I have a React.js application that I am refactoring to use the Flux architecture, and am struggling to figure out how error handling should work while sticking to the Flux pattern.
Currently when errors are encountered, a jQuery event 'AppError' is triggered and a generic Error Handling helper that subscribes to this event puts a Flash message on the user's screen, logs to the console, and reports it via an API call. What is nice is I can trigger an error for any reason from any part of the application and have it handled in a consistant way.
I can't seem to figure out how to apply a similar paradigm with the Flux architecture. Here are the two particular scenarios I'm struggling with.
1) An API call fails
All of my API calls are made from action creators and I use a promise to dispatch an error event (IE 'LOAD_TODOS_FAILED') on failure. The store sees this event and updates it's state accordingly, but I still dont have my generic error behavior from my the previous iteration (notifications, etc).
Possible resolution:
I could create an ErrorStore that binds to the 'LOAD_TODOS_FAILED' action, but that means every time I have a new type of error, I need to explicitly add that action to the ErrorStore, instead of having all errors be automatically handled.
2) Store receives an unexpected action
This is the one I'm really confused about. I want to handle cases when an action is dispatched to a Store that does not make sense given the Store's current state. I can handle the error within the Store to clean up the state, but still may want to trigger an error that something unexpected happen.
Possible resolutions:
Dispatch a new action from the store indicating the error.
I believe Stores are not suppose to dispatch actions (let me know if I'm wrong), and I still have the same issue as with an API error above.
Create a ControllerView for Error Handling that subscribes to every Store
I could define an errors property on every store, then have a View watching every Store and only act on the errors property. When the errors property is not null, it could dispatch new actions, etc. The disadvantages are that I need to remember to add every Store to this view whenever new ones are created, and every store has to have an error property that behaves the same way. It also does nothing to address API call failures.
Does anyone have a suggested approach for a generic Error Handler that fits into the Flux architecture?
TL;DR
I need to handle errors in most Action Creators and Stores. How do I setup consistent error handling that will occur for any type of generic error?
API call fails
If you want to avoid listing every error action in the ErrorStore, you could have a generic APP_ERROR action, and have properties of that action that describe it in more detail. Then your other stores would simply need to examine those properties to see if the action is relevant to them. There is no rule that the registered callback in the stores needs to be focused on the action's type, or only on the type -- it's just often the most convenient and consistent way of determining if an action is relevant.
Store receives an unexpected action
Don't issue a new action in response to an action. This results in a dispatch-within-a-dispatch error, and would lead to cascading updates. Instead, determine what action should be dispatched ahead of time. You can query the stores before issuing an action, if that helps.
Your second solution sounds good, but the dangerous thing you mentioned is "When the errors property is not null, it could dispatch new actions, etc" -- again, you don't want to issue actions in response to other actions. That is the path of pain that Flux seeks to avoid. Your new controller-view would simply get the values from the stores and respond by presenting the correct view.
Related
I am using spring-integration, and I have messages that goes through an int:chain with multiple elements: int:service-activator, int:transformers, etc. In the end, a message is sent to another app's Rest endpoint. There is also an errorHandler that will save any Exception in a text file.
For administration purpose, I would like to keep some information about what happened in the chain (ex: "this DB call returned this", "during this transformation, this rule was applied", etc.). This would be equivalent to a log file, but bound to a Message. Of course there is already a logger, but in the end, I need to create (either after the Rest called is made, or when an error occurs) a file for this specific Message with the data.
I was wondering if there was some kind of "context" for the Message that I could call through any part of the chain, and where I could store stuff. I didn't found anything in the official documentation, but I'm not really sure about what to look for.
I've been thinking about putting it all in the Message itself, but:
It's an immutable object, so I would need to rebuild it each time I want to add something to its header (or the payload).
I wouldn't be able to retrieve any new data from the error handler in case of Exception, because it takes the original message.
I can't really add it to the payload object because some native transformers/service-activators are directly using it (and that would also mean rewriting a lot of code ...)
I've been also thinking to some king of "thread-bound" bean that would act as a context for each Message, but I see too many problem arising from this.
Maybe I'm wrong about some of these ideas. Anyway, I just need a way to keep data though multiple element of a Spring integration chain and also be able to access it in the error handler.
Add a header, e.g. a map or list, and add to it in each stage.
The framework does something similar when message history is enabled.
I'm developing small CQRS+ES framework and develop applications with it. In my system, I should log some action of the client and use it for analytics, statistics and maybe in the future do something in domain with it. For example, client (on web) download some resource(s) and I need save date, time, type (download, partial,...), from region or country (maybe IP), etc. after that in some view client can see count of download or some complex report. I'm not sure how to implement this feather.
First solution creates analytic context and some aggregate, in each client action send some command like IncreaseDownloadCounter(resourced) them handle the command and raise domain event's and updating view, but in this scenario first download occurred and after that, I send command so this is not really command and on other side version conflict increase.
The second solution is raising event, from client side and update the view model base on it, but in this type of handling my event not store in event store because it's not raise by command and never change any domain context. If is store it in event store, no aggregate to handle it after fetch for some other use.
Third solution is raising event, from client side and I store it on other database may be for each type of event have special table, but in this manner of event handle I have multiple event storage with different schema and difficult on recreating view models and trace events for recreating contexts states so in future if I add some domain for use this type of event's it's difficult to use events.
What is the best approach and solution for this scenario?
First solution creates analytic context and some aggregate
Unquestionably the wrong answer; the event has already happened, so it is too late for the domain model to complain.
What you have is a stream of events. Putting them in the same event store that you use for your aggregate event streams is fine. Putting them in a separate store is also fine. So you are going to need some other constraint to make a good choice.
Typically, reads vastly outnumber writes, so one concern might be that these events are going to saturate the domain store. That might push you towards storing these events separately from your data model (prior art: we typically keep the business data in our persistent book of record, but the sequence of http requests received by the server is typically written instead to a log...)
If you are supporting an operational view, push on the requirement that the state be recovered after a restart. You might be able to get by with building your view off of an in memory model of the event counts, and use something more practical for the representations of the events.
Thanks for your complete answer, so I should create something like the ES schema without some field (aggregate name or type, version, etc.) and collect client event in that repository, some offline process read and update read model or create command to do something on domain space.
Something like that, yes. If the view for the client doesn't actually require any validation by your model at all, then building the read model from the externally provided events is fine.
Are you recommending save some claim or authorization token of the user and sender app for validation in another process?
Maybe, maybe not. The token describes the authority of the event; our own event handler is the authority for the command(s) that is/are derived from the events. It's an interesting question that probably requires more context -- I'd suggest you open a new question on that point.
I have an action as follows:
SomeActions.doAction1(){
//..dispatch event "started"...
//...do some process....
FewActions.doAnotherAction(); //CAN WE DO THIS
//...do something more....
//..dispatch event "completed"..
}
While the above works with no problems, just wondering, if it is valid according to flux pattern/standard or is there a better way.
Also, I guess calling Actions from Stores are a bad idea. Correct me if I am wrong.
Yes, calling an Action within another Action is a bad practice. Actions should be atomic; all changes in the Stores should be in response to a single action. They should describe one thing that happened in the real world: the user clicked on a button, the server responded with data, the screen refreshed, etc.
Most people get confused by Actions when they are thinking about them as imperative instructions (first do A, then do B) instead of descriptions of what happened and the starting point for reactive processes.
This is why I recommend to people that they name their Action types in the past tense: BUTTON_CLICKED. This reminds the programmer of the fundamentally externally-driven, descriptive nature of Actions.
Actions are like a newspaper that gets delivered to all the stores, describing what happened.
Calling Actions from Stores is almost always the wrong thing to do. I can only think of one exception: when the Store responds to the first Action by starting up an asynchronous process. When the async process completes, you want to fire off a second Action. This is the case with a XHR call to the server. But the better way is to put the XHR handling code into a Utils module. The store can then respond to the first Action by calling a method in the Utils module, and then the Utils module has the code to call the second Action when the server response comes back.
I am learning DDD and making use of the CQRS pattern. I don't understand how to validate business rules in a command handler without reading from the data store.
For example, Chris wants to give Ashley a gift.
The command might be GiveGiftCommand.
At what point would I verify Chris actually owns the gift he wants to give? And how would I do that without reading from the database?
There are different views and opinions about validation in command handlers.
Command can be rejected, we can say No to the command if it is not valid.
Typically you would have a validation that occurs on the UI and that might be duplicated inside the command handler (some people tend to put it in the domain too). Command handler then can run simple validation that can occur outside of the entity like is data in correct format, are there expected values, etc.
Business logic, on the other hand, should not be in a command handler. It should be in your domain.
So I think that the underlying question is...
Should I query the read side from Command Handlers?
I would say no. Do not use the read model in the command handlers or domain logic. But you can always query your read model from the client to fetch the data you need in for your command and to validate the command. You would query the read side on the client to check would if Chris actually owns the gift he wants to give. Of course, the validation involving a read model is likely to be eventually consistent, which is of course another reason a command could be rejected from the aggregate, inside the command handler.
Some people disagree saying that if you require your commands to contain the data the handler needs to validate your command, than you can never change the validation logic within your handler/domain without affecting the client as well. This exposes too much of the domain knowledge to the client and go against the fact that the client only wants to express an intent. So they would tend to provide an GiftService interface (which are part of the ubiquitous language) to your command handler and then implement the interface as needed - which might include querying the read side.
I think that the client should always assume that the commands it issues will succeed. Calling the read side to validate the command shouldn't be needed. Getting two contradictory commands is very unlikely (users creating accounts with the same email address). Then you should have a mean to issue a corrective action, something like for example a Saga/Process Manager. So instead making a corrective action would be less problematic that if the command could have been validated and not dispatched in the first place.
It depends if the operation is async or not i.e does the user expect some immediate response. Gift ownership is basically a security feature and that can be done as a 'prep' operation before invoking the actual service or sending the GiveGiftCommand.
The only command validation you can do is to make sure it contains the data in the required format (UI validation) and that the user has the permissions to do that action. But after the command is sent it's up to the Domain to decide if other business constraints are respected.
If the user expects some immediate feedback, you can actually 'wait' until the command is completed and for that you can use an approach where a command handler can provide a result to the sender using a mediator . But this implies that at least some commands are executed in an immediate manner and that might not be the case in your app. However, this is the simplest approach if you want to just return a message error as opposed to implementing compensations and other stuff. Some use cases are simple.
About command handlers and business logic, I disagree with Tomasz Jaskuλa . A command handler is a function, a technical detail. You can put business logic in a command handler or a static function, it doesn't matter. Messages and their handlers are infrastructural components that can be used to implement functionality. For example, in an app you can have Domain Events, Application Events etc . They're all events i.e notification that something changed and you can have event handlers that reside in Domain or in other places.
There's no rule preventing you to 'read' from the db, however at least the read model theoretically is stale. However this might not be such a problem in 99% of cases. For the rest 1% you need very specific solutions.
I just asked the exact same question from a knowledgeable friend of mine and his answer was that it is OK to do this validation inside the command handler (in my case inside an akka persistent actor that interprets commands and writes events to the journal).
However if that is not possible for performance reasons (because processing validation inside a persistent actor would block the actor and that would be a scalability bottleneck for the whole app) then optimistic locking (OCC) can be used.
In other words the validation can be performed in an other actor (lets call it the validator actor - which is not in the persistent actor) , this will not block the persistent actor but it might happen that the data that is used for the validation has changed in the persistent actor while the validation was running in the validator actor) .
If the validator actor returns with an OK and all the data that has been used for the validation is still the same in the persistent actor (has the same version - version as in OCC) as it has been at the point when the command arrived to the command handler (persistent actor) then the command is accepted by the persistent actor , otherwise the validation needs to be resubmitted for re-evaluation to the validator actor.
I'm trying to understand Flux pattern.
I believe that in any good design the app should consist of relatively independent and universal (and thus reusable) components glued together by specific application logic.
In Flux there are domain-specific Stores encapsulating data and domain logic. These could be possibly reused in another application for the same domain.
I assume there should also be application-specific Store(s) holding app state and logic. This is the glue.
Now, I try to apply this to imaginary "GPS Tracker" app:
...
When a user clicks [Stop Tracking] button, corresponding ViewController raises STOP_CLICK.
AppState.on(STOP_CLICK):
dispatch(STOP_GEOLOCATION)
dispatch(STOP_TRACKING)
GeolocationService.on(STOP_GEOLOCATION):
stopGPS(); this.on = false; emit('change')
TrackStore.on(STOP_TRACKING):
saveTrack(); calcStatistics(); this.tracking = false; emit('change')
dispatch(START_UPLOAD)
So, I've got an event snowball.
It is said that in Flux one Action should not raise another.
But I do not understand how this could be done.
I think user actions can't go directly to domain Stores as these should be UI-agnostic.
Rather, AppState (or wherever the app logic lives) should translate user actions into domain actions.
How to redesign this the Flux way?
Where should application logic go?
Is that correct to try to keep domain Stores independent of the app logic?
Where is the place for "services"?
Thank you.
All of the application logic should live in the stores. They decide how they should respond to a particular action, if at all.
Stores have no setters. The only way into the stores is via a dispatched action, through the callback the store registered with the dispatcher.
Actions are not setters. Try not to think of them as such. Actions should simply report on something that happened in the real world: the user interacted with the UI in a certain way, the server responded in a certain way, etc.
This looks a lot like setter-thinking to me:
dispatch(STOP_GEOLOCATION)
dispatch(STOP_TRACKING)
Instead, dispatch the thing that actually happened: STOP_TRACKING_BUTTON_CLICKED (or TRACKING_STOPPED, if you want to be UI-agnostic). And then let the stores figure out what to do about it. All the stores will receive that action, and they can all respond to it, if needed. The code you have responding to two different actions should be responding to the same action.
Often, when we find that we want dispatch within a dispatch, we simply need to back up to the original thing that happened and make the entire application respond to that.