I am using Spring-Cloud-netflix library.
I wonder if there is a way to take this code and add configure it instead of executing the fallback method right away to retry to execute it N times and in case of N times than execute the fallback method:
#HystrixCommand(fallbackMethod = "defaultInvokcation")
public String getRemoteBro(String name) {
return(executeRemoteService(name));
}
private String defaultInvokcation(String name) {
return "something";
}
Thanks,
ray.
From my comment:
Handle this behavior in your code. It's not the job of hystrix to know your "special" business logic. As an example
private final static int MAX_RETRIES = 5;
#HystrixCommand(fallbackMethod = "defaultInvokcation")
public String getRemoteBro(String name) {
return(executeRemoteService(name));
}
private String executeRemoteService(String serviceName) {
for (int i = 0; i < MAX_RETRIES; i++) {
try {
return reallyExecuteRemoteService(serviceName);
} catch (ServiceException se) {
// handle or log execption
}
}
throw new RuntimeException("bam");
}
Don't know if you prefer to use an exception inside the loop ;) You could also wrap your answer from reallyExecuteRemoteServicein some kind of ServiceReturnMessage with a status code.
Related
I write selenium tests and make it parallel via testng.
There are some tests which should use resource, and that resource cant be used in tests, while it using in another test.
So to make it clear let me describe in other words, I have 10 resources, and when some test start working with one of them, only 9 another resources should be available in another tests. If all 10 resources are busy, and another test attempts to get it, it should wait until one of test will finish execution and free it's resource.
Im trying to create provider which will control desired behaviour but it looks like I get deadlocks, because it hangs out some times at synchronized method call.
My plan is provider have 2 methods get() and remove()
get() called in test method to get resource
remove() called in method annotated with #AfterMethod annotation and this method is default method of specific interface which should be implemented in class, containing resource usage
Here is provider class:
public class ResourceProvider {
private static final Logger logger = LogManager.getLogger();
private static List<Resource> freeResources;
private static Map<String, List<Resource>> resourcesInUse;
static {
freeResources = new ArrayList<>();
//here is resource initialization to fill freeResources list
resourcesInUse = new HashMap<>();
}
public static synchronized Resource get() {
String testName = Thread.currentThread().getStackTrace()[2].getClassName()
+ "." + Thread.currentThread().getStackTrace()[2].getMethodName();
Resource resource = null;
logger.info(String.format("Attempt to get resource for %s test", testName));
for (int i = 0; i < 240; i++) {
if (freeResources.isEmpty()) {
try {
Thread.sleep(5_000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
} else {
resource = freeResources.get(0);
if (resourcesInUse.containsKey(testName)) {
resourcesInUse.get(testName).add(resource);
} else {
List<Resource> resources = new ArrayList<>();
resources.add(resource);
resourcesInUse.put(testName, resources);
}
freeResources.remove(resource);
break;
}
}
if (resource == null) {
throw new RuntimeException(String.format("There is no free resource for '%s' in 20 minutes", testName));
}
logger.info(String.format("Resource %s used in %s", resource, testName));
return resource;
}
public static synchronized boolean remove(ITestResult result) {
String testName = result.getMethod().getTestClass().getName() + "." + result.getMethod().getMethodName();
return remove(testName);
}
public static synchronized boolean remove(String testName) {
boolean isTestUseResource = resourcesInUse.containsKey(testName);
if (isTestUseResource) {
logger.info(String.format("Removing %s resources, used in %s", resourcesInUse.get(testName), testName));
freeResources.addAll(resourcesInUse.get(testName));
resourcesInUse.remove(testName);
}
return isTestUseResource;
}
Interface:
public interface RemoveResource {
#AfterMethod
default void removeResource(ITestResult result) {
ResourceProvider.remove(result);
}
But this code doesnt work good, it hangs out at remove() call sometimes.
May you help me to understand why I get hangs out and how to resolve it?
I am testing Hystrix CircuitBreaker implementation. This is how command class looks like:
public class CommandOne extends HystrixCommand<String>
{
private MyExternalService service;
public static int runCount = 0;
public CommandGetPunterUnpayoutExternalBets(MyExternalServoce service)
{
super(Setter.withGroupKey(HystrixCommandGroupKey.Factory.asKey("AAA"))
.andThreadPoolPropertiesDefaults(
HystrixThreadPoolProperties.Setter().
.withMetricsRollingStatisticalWindowInMilliseconds(10000))
.andCommandPropertiesDefaults(HystrixCommandProperties.Setter()
.withCircuitBreakerEnabled(true)
.withCircuitBreakerErrorThresholdPercentage(20)
.withCircuitBreakerRequestVolumeThreshold(10)
.withExecutionTimeoutInMilliseconds(30)
.withCircuitBreakerSleepWindowInMilliseconds(100000)));
this.service = service;
}
#Override
protected String run()
{
run++;
return service.callMethod();
}
#Override
protected String getFallback()
{
return "default;
}
}
Command is called like this:
public class AnotherClass
{
private MyExternalServoce service;
public String callCmd()
{
CommandOne command = new CommandOne(service);
return command.execute();
}
}
In test I perform next steps:
#Test
public void test()
{
AnotherClass anotherClass = new AnotherClass();
// stubbing exception on my service
when(service.callMethod()).thenThrow(new RuntimeException());
for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
{
anotherClass.callCmd();
}
System.out.println("Run method was called times = " + CommandOne.runCount);
}
What I expect with the configuration of command given: MyExternalService.callMethod() should be called 10 times (RequestVolumeThreshold) and after that not being called 100000 ms (long time). In my test case I expect that CommandOne.runCount = 10.
But in reality I am getting from 150 to 200 calls of MyExternalService.callMethod() (CommandOne.runCount = (150-200). Why does it happening? What I did wrong?
According to Hystrix docs health snapshot will be taken once per 500ms ( by default ). Which means that everything what happens with hystrix during first 500ms will not affect circuit breaker status. In your example you got random value of runCount because each time your machine executed random value of requests per 500 ms, and only after that time interval circuit state was updated and closed.
Please take a look on a bit simplified example:
public class CommandOne extends HystrixCommand<String> {
private String content;
public static int runCount = 0;
public CommandOne(String s) {
super(Setter.withGroupKey
(HystrixCommandGroupKey.Factory.asKey("SnapshotIntervalTest"))
.andCommandPropertiesDefaults(
HystrixCommandProperties.Setter()
.withCircuitBreakerSleepWindowInMilliseconds(500000)
.withCircuitBreakerRequestVolumeThreshold(9)
.withMetricsHealthSnapshotIntervalInMilliseconds(50)
.withMetricsRollingStatisticalWindowInMilliseconds(100000)
)
);
this.content = s;
}
#Override
public String run() throws Exception {
Thread.sleep(100);
runCount++;
if ("".equals(content)) {
throw new Exception();
}
return content;
}
#Override
protected String getFallback() {
return "FAILURE-" + content;
}
}
#Test
void test() {
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
CommandOne commandOne = new CommandOne();
commandOne.execute();
}
Assertions.assertEquals(10, CommandOne.runCount);
}
In this example I've added:
withMetricsHealthSnapshotIntervalInMilliseconds(50) to allow hystrix to take snapshots each 50ms.
Thread.sleep(100); to make requests a bit slower, without it they will be faster then 50 ms and we will face initial issue.
Despite of all these modifications I've seen some random failures. After this I came to conclusion that testing hystrix like this is not a good idea. Instead of it we could use:
1) Fallback/Success flow behavior by manually setting open/close circuit state.
2) Configuration tests
I have a task to get "StackOverflowError" in java without using -Xss and recursion. I really don't have ideas... Only some nonsense like generating huge java class at runtime, compile it and invoke...
Java stores primitive types on the stack. Objects created in local scope are allocated on the heap, with the reference to them on the stack.
You can overflow the stack without recursion by allocating too many primitive types in method scope. With normal stack size settings, you would have to allocate an excessive number of variables to overflow.
Here is the implementation of Eric J. idea of generating excessive number of local variables using javassist library:
class SoeNonRecursive {
static final String generatedMethodName = "holderForVariablesMethod";
#SneakyThrows
Class<?> createClassWithLotsOfLocalVars(String generatedClassName, final int numberOfLocalVarsToGenerate) {
ClassPool pool = ClassPool.getDefault();
CtClass generatedClass = pool.makeClass(generatedClassName);
CtMethod generatedMethod = CtNewMethod.make(getMethodBody(numberOfLocalVarsToGenerate), generatedClass);
generatedClass.addMethod(generatedMethod);
return generatedClass.toClass();
}
private String getMethodBody(final int numberOfLocalVarsToGenerate) {
StringBuilder methodBody = new StringBuilder("public static long ")
.append(generatedMethodName).append("() {")
.append(System.lineSeparator());
StringBuilder antiDeadCodeEliminationString = new StringBuilder("long result = i0");
long i = 0;
while (i < numberOfLocalVarsToGenerate) {
methodBody.append(" long i").append(i)
.append(" = ").append(i).append(";")
.append(System.lineSeparator());
antiDeadCodeEliminationString.append("+").append("i").append(i);
i++;
}
antiDeadCodeEliminationString.append(";");
methodBody.append(" ").append(antiDeadCodeEliminationString)
.append(System.lineSeparator())
.append(" return result;")
.append(System.lineSeparator())
.append("}");
return methodBody.toString();
}
}
and tests:
class SoeNonRecursiveTest {
private final SoeNonRecursive soeNonRecursive = new SoeNonRecursive();
//Should be different for every case, or once generated class become
//"frozen" for javassist: http://www.javassist.org/tutorial/tutorial.html#read
private String generatedClassName;
#Test
void stackOverflowWithoutRecursion() {
generatedClassName = "Soe1";
final int numberOfLocalVarsToGenerate = 6000;
assertThrows(StackOverflowError.class, () -> soeNonRecursive
.createClassWithLotsOfLocalVars(generatedClassName, numberOfLocalVarsToGenerate));
}
#SneakyThrows
#Test
void methodGeneratedCorrectly() {
generatedClassName = "Soe2";
final int numberOfLocalVarsToGenerate = 6;
Class<?> generated = soeNonRecursive.createClassWithLotsOfLocalVars(generatedClassName, numberOfLocalVarsToGenerate);
//Arithmetic progression
long expected = Math.round((numberOfLocalVarsToGenerate - 1.0)/2 * numberOfLocalVarsToGenerate);
long actual = (long) generated.getDeclaredMethod(generatedMethodName).invoke(generated);
assertEquals(expected, actual);
}
}
EDIT:
The answer is incorrect, because it is one type of recursion. It is called indirect recursion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursion_(computer_science)#Indirect_recursion.
I think the simplest way to do this without recursion is the following:
import java.util.LinkedList;
import java.util.List;
interface Handler {
void handle(Chain chain);
}
interface Chain {
void process();
}
class FirstHandler implements Handler {
#Override
public void handle(Chain chain) {
System.out.println("first handler");
chain.process();
}
}
class SecondHandler implements Handler {
#Override
public void handle(Chain chain) {
System.out.println("second handler");
chain.process();
}
}
class Runner implements Chain {
private List<Handler> handlers;
private int size = 5000; // change this parameter to avoid stackoverflowerror
private int n = 0;
public static void main(String[] args) {
Runner runner = new Runner();
runner.setHandlers();
runner.process();
}
private void setHandlers() {
handlers = new LinkedList<>();
int i = 0;
while (i < size) {
// there can be different implementations of handler interface
handlers.add(new FirstHandler());
handlers.add(new SecondHandler());
i += 2;
}
}
public void process() {
if (n < size) {
Handler handler = handlers.get(n++);
handler.handle(this);
}
}
}
At first glance this example looks a little crazy, but it's not as unrealistic as it seems.
The main idea of this approach is the chain of responsibility pattern. You can reproduce this exception in real life by implementing chain of responsibility pattern. For instance, you have some objects and every object after doing some logic call the next object in chain and pass the results of his job to the next one.
You can see this in java filter (javax.servlet.Filter).
I don't know detailed mechanism of working this class, but it calls the next filter in chain using doFilter method and after all filters/servlets processing request, it continue working in the same method below doFilter.
In other words it intercepts request/response before servlets and before sending response to a client.It is dangerous piece of code because all called methods are in the same stack at the same thread. Thus, it may initiate stackoverflow exception if the chain is too big or you call doFilter method on deep level that also provide the same situation. Perhaps, during debugging you might see chain of calls
in one thread and it potentially can be the cause of stackoverflowerror.
Also you can take chain of responsibility pattern example from links below and add collection of elements instead of several and you also will get stackoverflowerror.
Links with the pattern:
https://www.journaldev.com/1617/chain-of-responsibility-design-pattern-in-java
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain-of-responsibility_pattern
I hope it was helpful for you.
Since the question is very interesting, I have tried to simplify the answer of hide :
public class Stackoverflow {
static class Handler {
void handle(Chain chain){
chain.process();
System.out.println("yeah");
}
}
static class Chain {
private List<Handler> handlers = new ArrayList<>();
private int n = 0;
private void setHandlers(int count) {
int i = 0;
while (i++ < count) {
handlers.add(new Handler());
}
}
public void process() {
if (n < handlers.size()) {
Handler handler = handlers.get(n++);
handler.handle(this);
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Chain chain = new Chain();
chain.setHandlers(10000);
chain.process();
}
}
It's important to note that if stackoverflow occurs, the string "yeah" will never be output.
Of course we can do it :) . No recursion at all!
public static void main(String[] args) {
throw new StackOverflowError();
}
Looking at this answer below, not sure if this works for Java, but sounds like you can declare an array of pointers? Might be able to achieve Eric J's idea without requiring a generator.
Is it on the Stack or Heap?
int* x[LARGENUMBER]; // The addresses are held on the stack
int i; // On the stack
for(i = 0; i < LARGENUMBER; ++i)
x[i] = malloc(sizeof(int)*10); // Allocates memory on the heap
I need to write the logic with many conditions(up to 30 conditions) in one set of rule with many if else conditions and it could end in between or after all the conditions.
Here is the sample code I have tried with some possible scenario. This gives me result but doesn't look good and any minor miss in one condition would take forever to track.
What I have tried so far is, Take out common conditions and refactored to some methods. Tried creating interface with conditions and various set would implement it.
If you have any suggestion to design this, would help me. Not looking for detailed solution but even a hint would be great.
private Boolean RunCondition(Input input) {
Boolean ret=false;
//First if
if(input.a.equals("v1")){
//Somelogic1();
//Second if
if(input.b.equals("v2"))
//Third if
if(input.c >1)
//Fourth if
//Somelogic2();
//Go fetch key Z1 from database and see if d matches.
if(input.d.equals("Z1"))
System.out.println("Passed 1");
// Fourth Else
else{
System.out.println("Failed at fourth");
}
//Third Else
else{
if(input.aa.equals("v2"))
System.out.println("Failed at third");
}
//Second Else
else{
if(input.bb.equals("v2"))
System.out.println("Failed at second");
}
}
//First Else
else{
if(input.cc.equals("v2"))
System.out.println("Failed aat first");
}
return ret;
}
public class Input {
String a;
String b;
int c;
String d;
String e;
String aa;
String bb;
String cc;
String dd;
String ee;
}
The flow is complicated because you have a normal flow, plus many possible exception flows when some of the values are exceptional (e.g. invalid).
This is a perfect candidate to be handled using a try/catch/finally block.
Your program can be rewritten into following:
private Boolean RunCondition(Input input) {
Boolean ret=false;
try {
//First if
if(!input.a.equals("v1")) {
throw new ValidationException("Failed aat first");
}
//Somelogic1();
//Second if
if(!input.b.equals("v2")) {
throw new ValidationException("Failed at second");
}
//Somelogic2()
//Third if
if(input.c<=1) {
throw new ValidationException("Failed at third");
}
//Fourth if
//Somelogic2();
//Go fetch key Z1 from database and see if d matches.
if(!input.d.equals("Z1")) {
throw new ValidationException("Failed at fourth");
}
System.out.println("Passed 1");
} catch (ValidationException e) {
System.out.println(e.getMessage());
}
return ret;
}
Where you can define your own ValidationException (like below), or you can reuse some of the existing standard exception such as RuntimeException
class ValidationException extends RuntimeException {
public ValidationException(String arg0) {
super(arg0);
// TODO Auto-generated constructor stub
}
/**
*
*/
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
}
You can read more about this in
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/essential/exceptions/index.html
Make a separate class for the condition:
package com.foo;
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.Arrays;
import java.util.List;
public class App
{
static class Condition<T> {
final int idx;
final T compareValue;
public Condition(final int idx, final T compareValue) {
this.idx = idx;
this.compareValue = compareValue;
}
boolean satisfies(final T other) {
return other.equals(compareValue);
}
int getIdx() {
return idx;
}
}
public static void main( String[] args )
{
final List<Condition<String>> conditions = new ArrayList<Condition<String>>();
conditions.add(new Condition<String>(1, "v1"));
conditions.add(new Condition<String>(2, "v2"));
final List<String> inputs = new ArrayList<String>(Arrays.asList("v1", "xyz"));
boolean ret = true;
for (int i = 0; i < inputs.size(); i++) {
if (!conditions.get(i).satisfies(inputs.get(i)))
{
System.out.println("failed at " + conditions.get(i).getIdx());
ret = false;
break;
}
}
System.out.println("ret=" + ret);
}
}
#leeyuiwah's answer has a clear structure of the conditional logic, but exceptions aren't the right tool for the job here.
You shouldn't use exceptions to cope with non-exceptional conditions. For one thing, exceptions are really expensive to construct, because you have to walk all the way up the call stack to construct the stack trace; but you don't need the stack trace at all.
Check out Effective Java 2nd Ed Item 57: "Use exceptions only for exceptional conditions" for a detailed discussion of why you shouldn't use exceptions like this.
A simpler option is to define a little helper method:
private static boolean printAndReturnFalse(String message) {
System.out.println(message);
return false;
}
Then:
if(!input.a.equals("v1")) {
return printAndReturnFalse("Failed aat first");
}
// etc.
which I think is a simpler; and it'll be a lot faster.
Think of each rule check as an object, or as a Strategy that returns whether or not the rule passes. Each check should implement the same IRuleCheck interface and return a RuleCheckResult, which indicates if the check passed or the reason for failure.
public interface IRuleCheck
{
public RuleCheckResult Check(Input input);
public String Name();
}
public class RuleCheckResult
{
private String _errorMessage;
public RuleCheckResult(){}//All Good
public RuleCheckResult(String errorMessage)
{
_errorMessage = errorMessage;
}
public string ErrorMessage()
{
return _errorMessage;
}
public Boolean Passed()
{
return _errorMessage == null || _errorMessage.isEmpty();
}
}
public class CheckOne implements IRuleCheck
{
public RuleCheckResult Check(Input input)
{
if (input.d.equals("Z1"))
{
return new RuleCheckResult();//passed
}
return new RuleCheckResult("d did not equal z1");
}
public String Name();
}
Then you can simply build a list of rules and loop through them,
and either jump out when one fails, or compile a list of failures.
for (IRuleCheck check : checkList)
{
System.out.println("checking: " + check.Name());
RuleCheckResult result = check.Check(input);
if(!result.Passed())
{
System.out.println("FAILED: " + check.Name()+ " - " + result.ErrorMessage());
//either jump out and return result or add it to failure list to return later.
}
}
And the advantage of using the interface is that the checks can be as complicated or simple as necessary, and you can create arbitrary lists for checking any combination of rules in any order.
hi guys I already searched a lot but weren't really satisfied with what I found. hope it's the right place to ask this question.
I'm doing Java now for a small amount of time (changed from C) and have problems of getting a grip of how to structure my code best for OOP.
let's give a simple example:
If I'm using some predefined strings (let's say e.g. filepaths or error messages) I'm currently creating an own class doing something like:
private static final String libPath = "\\this\\is\\a\\path\\";
private static final String notFoundMessage = "This hasn't been found";
public static String getLibPath() {
return libPath;
}
public static final String getNotFoundMessage() {
return notFoundMessage;
}
...
Would it be better to create a Map, add everything to it and get it by key?
Or am I doing it completely wrong?
Second example:
let's say I return an error string somewhere
public String getSomething() {
if (something != null) {
return something;
} else {
//handle error, return string below
}
return "I HAVE AN ERROR";
}
And anywhere else in my program I'm checking for the return value:
if (!string.equals("I HAVE AN ERROR")) {
//do something
}
else {
// handle error
}
that's obviously a bad way having to change the code twice once the error message changes. and yeah, I could define the error string the same way I'm doing it in the first example but as I'm not satisfied with that one either I'm reaching a dead end.
would be glad to hear some of your suggestions how to properly do OOP !
First example :
private static final String libPath = "\\this\\is\\a\\path\\";
private static final String notFoundMessage = "This hasn't been found";
public static String getLibPath() {
return libPath;
}
public static final String getNotFoundMessage() {
return notFoundMessage;
}
...
In this case, no need to create a Map. That is the right way to do it. Just note that the libPath would be better defined like this :
private static final Path libPath = Paths.get("this", "is", "a", "path");
(The class Path exists since Java 7, current version is Java 8)
Second example:
public String getSomething() {
if (something != null) {
return something;
} else {
//handle error, return string below
}
return "I HAVE AN ERROR";
}
No : Never return error codes in Java. Prefer using an exception.
Example :
public class ElementNotFoundException extends Exception {
...
}
public String getSomething() {
if (something == null) {
throw new ElementNotFoundException();
} else {
return something;
}
}
Then, you handle the exception like this :
try {
myObject.getSomething();
} catch(ElementNotFoundException e) {
//handle error
}
For the first example, take a look at Internationalization: http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/i18n/
You can use statics or maps, but sooner or later you will need to show the messages in several languages.
For the second example, it's better to use Exceptions as they are intended to be used when an abnormal condition (like an error) happens.
Anyway, with Exceptions take care not to use it as flow control structures: Why not use exceptions as regular flow of control?
Here are some examples for handling constants throug out your code:
1. Class
public final class MyConstants {
public static final int ERROR_CODE = -1;
}
if (getSomething() == MyConstants.ERROR_CODE) {
// ...
}
2. Interface
public interface MyConstantsHolder {
int ERROR_CODE = -1;
}
public MyClass implements MyConstantsHolder {
public void myMethod() {
if (getSomething() == ERROR_CODE) {
// ...
}
}
}