@optiks on the sending side...
unfortunately I don't think you can intercept the
.Tell operation without using something like PostSharp to do IL weaving
since that's built into objects like all of the
IActorRef implementations
@Horusiath Well I'd Actor A to start first and it starts 4 actors at different moments. And once they're not useful any more, I'd like to dispose of them
@Aaronontheweb Thanks. I had a poke around and came to the same conclusion. It would be a nice extensibility point :)
Hacky workaround is to use an extension method. i.e. Duplicate ActorRefImplicitSenderExtensions. It just needs to be defined in each project due to scoping.
@to11mtm yeah, we're going to bring that back into the picture
I'd be up for releasing that now
seen a couple of interesting ideas
one is the aftorref caching
the other is lazily creating the remote actor ref
for the sender
if it's not needed
@schepersk dude, I'm so sorry - looks like I totally missed your messages over the past week
do you still need help with those cluster issues?
@Kavignon with standard akka.fsharp you can use
mailbox.Context.Child(name) to try to get the child from the parent by name. If such actor didn't exist, it will return ActorsRefs.Nobody as a reference.
seems weird to me that now that we have TeamCity formatting for NBench all of our performance specifications suddenly stop being racy again
the concurrent programming version of the observer effect :p
@aaronontheweb is that just on the server or building locally as well
@SeanFarrow building locally it's worked fine for the most part. We had issues on the server where the time-sensitive Akka.Streams NBench specs would fail
5ms deadlines on some of them
there we go
we're going to be adding this to the Multi node test runner as well
that'll allow TeamCity's "flaky tests" report to help signal to us where we need to go spend some time hardening stuff
the benchmarking stuff is a bit harder to fix mostly because benchmarking concurrent code is a dark art
we do things like toggle the processor priority to help it get scheduled ahead of everything else, but we're still at the mercy of the OS when it comes to that
in the grand scheme of things, relativistic benchmarking is the way to solve that
build up a history of every benchmark run for the same hardware profile and judge any new benchmark relative to the old ones
and use an estimated weighted moving average or some sort of threshold system to determine if a new change is seriously out of line or not
but that requires storing the state somewhere and adding a bunch of fun network calls to the assertion engine NBench uses
and better hardware finger printing
next thing happening to NBench is .NET Core support; after we're tied to the constraints of what .NET Core does (i.e. no more performance counters,) we can come up with a strategy that will work X-plat
question for someone in the room: any Unity3D programmers in here? what's going on with their .NET version roadmap? https://unity3d.com/unity/roadmap
Still on .NET 2.0?
Hi all. I'm looking for saving snapshot after all of produced events persistence
from docs I've found DeferAsync method
but it will be called after first scheduled PersisteAsync
I'm using PersistAll, so DeferAsync will be called many times
how can I call a method after all of events been persisted?
@andreyleskov
DeferAsync works in combination with PersistAsync, but it's not necessary for Persist itself. Also Persist takes callback to be called, when event persist will be confirmed
@Horusiath
I had a code:
var events = CurrentState.Change();
PersistAll(events, e => Publisher.Publish(e));
SaveSnapshot(CurrentState);And it produce invalid snapshots sometimes - it cannot be restored from persisted events. I assume some of events can be lost.
So I'm looking for a way to save snapshot after all events will be persisted, not just one.
Now switched to
var events = CurrentState.Change();
PersistAll(events, e => Publisher.Publish(e));
var state = CurrentState;
Defer(state, s => SaveSnapshot(s));
May be this is a stupid problem but I can't figure out better solution from documentation 8 (
@andreyleskov standard approach is to save snapshot every X events persisted. Snapshots are used only as optimization in case when event stream for persistent actor gets long, and may be time consuming to replay
@Horusiath yes, and I'm using it exact for this purpose ) Just removed code that decide how often we should save snapshots. Do you mean it is better to switch to
PersistAll ( events, e => {
if(Decider.ShouldSave(e))
SaveSnapshot(CurrentState);
});
yep, there's an important thing here to remember
Persist callback is invoked after event has been persisted and (along with Recovery handler) should be the only place, when you're updating actor's persistent state
otherwise you may change a state of an actor, send persist event that will never succeed, in the meantime save (successfully) a snapshot of the current state, and end up with split/corrupted state of an actor
also there is no guarantee that your actor will try to recover from the last snapshot, you've ordered to save (as it might have been not yet been confirmed, when actor restarted)
ok, thank you a lot !
@Horusiath I'm using approach:
Receive<ICommand>(c => {
var events = Aggregate.ExecuteCommand(c);
PersistAll( events);
});So state is changed before persist, but inside one command method, I'm rely on one-command-in-time actors behaviour
@andreyleskov what if the events won't be persisted? Your state will differ from what actually has been stored in the database.
yeah, I see the problem 8 (
will inject Persist into Aggregate itself
@Horusiath if event will not be saved, persistent actor will be stopped, according to documentation: "If persistence of an event fails, OnPersistFailure will be invoked (logging the error by default), and the actor will unconditionally be stopped."
and PersistAll says it will block all incoming messages
Can you please give an example when we can leak state in code above ?
Can you please give an example when we can leak state in code above ?
and for me it makes sequence of:
start execute command (Receive)
mutate state (var events = Aggregate.ExecuteCommand(e))
save events (PersistAll)
atomic - while we are in Receive block, no other command can be processed, when we are saving via PersistAll, no other command can be processed
I don't know you you managed to get
Receive method while using persistent actor ;)
My bad >_< It should be Command<> instead of Receive<>
np ;) I need to check something
yep, I don't know if this is in the docs, but there a situation called event rejection - event journal may decide to reject persisting events, which will eventually trigger
OnPersistRejected method, but this won't cause actor to stop
yes, it is in docs : "If persistence of an event is rejected before it is stored, e.g. due to serialization error, OnPersistRejected will be invoked (logging a warning by default), and the actor continues with the next message."
Is there any other case than serialization? Because I greatly believe in journal correct work ))
persistence compatibility testkit doesn't ensure that it will happen only upon serialization. So I wouldn't assume that an implementation you're using will reject only on serialization errors
tbh. I think, I might have not checked that behavior in new sql batching journal impl
one more question - when ActorSystem.Create() returns an ActorSystem, is it fully ready to function ? Do we need to wait for something ? For a example ActorSystem.Stop() returns a Task, so it is suspicious that Start does not have a Task
no, when actor system starts it didn't have to load all plugins. Some of them are loaded lazily, when called.
this is also a case for event journals and snapshot stores
ok, so only plugins can be loaded later?
(also event journal is called by every persistent actor, when it's instantiated)
what do you mean by "only plugins"?
I mean akka core parts are ready, and only extensions can be not ready just after system was created
Long story to short I have SpecFlow tests and have to recreate ActorSystem on each.
Had an issue when tests worked only when launched separately - reason was Stop not had been awaited
Trying to understand if I should wait for something after system creation, when test just starts
Long story to short I have SpecFlow tests and have to recreate ActorSystem on each.
Had an issue when tests worked only when launched separately - reason was Stop not had been awaited
Trying to understand if I should wait for something after system creation, when test just starts
akka core parts are run right away, but core is very ligthweight (remember, that remote, cluster and persistence are all plugins). Nonetheless when you're using something it will be initialized.
btw. are you telling, you're using SpecFlow with actor system but does that mean you don't use testkit?
Yes, I don't use TesKit in specFlow as it is used for acceptance tests with calling controllers and other hi-level staff
For sure there are a bunch of unit tests inherited from TestKit
For sure there are a bunch of unit tests inherited from TestKit
@Horusiath thanks for your time! You've helped me a lot !
np ;)
TI-85, Azure VM
same thing