when i execute the following code Amazon.DynamoDBv2.Model.ConditionalCheckFailedException is not catching.
Button click
public DelegateCommand SaveCommand
{
get
{
_SaveCommand = new DelegateCommand(async (arg) => { await
this.SaveCommandExecuted(arg); }, this.SaveCommandCanExecute);
return _SaveCommand;
}
set
{
_SaveCommand = value;
OnPropertyChanged("SaveCommand");
}
}
Save method content
public async Task SaveCommandExecuted(object parameter)
{
try
{
await PatientDataSource.Instance.SavePatient(Patient);
}
catch (Amazon.DynamoDBv2.Model.ConditionalCheckFailedException ex)
{
Exception = ex.Message;
}
}
Database operation method
public async Task SavePatient(Patient patient)
{
var context = CommonUtils.Instance.DynamoDBContext;
try
{
patient.PatientId = 1;
await context.SaveAsync<Patient>(patient);
}
catch(Amazon.DynamoDBv2.Model.ConditionalCheckFailedException ex)
{
throw ex;
}
}
can anyone please advice.
DynamoDBContext (the equivalent of DynamoDBMapper in the .NET SDK) conditions on the version attribute of the ORM object, in your your case, that is the Patient class, and on anything else in DynamoDBOperationConfig. The fact that you are unable to catch ConditionalCheckFailedException suggests that you do not have concurrent writes happening on the same patient. Please see this post as well for details.
Related
I have a .NET appplication where there is a controller for receiving user requests, a service Service 1 which calls another service Service 2.
I have some code in the Service 2 where I query the database(DynamoDB) and get a 500 error in response when the user request values are incorrect. I want to handle this such that I catch this error/exception and send back the error message along with a 400 status code from the controller to the user. How should I modify the code to do this?
This is what I have tried. Currently, I'm just printing the error in Service 1 but I need to send it to the controller. Is sending the error message to the controller by throwing exceptions along the way the right way to do it?
The below code is similar to the actual code
Controller:
[HttpGet]
[Authorize(Policy = "Read-Entity")]
[Route("byParams/{param1}/{param2}")]
[Produces(typeof(DynamoResult<EntityResponse>))]
public async Task<IActionResult> ListByParams([FromQuery] DynamoQuery entityQuery)
{
try
{
return await HandleRequest(async () =>
{
return Ok((await _entityStore.ListByParams(entityQuery)));
});
}
catch (Exception e)
{
return BadRequest(e.Message);
}
}
Service 1:
public async Task<DynamoResult<EntityResponse>> ListByParams(DynamoQuery entityQuery)
{
results = new DynamoResult<Entity>();
try {
results = await GetPagedQueryResults(entityQuery);
}
catch (Exception e) {
Console.WriteLine(e);
}
return new DynamoResult<EntityResponse>
{
Data = results.Data.Select(_mapper.Map<EntityResponse>).ToList(),
};
}
Service 2:
private async Task<DynamoResult<TResponse>> GetPagedQueryResults(DynamoQuery query)
{
var results = new List<Document>();
try{
results = await search.GetNextSetAsync();
}
catch(Exception e){
throw new PaginationTokenException(e.Message);
}
return results;
}
[Serializable]
public class PaginationTokenException : Exception
{
public PaginationTokenException() { }
public PaginationTokenException(string message)
: base(message) {
throw new Exception(message);
}
public PaginationTokenException(string message, Exception inner)
: base(message, inner) { }
}
Assuming you want to hide implementation details from the controller (i.e. you don't want the controller to know/care that it's DynamoDB), I would create a custom exception and throw that from Service1.
Service1 would look something like this:
public async Task<DynamoResult<EntityResponse>> ListByParams(DynamoQuery entityQuery)
{
results = new DynamoResult<Entity>();
try {
results = await GetPagedQueryResults(entityQuery);
}
catch (Exception e) {
throw new MyCustomException('My error message', e);
}
return new DynamoResult<EntityResponse>
{
Data = results.Data.Select(_mapper.Map<EntityResponse>).ToList(),
};
}
In the controller you can then capture that exception explicitly:
[HttpGet]
[Authorize(Policy = "Read-Entity")]
[Route("byParams/{param1}/{param2}")]
[Produces(typeof(DynamoResult<EntityResponse>))]
public async Task<IActionResult> ListByParams([FromQuery] DynamoQuery entityQuery)
{
try
{
return await HandleRequest(async () =>
{
return Ok((await _entityStore.ListByParams(entityQuery)));
});
}
catch (MyCustomException e)
{
return BadRequest(e.Message);
}
}
I am working with Azure Event Hub producer client and reading messages off of a kafka stream then pass it along to deserialize/map, then pass to Event Hub. I have the consume loop which is creating a task for each consume and then two methods to do processing(this seems to have greatly improved the speed from the kafka lag perspective. However, Event hub makes you create an event batch which I don't necessarily want to use. I just want to send the data one message at a time for now. In order to create a new batch I have to call Dispose(). I am running into an issue where there's another call to the function by the the time I call Dispose() and I get an error saying the object is being used by event hub.
I've also tried using the overload for eventHubProducerClient.SendAsync that allows you to pass in a IEnumerable but i'm running into the same issue with that.
So I believe this to be a synchronization issue, or maybe I need to do a lock somewhere?
Any help would be appreciated.
public void Execute()
{
using (_consumer)
{
try
{
_consumer.Subscribe(_streamConsumerSettings.Topic);
while (true)
{
var result = _consumer.Consume(1000);
if (result == null)
{
continue;
}
var process = Task.Factory.StartNew(() => ProcessMessage(result?.Message?.Value));
var send = process.ContinueWith(t => SendMessage(process.Result));
}
}
catch (ConsumeException e)
{
_logger.LogError(e, e.StackTrace ?? e.Message);
_cancelConsume = true;
_consumer.Close();
RestartConsumer();
}
}
}
public static EquipmentJson ProcessMessage(byte[] result)
{
var json = _messageProcessor.DeserializeAndMap(result);
return json;
}
public static void SendMessage(EquipmentJson message)
{
try
{
_eventHubClient.AddToBatch(message);
}
catch (Exception e)
{
_logger.LogError(e, e.StackTrace ?? e.Message);
}
}
public async Task AddToBatch(EquipmentJson message)
{
if
(!string.IsNullOrEmpty(message.EquipmentLocation))
{
try
{
var batch = await _equipmentLocClient.CreateBatchAsync();
batch.TryAdd(new EventData(Encoding.UTF8.GetBytes(message.EquipmentLocation)));
await _eventHubProducerClient.SendAsync(batch);
batch.Dispose();
_logger.LogInformation($"Data sent {DateTimeOffset.UtcNow}");
}
catch (Exception e)
{
_logger.LogError(e, e.StackTrace ?? e.Message);
}
}
}
public class EventHubClient : IEventHubClient
{
private readonly ILoggerAdapter<EventHubClient> _logger;
private readonly EventHubClientSettings _eventHubClientSettings;
private IMapper _mapper;
private static EventHubProducerClient _equipmentLocClient;
public EventHubClient(ILoggerAdapter<EventHubClient> logger, EventHubClientSettings eventHubClientSettings, IMapper mapper)
{
_logger = logger;
_eventHubClientSettings = eventHubClientSettings;
_mapper = mapper;
_equipmentLocClient = new EventHubProducerClient(_eventHubClientSettings.ConnectionString, _eventHubClientSettings.EquipmentLocation);
}
}
}
Based on my speculation in comments, I'm curious if refactoring to use async/await rather than the explicit continuation in the main loop may help. Perhaps something similar to the following LinqPad snippet:
async Task Main()
{
while (true)
{
var message = await Task.Factory.StartNew(() => GetText());
var events = new[] { new EventData(Encoding.UTF8.GetBytes(message)) };
await Send(events).ConfigureAwait(false);
}
}
public EventHubProducerClient client = new EventHubProducerClient("<< CONNECTION STRING >>");
public async Task Send(EventData[] events)
{
try
{
await client.SendAsync(events).ConfigureAwait(false);
"Sent".Dump();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
ex.Dump();
}
}
public string GetText()
{
Thread.Sleep(250);
return "Test";
}
If you're set on keeping the continuation, I wonder if a slight structural refactoring in the continuation may help, both to push up creation of the events and to honor the await statements. Perhaps something similar to the following LinqPad snippet:
async Task Main()
{
while(true)
{
var t = Task.Factory.StartNew(() => GetText());
var _ = t.ContinueWith(async q =>
{
var events = new[] { new EventData(Encoding.UTF8.GetBytes(t.Result)) };
await Send(events).ConfigureAwait(false);
});
await Task.Yield();
}
}
public EventHubProducerClient client = new EventHubProducerClient("<< CONNECTION STRING >>");
public async Task Send(EventData[] events)
{
try
{
await client.SendAsync(events).ConfigureAwait(false);
"Sent".Dump();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
ex.Dump();
}
}
public string GetText()
{
Thread.Sleep(250);
return "Test";
}
I'm trying to create a service to get all my boxes from the database like this :
[HttpGet]
[Route("GetBoxes/")]
[ResponseType(typeof(ResultQuery))]
public async Task<IHttpActionResult> GetBoxes()
{
try
{
var boxes = db.Boxes.ToList<Box>();
foreach (Box in boxes)
{
status.Add(GetBox(box));
}
return Ok(ConvertToResultQuery(boxes));
}
catch (Exception e)
{
return InternalServerError(e);
}
}
public GenericBox GetBox(Box box)
{
try
{
//Do a lot of stuff with the database
return genericBox;
}
catch (Exception e)
{
return null;
}
}
public static ResultQuery ConvertToResultQuery(object result)
{
return new ResultQuery(result);
}
Where ResultQuery has just one object attribute containing the result of my service.
The service is simple but for some reason it gives me this error when I try it in postman :
An asynchronous module or handler completed while an asynchronous operation was still pending.
VisualStudio also gives me a warning advising to use await but I don't understand where I should put it.
Your GetBoxes method is an async method, but your GetBox is not.
You say that you are doing db work inside the GetBox method but everything in that method is running synchronously. Consider changing the signature of GetBox to:
public async Task<GenericBox> GetBox(Box box)
{
try
{
//Do a lot of stuff with the database
//'await' database calls here
return genericBox;
}
catch (Exception e)
{
return null;
}
}
Then in your GetBoxes method change your foreach to a Task.WhenAll() instead:
var result = await Task.WhenAll(boxes.Select(x => GetBox(x)));
The result variable will be a Task
If you do not want to mess with Task.WhenAll(), you can simply await the GetBox method inside your loop:
status.Add(await GetBox(box));
public async Task<ActionResult> Index()
{
var service = new CoreServiceFactory().GetImpersonatingService();
try
{
var data = new Impersonation()
{
ImpersonatingId = "dac733c3-01ad-447b-b0df-3a7c21fef90b",
UserId = "dac733c3-01ad-447b-b0df-3a7c21fef90b"
};
var imp = await service.Add(data);
}catch(Exception ex) { throw ex; }
return View();
}
Above is one of my controllers action method. And this works fine when the insertion is successful. This should fail if the data already exists in database(unique constraints). So when i intentionally try to make it fail(i manually add the same record in the db and then try to add it again via this action method) the action method goes into a loop or something, the exception is never thrown , chrome keeps me showing me the loading icon , looks like it went into some deadlock state. Can someone please help me understand why it goes into deadlock state when exception is thrown and how can i handle it?
Below are the reference methods
service.Add(data)
public async Task<Impersonation> Add(Impersonation t)
{
if (ValidateData(t))
{
using (var uow = GetUnitOfWork())
{
var r = GetRepository(uow);
var item = r.Add(t);
try
{
var ret = await uow.Save();
if (ret > 0)
{
return item;
}
else
{
return null;
}
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
throw ex;
}
}
}
else
{
throw new ValidationException(null, "error");
}
}
uow.Save()
public class BaseUnitOfWork : IUnitOfWork
{
public DbContext _Context { get; private set; }
public BaseUnitOfWork(DbContext context)
{
this._Context = context;
}
public async Task<int> Save()
{
try
{
var ret = await this._Context.SaveChangesAsync();
return ret;
}catch(Exception ex)
{
throw ex;
}
}
}
Here is my suggestion: in uow.Save, log the error in the catch block and return zero (do not throw any exceptions).
public class BaseUnitOfWork : IUnitOfWork
{
public DbContext _Context { get; private set; }
public BaseUnitOfWork(DbContext context)
{
this._Context = context;
}
public async Task<int> Save()
{
try
{
var ret = await this._Context.SaveChangesAsync();
return ret;
}catch(Exception ex)
{
// log the error here
return 0;
}
}
}
I'm not sure if returning the null in the Add service is a good idea or not, you might need to handle that differently too.
I'm new to TPL.
I need to handle exception when the SendEmailAlert() method throws any error.Is the following code correct please?
public Task MyMethod()
{
DoSomething();
try
{
string emailBody = "TestBody";
string emailSubject = "TestSubject";
Task.Run(()=> SendEmailAlert(arrEmailInfo));
}
catch (AggregateException ex)
{
ex.Handle((e) =>
{
log.Error("Error occured while sending email...", e);
return true;
}
);
}
}
private void SendEmailAlert(string[] arrEmailInfo)
{
MyClassX.SendAlert(arrEmailnfo[0], arrEmailnfo[1]);
}
I forced an error from within SendEmailAlert() method.But the exception is not getting caught. Could someone advise?
Thanks.
Your Task.Run runs in a different context (you would need a try/catch inside it; or check if the task is done). You could change to use async/await.
Example:
public async void MyMethod()
{
try
{
await ExceptionMethod();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
// got it
}
}
public async Task ExceptionMethod()
{
throw new Exception();
}