping").build())
.doFinally(signalType ->System.out.println("END"));
}
private Flux<ServerSentEvent<MyData>> getEventMessageStream() {
return Flux.interval(Duration.ofSeconds(30))
.map(i -> {
// TODO e.g. fetch data from somewhere,
// if there is no data return an empty object
return data;
})
.filter(data -> !data.isEmpty())
.map(data -> ServerSentEvent
.builder(data)
.event("message").build());
}
}
I wrap everything up as ServerSentEvent<? extends Notification>. Notification is just a marker interface. I use the event field from the ServerSentEvent class in order to separate between data and ping events. Since the heartbeat Flux sends events constantly and in short intervals, the time it takes to detect that the client is gone is at most the length of that interval. Remember, I need that because it might take a while before I get some real data that can be sent and, as a result, it might also take a while before it detects that the client is gone. Like this, it will detect that the client is gone as soon as it can’t sent the ping (or possibly the message event).
One last note on the marker interface, which I called Notification. This is not really necessary, but it gives some type safety. Without that, we could write Flux<ServerSentEvent<?>> instead of Flux<ServerSentEvent<? extends Notification>> as return type for the getNotificationStream() method. Or also possible, make getHeartbeatStream() return Flux<ServerSentEvent<MyData>>. However, like this it would allow that any object could be sent, which I don’t want. As a consequence, I added the interface.
I'm not sure why this behaves like this, but I suspect it is because of the choice of generation operator. I think using the following would work:
return Flux.interval(Duration.ofMillis(500))
.map(input -> {
return "DATA";
});
According to Reactor's reference documentation, you're probably hitting the key difference between generate and push (I believe a quite similar approach using generate would probably work as well).
My comment was referring to the backpressure information (how many elements a Subscriber is willing to accept), but the success/error information is communicated over the network.
Depending on your choice of web server (Reactor Netty, Tomcat, Jetty, etc), closing the client connection might result in:
a cancel signal being received on the server side (I think this is supported by Netty)
an error signal being received by the server when it's trying to write on a connection that's been closed (I believe the Servlet spec does not provide that that callback and we're missing the cancel information).
In short: you don't need to do anything special, it should be supported already, but your Flux implementation might be the actual problem here.
Update: this is a known issue in Reactor Netty
I recently ran into an instance where I wanted to hit the database from a Task I have running periodically within a web application. I refactored the code to use the ThreadStaticSessionContext so that I could get a session without an HttpContext. This works fine for reads, but when I try to flush an update from the Task, I get the "Index was out of range. Must be non-negative and less than the size of the collection." error. Normally what I see for this error has to do with using a column name twice in the mapping, but that doesn't seem to be the issue here, as I'm able to update that table if the session is associated with a request (and I looked and I'm not seeing any duplicates). It's only when the Task tries to flush that I get the exception.
Does anyone know why it would work fine from a request, but not from a call from a Task?
Could it be because the Task is asynchronous?
Call Stack:
at System.ThrowHelper.ThrowArgumentOutOfRangeException()
at System.Collections.Generic.List`1.System.Collections.IList.get_Item(Int32 index)
at NHibernate.Engine.ActionQueue.ExecuteActions(IList list)
at NHibernate.Engine.ActionQueue.ExecuteActions()
at NHibernate.Event.Default.AbstractFlushingEventListener.PerformExecutions(IEventSource session)
at NHibernate.Event.Default.DefaultFlushEventListener.OnFlush(FlushEvent event)
at NHibernate.Impl.SessionImpl.Flush()
Session Generation:
internal static ISession CurrentSession {
get {
if(HasSession) return Initializer.SessionFactory.GetCurrentSession();
ISession session = Initializer.SessionFactory.OpenSession();
session.BeginTransaction();
CurrentSessionContext.Bind(session);
return session;
}
}
private static bool HasSession {
get { return CurrentSessionContext.HasBind(Initializer.SessionFactory); }
}
Task that I want to access the database from:
_maid = Task.Factory.StartNew(async () => {
while(true) {
if(CleaningSession != null) CleaningSession(Instance, new CleaningSessionEventArgs { Session = UnitOfWorkProvider.CurrentSession });
UnitOfWorkProvider.TransactionManager.Commit();
await Task.Delay(AppSettings.TempPollingInterval, _paycheck.Token);
}
//I know this function never returns, I'm using the cancellation token for that
// ReSharper disable once FunctionNeverReturns
}, _paycheck.Token);
_maid.GetAwaiter().OnCompleted(() => _maid.Dispose());
Edit: Quick clarification about some of the types above. CleaningSession is an event that is fired to run the various things that need to be done, and _paycheck is the CancellationTokenSource for the Task.
Edit 2: Oh yeah, and this is using NHibernate version 4.0.0.4000
Edit 3: I have since attempted this using a Timer, with the same results.
Edit 4: From what I can see of the source, it's doing a foreach loop on an IList. Questions pertaining to an IndexOutOfRangeException in a foreach loop tend to suggest a concurrency issue. I still don't see how that would be an issue, unless I misunderstand the purpose of ThreadStaticSessionContext.
Edit 5: I thought it might be because of requests bouncing around between threads, so I tried creating a new SessionContext that combines the logic of the WebSessionContext and ThreadStaticSessionContext. Still getting the issue, though...
Edit 6: It seems this has something to do with a listener I have set up to update some audit fields on entities just before they're saved. If I don't run it, the commit occurs properly. Would it be better to do this through an event than OnPreInsert, or use an interceptor instead?
After muddling through, I found out exactly where the problem was. Basically, there was a query that was run to load the current user record called from inside of the PreUpdate event in my listener.
I came across two solutions to this. I could cache the user in memory, avoiding the query, but having possibly stale data (not that anything other than the id matters here). Alternatively, I could open a temporary stateless session and use that to look up the user in question.
Let's see how simple of a question I can ask. I have:
void TCPClient::test(const boost::system::error_code& ErrorCode)
{
// Anything can be here
}
and I would like to call it from another class. I have a global boost::thread_group that creates a thread
clientThreadGroup->create_thread(boost::bind(&TCPClient::test,client, /* this is where I need help */));
but am uncertain on how to call test, if this is even the correct way.
As an explanation for the overall project, I am creating a tcp connection between a client and a server and have a method "send" (in another class) that will be called when data needs to be sent. My current goal is to be able to call test (which currently has async_send in it) and send the information through the socket that is already set up when called. However, I am open to other ideas on how to implement and will probably work on creating a consumer/producer model if this proves to be too difficult.
I can use either for this project, but I will later have to implement listen to be able to receive control packets from the server later, so if there is any advice on which method to use, I would greatly appreciate it.
boost::system::error_code err;
clientThreadGroup->create_thread(boost::bind(&TCPClient::test,client, err));
This works for me. I don't know if it will actually have an error if something goes wrong, so if someone wants to correct me there, I would appreciate it (if just for the experience sake).