We Keep Coding

Signalr - It's possible to wait reponse from client?

I am a beginner in using Signalr and am checking out some examples.
Is it possible to send a message to the client from the server and wait for a return from it? Or is it possible to guarantee that after the answer the same session will be used?
My question is because in a given process, within a transaction, I need to ask the user if he wants to continue with the changes. I have not been able to ask this question before because validations should be done in the same session where changes have been made (but not yet confirmed).

Reiterating the comment from Jaime Yule, WebSockets are bidirectional communication and do not follow the Request/Response architecture for messaging. Given the very fluid nature of communication around WebSockets, these bullet points are good to keep in mind for your current (& future) scenarios:
SignalR is great if you're going to use it for fire & forget (Display a pop-up to a user and that's it)
It's not designed around request-response like you're asking, and trying to use it as such is an anti-pattern
Messages may be sent from either end of the connection at any time,
and there is no native support for one message to indicate it is
related to another
This makes the protocol poorly suited for transactional requirements

It is possible, but i would not recommend (relying on) it.
And it's not a pretty solution (using a static event and being pretty complex for such a simple thing).
Story goes like this:
Make sure client and server know the connectionId - They probably know that already, but i could not figure out a way to access it.
Await NotificationService.ConfirmAsync
... which will call confirm on the client
... which will await the user supplied answer
... and send it back to the server using Callback from The hub.
... which will notify the Callback from the NotificationService over a static event
... which will hand off the message back to ConfirmAsync (using a AutoResetEvent)
... which is hopefully still waiting :)
Client and server both have a 10 second timeout set.
The hub:
// Setup as /notification-hub
public class NotificationHub : Hub {
public string ConnectionId() => Context.ConnectionId;
public static event Action<string, string> Response;
public void Callback(string connectionId, string message) {
Response?.Invoke(connectionId, message);
}
}
Service:
// Wire it up using DI
public class NotificationService {
private readonly IHubContext<NotificationHub> _notificationHubContext;
public NotificationService(IHubContext<NotificationHub> notificationHubContext) {
_notificationHubContext = notificationHubContext;
}
public async Task<string> ConfirmAsync(string connectionId, string text, IEnumerable<string> choices) {
await _notificationHubContext.Clients.Client(connectionId)
.SendAsync("confirm", text, choices);
var are = new AutoResetEvent(false);
string response = null;
void Callback(string connId, string message) {
if (connectionId == connId) {
response = message;
are.Set();
}
}
NotificationHub.Response += Callback;
are.WaitOne(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(10));
NotificationHub.Response -= Callback;
return response;
}
}
Client side js:
var conn = new signalR.HubConnectionBuilder().withUrl("/notification-hub").build();
var connId;
// using Noty v3 (https://ned.im/noty/)
function confirm(text, choices) {
return new Promise(function (resolve, reject) {
var n = new Noty({
text: text,
timeout: 10000,
buttons: choices.map(function (b) {
return Noty.button(b, 'btn', function () {
resolve(b);
n.close();
});
})
});
n.show();
});
}
conn.on('confirm', function(text, choices) {
confirm(text, choices).then(function(choice) {
conn.invoke("Callback", connId, choice);
});
});
conn.start().then(function() {
conn.invoke("ConnectionId").then(function (connectionId) {
connId = connectionId;
// Picked up by a form and posted to the server
document.querySelector(".connection-id-input").value = connectionId;
});
});
For me this is way to complex to put it into the project i am working on.
It really looks like something that will come back and bite you later...

Is it possible to send a message to the client from the server and wait for a return from it? Or is it possible to guarantee that after the answer the same session will be used?
None of this is possible. Currently there's no way to wait for the client's response or even to get to know if the client received the message. There's some discussion implementing this on GitHub. Also here's the feature request.
Until then, the workaround is to send a "notification" from the server with a fire and forget attitude and let the client get the required data via a HTTP request to the server.

This is now possible with .NET 7 using Client Results.
Today, I've highlighted this issue in dotnet's Github page and got a good response from one of the developers of SignalR.
This requires the server to use ISingleClientProxy.InvokeAsync to be able to make request to the client and wait for response.
Quote from the documentation
In addition to making calls to clients, the server can request a
result from a client. This requires the server to use
ISingleClientProxy.InvokeAsync and the client to return a result from
its .On handler.
From the client (js/ts)
hubConnection.on("GetMessage", async () => {
let promise = new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
setTimeout(() => {
resolve(new { data: "message" });
}, 100);
});
return promise;
});
From the server (C#)
//By calling Client(...) on an instance of IHubContext<T>
async Task<object> SomeMethod(IHubContext<MyHub> context)
{
string result = await context.Clients.Client(connectionID).InvokeAsync<string>(
"GetMessage");
return result;
}
//---------------------------//
//Or by calling Client(...) or Caller on the Clients property in a Hub method
public class ChatHub : Hub
{
public async Task<string> WaitForMessage(string connectionId)
{
var message = await Clients.Client(connectionId).InvokeAsync<string>(
"GetMessage");
return message;
}
}

Using the following form with Invoke waits for and returns the response directly (just like a "real" synchronous method call)
var persons = hubProxy.Invoke<IEnumerable<Person>>("GetPersonsSynchronous", SearchCriteria, noteFields).Result;
foreach (Person person in persons)
{
Console.WriteLine($"{person.LastName}, {person.FirstName}");
}

Integration Test to publish to a topic and subscribe to another in Azure Service Bus is unreliable is there a race condition?

I am trying to write an integration / acceptance test to test some code in azure, the code in the question ATM simply subscribes to one topic and publishes to another.
I have written the test but it doesn't always pass, seems as though there could be a race condition in place. I've tried writing it a couple of ways including using OnMessage and also using Receive (example I show here).
When using OnMessage the test seemed to always exit prematurely (around 30 seconds), which I guess perhaps means its inappropriate for this test anyway.
My query concerning my example specifically, I assumed that once I created the subscription to the target topic, that any message sent to it I would be able to pickup using Receive(), whatever point in time that message arrived meaning, if the message arrives at the target topic before I call Receive(), I would still be able to read the message afterward by calling Receive(). Could anyone please shed any light on this?
namespace somenamespace {
[TestClass]
public class SampleTopicTest
{
private static TopicClient topicClient;
private static SubscriptionClient subClientKoEligible;
private static SubscriptionClient subClientKoIneligible;
private static OnMessageOptions options;
public const string TEST_MESSAGE_SUB = "TestMessageSub";
private static NamespaceManager namespaceManager;
private static string topicFleKoEligible;
private static string topicFleKoIneligible;
private BrokeredMessage message;
[ClassInitialize]
public static void BeforeClass(TestContext testContext)
{
//client for publishing messages
string connectionString = ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["ServiceBusConnectionString"];
string topicDataReady = ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["DataReadyTopicName"];
topicClient = TopicClient.CreateFromConnectionString(connectionString, topicDataReady);
topicFleKoEligible = ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["KnockOutEligibleTopicName"];
topicFleKoIneligible = ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["KnockOutIneligibleTopicName"];
//create test subscription to receive messages
namespaceManager = NamespaceManager.CreateFromConnectionString(connectionString);
if (!namespaceManager.SubscriptionExists(topicFleKoEligible, TEST_MESSAGE_SUB))
{
namespaceManager.CreateSubscription(topicFleKoEligible, TEST_MESSAGE_SUB);
}
if (!namespaceManager.SubscriptionExists(topicFleKoIneligible, TEST_MESSAGE_SUB))
{
namespaceManager.CreateSubscription(topicFleKoIneligible, TEST_MESSAGE_SUB);
}
//subscriber client koeligible
subClientKoEligible = SubscriptionClient.CreateFromConnectionString(connectionString, topicFleKoEligible, TEST_MESSAGE_SUB);
subClientKoIneligible = SubscriptionClient.CreateFromConnectionString(connectionString, topicFleKoIneligible, TEST_MESSAGE_SUB);
options = new OnMessageOptions()
{
AutoComplete = false,
AutoRenewTimeout = TimeSpan.FromMinutes(1),
};
}
[TestMethod]
public void E2EPOCTopicTestLT50()
{
Random rnd = new Random();
string customerId = rnd.Next(1, 49).ToString();
FurtherLendingCustomer sentCustomer = new FurtherLendingCustomer { CustomerId = customerId };
BrokeredMessage sentMessage = new BrokeredMessage(sentCustomer.ToJson());
sentMessage.CorrelationId = Guid.NewGuid().ToString();
string messageId = sentMessage.MessageId;
topicClient.Send(sentMessage);
Boolean messageRead = false;
//wait for message to arrive on the ko eligible queue
while((message = subClientKoEligible.Receive(TimeSpan.FromMinutes(2))) != null){
//read message
string messageString = message.GetBody<String>();
//Serialize
FurtherLendingCustomer receivedCustomer = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<FurtherLendingCustomer>(messageString.Substring(messageString.IndexOf("{")));
//assertion
Assert.AreEqual(sentCustomer.CustomerId, receivedCustomer.CustomerId,"verify customer id");
//pop message
message.Complete();
messageRead = true;
//leave loop after processing one message
break;
}
if (!messageRead)
Assert.Fail("Didn't receive any message after 2 mins");
}
}
}

As the official document states about SubscriptionClient.Receive(TimeSpan):
Parameters
serverWaitTime
TimeSpan
The time span the server waits for receiving a message before it times out.
A Null can be return by this API if operation exceeded the timeout specified, or the operations succeeded but there are no more messages to be received.
Per my test, if a message sent to the topic and then delivered to your subscription within your specific serverWaitTime, then you could receive a message no matter whether the message arrives at the target topic before or after you call Receive.
When using OnMessage the test seemed to always exit prematurely (around 30 seconds), which I guess perhaps means its inappropriate for this test anyway.
[TestMethod]
public void ReceiveMessages()
{
subClient.OnMessage(msg => {
System.Diagnostics.Trace.TraceInformation($"{DateTime.Now}：{msg.GetBody<string>()}");
msg.Complete();
});
Task.Delay(TimeSpan.FromMinutes(5)).Wait();
}
For Subscription​Client.​On​Message, I assumed that it basically a loop invoking Receive. After calling OnMessage, you need to wait for a while and stop this method to exit. Here is a blog about the Event-Driven message programming for windows Azure Service Bus, you could refer to here.
Additionally, I found that your topicClient for sending messages and the subClientKoEligible for receiving a message are not targeted at the same topic path.

SignalR Client Trigger Events

I'm trying to replicate behavior like a client browser but in C# (Performance reason). What I'm trying to set out to achieve is that for every new events received, my program should trigger the server side (Hub) which would then notify the client. Rather than having a while loop which would repeatedly hit the hub method every time even if theres no messages, is there a way to treat it as a trigger/detection so that once message is detected then execute Hub method ? Hope this makes sense
Snapshot of Client code below:
IHubProxy _hub;
string url = #"http://localhost:8080/";
var connection = new HubConnection(url);
_hub = connection.CreateHubProxy("PersonHub");
connection.Start().Wait();
//client side method
_hub.On("checkedIn", x => Console.WriteLine(x));
Console.WriteLine("Enter Person Name");
var answer = Console.ReadLine();
while (true) // Better way doing this? trigger or detect new message?
{
//server side method
_hub.Invoke("GetByName", answer).Wait();
}
Snapshot of Hub code below:
[HubName("PersonHub")]
public class PersonHub: Hub
{
public Person GetByName(string name)
{
//logic and etc ...
Clients.All.checkedIn(name);
}
}
By setting the while loop to true this means this will always call the server side method (Hub method) which I dont want to. If theres new events triggered then it should hit the hub method. Is there a way to somehow listen for new message but not to execute if no messages has been detected?

A possible solution is:
string line;
while ((line = Console.ReadLine()) != "exit")
{
_hub.Invoke("GetByName", line).Wait();
}

Can't get NetMQ pub-sub pattern to work with ReceiveReady

I'm trying my hands on NetMQ (3.3.3.4) and creating a pub-sub pattern.
I want a host/server to listen to all incoming data on one port (9000) and forward the data to all clients/subscribers on another port (9001).
The clients will then send data on 9000 and receive all messages sent (by whomever) on 9001.
Following the documentation I created something like the code below, but I can't get it to work. Mainly, I believe, because ReceiveReady is never called!
How I believe it should work:
client.Publish should cause the first line in host.SubscriberSocket_ReceiveReady to unblock and pass the data along to the other socket
When data has been passed along it should appear in the infinite running Task in the client
Results:
Breakpoints on // This line is never reached are never reached
There are no exceptions anywhere.
Switching the ports on the host so that publish = 9000 and subscribe = 9001 has no effect
Windows Firewall is turned off, so there should not be any blocking
It makes no difference if I'm putting the address into PublisherSocket constructor, or if I'm using _publisherSocket.Bind(address) in Host or _publisherSocket.Connect(address) in Client
What am I doing wrong?
Host
public class MyNetMQHost {
private NetMQSocket _publishSocket;
private NetMQSocket _subscribeSocket;
private NetMQPoller _poller;
public MyNetMQHost(string publishAddress = "#tcp://localhost:9001", string subscribeAddress = "#tcp://localhost:9000") {
Task.Factory.StartNew(() => {
using (_publishSocket = new PublisherSocket(publishAddress))
using (_subscribeSocket = new SubscriberSocket(subscribeAddress))
using (_poller = new NetMQPoller { _publishSocket, _subscribeSocket }) {
_subscriberSocket.ReceiveReady += SubscriberSocket_ReceiveReady;
_poller.Run();
}
});
}
private void SubscriberSocket_ReceiveReady(object sender, NetMQSocketEventArgs e) {
var data = e.Socket.ReceiveMultipartBytes(); // This line is never reached
_publishSocket.SendMultipartBytes(data);
}
}
Client
public class MyNetMQClient {
private readonly NetMQSocket _publishSocket;
private readonly NetMQSocket _subscribeSocket;
public MyNetMQClient(string publishAddress = ">tcp://localhost:9000", string subscribeAddress = ">tcp://localhost:9001") {
_publishSocket = new PublisherSocket(publishAddress);
_subscribeSocket = new SubscriberSocket(subscribeAddress);
Task.Factory.StartNew(() => {
while (true) {
byte[] frameBytes = _subscribeSocket.ReceiveFrameBytes();
int one = 1; // This line is never reached
}
});
}
public void Publish(byte[] data) {
_publishSocket.SendFrame(data);
}
}
Tester
public class Tester {
public void MyTester() {
MyNetMQHost host = new MyNetMQHost();
MyNetMQClient client = new MyNetMQClient();
client.Publish(Encoding.Unicode.GetBytes("Hello world!");
}
}

Both your broker and client never call suscribe.
On the broker call suscriber.Subscribe("") to subscribe for all. On your client subscribe to what ever you want.
In your broker you should actually use XSubscriber and XPublisher to move susvriptions around. That way you dont need the subscribe all. You can use Proxy class for that.

WCF TimeoutException despite stepping through showing successful return

I have two self hosted services running on the same network. The first is sampling an excel sheet (or other sources, but for the moment this is the one I'm using to test) and sending updates to a subscribed client.
The second connects as a client to instances of the first client, optionally evaluates some formula on these inputs and the broadcasts the originals or the results as updates to a subscribed client in the same manner as the first. All of this is happening over a tcp binding.
My problem is occuring when the second service attempts to subscribe to two of the first service's feeds at once, as it would do if a new calculation is using two or more for the first time. I keep getting TimeoutExceptions which appear to be occuring when the second feed is subscribed to. I put a breakpoint in the called method on the first server and stepping through it, it is able to fully complete and return true back up the call stack, which indicates that the problem might be some annoying intricacy of WCF
The first service is running on port 8081 and this is the method that gets called:
public virtual bool Subscribe(int fid)
{
try
{
if (fid > -1 && _fieldNames.LeftContains(fid))
{
String sessionID = OperationContext.Current.SessionId;
Action<Object, IUpdate> toSub = MakeSend(OperationContext.Current.GetCallbackChannel<ISubClient>(), sessionID);//Make a callback to the client's callback method to send the updates
if (!_callbackList.ContainsKey(fid))
_callbackList.Add(fid, new Dictionary<String, Action<Object, IUpdate>>());
_callbackList[fid][sessionID] = toSub;//add the callback method to the list of callback methods to call when this feed is updated
String field = GetItem(fid);//get the current stored value of that field
CheckChanged(fid, field);//add or update field, usually returns a bool if the value has changed but also updates the last value reference, used here to ensure there is a value to send
FireOne(toSub, this, MakeUpdate(fid, field));//sends an update so the subscribing service will have a first value
return true;
}
return false;
}
catch (Exception e)
{
Log(e);//report any errors before returning a failure
return false;
}
}
The second service is running on port 8082 and is failing in this method:
public int AddCalculation(string name, string input)
{
try
{
Calculation calc;
try
{
calc = new Calculation(_fieldNames, input, name);//Perform slow creation before locking - better wasted one thread than several blocked ones
}
catch (FormatException e)
{
throw Fault.MakeCalculationFault(e.Message);
}
lock (_calculations)
{
int id = nextID();
foreach (int fid in calc.Dependencies)
{
if (!_calculations.ContainsKey(fid))
{
lock (_fieldTracker)
{
DataRow row = _fieldTracker.Rows.Find(fid);
int uses = (int)(row[Uses]) + 1;//update uses of that feed
try
{
if (uses == 1){//if this is the first use of this field
SubServiceClient service = _services[(int)row[ServiceID]];//get the stored connection (as client) to that service
service.Subscribe((int)row[ServiceField]);//Failing here, but only on second call and not if subscribed to each seperately
}
}
catch (TimeoutException e)
{
Log(e);
throw Fault.MakeOperationFault(FaultType.NoItemFound, "Service could not be found");//can't be caught, if this timed out then outer connection timed out
}
_fieldTracker.Rows.Find(fid)[Uses] = uses;
}
}
}
return id;
}
}
catch (FormatException f)
{
Log(f.Message);
throw Fault.MakeOperationFault(FaultType.InvalidInput, f.Message);
}
}
The ports these are on could change but are never shared. The tcp binding used is set up in code with these settings:
_tcpbinding = new NetTcpBinding();
_tcpbinding.PortSharingEnabled = false;
_tcpbinding.Security.Mode = SecurityMode.None;
This is in a common library to ensure they both have the same set up, which is also a reason why it is declared in code.
I have already tried altering the Service Throttling Behavior for more concurrent calls but that didn't work. It's commented out for now since it didn't work but for reference here's what I tried:
ServiceThrottlingBehavior stb = new ServiceThrottlingBehavior
{
MaxConcurrentCalls = 400,
MaxConcurrentSessions = 400,
MaxConcurrentInstances = 400
};
host.Description.Behaviors.RemoveAll<ServiceThrottlingBehavior>();
host.Description.Behaviors.Add(stb);
Has anyone had similar issues of methods working correctly but still timing out when sending back to the caller?

This was a difficult problem and from everything I could tell, it is an intricacy of WCF. It cannot handle one connection being reused very quickly in a loop.
It seems to lock up the socket connection, though trying to add GC.Collect() didn't free up whatever resources it was contesting.
In the end the only way I found to work was to create another connection to the same endpoint for each concurrent request and perform them on separate threads. Might not be the cleanest way but it was all that worked.
Something that might come in handy is that I used the svc trace viewer to monitor the WCF calls to try and track the problem, I found out how to use it from this article: http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/17258/Debugging-WCF-Apps