How can I use two action compositions in Play Framework 2.4 (in Java)?
Suppose that, to avoid code duplication, I've got two actions to use :Auth and LogData.
How can I use both in an action composition?
This won't compile, causing a duplicate annotation error:
# play.PlayExceptions$CompilationException: Compilation error[error:
duplicate annotation]
#play.db.jpa.Transactional()
#With(Auth.class)
#With(LogData.class)
public static Result callForumTeacher(String random, Long gameId){
//Action code
return ok(Json.toJson("data"));
}
This is a skeleton on how Auth and LogData are implemented:
public class CheckPausedGame extends Action.Simple {
#Override
public F.Promise<Result> call(Http.Context context) throws Throwable {
if (checkCondition(context)) {
return delegate.call(context);
} else {
F.Promise<Result> promise = F.Promise.promise(new F.Function0<Result>() {
#Override
public Result apply() throws Throwable {
return redirect("/paused");
}
});
return promise;
}
}
}
This only a skeleton omitting some methods not useful for this question.
While the documentation doesn't seem to clearly state this (at least I haven't found it anywhere), the intended way to use #With in cases like this is to pass all Actions at once (With takes an array)
Your code becomes
#play.db.jpa.Transactional()
#With(value = {Auth.class, LogData.class})
public static Result callForumTeacher(String random, Long gameId){
//Action code
return ok(Json.toJson("data"));
}
See the api doc
Related
I have a method in OneServiceImpl class as follows. In that class I am calling an interface method from another class.
public class OneServiceImpl {
//created dependency
final private SecondService secondService;
public void sendMessage(){
secondService.validateAndSend(5)
}
}
public interface SecondService() {
public Status validateAndSend(int length);
}
public class SecondServiceImpl {
#Override
public Status ValidateAndSend(int length) {
if(length < 5) {
throw new BadRequestException("error", "error");
}
}
}
Now when I am try to perform unit test on OneServiceImpl I am not able to throw a BadRequestException.
when(secondService.validateAndSend(6)).thenThrow(BadRequestException.class);
Not quite sure what your use case is, but I think you should write an own test to accept and test an exception.
#Test(expected = BadRequestException.class)
public void testValidateAndSend(){
SecondService secondService = new SecondService();
secondservice.ValidateAndSend(6); //method should be lowercase
}
Not sure this is the case considering you didn't post a full example of code + unit tests, but your mock will throw only when you are passing 6 as parameter. When configuring the behaviour of your mock with when you are telling it to throw only when the validateAndSend method is called with parameter 6.
when(secondService.validateAndSend(6)).thenThrow(...)
In your code you have 5 hardcoded. So that mock will never throw for the code you have, because it's configured to react to an invocation with parameter 6 but the actual code is always invoking it passing 5.
public void sendMessage(){
secondService.validateAndSend(5)
}
If the value passed to the mock is not important you could do something like the following, that will throw no matter what's passed to it:
when(secondService.validateAndSend(any())).thenThrow(BadRequestException.class);
On the other hand, if the value is important and it has to be 5 you could change the configuration of your mock with:
when(secondService.validateAndSend(5)).thenThrow(BadRequestException.class)
My controllers return unified RequestResult:
public Task<RequestResult> SomeAction()
{
...
return new RequestResult(RequestResultType.NotFound);
}
public class RequestResult
{
public RequestResultType Type { get;set; }
... //actual data
}
public enum RequestResultType
{
Success = 1,
NotFound = 2
}
So basically RequestResult combines actual Action data and error type (if it happened). Now I need to specify Response Type at some point in case if Action returned Error. My best guess here is to use Middleware:
public class ResponseTypeMiddleware
{
private readonly RequestDelegate next;
public ResponseTypeMiddleware(RequestDelegate next)
{
this.next = next;
}
public async Task Invoke(HttpContext context)
{
await next(context);
var response = context.Response.Body; //how to access object?
}
}
but I can't figure out what to do with it. What I'd perfectly like to do is to check if response is of type RequestResult, then specify ResponseType equal BadRequest. But I don't see how I can do it here as what I have is just a stream. May be I can hijack into pipeline earlier, before result was serialized (Controller?).
P. S. The reason why I don't use Controller.BadRequest directly in Action is that my Action's logic is implemented via CQRS command/query handlers, so I don't have direct access to Controller.
As you are going to process controller's action result (MVC), the best way is to use ActionFilter or ResultFilter here, instead of Middleware. Filters in ASP.NET Core are a part of MVC and so know about controllers, actions and so on. Middleware is a more common conception - it is an additional chain in application request-response pipeline.
public class SampleActionFilter : IActionFilter
{
public void OnActionExecuting(ActionExecutingContext context)
{
// do something before the action executes
}
public void OnActionExecuted(ActionExecutedContext context)
{
// do something after the action executes
// get or set controller action result here
var result = context.Result as RequestResult;
}
}
I have a simple scenario in which am trying to verify some behavior when a method is called (i.e. that a certain method was called with given parameter, a function pointer in this scenario). Below are my classes:
#SpringBootApplication
public class Application {
public static void main(String[] args) {
ConfigurableApplicationContext context = SpringApplication.run(Application.class, args);
AppBootStrapper bootStrapper = context.getBean(AppBootStrapper.class);
bootStrapper.start();
}
}
#Component
public class AppBootStrapper {
private NetworkScanner networkScanner;
private PacketConsumer packetConsumer;
public AppBootStrapper(NetworkScanner networkScanner, PacketConsumer packetConsumer) {
this.networkScanner = networkScanner;
this.packetConsumer = packetConsumer;
}
public void start() {
networkScanner.addConsumer(packetConsumer::consumePacket);
networkScanner.startScan();
}
}
#Component
public class NetworkScanner {
private List<Consumer<String>> consumers = new ArrayList<>();
public void startScan(){
Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor().submit(() -> {
while(true) {
// do some scanning and get/parse packets
consumers.forEach(consumer -> consumer.accept("Package Data"));
}
});
}
public void addConsumer(Consumer<String> consumer) {
this.consumers.add(consumer);
}
}
#Component
public class PacketConsumer {
public void consumePacket(String packet) {
System.out.println("Packet received: " + packet);
}
}
#RunWith(JUnit4.class)
public class AppBootStrapperTest {
#Test
public void start() throws Exception {
NetworkScanner networkScanner = mock(NetworkScanner.class);
PacketConsumer packetConsumer = mock(PacketConsumer.class);
AppBootStrapper appBootStrapper = new AppBootStrapper(networkScanner, packetConsumer);
appBootStrapper.start();
verify(networkScanner).addConsumer(packetConsumer::consumePacket);
verify(networkScanner, times(1)).startScan();
}
}
I want to verify that bootStrapper did in fact do proper setup by registering the packet consumer(there might be other consumers registered later on, but this one is mandatory) and then called startScan. I get the following error message when I execute the test case:
Argument(s) are different! Wanted:
networkScanner bean.addConsumer(
com.spring.starter.AppBootStrapperTest$$Lambda$8/438123546#282308c3
);
-> at com.spring.starter.AppBootStrapperTest.start(AppBootStrapperTest.java:24)
Actual invocation has different arguments:
networkScanner bean.addConsumer(
com.spring.starter.AppBootStrapper$$Lambda$7/920446957#5dda14d0
);
-> at com.spring.starter.AppBootStrapper.start(AppBootStrapper.java:12)
From the exception, clearly the function pointers aren't the same.
Am I approaching this the right way? Is there something basic I am missing? I played around and had a consumer injected into PacketConsumer just to see if it made a different and that was OK, but I know that's certainly not the right way to go.
Any help, perspectives on this would be greatly appreciated.
Java doesn't have any concept of "function pointers"; when you see:
networkScanner.addConsumer(packetConsumer::consumePacket);
What Java actually compiles is (the equivalent of):
networkScanner.addConsumer(new Consumer<String>() {
#Override void accept(String packet) {
packetConsumer.consumePacket(packet);
}
});
This anonymous inner class happens to be called AppBootStrapper$$Lambda$7. Because it doesn't (and shouldn't) define an equals method, it will never be equal to the anonymous inner class that the compiler generates in your test, which happens to be called AppBootStrapperTest$$Lambda$8. This is regardless of the fact that the method bodies are the same, and are built in the same way from the same method reference.
If you generate the Consumer explicitly in your test and save it as a static final Consumer<String> field, then you can pass that reference in the test and compare it; at that point, reference equality should hold. This should work with a lambda expression or method reference just fine.
A more apt test would probably verify(packetConsumer, atLeastOnce()).consumePacket(...), as the contents of the lambda are an implementation detail and you're really more concerned about how your component collaborates with other components. The abstraction here should be at the consumePacket level, not at the addConsumer level.
See the comments and answer on this SO question.
In the olden days, we had ThreadLocal for programs to carry data along with the request path since all request processing was done on that thread and stuff like Logback used this with MDC.put("requestId", getNewRequestId());
Then Scala and functional programming came along and Futures came along and with them came Local.scala (at least I know the twitter Futures have this class). Future.scala knows about Local.scala and transfers the context through all the map/flatMap, etc. etc. functionality such that I can still do Local.set("requestId", getNewRequestId()); and then downstream after it has travelled over many threads, I can still access it with Local.get(...)
Soooo, my question is in Java, can I do the same thing with the new CompletableFuture somewhere with LocalContext or some object (not sure of the name) and in this way, I can modify Logback MDC context to store it in that context instead of a ThreadLocal such that I don't lose the request id and all my logs across the thenApply, thenAccept, etc. etc. still work just fine with logging and the -XrequestId flag in Logback configuration.
EDIT:
As an example. If you have a request come in and you are using Log4j or Logback, in a filter, you will set MDC.put("requestId", requestId) and then in your app, you will log many log statements line this:
log.info("request came in for url="+url);
log.info("request is complete");
Now, in the log output it will show this:
INFO {time}: requestId425 request came in for url=/mypath
INFO {time}: requestId425 request is complete
This is using a trick of ThreadLocal to achieve this. At Twitter, we use Scala and Twitter Futures in Scala along with a Local.scala class. Local.scala and Future.scala are tied together in that we can achieve the above scenario still which is very nice and all our log statements can log the request id so the developer never has to remember to log the request id and you can trace through a single customers request response cycle with that id.
I don't see this in Java :( which is very unfortunate as there are many use cases for that. Perhaps there is something I am not seeing though?
If you come across this, just poke the thread here
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2017-May/047867.html
to implement something like twitter Futures which transfer Locals (Much like ThreadLocal but transfers state).
See the def respond() method in here and how it calls Locals.save() and Locals.restort()
https://github.com/simonratner/twitter-util/blob/master/util-core/src/main/scala/com/twitter/util/Future.scala
If Java Authors would fix this, then the MDC in logback would work across all 3rd party libraries. Until then, IT WILL NOT WORK unless you can change the 3rd party library(doubtful you can do that).
My solution theme would be to (It would work with JDK 9+ as a couple of overridable methods are exposed since that version)
Make the complete ecosystem aware of MDC
And for that, we need to address the following scenarios:
When all do we get new instances of CompletableFuture from within this class? → We need to return a MDC aware version of the same rather.
When all do we get new instances of CompletableFuture from outside this class? → We need to return a MDC aware version of the same rather.
Which executor is used when in CompletableFuture class? → In all circumstances, we need to make sure that all executors are MDC aware
For that, let's create a MDC aware version class of CompletableFuture by extending it. My version of that would look like below
import org.slf4j.MDC;
import java.util.Map;
import java.util.concurrent.*;
import java.util.function.Function;
import java.util.function.Supplier;
public class MDCAwareCompletableFuture<T> extends CompletableFuture<T> {
public static final ExecutorService MDC_AWARE_ASYNC_POOL = new MDCAwareForkJoinPool();
#Override
public CompletableFuture newIncompleteFuture() {
return new MDCAwareCompletableFuture();
}
#Override
public Executor defaultExecutor() {
return MDC_AWARE_ASYNC_POOL;
}
public static <T> CompletionStage<T> getMDCAwareCompletionStage(CompletableFuture<T> future) {
return new MDCAwareCompletableFuture<>()
.completeAsync(() -> null)
.thenCombineAsync(future, (aVoid, value) -> value);
}
public static <T> CompletionStage<T> getMDCHandledCompletionStage(CompletableFuture<T> future,
Function<Throwable, T> throwableFunction) {
Map<String, String> contextMap = MDC.getCopyOfContextMap();
return getMDCAwareCompletionStage(future)
.handle((value, throwable) -> {
setMDCContext(contextMap);
if (throwable != null) {
return throwableFunction.apply(throwable);
}
return value;
});
}
}
The MDCAwareForkJoinPool class would look like (have skipped the methods with ForkJoinTask parameters for simplicity)
public class MDCAwareForkJoinPool extends ForkJoinPool {
//Override constructors which you need
#Override
public <T> ForkJoinTask<T> submit(Callable<T> task) {
return super.submit(MDCUtility.wrapWithMdcContext(task));
}
#Override
public <T> ForkJoinTask<T> submit(Runnable task, T result) {
return super.submit(wrapWithMdcContext(task), result);
}
#Override
public ForkJoinTask<?> submit(Runnable task) {
return super.submit(wrapWithMdcContext(task));
}
#Override
public void execute(Runnable task) {
super.execute(wrapWithMdcContext(task));
}
}
The utility methods to wrap would be such as
public static <T> Callable<T> wrapWithMdcContext(Callable<T> task) {
//save the current MDC context
Map<String, String> contextMap = MDC.getCopyOfContextMap();
return () -> {
setMDCContext(contextMap);
try {
return task.call();
} finally {
// once the task is complete, clear MDC
MDC.clear();
}
};
}
public static Runnable wrapWithMdcContext(Runnable task) {
//save the current MDC context
Map<String, String> contextMap = MDC.getCopyOfContextMap();
return () -> {
setMDCContext(contextMap);
try {
return task.run();
} finally {
// once the task is complete, clear MDC
MDC.clear();
}
};
}
public static void setMDCContext(Map<String, String> contextMap) {
MDC.clear();
if (contextMap != null) {
MDC.setContextMap(contextMap);
}
}
Below are some guidelines for usage:
Use the class MDCAwareCompletableFuture rather than the class CompletableFuture.
A couple of methods in the class CompletableFuture instantiates the self version such as new CompletableFuture.... For such methods (most of the public static methods), use an alternative method to get an instance of MDCAwareCompletableFuture. An example of using an alternative could be rather than using CompletableFuture.supplyAsync(...), you can choose new MDCAwareCompletableFuture<>().completeAsync(...)
Convert the instance of CompletableFuture to MDCAwareCompletableFuture by using the method getMDCAwareCompletionStage when you get stuck with one because of say some external library which returns you an instance of CompletableFuture. Obviously, you can't retain the context within that library but this method would still retain the context after your code hits the application code.
While supplying an executor as a parameter, make sure that it is MDC Aware such as MDCAwareForkJoinPool. You could create MDCAwareThreadPoolExecutor by overriding execute method as well to serve your use case. You get the idea!
You can find a detailed explanation of all of the above here in a post about the same.
I have one class that extends DeferredResults and extends Runnable as shown below
public class EventDeferredObject<T> extends DeferredResult<Boolean> implements Runnable {
private Long customerId;
private String email;
#Override
public void run() {
RestTemplate restTemplate=new RestTemplate();
EmailMessageDTO emailMessageDTO=new EmailMessageDTO("dineshshe#gmail.com", "Hi There");
Boolean result=restTemplate.postForObject("http://localhost:9080/asycn/sendEmail", emailMessageDTO, Boolean.class);
this.setResult(result);
}
//Constructor and getter and setters
}
Now I have controller that return the object of the above class,whenever new request comes to controller we check if that request is present in HashMap(That stores unprocessed request at that instance).If not present then we are creating object of EventDeferredObject class can store that in HashMap and call start() method on it.If this type request is already present then we will return that from HashMap.On completion on request we will delete that request from HashMap.
#RequestMapping(value="/sendVerificationDetails")
public class SendVerificationDetailsController {
private ConcurrentMap<String , EventDeferredObject<Boolean>> requestMap=new ConcurrentHashMap<String , EventDeferredObject<Boolean>>();
#RequestMapping(value="/sendEmail",method=RequestMethod.POST)
public EventDeferredObject<Boolean> sendEmail(#RequestBody EmailDTO emailDTO)
{
EventDeferredObject<Boolean> eventDeferredObject = null;
System.out.println("Size:"+requestMap.size());
if(!requestMap.containsKey(emailDTO.getEmail()))
{
eventDeferredObject=new EventDeferredObject<Boolean>(emailDTO.getCustomerId(), emailDTO.getEmail());
requestMap.put(emailDTO.getEmail(), eventDeferredObject);
Thread t1=new Thread(eventDeferredObject);
t1.start();
}
else
{
eventDeferredObject=requestMap.get(emailDTO.getEmail());
}
eventDeferredObject.onCompletion(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
if(requestMap.containsKey(emailDTO.getEmail()))
{
requestMap.remove(emailDTO.getEmail());
}
}
});
return eventDeferredObject;
}
}
Now this code works fine if there no identical request comes to that stored in HashMap. If we give number of different request at same time code works fine.
Well, I do not know if I understood correctly, but I think you might have race conditions in the code, for example here:
if(!requestMap.containsKey(emailDTO.getEmail()))
{
eventDeferredObject=new EventDeferredObject<Boolean>(emailDTO.getCustomerId(), emailDTO.getEmail());
requestMap.put(emailDTO.getEmail(), eventDeferredObject);
Thread t1=new Thread(eventDeferredObject);
t1.start();
}
else
{
eventDeferredObject=requestMap.get(emailDTO.getEmail());
}
think of a scenario in which you have two requests with the same key emailDTO.getEmail().
Request 1 checks if there is a key in the map, does not find it and puts it inside.
Request 2 comes some time later, checks if there is a key in the map, finds it, and
goes to fetch it; however just before that, the thread started by request 1 finishes and another thread, started by onComplete event, removes the key from the map. At this point,
requestMap.get(emailDTO.getEmail())
will return null, and as a result you will have a NullPointerException.
Now, this does look like a rare scenario, so I do not know if this is the problem you see.
I would try to modify the code as follows (I did not run it myself, so I might have errors):
public class EventDeferredObject<T> extends DeferredResult<Boolean> implements Runnable {
private Long customerId;
private String email;
private ConcurrentMap ourConcurrentMap;
#Override
public void run() {
...
this.setResult(result);
ourConcurrentMap.remove(this.email);
}
//Constructor and getter and setters
}
so the DeferredResult implementation has the responsibility to remove itself from the concurrent map. Moreover I do not use the onComplete to set a callback thread, as it seems to me an unnecessary complication. To avoid the race conditions I talked about before, one needs to combine somehow the verification of the presence of an entry with its fetching into one atomic operation; this is done by the putIfAbsent method of ConcurrentMap. Therefore I change the controller into
#RequestMapping(value="/sendVerificationDetails")
public class SendVerificationDetailsController {
private ConcurrentMap<String , EventDeferredObject<Boolean>> requestMap=new ConcurrentHashMap<String , EventDeferredObject<Boolean>>();
#RequestMapping(value="/sendEmail",method=RequestMethod.POST)
public EventDeferredObject<Boolean> sendEmail(#RequestBody EmailDTO emailDTO)
{
EventDeferredObject<Boolean> eventDeferredObject = new EventDeferredObject<Boolean>(emailDTO.getCustomerId(), emailDTO.getEmail(), requestMap);
EventDeferredObject<Boolean> oldEventDeferredObject = requestMap.putIfAbsent(emailDTO.getEmail(), eventDeferredObject );
if(oldEventDeferredObject == null)
{
//if no value was present before
Thread t1=new Thread(eventDeferredObject);
t1.start();
return eventDeferredObject;
}
else
{
return oldEventDeferredObject;
}
}
}
if this does not solve the problem you have, I hope that at least it might give some idea.