We Keep Coding

Trying to understand the nature of consumer queues with RabbitMq

RabbitMq 3.8.5, C# RabbitMqClient v6.1.0, .Net Core 3.1
I feel that I'm misunderstanding something with RabbitMq so I'm looking for clarification:
If I have a client sending a message to an exchange, and there's no consumer on the other side, what is meant to happen?
I had thought that it should sit in a queue until it's picked up, but the issue I've got is that, right now there is no queue on the other end of the exchange (which may well be my issue).
This is my declaration code:
channel.ExchangeDeclare(name, exchangeType, durable, autoDelete);
var queueName = ret._channel.QueueDeclare().QueueName;
channel.ConfirmSelect();
and this is my publisher:
channel.BasicPublish(exchangeName, routingKeyOrTopicName, messageProperties, message);
However doing that gives me one queue name for the outbound exchange, and another for the inbound consumer.
Would someone help this poor idiot out in understanding how this is meant to work? What is the expected behavior if there's no consumer at the other end? I do have an RPC mechanism that does work, but wasn't sure if that's the right way to handle this, or not.
Everything works find if I have my consumer running first, however if I fire up my Consumer after the client, then the messages are lost.
Edit
To further clarify, I've set up a simple RPC type test; I've two Direct Exchanges on the client side, one for the outbound Exchange, and another for the inbound RPC consumer.
Both those have their own queue.
Exchange queue name = amq.gen-fp-J9-TQxOJ7NpePEnIcGQ
Consumer queue name = amq.gen-wDFEJ269QcMsHMbAz-t3uw
When the Consumer app fires up, it declares its own Direct exchange and its own queue.
Consumer queue name = amq.gen-o-1O2uSczjXQDihTbkgeqA
If I do it that way though, the message gets lost.
If I fire up the consumer first then I still get three queues in total, but the messages are handled correctly.
This is the code I use to send my RPC message:
messageProperties.ReplyTo = _rpcResponder._routingKeyOrTopicName;
messageProperties.Type = "rpc";
messageProperties.Priority = priority;
messageProperties.Persistent = persistent;
messageProperties.Headers = headers;
messageProperties.Expiration = "3600000";
Looking at the management GUI, I see that all three queues end up being marked as Exclusive, but I'm not declaring them as such. In fact, I'm not creating any queues myself, rather letting the Client library handle that for me, for example, this is how I define my Consumer:
channel.ExchangeDeclare(name, exchangeType, durable, autoDelete);
var queueName = ret._channel.QueueDeclare().QueueName;
Console.WriteLine($"Consumer queue name = {queueName}");
channel.QueueBind(ret.QueueName, name, routingKeyOrTopicName, new Dictionary<string, object>());

In RabbitMQ, messages stay in queues, but they are published to exchanges. The way to link an exchange to a queue is through bindings (there are some default bindings).
If there are no queues, or the exchange's policy doesn't find any queue to forward the message, the message is lost.
Once a message is in a queue, the message is sent to one of that queue's consumers.
Maybe you're using exclusive queues? These queues get deleted when their declaring connection is gone.

Found the issue: I was allowing the library to generate the queue names rather than using specific ones. This meant that RabbitMq was always having to deal with a shifting target each time.
If I use 'well defined' queue names AND the consumer has fired up at least once to define the queue on RabbitMq, then I do see the message being dropped into the queue and stay there, even though the consumer isn't running.

Conditional deletion of messages from RabbitMQ

I have a couple of queues where certain information is queued. Let us say I have "success" and "failed" queues in which Server side component has continuously written some data to these queues for clients.
Clients read this data and display it on a UI for end users. Now, I have a situation to purge any message in these queues older than 30 days. Clients would then only be able to see only 30 days of information at any point of time.
I have searched a lot and could see some command line options to purge whole queue but could not find a relevant suggestion.
Any help in the right direction is appreciated. Thanks

I don't think this is possible; looks like you're trying to use RabbitMq as data storage instead of message server.
The only way to understand if a message is "older" than 30, is to process the message, and by doing this you are removing the messagge from the queue.
Best thing to do here is to process the messages and store them in a long term storage; then you can implement a deletion policy to eliminate the older elements.
If you really want to go down this path, RabbitMQ implements TTL at queue level or message level; take a look at this: https://www.rabbitmq.com/ttl.html
[As discussed in comments]
To keep the message in the queue you can try to use a NACK instead of ACK as confirmation; this way RabbitMQ will consider the message undelivered and it will try to deliver it again and again. Remember to create a durable queue (https://www.rabbitmq.com/confirms.html).
You can also check this answer: Rabbitmq Ack or Nack, leaving messages on the queue

What happens to Rebus failed messages

In older versions of Rebus you could control the error queue. But now you only have a "inputQueue" in the azure servicebus extender. How can I control the error queue?
Bus = Configure.With(_adapter)
.Transport(t => t.UseAzureServiceBus(ConnectionString, inputQueue /*, errorQueue */))
.Start();
UPDATE: they end up in the "error" queue. I have now messages from different sources in the same (error)queue. So, the question became, can rebus filter out messages where the input queue matches the custom property rbs2-source-queue?

The error queue is still configurable!
You made me realize that this was not something that I had mentioned on the wiki though, so I just went and added it :)
The solution to configuring which error queue to use is pretty simple - check this out:
Configure.With(...)
.Options(b => b.SimpleRetryStrategy(errorQueueAddress: "somewhere_else"))
.(...)
As you have correctly discovered, the rbs2-source-queue header reveals which input queue the message failed too many times in, and therefore it can be used for filtering the failed messages later on. There's no way, though, to only receive those messages that have a specific value in that header.

WMQ: Distributing MQ readers over several machines

I am using WMQ to access an IBM WebSphere MQ on a mainframe - using c#.
We are considering spreading out our service on several machines, and we then need to make sure that two services on two different machines cannot read/get the same MQ message at the same time.
My code for getting messages is this:
var connectionProperties = new Hashtable();
const string transport = MQC.TRANSPORT_MQSERIES_CLIENT;
connectionProperties.Add(MQC.TRANSPORT_PROPERTY, transport);
connectionProperties.Add(MQC.HOST_NAME_PROPERTY, mqServerIP);
connectionProperties.Add(MQC.PORT_PROPERTY, mqServerPort);
connectionProperties.Add(MQC.CHANNEL_PROPERTY, mqChannelName);
_mqManager = new MQQueueManager(mqManagerName, connectionProperties);
var queue = _mqManager.AccessQueue(_queueName, MQC.MQOO_INPUT_SHARED + MQC.MQOO_FAIL_IF_QUIESCING);
var queueMessage = new MQMessage {Format = MQC.MQFMT_STRING};
var queueGetMessageOptions = new MQGetMessageOptions {Options = MQC.MQGMO_WAIT, WaitInterval = 2000};
queue.Get(queueMessage, queueGetMessageOptions);
queue.Close();
_mqManager.Commit();
return queueMessage.ReadString(queueMessage.MessageLength);
Is WebSphere MQ transactional by default, or is there something I need to change in my configuration to enable this?
Or - do I need to ask our mainframe guys to do some of their magic?
Thx

Unless you actively BROWSE the message (ie read it but leave it there with no locks), only one getter will ever be able to 'get' the message. Even without transactionality, MQ will still only deliver the message once... but once delivered its gone
MQ is not transactional 'by default' - you need to get with GMO_SYNCPOINT (MQ transactions) and commit at the connection (MQQueueManager level) if you want transactionality (or integrate with .net transactions is another option)
If you use syncpoint then one getter will get the message, the other will ignore it, but if you subsequently have an issue and rollback, then it is made available to any getter (as you would want). It is this scenario where you might see a message twice, but thats because you aborted the transaction and hence asked for it to be put back to how it was before the get.

I wish I'd found this sooner because the accepted answer is incomplete. MQ provides once and only once delivery of messages as described in the other answer and IBM's documentation. If you have many clients listening on the same queue, MQ will deliver only one copy of the message. This is uncontested.
That said, MQ, or any other async messaging for that matter, must deal with session handling and ambiguous outcomes. The affect of these factors is such that any async messaging application should be designed to gracefully handle dupe messages.
Consider an application putting a message onto a queue. If the PUT call receives a 2009 Connection Broken response, it is unclear whether the connection failed before or after the channel agent received and acted on the API call. The application, having no way to tell the difference, must put the message again to assure it is received. Doing the PUT under syncpoint can result in a 2009 on the COMMIT (or equivalent return code in messaging transports other than MQ) and the app doesn't know if the COMMIT was successful or if the PUT will eventually be rolled back. To be safe it must PUT the message again.
Now consider the partner application receiving the messages. A GET issued outside of syncpoint that reaches the channel agent will permanently remove the message from the queue, even if the channel agent cannot then deliver it. So use of transacted sessions ensures that the message is not lost. But suppose that the message has been received and processed and the COMMIT returns a 2009 Connection Broken. The app has no way to know whether the message was removed during the COMMIT or will be rolled back and delivered again. At the very least the app can avoid losing messages by using transacted sessions to retrieve them, but can not guarantee to never receive a dupe.
This is of course endemic to all async messaging, not just MQ, which is why the JMS specification directly address it. The situation is addressed in all versions but in the JMS 1.1 spec look in section 4.4.13 Duplicate Production of Messages which states:
If a failure occurs between the time a client commits its work on a
Session and the commit method returns, the client cannot determine if
the transaction was committed or rolled back. The same ambiguity
exists when a failure occurs between the non-transactional send of a
PERSISTENT message and the return from the sending method.
It is up to a JMS application to deal with this ambiguity. In some
cases, this may cause a client to produce functionally duplicate
messages.
A message that is redelivered due to session recovery is not
considered a duplicate message.
If it is critical that the application receive one and only one copy of the message, use 2-Phase transactions. The transaction manager and XA protocol will provide very strong (but still not absolute) assurance that only one copy of the message will be processed by the application.
The behavior of the messaging transport in delivering one and only one copy of a given message is a measure of the reliability of the transport. By contrast, the behavior of an application which relies on receipt of one and only one copy of the message is a measure of the reliability of the application.
Any duplicate messages received from an IBM MQ transport are almost certainly going to be due to the application's failure to use XA to account for the ambiguous outcomes inherent in async messaging and not a defect in MQ. Please keep this in mind when the Production version of the application chokes on its first duplicate message.
On a related note, if Disaster Recovery is involved, the app must also gracefully recover from lost messages, or else find a way to violate the laws of relativity.

nservicebus + webhooks +Errors +MaxRetries

Feature Description
The NServiceBus gateway, http://docs.particular.net/nservicebus/gateway/, seems to be a way to achieve an internal webhook using the NServiceBus infrastructure.
We need to go further with this concept to open up a few event to any 3rd party subscriber that has access to register a webhook url in our system.
Review
We plan to create two initial window services
1) WebHookBatchService, that can be added as a subscriber to specific messages of interest.
<UnicastBusConfig>
<MessageEndpointMappings>
.......
<add Messages="MyMessages.MyImportantMessage, MyMessages" Endpoint="WebHookBatchService.Queue"/>
.......
</MessageEndpointMappings>
</UnicastBusConfig>
2) WebHookProcessService - actually processes 1 message sent by the WebHookBatchService.
Once messages are received on the WebHookBatchService.Queue our WebHookBatchService will look up all the subscribers for the specific tenant + message type and foreach send individual messages to WebHookProcessService.Queue for the WebHookProcessService (which we can make an instance of nservicebus loadbalancer to bridge the batch and actual processor) to actually process the real messages probably using http://restsharp.org/.
Questions
Are there any existing open source projects that do this today?
Now since we have no control of the durability of the subscribers how should we manage errors?
http://wiki.shopify.com/WebHook
A webhook will be deleted if there are 19 consecutive failures for the exact same webhook.
It doesn't mention any delays in the webhook.. What have people experienced with standard delay in retry logic?
Here are some other thoughts:
proposal 0: MaxRetries="1". Purge WebHookProcessService.ErrorQueue nightly. (no retry - guaranteed message loss if it fails the first time)
proposal 1:
MaxRetries="1" on exception catch send email containing xml version of the message that would have been delivered over http.
Purge WebHookProcessService.ErrorQueue nightly.
-- I see potential a spam issues.
proposal 2: The nservicebus MaxRetries retries right away without delay. So i would need to create (1hr - 24hr) bucket queues and use a RetrySchedulerService although I see this as difficult to maintain and confusing for subscribers when they all at once get 25 messages in a non DateCreated ordered fashion when there service endpoint begins to work.
Digging for ideas...

The Gateway is typically used for communication between physical sites over HTTP. Since you are exposing an endpoint to the world to accept callbacks, I'm thinking you could just use the built-in WCF hosting and expose your endpoint through the firewall to 3rd parties. The rest of your setup sounds appropriate to me.
As for errors, you are correct, NSB retries immediately, but if you using web call backs this may get you by in the cases there are small hiccups. You will need to determine how you want to process the error queues, we just build in a new endpoint to process the error queues with logic to determine the retries, delay etc. A nice way to accomplish this is to use a Saga, which includes a Timeout manager. This enables a workflow where you can retry a specified number of times, try another communication, log everything, and ultimately notify someone who can contact the 3rd party to let them know there stuff is busted.