Develop Reference

RabbitMQ async Request-Reply pattern, client side, .NET C#

I'm kinda new to RabbitMQ, so please bear with me. I use standard RabbitMQ package: https://www.rabbitmq.com/dotnet.html
When you implement client side Request-Reply pattern, you use same methods as usual. Message consumption:
_consumer.Received += (model, ea) =>
{
var reply = JsonSerializer.Deserialize<TReply>
(
Encoding.UTF8.GetString(ea.Body.ToArray())
);
/* Consume the message */;
};
_channel.BasicConsume
(
queue: _replyQueue.QueueName,
autoAck: true,
consumer: _consumer
);
Message publishment:
var properties = _channel.CreateBasicProperties();
properties.ReplyTo = _replyQueue.QueueName;
properties.CorrelationId = Guid.NewGuid().ToString();
var body = Encoding.UTF8.GetBytes
(
JsonSerializer.Serialize(request)
);
_channel.BasicPublish("", _requestQueue.QueueName, properties, body);
So, message publishment and message consumption are still implemented in an independent way, however, in addition, you have properties.CorrelationId property which allows you to connect reply to its request on your own. I feel like this is too low-level approach, which shouldn't be used directly on the application level. Instead, this should be wrapped into some higher-level library client. On the application level I want to see something like this:
var client = MyRabbitMQRequestReplyClient();
var reply = await client.RequestAsync(request);
All request-reply CorrelationId-matching, as I think, should be hidden from the application-level developer.
This approach may look kinda unsafe, because we wait in a sequential way until the reply is received insted of doing everything in parallel. But sometimes we really want exactly such a behavior. For example, when a user clicks a button, and the client requests for something on a remote service, and once a reply is received, a user should get this reply right away, and this user is OK to wait for this reply - it feels like a natural behavior for this particular UI.
So, the questions are: is this a good approach for the cases when we really want to wait for the reply? If it's not - then why? What is the better approach? I don't want to mess with CorrelationId-matching every time I do request-reply on the application level. If this approach is good - then what is the best way to implement it?

If you're using something like direct reply-to, then this would be useful. I'd hesitate to do this approach if the reply queue was persistent or shared, because you want to ensure that only that one client will get the response.
The usual solution is to have a concurrent dictionary mapping from id to TaskCompletionSource<TReply>. When sending a new request, insert a new item in that dictionary and then return the TCS's Task property. When replies come in, retrieve the TCS from the dictionary and complete it.

Deferring and re-receiving a deferred message in an IHostBuilder hosted service

If the processing of an Azure Service Bus message depends on another resource, e.g. an API or a database service, and this resource is not available, not calling CompleteMessageAsync() is not an option, because the message will be immediately received again until the Max Delivery Count is reached, and then put into the DLQ. If an API is down for maintenance, we want to wait a bit before retrying.
One of the answers to this question has the general steps for deferring and receiving deferred messages. This is a little better than Microsoft's documentation, but not enough for me to understand the intent of the API, and how it is to be implemented in a hosted service that basically sits in ServiceBusProcessor.StartProcessingAsync all day long.
This is the basic structure of my service:
public class ServiceBusWatcher : IHostedService, IDisposable
{
public Task StartAsync(CancellationToken stoppingToken)
{
ReceiveMessagesAsync();
return Task.CompletedTask;
}
private async void ReceiveMessagesAsync()
{
ServiceBusClient client = new ServiceBusClient(connectionString);
processor = client.CreateProcessor(queueName, new ServiceBusProcessorOptions());
processor.ProcessMessageAsync += MessageHandler;
await processor.StartProcessingAsync();
}
async Task MessageHandler(ProcessMessageEventArgs args)
{
// a dependency is not available that allows me to process a message. so:
await args.DeferMessageAsync(args.Message);
Once the message is deferred, it is my understanding that the processor will not get to it anymore (or will it?). Instead, I have to use ReceiveDeferredMessageAsync() to receive it, along with the sequence number of the originally received message.
In my case, it will make sense to wait minutes or hours before trying again.
This could be done with a separate service that uses a timer and an explicit call to ReceiveDeferredMessageAsync(), as opposed to using a ServiceBusProcessor. I also suppose that the deferred message sequence numbers will have to be persisted in non-volatile storage so that they don't get lost.
Does this sound like a viable approach? I don't like having to remember its sequence numbers so that I can get to a message later. It goes against everything that using a message queue brings to the table in the first place.
Or, instead of deferring, I could just post a new "internal" message with the sequence number and use the ScheduledEnqueueTimeUtc property to delay receiving it. Once I receive this message, I could call ReceiveDeferredMessageAsync() with that sequence number to get to the original message. This seems elegant at the surface, but messages could quickly multiply if there is a longer outage of a dependency.
Another idea that could work without another service: I could complete and repost the payload of the message and set ScheduledEnqueueTimeUtc to a time in the future, as described in another answer to the question I mentioned earlier. Assuming that this works (Microsoft's documentation does not mention what this property is for), it seems simple and clean, and I like simple.
How have you solved this? Is there a better/preferred way that balances low complexity with high robustness without requiring a large amount of code?

Deferring a message works when you know what message you want to retrieve later and your receiver will have the message sequence number saved to retrieve the deferred message. If the receiver has no ability to save message sequence number, the delaying the message is a better option. Delaying a message will mean to copy the original message data into a newly scheduled one and completing the original message. That way the consumer doesn't have to neither hold on to the message sequence number nor initiate the retrieval of a specific message.

Tasks which contains smaller tasks with ACK from Consumer

I am working on some POC project and trying to solve the following problem.
I have a Publisher which is sending a messages to the Queue:
bus.PublishAsync<IBaseScenario>(new TestScenario())
.ContinueWith(task =>
{
if (task.IsCompleted && !task.IsFaulted)
Console.WriteLine("TestScenario queued with success.");
else
Console.WriteLine(task.Exception.Message);
});
And some Consumers which are consuming a messages:
bus.SubscribeAsync<IBaseScenario>("test_1_consumer",
message => Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
var testScenario = message as TestScenario;
var anotherTestScenario = message as AnotherTestScenario;
ResolveScenario(testScenario);
ResolveScenario(anotherTestScenario);
}).ContinueWith(task =>
{
if (task.IsCompleted && !task.IsFaulted)
Console.WriteLine("Task ended up with success.");
else
Console.WriteLine(task.Exception.Message);
}));
At this point everything is working as needed, but here is what I would like to achieve.
My Message is some kind of Scenario which contains steps, each Scenario is sent to the Queue and then maintained by a Consumer.
I would like to get a some kind of ACK info from Consumer sent to Publisher everytime when the each Step is done on the Consumer site (for example if its ended up with success or not.
I would like to get also an info about which Consumer got the Message.
Every Message (Scenario) should be treated as atomic operation, so there should not be possible to doing steps on different Consumers and if some Step will end without success, then the whole scenario should be treated as failed.
Are these 2 requirements possible to solve using the following architecture or do I need to use something more?

The easiest thing to do would be to use EasyNetQ's request response model described here https://github.com/EasyNetQ/EasyNetQ/wiki/Request-Response
In the response you can put the identity of the consumer that processed the message and the final status of the scenario. If one scenario is sent in one message, and that scenario contains all the steps necessary then all steps would be processed by a single consumer.
That said, message duplication is always a problem due to either sending the message twice or a message being requeued after a consumer fails. If it is critical that a scenario NEVER be processed more than once, then you will need to implement message deduplication or make each scenario idempotent. That is a general fact of life when working with RabbitMQ.

What is a best approach for multithreading on SerialPort

as I am new in multithreaded application I would like to have some advice from more experienced people before starting to write the code...
I need to queue data received on serial port in serial port event for further processing.
So I have the following event handler:
void jmPort_ReceivedEvent(object source, SerialEventArgs e)
{
SetStatusLabel("Iddle...", lbStatus);
SetPicVisibility(ledNotReceiving, true);
SetPicVisibility(ledReceiving, false);
String st = jmPort.ReadLine();
if (st != null)
{
lines.Enqueue(st); //"lines" is the ConcurrentQueue<string> object
StartDataProcessing(lines); //???
SetStatusLabel("Receiving data...", lbStatus);
SetPicVisibility(ledNotReceiving, false);
SetPicVisibility(ledReceiving, true);
}
else
{
jmPort.Close();
jmPort.Open();
}
}
Within the StartDataProcessing I need to dequeue strings and update MANY UI controlls (using the InvokeRequired...this I already know :-)).
What is the best approach and colision free (without deadlock) approach to achieve this?
How to call StartDataProcessing method in more threads and safely dequeue (TryDequeue) the lines queue, make all needed computations and update UI controlls?
I have to appoint that the communication is very fast and that I am not using the standard SerialPort class. If I simply write all received strings without further processing to console window it works just well.
I am working in .NET 4.5.
Thank you for any advice...
Updated question: Ok, so what will be the best way to run the task from the datareceived event using TPL? Is it necessary to create another class (object) that will process data and use callbacks to update UI or it is possible to load some form method from the event? I'll could be very happy if someone can give me the direction what exactly to do within the datareceived event. What to do as the first step because studying all possible ways is not the solution I have time for. I need to begin with some particular way... There is so many different possible multithreading approaches and after reading about them I am still more confused and I don't know what will be the best a fastest solution... Usual Thread(s), BackgroundWorker, TPL, async-await...? :-( Because my application uses .NET 4.5 I would like to use some state-of-the-art solution :-) Thank you for any advice...

So after a lot of trying it is working to my satisfaction now.
Finally I've used the standard .NET SerialPort class as the third-party Serial class causes somae problems with higher baudrates (115200). It uses WinAPI directly so the finall code was mixed - managed and unmanaged. Now, even the standard .NET 4.5 SerialPort class works well (I've let my application successfully running through a whole night).
So, for everyone that need to deal with C#, SerialPort and higher rates (only for clarification - the device sending messages to PC is the STM32F407 /using USART 2/. I've tried it also with Arduino Due and it works as well) my datareceived event is in the following form now:
private void serialPort1_DataReceived(object sender, System.IO.Ports.SerialDataReceivedEventArgs e)
{
//the SetXXXXX functions are using the .InvokeRequired approach
//because the UI components are updated from another thread than
//the thread they were created in
SetStatusLabel("Iddle...", lbStatus);
SetPicVisibility(Form1.frm.ledNotReceiving, true);
SetPicVisibility(Form1.frm.ledReceiving, false);
String st = serialPort1.ReadLine();
if (st != null)
{
lines.Enqueue(st);
Task.Factory.StartNew(() => StartDataProcessing(lines)); // lines is global ConcurrentQueue object so in fact there is no need to pass it as parameter
SetStatusLabel("Receiving data...", lbStatus);
SetPicVisibility(Form1.frm.ledNotReceiving, false);
SetPicVisibility(Form1.frm.ledReceiving, true);
}
}
Within the StartDataProcessing function:
1. TryDequeue(lines, out str)
2. Use the ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(lCallBack1, tmp); where tmp is needed part of the str (without EOF, without the message number etc.)
lCallBack1 = new WaitCallback(DisplayData);
Within the DisplayData function all the UI controls are updated
This approach mixes the ThreadPool and TPL ways but it is not a problem because the ThreadPool is used by TPL in background operation anyway.
Another working method I've tried was the following:
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(lCallBack, lines);
instead of :
Task.Factory.StartNew(() => StartDataProcessing(lines));
This method was working well but I've not tested it in over night run.
By my subjective perception the Task.... method updated the controls more smoothly but it can be only my personal feeling :-)
So, I hope this answer will help someone as I know from forums that many people are dealing with with unreliable communication based on the micocontroller <--> PC
My (surprising :-) ) conclusion is that the standard .NET SerialPort is able to handle messages even at higher baudrates. If you still run into troubles with buffer overrun then try to play with the SerialPort buffer size and SerialPort threshold. For me the settings 1024/500 are satisfactory (max size of the message send by microcontroller is 255 bytes so 500 bytes means that 2 messages are in buffer before the event is fired.)
You can also remove all SetXXXX calls from the datareceived event as they are not really needed and they can slow down the communication a little...
I am very close to real-time data capturing now and it is exactly what I've needed.
Good luck to everyone :-)

Within the StartDataProcessing I need to dequeue strings and update MANY UI controlls
No, you do not. You need to dequeue strings and then enqueue them again into the multiple queues for the different segments of the UI.
If you want to be fast, you scatter all operations and definitely the UI into separate windows that run their own separate message pumps and thus can update independently in separate UI threads.
The general process would be:
1 thread handles the serial port and takes the data and queues it.
Another one dequeues it and distributes it to separate processing threads from which
the data goes to multiple output queues all responsible for one part of the UI (depending on whether the UI Will turn a bottleneck).
There is no need to be thread safe in dequeuing. How serial is the data? Can you skip data when another update for the same piece arrives?
Read up on TPL and tasks - there are base libraries for parallel processing which come with a ton of documentation.

Bloomberg API request timing out

Having set up a ReferenceDataRequest I send it along to an EventQueue
Service refdata = _session.GetService("//blp/refdata");
Request request = refdata.CreateRequest("ReferenceDataRequest");
// append the appropriate symbol and field data to the request
EventQueue eventQueue = new EventQueue();
Guid guid = Guid.NewGuid();
CorrelationID id = new CorrelationID(guid);
_session.SendRequest(request, eventQueue, id);
long _eventWaitTimeout = 60000;
myEvent = eventQueue.NextEvent(_eventWaitTimeout);
Normally I can grab the message from the queue, but I'm hitting the situation now that if I'm making a number of requests in the same run of the app (normally around the tenth), I see a TIMEOUT EventType
if (myEvent.Type == Event.EventType.TIMEOUT)
throw new Exception("Timed Out - need to rethink this strategy");
else
msg = myEvent.GetMessages().First();
These are being made on the same thread, but I'm assuming that there's something somewhere along the line that I'm consuming and not releasing.
Anyone have any clues or advice?
There aren't many references on SO to BLP's API, but hopefully we can start to rectify that situation.

I just wanted to share something, thanks to the code you included in your initial post.
If you make a request for historical intraday data for a long duration (which results in many events generated by Bloomberg API), do not use the pattern specified in the API documentation, as it may end up making your application very slow to retrieve all events.
Basically, do not call NextEvent() on a Session object! Use a dedicated EventQueue instead.
Instead of doing this:
var cID = new CorrelationID(1);
session.SendRequest(request, cID);
do {
Event eventObj = session.NextEvent();
...
}
Do this:
var cID = new CorrelationID(1);
var eventQueue = new EventQueue();
session.SendRequest(request, eventQueue, cID);
do {
Event eventObj = eventQueue.NextEvent();
...
}
This can result in some performance improvement, though the API is known to not be particularly deterministic...

I didn't really ever get around to solving this question, but we did find a workaround.
Based on a small, apparently throwaway, comment in the Server API documentation, we opted to create a second session. One session is responsible for static requests, the other for real-time. e.g.
_marketDataSession.OpenService("//blp/mktdata");
_staticSession.OpenService("//blp/refdata");
The means one session operates in subscription mode, the other more synchronously - I think it was this duality which was at the root of our problems.
Since making that change, we've not had any problems.

My reading of the docs agrees that you need separate sessions for the "//blp/mktdata" and "//blp/refdata" services.

A client appeared to have a similar problem. I solved it by making hundreds of sessions rather than passing in hundreds of requests in one session. Bloomberg may not be to happy with this BFI (brute force and ignorance) approach as we are sending the field requests for each session but it works.

Nice to see another person on stackoverflow enjoying the pain of bloomberg API :-)
I'm ashamed to say I use the following pattern (I suspect copied from the example code). It seems to work reasonably robustly, but probably ignores some important messages. But I don't get your time-out problem. It's Java, but all the languages work basically the same.
cid = session.sendRequest(request, null);
while (true) {
Event event = session.nextEvent();
MessageIterator msgIter = event.messageIterator();
while (msgIter.hasNext()) {
Message msg = msgIter.next();
if (msg.correlationID() == cid) {
processMessage(msg, fieldStrings, result);
}
}
if (event.eventType() == Event.EventType.RESPONSE) {
break;
}
}
This may work because it consumes all messages off each event.

It sounds like you are making too many requests at once. BB will only process a certain number of requests per connection at any given time. Note that opening more and more connections will not help because there are limits per subscription as well. If you make a large number of time consuming requests simultaneously, some may timeout. Also, you should process the request completely(until you receive RESPONSE message), or cancel them. A partial request that is outstanding is wasting a slot. Since splitting into two sessions, seems to have helped you, it sounds like you are also making a lot of subscription requests at the same time. Are you using subscriptions as a way to take snapshots? That is subscribe to an instrument, get initial values, and de-subscribe. If so, you should try to find a different design. This is not the way the subscriptions are intended to be used. An outstanding subscription request also uses a request slot. That is why it is best to batch as many subscriptions as possible in a single subscription list instead of making many individual requests. Hope this helps with your use of the api.

By the way, I can't tell from your sample code, but while you are blocked on messages from the event queue, are you also reading from the main event queue while(in a seperate event queue)? You must process all the messages out of the queue, especially if you have outstanding subscriptions. Responses can queue up really fast. If you are not processing messages, the session may hit some queue limits which may be why you are getting timeouts. Also, if you don't read messages, you may be marked a slow consumer and not receive more data until you start consuming the pending messages. The api is async. Event queues are just a way to block on specific requests without having to process all messages from the main queue in a context where blocking is ok, and it would otherwise be be difficult to interrupt the logic flow to process parts asynchronously.