Develop Reference

Block Controller Method while already running

I have a controller which returns a large json object. If this object does not exist, it will generate and return it afterwards. The generation takes about 5 seconds, and if the client sent the request multiple times, the object gets generated with x-times the children. So my question is: Is there a way to block the second request, until the first one finished, independent who sent the request?
Normally I would do it with a Singleton, but because I am having scoped services, singleton does not work here

Warning: this is very oppinionated and maybe not suitable for Stack Overflow, but here it is anyway
Although I'll provide no code... when things take a while to generate, you don't usually spend that time directly in controller code, but do something like "start a background task to generate the result, and provide a "task id", which can be queried on another different call).
So, my preferred course of action for this would be having two different controller actions:
Generate, which creates the background job, assigns it some id, and returns the id
GetResult, to which you pass the task id, and returns either different error codes for "job id doesn't exist", "job id isn't finished", or a 200 with the result.
This way, your clients will need to call both, however, in Generate, you can check if the job is already being created and return an existing job id.
This of course moves the need to "retry and check" to your client: in exchange, you don't leave the connection to the server opened during those 5 seconds (which could potentially be multiplied by a number of clients) and return fast.
Otherwise, if you don't care about having your clients wait for a response during those 5 seconds, you could do a simple:
if(resultDoesntExist) {
resultDoesntExist = false; // You can use locks for the boolean setters or Interlocked instead of just setting a member
resultIsBeingGenerated = true;
generateResult(); // <-- this is what takes 5 seconds
resultIsBeingGenerated = false;
}
while(resultIsBeingGenerated) { await Task.Delay(10); } // <-- other clients will wait here
var result = getResult(); // <-- this should be fast once the result is already created
return result;
note: those booleans and the actual loop could be on the controller, or on the service, or wherever you see fit: just be wary of making them thread-safe in however method you see appropriate
So you basically make other clients wait till the first one generates the result, with "almost" no CPU load on the server... however with a connection open and a thread from the threadpool used, so I just DO NOT recommend this :-)
PS: #Leaky solution above is also good, but it also shifts the responsability to retry to the client, and if you are going to do that, I'd probably go directly with a "background job id", instead of having the first (the one that generates the result) one take 5 seconds. IMO, if it can be avoided, no API action should ever take 5 seconds to return :-)

Do you have an example for Interlocked.CompareExchange?
Sure. I'm definitely not the most knowledgeable person when it comes to multi-threading stuff, but this is quite simple (as you might know, Interlocked has no support for bool, so it's customary to represent it with an integral type):
public class QueryStatus
{
private static int _flag;
// Returns false if the query has already started.
public bool TrySetStarted()
=> Interlocked.CompareExchange(ref _flag, 1, 0) == 0;
public void SetFinished()
=> Interlocked.Exchange(ref _flag, 0);
}
I think it's the safest if you use it like this, with a 'Try' method, which tries to set the value and tells you if it was already set, in an atomic way.
Besides simply adding this (I mean just the field and the methods) to your existing component, you can also use it as a separate component, injected from the IOC container as scoped. Or even injected as a singleton, and then you don't have to use a static field.
Storing state like this should be good for as long as the application is running, but if the hosted application is recycled due to inactivity, it's obviously lost. Though, that won't happen while a request is still processing, and definitely won't happen in 5 seconds.
(And if you wanted to synchronize between app service instances, you could 'quickly' save a flag to the database, in a transaction with proper isolation level set. Or use e.g. Azure Redis Cache.)
Example solution
As Kit noted, rightly so, I didn't provide a full solution above.
So, a crude implementation could go like this:
public class SomeQueryService : ISomeQueryService
{
private static int _hasStartedFlag;
private static bool TrySetStarted()
=> Interlocked.CompareExchange(ref _hasStartedFlag, 1, 0) == 0;
private static void SetFinished()
=> Interlocked.Exchange(ref _hasStartedFlag, 0);
public async Task<(bool couldExecute, object result)> TryExecute()
{
if (!TrySetStarted())
return (couldExecute: false, result: null);
// Safely execute long query.
SetFinished();
return (couldExecute: true, result: result);
}
}
// In the controller, obviously
[HttpGet()]
public async Task<IActionResult> DoLongQuery([FromServices] ISomeQueryService someQueryService)
{
var (couldExecute, result) = await someQueryService.TryExecute();
if (!couldExecute)
{
return new ObjectResult(new ProblemDetails
{
Status = StatusCodes.Status503ServiceUnavailable,
Title = "Another request has already started. Try again later.",
Type = "https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-6.6.4"
})
{ StatusCode = StatusCodes.Status503ServiceUnavailable };
}
return Ok(result);
}
Of course possibly you'd want to extract the 'blocking' logic from the controller action into somewhere else, for example an action filter. In that case the flag should also go into a separate component that could be shared between the query service and the filter.
General use action filter
I felt bad about my inelegant solution above, and I realized that this problem can be generalized into basically a connection number limiter on an endpoint.
I wrote this small action filter that can be applied to any endpoint (multiple endpoints), and it accepts the number of allowed connections:
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Method, AllowMultiple = false)]
public class ConcurrencyLimiterAttribute : ActionFilterAttribute
{
private readonly int _allowedConnections;
private static readonly ConcurrentDictionary<string, int> _connections = new ConcurrentDictionary<string, int>();
public ConcurrencyLimiterAttribute(int allowedConnections = 1)
=> _allowedConnections = allowedConnections;
public override async Task OnActionExecutionAsync(ActionExecutingContext context, ActionExecutionDelegate next)
{
var key = context.HttpContext.Request.Path;
if (_connections.AddOrUpdate(key, 1, (k, v) => ++v) > _allowedConnections)
{
Close(withError: true);
return;
}
try
{
await next();
}
finally
{
Close();
}
void Close(bool withError = false)
{
if (withError)
{
context.Result = new ObjectResult(new ProblemDetails
{
Status = StatusCodes.Status503ServiceUnavailable,
Title = $"Maximum {_allowedConnections} simultaneous connections are allowed. Try again later.",
Type = "https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-6.6.4"
})
{ StatusCode = StatusCodes.Status503ServiceUnavailable };
}
_connections.AddOrUpdate(key, 0, (k, v) => --v);
}
}
}

TNonblockingServerTransport not implemented with Thrift C# library

When using Apache Thrift [https://github.com/apache/thrift] to create a non blocking server in C#, the following Classes/Types cannot be recognized:
TNonblockingServerTransport
TNonblockingServer
I want to send command from my win10 laptop to control a time-consuming calculation performed on a high performance server (ubuntu). That's why I came to Apache Thrift. I have found the official C# version tutorial [https://github.com/apache/thrift/tree/master/tutorial/csharp] and it works well. This tutorial uses the so-called Blocking Mode (TSimpleServer). But in my situation, the time-consuming calculation procedure should be interrupt-able. Consequently, I must use a non-blocking server.
The logic is simple. For the server, I used a private flag forceStop. If the Client call Stop(), forceStop will set to true and the calculation loop will break.
// #Server#
// Server Set-Up
private void SetUp()
{
try
{
CalculatorHandler handler = new CalculatorHandler();
Calculator.Processor processor = new
Calculator.Processor(handler);
var serverTransport = new TServerSocket(9090);
TServer server = new TSimpleServer(processor, serverTransport);
// Use this for a multithreaded server
// server = new TThreadPoolServer(processor, serverTransport);
Console.WriteLine("Starting the server...");
server.Serve();
}
catch (Exception x)
{
Console.WriteLine(x.StackTrace);
}
}
private bool forceStop;
public int TimeConsumingOperation(int n1, int n2)
{
Console.WriteLine("add({0},{1})", n1, n2);
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
//calculating
Thread.Sleep(500);
if (forceStop)
{
Quit();
}
}
return n1 + n2;
}
public void Stop()
{
forceStop = true;
}
// Client
// Button#1 Click callback
private void Button_Start_Click()
{
client.TimeConsumingOperation(0,0);
}
// Button#2 Click callback
private void Button_Stop_Click()
{
client.Stop();
}
//
I've found some useful examples in java [https://chamibuddhika.wordpress.com/2011/10/02/apache-thrift-quickstart-tutorial/]. I've try my best to convert the java code of non-block server to the corresponding C# code but I found that there seems to be no TNonblockingServerTransport in C#. Anyone could help me with this probelm?
// Java Code
public class NonblockingServer {
private void start() {
try {
TNonblockingServerTransport serverTransport = new TNonblockingServerSocket(7911);
ArithmeticService.Processor processor = new ArithmeticService.Processor(new ArithmeticServiceImpl());
TServer server = new TNonblockingServer(new TNonblockingServer.Args(serverTransport).
processor(processor));
System.out.println("Starting server on port 7911 ...");
server.serve();
} catch (TTransportException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
NonblockingServer srv = new NonblockingServer();
srv.start();
}
}

There's actually two answers to that question.
Possible implementation
Your setup is flawed, to begin with.
// #Server#
// Server Set-Up
private bool forceStop;
public void Stop()
{
forceStop = true;
}
Let's assume, we have two clients, both starting a new calculation. Now one client wants to abort. What happens?
The solution would be to structure it in a way where the calculation is a separate business logic object that is instantiated at TimeConsumingOperation() and made available to the client by some means, typically by returning some sort of ID.
When the client now wants to abort, it calls Stop(calcualtionID). The server side logic now routes that call to the implementation and triggers whatever the abort mechanism might be, with C# is is probably a CancellationToken.
A third call would be needed to query the final results from the server end once the calculation has finished. Note that we still work with a TSimpleServer and the reason it works is because we avoid blocking calls by means of the API design.
Nonblocking server
Yes, there is no implementation yet for C#. Since Thrift is Open Source, that probably simply means that there were nobody running into that use case so far and wanted to spend time on an implementation. That is not to say that such a use case may not exist.
What exists are
Threaded and Threadpool servers
Task.Run(() => { your code })
which may help to solve your use case. Also, when used with ASP.NET there is no need for a nonblocking server since the runtime offers enough support already for multiple connections.
Bottom line
There are certain ways to work around that limitation you experierenced. One additional alternative could be to become a contributor by porting one of the existing (e.g. Java) nonblocking implementation to NetStd (preferred, since C# and NetCore will mature into "deprecated" state with the next release and both be replaced by NetStd eventually)

Multiple publishers sending concurrent messages to a single subscriber in Retlang?

I need to build an application where some number of instances of an object are generating "pulses", concurrently. (Essentially this just means that they are incrementing a counter.) I also need to track the total counters for each object. Also, whenever I perform a read on a counter, it needs to be reset to zero.
So I was talking to a guy at work, and he mentioned Retlang and message-based concurrency, which sounded super interesting. But obviously I am very new to the concept. So I've built a small prototype, and I get the expected results, which is awesome - but I'm not sure if I've potentially made some logical errors and left the software open to bugs, due to my inexperience with Retlang and concurrent programming in general.
First off, I have these classes:
public class Plc {
private readonly IChannel<Pulse> _channel;
private readonly IFiber _fiber;
private readonly int _pulseInterval;
private readonly int _plcId;
public Plc(IChannel<Pulse> channel, int plcId, int pulseInterval) {
_channel = channel;
_pulseInterval = pulseInterval;
_fiber = new PoolFiber();
_plcId = plcId;
}
public void Start() {
_fiber.Start();
// Not sure if it's safe to pass in a delegate which will run in an infinite loop...
// AND use a shared channel object...
_fiber.Enqueue(() => {
SendPulse();
});
}
private void SendPulse() {
while (true) {
// Not sure if it's safe to use the same channel object in different
// IFibers...
_channel.Publish(new Pulse() { PlcId = _plcId });
Thread.Sleep(_pulseInterval);
}
}
}
public class Pulse {
public int PlcId { get; set; }
}
The idea here is that I can instantiate multiple Plcs, pass each one the same IChannel, and then have them execute the SendPulse function concurrently, which would allow each one to publish to the same channel. But as you can see from my comments, I'm a little skeptical that what I'm doing is actually legit. I'm mostly worried about using the same IChannel object to Publish in the context of different IFibers, but I'm also worried about never returning from the delegate that was passed to Enqueue. I'm hoping some one can provide some insight as to how I should be handling this.
Also, here is the "subscriber" class:
public class PulseReceiver {
private int[] _pulseTotals;
private readonly IFiber _fiber;
private readonly IChannel<Pulse> _channel;
private object _pulseTotalsLock;
public PulseReceiver(IChannel<Pulse> channel, int numberOfPlcs) {
_pulseTotals = new int[numberOfPlcs];
_channel = channel;
_fiber = new PoolFiber();
_pulseTotalsLock = new object();
}
public void Start() {
_fiber.Start();
_channel.Subscribe(_fiber, this.UpdatePulseTotals);
}
private void UpdatePulseTotals(Pulse pulse) {
// This occurs in the execution context of the IFiber.
// If we were just dealing with the the published Pulses from the channel, I think
// we wouldn't need the lock, since I THINK the published messages would be taken
// from a queue (i.e. each Plc is publishing concurrently, but Retlang enqueues
// the messages).
lock(_pulseTotalsLock) {
_pulseTotals[pulse.PlcId - 1]++;
}
}
public int GetTotalForPlc(int plcId) {
// However, this access takes place in the application thread, not in the IFiber,
// and I think there could potentially be a race condition here. I.e. the array
// is being updated from the IFiber, but I think I'm reading from it and resetting values
// concurrently in a different thread.
lock(_pulseTotalsLock) {
if (plcId <= _pulseTotals.Length) {
int currentTotal = _pulseTotals[plcId - 1];
_pulseTotals[plcId - 1] = 0;
return currentTotal;
}
}
return -1;
}
}
So here, I am reusing the same IChannel that was given to the Plc instances, but having a different IFiber subscribe to it. Ideally then I could receive the messages from each Plc, and update a single private field within my class, but in a thread safe way.
From what I understand (and I mentioned in my comments), I think that I would be safe to simply update the _pulseTotals array in the delegate which I gave to the Subscribe function, because I would receive each message from the Plcs serially.
However, I'm not sure how best to handle the bit where I need to read the totals and reset them. As you can see from the code and comments, I ended up wrapping a lock around any access to the _pulseTotals array. But I'm not sure if this is necessary, and I would love to know a) if it is in fact necessary to do this, and why, or b) the correct way to implement something similar.
And finally for good measure, here's my main function:
static void Main(string[] args) {
Channel<Pulse> pulseChannel = new Channel<Pulse>();
PulseReceiver pulseReceiver = new PulseReceiver(pulseChannel, 3);
pulseReceiver.Start();
List<Plc> plcs = new List<Plc>() {
new Plc(pulseChannel, 1, 500),
new Plc(pulseChannel, 2, 250),
new Plc(pulseChannel, 3, 1000)
};
plcs.ForEach(plc => plc.Start());
while (true) {
Thread.Sleep(10000);
Console.WriteLine(string.Format("Plc 1: {0}\nPlc 2: {1}\nPlc 3: {2}\n", pulseReceiver.GetTotalForPlc(1), pulseReceiver.GetTotalForPlc(2), pulseReceiver.GetTotalForPlc(3)));
}
}
I instantiate one single IChannel, pass it to everything, where internally the Receiver subscribes with an IFiber, and where the Plcs use IFibers to "enqueue" a non-returning method which continually publishes to the channel.
Again, the console output looks exactly like I would expect it to look, i.e. I see 20 "pulses" for Plc 1 after waiting 10 seconds. And the resetting of the counters after a read also seems to work, i.e. Plc 1 has 20 "pulses" after each 10 second increment. But that doesn't reassure me that I haven't overlooked something important.
I'm really excited to learn a bit more about Retlang and concurrent programming techniques, so hopefuly someone has the time to sift through my code and offer some suggestions for my specific concerns, or else even a different design based on my requirements!

Unstable unit test result - mock message queue behavior and parallel loop

I am building a class to use parallel loop to access messages from message queue, in order to explain my issue I created a simplified version of code:
public class Worker
{
private IMessageQueue mq;
public Worker(IMessageQueue mq)
{
this.mq = mq;
}
public int Concurrency
{
get
{
return 5;
}
}
public void DoWork()
{
int totalFoundMessage = 0;
do
{
// reset for every loop
totalFoundMessage = 0;
Parallel.For<int>(
0,
this.Concurrency,
() => 0,
(i, loopState, localState) =>
{
Message data = this.mq.GetFromMessageQueue("MessageQueueName");
if (data != null)
{
return localState + 1;
}
else
{
return localState + 0;
}
},
localState =>
{
Interlocked.Add(ref totalFoundMessage, localState);
});
}
while (totalFoundMessage >= this.Concurrency);
}
}
The idea is to set the worker class a concurrency value to control the parallel loop. If after each loop the number of message to retrieve from message queue equals to the concurrency number I assume there are potential more messages in the queue and continue to fetch from queue until the message number is smaller than the concurrency. The TPL code is also inspired by TPL Data Parallelism Issue post.
I have the interface to message queue and message object.
public interface IMessageQueue
{
Message GetFromMessageQueue(string queueName);
}
public class Message
{
}
Thus I created my unit test codes and I used Moq to mock the IMessageQueue interface
[TestMethod()]
public void DoWorkTest()
{
Mock<IMessageQueue> mqMock = new Mock<IMessageQueue>();
Message data = new Message();
Worker w = new Worker(mqMock.Object);
int callCounter = 0;
int messageNumber = 11;
mqMock.Setup(x => x.GetFromMessageQueue("MessageQueueName")).Returns(() =>
{
callCounter++;
if (callCounter < messageNumber)
{
return data;
}
else
{
// simulate MSMQ's behavior last call to empty queue returns null
return (Message)null;
}
}
);
w.DoWork();
int expectedCallTimes = w.Concurrency * (messageNumber / w.Concurrency);
if (messageNumber % w.Concurrency > 0)
{
expectedCallTimes += w.Concurrency;
}
mqMock.Verify(x => x.GetFromMessageQueue("MessageQueueName"), Times.Exactly(expectedCallTimes));
}
I used the idea from Moq to set up a function return based on called times to set up call times based response.
During the unit testing I noticed the testing result is unstable, if you run it multiple times you will see in most cases the test passes, but occasionally the test fails for various reasons.
I have no clue what caused the situation and look for some input from you. Thanks

The problem is that your mocked GetFromMessageQueue() is not thread-safe, but you're calling it from multiple threads at the same time. ++ is inherently thread-unsafe operation.
Instead, you should use locking or Interlocked.Increment().
Also, in your code, you're likely not going to benefit from parallelism, because starting and stopping Parallel.ForEach() has some overhead. A better way would be to have a while (or do-while) inside the Parallel.ForEach(), not the other way around.

My approach would be to restructure. When testing things like timing or concurrency, it is usually prudent to abstract your calls (in this case, use of PLINQ) into a separate class that accepts a number of delegates. You can then test the correct calls are being made to the new class. Then, because the new class is a lot simpler (only a single PLINQ call) and contains no logic, you can leave it untested.
I advocate not testing in this case because unless you are working on something super-critical (life support systems, airplanes, etc), it becomes more trouble than it's worth to test. Trust the framework will execute the PLINQ query as expected. You should only be testing those things which make sense to test, and that provide value to your project or client.

How to call asynchronous services synchronously in Silverlight

I have a silverlight 5 app that depends on several asynchronous calls to web services to populate the attributes of newly created graphics. I am trying to find a way to handle those asynchronous calls synchronously. I have tried the suggestions listed in this article and this one. i have tried the many suggestions regarding the Dispatcher object. None have worked well, so I am clearly missing something...
Here is what I have:
public partial class MainPage : UserControl {
AutoResetEvent waitHandle = new AutoResetEvent(false);
private void AssignNewAttributeValuesToSplitPolygons(List<Graphic> splitGraphics)
{
for (int i = 0; i < splitGraphics.Count; i++)
{
Graphic g = splitGraphics[i];
Thread lookupThread1 = new Thread(new ParameterizedThreadStart(SetStateCountyUtm));
lookupThread1.Start(g);
waitHandle.WaitOne();
Thread lookupThread2 = new Thread(new ParameterizedThreadStart(SetCongressionalDistrict));
lookupThread1.Start(g);
waitHandle.WaitOne();
}
private void SetStateCountyUtm(object graphic)
{
this.Dispatcher.BeginInvoke(delegate() {
WrapperSetStateCountyUtm((Graphic)graphic);
});
}
private void WrapperSetStateCountyUtm(Graphic graphic)
{
GISQueryEngine gisQEngine = new GISQueryEngine();
gisQEngine.StateCountyUtmLookupCompletedEvent += new GISQueryEngine.StateCountyUtmLookupEventHandler(gisQEngine_StateCountyUtmLookupCompletedEvent);
gisQEngine.PerformStateCountyUtmQuery(graphic.Geometry, graphic.Attributes["clu_number"].ToString());
}
void gisQEngine_StateCountyUtmLookupCompletedEvent(object sender, StateCountyUtmLookupCompleted stateCountyUtmLookupEventArgs)
{
string fred = stateCountyUtmLookupEventArgs.
waitHandle.Set();
}
}
public class GISQueryEngine
{
public void PerformStateCountyUtmQuery(Geometry inSpatialQueryGeometry, string cluNumber)
{
QueryTask queryTask = new QueryTask(stateandCountyServiceURL);
queryTask.ExecuteCompleted += new EventHandler<QueryEventArgs>(queryTask_StateCountyLookupExecuteCompleted);
queryTask.Failed += new EventHandler<TaskFailedEventArgs>(queryTask_StateCountyLookupFailed);
Query spatialQueryParam = new ESRI.ArcGIS.Client.Tasks.Query();
spatialQueryParam.OutFields.AddRange(new string[] { "*" });
spatialQueryParam.ReturnGeometry = false;
spatialQueryParam.Geometry = inSpatialQueryGeometry;
spatialQueryParam.SpatialRelationship = SpatialRelationship.esriSpatialRelIntersects;
spatialQueryParam.OutSpatialReference = inSpatialQueryGeometry.SpatialReference;
queryTask.ExecuteAsync(spatialQueryParam, cluNumber);
}
//and a whole bunch of other stuff i can add if needed
}
If I leave the 'waitHandle.WaitOne()' method uncommented, no code beyond that method is ever called, at least that I can see with the step through debugger. The application just hangs.
If I comment out the 'waitHandle.WaitOne()', everything runs just fine - except asynchronously. In other words, when the app reads the Attribute values of the new graphics, those values may or may not be set depending on how quickly the asynch methods return.
Thanks for any help.

It's going to be rather difficult to work through a problem like this as there are a few issues you'll need to address. SL is by nature asynch so forcing it to try and work synchronously is usually a very bad idea. You shouldn't do it unless it's absolutely necessary.
Is there a reason that you cannot wait for an async. callback? From what I see you appear to be making two calls for every state that is being rendered. I'm guessing the concern is that one call must complete before the second is made? In scenarios like this, I would kick off the first async call, and in it's response kick off the second call passing along the result you'll want to use from the first call. The second call response updates the provided references.
However, in cases where you've got a significant number of states to update, this results in a rather chatty, and difficult to debug set of calls. I'd really be looking at creating a service call that can accept a set of state references and pass back a data structure set for the values to be updated all in one hit. (or at least grouping them up to one call per state if the batch will be too time consuming and you want to render/interact with visual elements as they load up.)