I have the following code:
// How to throw the ServerException?
public void myFunc() throws ServerException{
// Some code
CompletableFuture<A> a = CompletableFuture.supplyAsync(() -> {
try {
return someObj.someFunc();
} catch(ServerException ex) {
// throw ex; gives an error here.
}
}));
// Some code
}
someFunc() throws a ServerException. I don't want to handle this here but throw the exception from someFunc() to caller of myFunc().
Your code suggests that you are using the result of the asynchronous operation later in the same method, so you’ll have to deal with CompletionException anyway, so one way to deal with it, is
public void myFunc() throws ServerException {
// Some code
CompletableFuture<A> a = CompletableFuture.supplyAsync(() -> {
try { return someObj.someFunc(); }
catch(ServerException ex) { throw new CompletionException(ex); }
});
// Some code running in parallel to someFunc()
A resultOfA;
try {
resultOfA = a.join();
}
catch(CompletionException ex) {
try {
throw ex.getCause();
}
catch(Error|RuntimeException|ServerException possible) {
throw possible;
}
catch(Throwable impossible) {
throw new AssertionError(impossible);
}
}
// some code using resultOfA
}
All exceptions thrown inside the asynchronous processing of the Supplier will get wrapped into a CompletionException when calling join, except the ServerException we have already wrapped in a CompletionException.
When we re-throw the cause of the CompletionException, we may face unchecked exceptions, i.e. subclasses of Error or RuntimeException, or our custom checked exception ServerException. The code above handles all of them with a multi-catch which will re-throw them. Since the declared return type of getCause() is Throwable, the compiler requires us to handle that type despite we already handled all possible types. The straight-forward solution is to throw this actually impossible throwable wrapped in an AssertionError.
Alternatively, we could use an alternative result future for our custom exception:
public void myFunc() throws ServerException {
// Some code
CompletableFuture<ServerException> exception = new CompletableFuture<>();
CompletableFuture<A> a = CompletableFuture.supplyAsync(() -> {
try { return someObj.someFunc(); }
catch(ServerException ex) {
exception.complete(ex);
throw new CompletionException(ex);
}
});
// Some code running in parallel to someFunc()
A resultOfA;
try {
resultOfA = a.join();
}
catch(CompletionException ex) {
if(exception.isDone()) throw exception.join();
throw ex;
}
// some code using resultOfA
}
This solution will re-throw all “unexpected” throwables in their wrapped form, but only throw the custom ServerException in its original form passed via the exception future. Note that we have to ensure that a has been completed (like calling join() first), before we query the exception future, to avoid race conditions.
For those looking for other ways on exception handling with completableFuture
Below are several ways for example handling Parsing Error to Integer:
1. Using handle method - which enables you to provide a default value on exception
CompletableFuture correctHandler = CompletableFuture.supplyAsync(() -> "A")
.thenApply(Integer::parseInt)
.handle((result, ex) -> {
if (null != ex) {
ex.printStackTrace();
return 0;
} else {
System.out.println("HANDLING " + result);
return result;
}
})
.thenAcceptAsync(s -> {
System.out.println("CORRECT: " + s);
});
2. Using exceptionally Method - similar to handle but less verbose
CompletableFuture parser = CompletableFuture.supplyAsync(() -> "1")
.thenApply(Integer::parseInt)
.exceptionally(t -> {
t.printStackTrace();
return 0;
}).thenAcceptAsync(s -> System.out.println("CORRECT value: " + s));
3. Using whenComplete Method - using this will stop the method on its tracks and not execute the next thenAcceptAsync
CompletableFuture correctHandler2 = CompletableFuture.supplyAsync(() -> "A")
.thenApply(Integer::parseInt)
.whenComplete((result, ex) -> {
if (null != ex) {
ex.printStackTrace();
}
})
.thenAcceptAsync(s -> {
System.out.println("When Complete: " + s);
});
4. Propagating the exception via completeExceptionally
public static CompletableFuture<Integer> converter(String convertMe) {
CompletableFuture<Integer> future = new CompletableFuture<>();
try {
future.complete(Integer.parseInt(convertMe));
} catch (Exception ex) {
future.completeExceptionally(ex);
}
return future;
}
Even if other's answer is very nice. but I give you another way to throw a checked exception in CompletableFuture.
IF you don't want to invoke a CompletableFuture in another thread, you can use an anonymous class to handle it like this:
CompletableFuture<A> a = new CompletableFuture<A>() {{
try {
complete(someObj.someFunc());
} catch (ServerException ex) {
completeExceptionally(ex);
}
}};
IF you want to invoke a CompletableFuture in another thread, you also can use an anonymous class to handle it, but run method by runAsync:
CompletableFuture<A> a = new CompletableFuture<A>() {{
CompletableFuture.runAsync(() -> {
try {
complete(someObj.someFunc());
} catch (ServerException ex) {
completeExceptionally(ex);
}
});
}};
I think that you should wrap that into a RuntimeException and throw that:
throw new RuntimeException(ex);
Or many be a small utility would help:
static class Wrapper extends RuntimeException {
private Wrapper(Throwable throwable) {
super(throwable);
}
public static Wrapper wrap(Throwable throwable) {
return new Wrapper(throwable);
}
public Throwable unwrap() {
return getCause();
}
}
public static void go() {
CompletableFuture<String> a = CompletableFuture.supplyAsync(() -> {
try {
throw new Exception("Just because");
} catch (Exception ex) {
throw Wrapper.wrap(ex);
}
});
a.join();
}
And then you could unwrap that..
try {
go();
} catch (Wrapper w) {
throw w.unwrap();
}
Related
Below is exception handling java code using CompletableFuture.
I intentionally raise InvalidParameterException in the subthread.
public CompletableFuture<Object> myCompletableFuture() throws CompletionException {
return CompletableFuture.supplyAsync(() -> {
try {
// While doing some tasks...
// InvalidParameterException arises in here...
// ...
});
} catch (Exception e){
throw new CompletionException(e);
}
});
}
(Edited) And above Future is activated by calling whenCompleteAsync.
DeferredResult<Object> myFunc() throws CompletionException {
DeferredResult<Object> deferredResult = new DeferredResult<>();
myCompletableFuture().whenCompleteAsync((result, executor) -> {
if (executor != null) {
deferredResult.setErrorResult(executor);
} else {
deferredResult.setResult(result);
}
});
return deferredResult;
}
What I'v expected:
java.util.concurrent.CompletionException: InvalidParameterException(param:myparam)
Actual:
java.util.concurrent.ExecutionException: InvalidParameterException(param:myparam)
Question:
Why exception wraps ExecutionException instead of CompletionException?
I have 3 methods that I need to run in parallel, since they are independent to each other and combine the results of each one at the end and send it as the response. I need to handle exception as well.
In different post I found the below code and modified accordingly.
public Response getResponse() {
Response resultClass = new Response();
try {
CompletableFuture<Optional<ClassA>> classAFuture
= CompletableFuture.supplyAsync(() -> service.getClassA() );
CompletableFuture<ClassB> classBFuture
= CompletableFuture.supplyAsync(() -> {
try {
return service.getClassB();
}
catch (Exception e) {
throw new CompletionException(e);
}
});
CompletableFuture<ClassC> classCFuture
= CompletableFuture.supplyAsync(() -> {
try {
return service.getClassC();
} catch (Exception e) {
throw new CompletionException(e);
}
});
CompletableFuture<Response> responseFuture =
CompletableFuture.allOf(classAFuture, classBFuture, classCFuture)
.thenApplyAsync(dummy -> {
if (classAFuture.join().isPresent() {
ClassA classA = classAFuture.join();
classA.setClassB(classBFuture.join());
classA.setClassC(classCFuture.join());
response.setClassA(classA)
}
return response;
});
responseFuture.join();
} catch (CompletionExecution e) {
throw e;
}
return response;
}
Should the above run correctly in parallel? I see it takes some more time, and I wanted to make sure I am doing it right.
If you want to run methods in parallel you should use ExecutorService. Try something like that:
ExecutorService myExecutor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(3);
List<Future<Object>> futures = myExecutor.invokeAll(
Arrays.asList(
() -> service.getClassA(),
() -> service.getClassB(),
() -> service.getClassC(),
)
);
myExecutor.shutdown();
The idea is correct, but this all could be done with a lot less code:
public Response getResponse() {
CompletableFuture<Optional<ClassA>> classAFuture = CompletableFuture.supplyAsync(() -> service.getClassA());
CompletableFuture<ClassB> classBFuture = CompletableFuture.supplyAsync(() -> service.getClassB());
CompletableFuture<ClassC> classCFuture = CompletableFuture.supplyAsync(() -> service.getClassC());
try {
return CompletableFuture.allOf(classAFuture, classBFuture, classCFuture)
.thenApply(() -> {
Response response = new Response();
Optional<ClassA> maybeA = classAFuture.get();
if (maybeA.isPresent()) {
ClassA classA = maybeA.get();
classA.setClassB(classBFuture.get());
classA.setClassC(classCFuture.get());
response.setClassA(classA);
}
return response;
}).get();
} catch (ExecutionException e) { // Ususally the exception is wrapped to ExecutionException by java concurrency framework itself
Throwable cause = e.getCause();
if (cause != null) {
throw cause;
} else {
throw e;
}
}
}
Main things:
You don't need to wrap your exceptions to CompletionException.
You don't need to use thenApplyAsync. Just thenApply is the same thing unless you want to be very specific on the type of thread you want to use. Check this for more information https://stackoverflow.com/a/47489654/3020903
You don't need to join() anything. By the time CompletableFuture.all has finished, you can be very sure that all the supplied jobs have finished and calling get() on then will just return the value.
As for can you be sure jobs A, B and C will be run in parallel. Yes and no. It will be run in parallel if there are enough system resources to run them in parallel. You have done your best to ask them to run in parallel. Maybe at some point you also want to supply your custom thread pool to have more control, but that's a topic for another day.
I'm struggling with the functional style of Supplier<U>, etc and creating testable code.
So I have an InputStream that is split into chunks which are processed asynchronously, and I want to know when they are all done. To write testable code, I outsource the processing logic to its own Runnable:
public class StreamProcessor {
public CompletableFuture<Void> process(InputStream in) {
List<CompletableFuture> futures = new ArrayList<>();
while (true) {
try (SizeLimitInputStream chunkStream = new SizeLimitInputStream(in, 100)) {
byte[] data = IOUtils.toByteArray(chunkStream);
CompletableFuture<Void> f = CompletableFuture.runAsync(createTask(data));
futures.add(f);
} catch (EOFException ex) {
// end of stream reached
break;
} catch (IOException ex) {
return CompletableFuture.failedFuture(ex);
}
}
return CompletableFuture.allOf(futures.toArray(CompletableFuture<?>[]::new));
}
ChunkTask createTask(byte[] data) {
return new ChunkTask(data);
}
public class ChunkTask implements Runnable {
final byte[] data;
ChunkTask(byte[] data) {
this.data = data;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
// do something
} catch (Exception ex) {
// checked exceptions must be wrapped
throw new RuntimeException(ex);
}
}
}
}
This works well, but poses two problems:
The processing code cannot return anything; it's a Runnable after all.
Any checked exceptions caught inside ChunkTask.run() must be wrapped into a RuntimeException. Unwrapping the failed combined CompletableFuture returns the RuntimeException which needs to be unwrapped again to reach the original cause - in contrast to the IOException.
So I'm looking for a way to do this with CompletableFuture.supplyAsync(), but I can't figure out how to do this without lambdas (bad to test) or to return a CompletableFuture.failedFuture() from the processing logic.
I can think of two approaches:
1. With supplyAsync:
When using CompletableFuture.supplyAsync, you need a supplier instead of a runnable:
public static class ChunkTask implements Supplier<Object> {
final byte[] data;
ChunkTask(byte[] data) {
this.data = data;
}
#Override
public Object get() {
Object result = ...;
// Do something or throw an exception
return result;
}
}
and then:
CompletableFuture
.supplyAsync( new ChunkTask( data ) )
.whenComplete( (result, throwable) -> ... );
If an exception happens in Supplier.get(), it will b e propagated and you can see it in CompletableFuture.whenComplete, CompletableFuture.handle or CompletableFuture.exceptionally.
2. Passing a CompletableFuture to the thread
You can pass a CompletableFuture to ChunkTask:
public class ChunkTask implements Runnable {
final byte[] data;
private final CompletableFuture<Object> future;
ChunkTask(byte[] data, CompletableFuture<Object> future) {
this.data = data;
this.future = future;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
Object result = null;
// do something
future.complete( result );
} catch (Throwable ex) {
future.completeExceptionally( ex );
}
}
}
Then the logic becomes:
while (true) {
CompletableFuture<Object> f = new CompletableFuture<>();
try (SizeLimitInputStream chunkStream = new SizeLimitInputStream(in, 100)) {
byte[] data = IOUtils.toByteArray(chunkStream);
startThread(new ChunkTask(data, f));
futures.add(f);
} catch (EOFException ex) {
// end of stream reached
break;
} catch (IOException ex) {
f.completeExceptionally( ex );
return f;
}
}
Probably, Number 2 is the one that gives you more flexibility on how to manage the exception.
Having a hard time to do a reliable retry of a background task which sends request to let's say mail service in order to get latest emails. Once emails successfully received the execution should continue in thenAccept() block - persist emails, however if exception occurs I have to rerun mail retrieval until successful attempt and on success should persist mails and stop. Please take a look and advice if I do it wrong.
private void retrieveMailsAsync(User user) {
CompletableFuture.supplyAsync(() -> {
try {
return mailService.getEmails(user.getName(), user.getPassword());
} catch (InvalidAuthentication | TimeoutException | BadGatewayException e) {
throw new CompletionException(e);
}
}).thenAccept(email -> {
mailService.persist(email);
}).exceptionally(ex -> {
log.log(Level.SEVERE, "Exception retrieveMailsAsync emails, Retrying retrieveMailsAsync:: ", ex.getCause());
retrieveMailsAsync(user);
return null;
});
}
P.S please also take a look at how I'm handling checked exception wrapping it into CompletionException and rethrowing - the main idea here to handle all exceptions (defined checked and runtime) in one exceptionally() block rather than logging them in catch block and return null.
Thanks guys in advance, hope I'm not doing pretty stupid stuff, or at least there is already reliable solutions exists for Java 8.
What I meant in my comment was this:
private void retrieveMailsAsync(User user) {
CompletableFuture.supplyAsync(() -> {
while (continueQuery()) { // true for infinite retries, or some other logic
try {
return mailService.getEmails(user.getName(), user.getPassword());
} catch (InvalidAuthentication | TimeoutException | BadGatewayException e) {
log.log(Level.SEVERE, "Exception retrieveMailsAsync emails, Retrying retrieveMailsAsync: ", e);
}
}
return null;
}).thenAccept(email -> {
mailService.persist(email);
});
}
Ie you just retry in the submitted runnable until you don't get an exception anymore.
I think you can achieve that via :
public static void main(String[] args) {
String result = call(new User().setName("name").setPassword("p")).join();
System.out.println(result);
}
private static CompletableFuture<String> call(User user) {
CompletableFuture<String> future = CompletableFuture.supplyAsync(() -> retrieveMailsAsync(user));
return future.handleAsync((String result, Throwable ex) -> {
// or any other Predicate that is satisfied against ex
if(ex != null) {
return call(user);
} else {
return future;
}
}).thenCompose(Function.identity());
}
EDIT
So what stays in your way to change the code above, for example, to:
static ExecutorService service = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(1);
public static void main(String[] args) {
call(new User().setName("name").setPassword("p"))
// chain any other action here, like mailService.persist(email);
.thenAcceptAsync(
System.out::println,
service
);
System.out.println("Continue main thread");
}
private static CompletableFuture<String> call(User user) {
CompletableFuture<String> future = CompletableFuture.supplyAsync(() -> retrieveMailsAsync(user), service);
return future.handleAsync((String result, Throwable ex) -> {
// or any other Predicate that is satisfied against ex
if(ex != null) {
return call(user);
} else {
return future;
}
}).thenCompose(Function.identity());
}
CompletableFuture.supplyAsync(
() -> {
transporter.write(req);
//here take the value from a blocking queue,will throw a interruptedException
return responseQueue.take();
}, executorService);
The common method to deal with interruptedException is either to interrupt again or direct throw interruptedException, but both cannot work. Anyone have the idea?
I change the code like this.
CompletableFuture<Rep> result = new CompletableFuture<>();
CompletableFuture.runAsync(() -> {
transporter.write(req);
try {
Rep rep = responseQueue.take();
result.complete(rep);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
result.completeExceptionally(e);
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
} catch (Exception e) {
result.completeExceptionally(e);
}
}, executorService);
return result;
I ran into the same question, but after reading more from comments here and reference book I think you can do either one of these two:
1 (what I end up doing):
CompletableFuture.runAsync(() -> {
transporter.write(req);
try {
Rep rep = responseQueue.take();
result.complete(rep);
} catch (Exception e) {
throw new CompletionException(e);
}
}, executorService);
return result;
or 2:
CompletableFuture<Rep> result = new CompletableFuture<>();
new Thread(()-> {
transporter.write(req);
try {
Rep rep = responseQueue.take();
result.complete(rep);
} catch (Exception e) {
result.completeExceptionally(e);
}
}).start();
I know the 2nd one does not use the executorService, but I feel the whole point of using CompletableFuture is utilizing the CompletionStage APIs in functional-style.
#antak mentioned it buried in a comment, but I think the correct answer here is:
For CompletableFuture.supplyAsync() wrap it in java.util.concurrent.CompletionException and rethrow it.
So the sample code would look something like:
CompletableFuture.supplyAsync(
() -> {
transporter.write(req);
try {
//here take the value from a blocking queue,will throw a interruptedException
return responseQueue.take();
}
catch (InterruptedException e) {
throw new CompletionException(e);
}
}, executorService);
As lambda functions don't support throwing exceptions, I think Java developers will need a new paradigm. One thing that comes to mind is as follows:
public class ResultWrapper<R, E extends Exception> {
E exception;
R result;
}
Lambda functions can return instances of this wrapper. (Edit: your case)
CompletableFuture<ResultWrapper<String, InterruptedException>> aFuture = ...;
...
aFuture.supplyAsync(
() -> {
try {
transporter.write(req);
} catch(InterruptedException e) {
ResultWrapper<String, InterruptedException> r = new ResultWrapper<>();
r.exception = e;
r.result = null;
return r;
}
...
}, executorService);