I am making a bot on Dialogflow with a Fulfillment. Considering the given strict 5-second window in DialogFlow, I am getting [empty response] as a response.
I want to overcome this issue, but my web service requires more than 9 seconds for the execution.
I am considering to redesigning the conversation flow in such a way that we will start streaming audio till the Response is processed.
Example:
User Question: xx xxx xxx xxxx xxxxx?
Response: a). We'll play fixed audio to keep the user engaged for few seconds till it finds a response text in the back end; b).
Receive answers from the web service and save them in the session to
display further.
How can I achieve this and how can I handle the Timeout issue?
You're on the right track, but there are a number of other things to consider.
First, however, keep in mind that anything that is trying to "avoid" the 5 second timeout already indicates some issues with the design. Waiting 10 seconds for a reply is a pretty long time with something as interactive as voice! Even 5 seconds, which is the timeout, is a long time. (And there is no way to change this timeout.)
So the first thing you may want to do is consider if there is a better/faster way to do what you want.
If not, the rough approach would be something like this:
Get the request from the user.
Track a unique identifier, either tied to the user or tied to the session. You'll be using this as a key into some kind of database or data store.
Start the API call as part of an asynchronous request or in another thread.
Reply immediately that you're working on it in a way that the user will send another request. (See below for this issue.) You'll want to make sure that the ID is maintained as part of this session - so you'll need to save it as part of the Session data.
At this point - you're basically doing two things in parallel.
When the API call completes, it needs to save the result in the datastore against the identifier. (It can't save it in the session itself - that response was already sent back to the Assistant.)
You're also waiting for a reply from the user. When it comes in:
Check to see if you have a response saved for this session yet.
If not, then go back to step 4. (You may want to track how many times you get here and give up at some point.)
If you do have the result, reply to the user with the information.
There is an issue with how you reply in step 4, since you want to do something that will guarantee you another request from the person expecting an answer. There are a few possible approaches:
The most straightforward way would be to send back a Media response to play a few seconds of "hold music". This has the advantage that, when the music stops, it will send an event to Dialogflow which you can capture as an Intent and then continue with step 5.
But there are some problems:
Not all versions of the Assistant support the Media response. You will need to check to confirm the feature is supported before you use it and, if not, use another approach (see below).
The media player that is presented on some Assistants allow the user to stop playback, or will not correctly send an event when the audio stops in some situations. So you may never get another request in this session.
Another approach involves some more advanced conversation design tricks, so may not always be suitable for your conversation. Your response can say that you're looking up the results but then ask the user a question - possibly one that is related to other information that you will need. With their reply, you can collect this information (if you need it) and then see if you have a result yet.
In some conversations - this works really well. For example, if you're looking up flights to somewhere, while you're looking that up you might ask them if they will need a hotel or rental car, which you might ask about anyway.
Other conversations, however, don't easily have such questions. In these cases, you may need to ask something that isn't relevant while you stall for time.
Related
I am building my first web-based node.js application - an online game - as a hobby/project to try and teach myself how it all works.
I'm using socket.io to send real-time updates (who's in the lobby, points scored etc) to users, but I'm not sure whether the way I'm managing the sockets, and the information being sent through them, in the best way.
Whenever the game is updated, I'm sending an object to each user which updates everything at once, and a lot of the time, the information being updated is actually staying the same. For example, if a user scores a point, an update is sent to everyone's browser to update the leaderboard, but that same socket.on function is re-sending information such as usernames, which stay the same throughout the game:
exampleObject = {
"usernames" : [username1, username2], // only gets updated in the browser once, but is sent every time
"points": {
"username1": 1, // Different value with every update
"username2": 3
}
}
(The real object is quite a bit bigger than this)
Would it be more sensible to have a different socket.on function for every individual piece of information which needs updating, so I can then call them individually as and when required, or is there any sense in updating everything through one function? Any thoughts/advice would be greatly appreciated.
If you are regularly sending a piece of information over and over, then it makes sense to design a specific message that only contains that specific information so you aren't regularly sending information that does not need to be sent. You can have as many different messages as you want and you should use that to design efficient messages, particularly for the most common messages.
Would it be more sensible to have a different socket.on function for every individual piece of information which needs updating, so I can then call them individually as and when required
Yes. Design efficient messages specifically for things you regularly send.
or is there any sense in updating everything through one function?
Only if you need to change lots of stuff at once. It's wasteful to include data in a frequent message that never changes and doesn't need to be sent.
It's perfectly fine to have different messages you send for different purposes and then the client has different listeners for those specific messages. At the same time, if you regularly send three pieces of data together, you probably wouldn't make a separate message for each piece of data - you'd put those three together such that your message structure aligns with your usage.
And, you can also have different messages for different purposes even if some data is in both messages.
One more note here. The title of your question "How should I manage the number of sockets in a node.js application?" seems to ask about managing the number of sockets. But, the rest of your question isn't about that at all. The rest of your question is about having different messages on the same socket. You don't need a new socket in order to define and use a different message. You can have thousands of different messages that you use all on the same socket connection. That's the whole architecture of socket.io. You send a message name and some data that goes with it. You can use a limitless number of separate message names all on the same connection.
I am creating a chatbot which have an intent with a payment link. So on trigger of this intent, I made call from webhook fulfillment to third party api which takes approx 20secs to respond. But in this period of time my response is timed out as it is limited to 5 sec from google.
Can you please suggest what approach should I follow. I just want to wait for approx 20 sec to respond.
Thanks.
one option is to keep the conversation alive using events (generated by the webhook) which trigger dedicated intents.
When a payment must be performed the webhook starts a background process to deal with the 3rd party payment API, and sleep for 4-5 sec, after that generates an event (setFollowupEvent PAYMENT_IN_PROGRESS). This event is associated to a DialogFlow Intent which fires as soon as the event is sent back to the platform.
At this point you have another incoming webhook call: check status of the payment, if it is still in progress (likely after 5 sec) then sleep 4-5 sec and send another event (setFollowupEvent PAYMENT_IN_PROGRESS_2) which produces the same workflow.
There are so many times you can do this (I think a max of 3), so you need to cater for the fact that the payment does not terminate in time (fallback scenario).
A smart option could be to keep engaging the user with the conversation, not always easy, depending on what your chatbot is about.
Hope it helps.
The short answer is that you can't.
The longer answer is that you need to think about this as a conversation. If you asked someone a question, and didn't get any response from them for 20 seconds - that would be pretty uncomfortable, wouldn't it?
Instead, we have come up with ways to compensate for that silence. In a physical conversation, people may engage with you and ask you questions to fill the time. If you're on the phone, they may play hold music. Or we may end the conversation for now and tell them later when there is a result.
When building an Action, we have similar parallels that may work better or worse based on our exact needs.
Engaging in conversation
One approach is that when we get the request from the user, we do two things:
Start a task that will execute the query and save the results in a separate "answer database", indexed against the user, a session ID, or some other temporary id we can generate and use later.
While the query is running, we reply to the user saying we're working on it, and asking them another question.
Then, when they reply with their answer to this other question, we can check if we have an answer for them in the database. If we do, we'll reply with it. If not, we'll repeat step 2 until we do.
This approach works well if we either have other questions to ask, or if we're in a good place to "make small talk". Picture booking an airline reservation - while we look up flights, we may want to ask if they prefer window or aisle seats (Which we'd need to ask later) or make small talk by asking if they're traveling for business or leisure.
Using "hold music"
A variant of this allows us to play some hold music while we're processing the answer.
Instead of asking a question in step 2 above, we reply with a Media Response that plays 20 seconds or so of music. When the music completes, our fulfillment webhook will be sent a MEDIA_STATUS event and we can either return the information from the answer database, or say we're still working on it and play more music.
This is less conversational, but may work better if we don't actually have anything to say in the meantime.
Sending a notification
If the response may take a very long time, then it may just be best to let them do other things and to send a notification or a text or email when you have a result. These cases, however, require the user to have registered with you in some way and are probably more appropriate if you have a long-standing relationship with the user.
Summary
You should be returning results as quickly as you can to keep it feeling like a conversation. When you can't, consider other means, just like how we would consider what it would be like if we were talking to another person.
is there a possibility to preserve a session with Actions on Google?
I would like that users can leave the the current session, do something in between for a some minutes / an hour and then start with the next invocation exactly where they have been before. Is that possible?
It isn't impossible, but you would have to save the state yourself (ie - there is nothing that Actions provides that would do this for you automatically).
If you're using API.AI, for example, you could save all of the current contexts in your database. When the user returned, you could see if you have saved contexts and, if so, return them in the response as current contexts (along with any voice message saying you've done so).
As far as API.AI is concerned at that point - you're at the same place you were before.
How can we implement a Facebook like status message system in mongodb (using mongoose), where whenever any given user posts his status it gets broadcasted on all his friends timeline.
It doesn't have to be real-time, there will be a refresh button to get the latest statuses.
here is what I have come up with:
Plan A:
status(collection)
id, user_id(reference), status_msg
Benefit: faster write speed
Plan B:
status(collection)
id, user_id(reference), status_msg, friends_list[sub-document]
Benefit: faster read speed
With plan A, I'll have to loop through all the friends a user has in his friends list and then fetch all the status.
I'll have to do this every time (page refresh/ new login) for every single friend.
With Plan B, I'll only have to fetch the statuses which has the current user in the friends_list.
I would like to know your opinion and suggestion on this ?
Is there any better way of approaching this problem ?
I would also like to know how I can use rabbitMQ here to increase the efficiency and lower the unnecessary db i/o .
Assuming that each user will likely have several friends, and these friends refresh their timeline several times a day, you can assume that reading will happen much more frequently than writing. That means from a pure performance standpoint you would optimize for read-access, not for write-access, and store the receivers with the message.
However, keep the semantics in mind. What if the friend-list of the author changes after they posted a status message?
Do you want the message to disappear from the timelines of any ex-friends?
Do you want the message to appear in the timeline of any new friends they make?
When the answers to these questions are yes, you should rather determine the receivers on read than on write.
There is also a third option which might be worth considering: Do not handle messages by sender, handle them by receiver. When someone posts a message, create an individual copy of the message for each of their friends and save them as separate documents. You can then get all messages for a user by querying your messages collection for messages where they are the receiver. The friend/unfriend operation would then need to check for any messages which need to be added/removed. The major drawback of this approach would be that users with a very high number of friends would create a very high write-load when posting something.
I've been looking at CQRS but I find it restricting when it comes to showing the result of commands in lets say a Web Application.
It seems to me that using CQRS, one is forced to refresh the whole view or parts of it to see the changes (using a second request) because the original command request will only store an event which is to be processed in future.
In a Web Application, is it possible that a Command request could carry the result of the event it creates back to the browser?
The answer to the headline of this question is quite simple: nothing, void or from a webbrower/rest point of view 200 OK with an empty body.
Commands applied to the system (if the change is successfully committed) does not yield a result. And in the case that you wish to leave the business logic on the server side, yes you do need to refresh the data by executing yet another request (query) to the server.
However most often you can get rid of the 2nd roundtrip to the server. Take a table where you modify a row and press a save button. Do you really need to update the table? Or in the case a user submits a comment on a blog post just append the comment to the other comments in the dom without the round trip.
If you find yourself wanting the modified state returned from the server you need to think hard about what you are trying to achieve. Most scenarios can be changed so that a simple 200 OK is more than enough.
Update: Regarding your question about queuing incoming commands. It's not recommended that incoming commands are queued since this can return false positives (a command was successfully received and queued but when the command tries to modify the state of the system it fails). There is one exception to the rule and that is if you are having a system with an append only model as state. Then is safe to queue the mutation of the system state till later if the command is valid.
Udi Dahans article called Clarified CQRS is always a good read on this topic http://www.udidahan.com/2009/12/09/clarified-cqrs/
Async commands are a strange thing to do in CQRS considering that commands can be accepter or rejected.
I wrote about it, mentioning the debate between Udi Dahan's vision and Greg Young's vision on my blog: https://www.sunnyatticsoftware.com/blog/asynchronous-commands-are-dangerous
Answering your question, if you strive to design the domain objects (aggregates?) in a transactional way, where every command initiates a transaction that ends in zero, one or more events (independently on whether there are some process managers later on, picking one event and initiating another transaction), then I see no reason to have an empty command result. It's extremely useful for the external actor that initates the use case, to receive a command result indicating things like whether the command was accepted or not, which events did it produce, or which specific state has now the domain (e.g: aggregate version).
When you design a system in CQRS with asynchronous commands, it's a fallacy to expect that the command will succeed and that there will be a quick state change that you'll be notified about.
Sometimes the domain needs to communicate with external services (domain services?) in an asynchronous way depending on those services api. That does not mean that the domain cannot produce meaningful domain events informing of what's going on and which changes have occured in the domain in a synchronous way. For example, the following flow makes a lot of sense:
Actor sends a sync command PurchaseBasket
Domain uses an external service to MakePayment and knows that the payment is being processed
Domain produces the events BasketPurchaseAttempted and/or PaymentRequested or similar
Still, synchronously, the command returns the result 200 Ok with a payload indicating some information about what has happened. Even if the payment hasn't completed because the payment platform is asynchronous, at least the actor has a meaningful knowledge about the result of the transaction it initiated.
Compare this design with an asynchronous one
Actor sends an async command PurchaseBasket
The system returns a 202 Accepted with a transaction Id indicating "thanks for your interest, we'll call you, this is the ticket number")
In a separate process, the domain initiates a process manager or similar with the payment platform, and when the process completes (if it completes, assuming the command is accepted and there are no business rules that forbid the purchase basket), then the system can start the notifying process to the actor.
Think about how to test both scenarios. Think about how to design UX to accommodate this. What would you show in the second scenario in the UI? Would you assume the command was accepted? Would you display the transaction Id with a thank you message and "please wait"? Would you take a big faith leap and keep the user waiting with a loading screen waiting for the async process to finish and be notified with a web socket or polling strategy for XXX seconds?
Async commands in CQRS are a dangerous thing and make us lazy domain designers.
UPDATE: the accepted answer suggest not to return anything and I fully disagree. Checkout Eventuous library and you'll see that returning a result is extremely helpful.
Also, if an async command can't be rejected it's... because it's not really a command but a fact.
UPDATE: I am surprised my answer got negative votes. Especially because Greg Young, the creator of CQRS term, says literally in his book about CQRS
One important aspect of Commands is that they are always in the imperative tense; that is they are
telling the Application Server to do something. The linguistics with Commands are important. A situation
could for with a disconnected client where something has already happened such as a sale and could
want to send up a “SaleOccurred” Command object. When analyzing this, is the domain allowed to say
no that this thing did not happen? Placing Commands in the imperative tense linguistically shows that
the Application Server is allowed to reject the Command, if it were not allowed to, it would be an Event
for more information on this see “Events”.
While I understand certain authors are biased towards the solutions they sell, I'd go to the main source of info in CQRS, regardless of how many hundred of implementations are there returning void when they can return something to inform requester asap. It's just an implementation detail, but it'll help model better the solution to think that way.
Greg Young, again, the guy who coined the CQRS term, also says
CQRS and Event Sourcing describe something inside a single system or component.
The communication between different components/bounded contexts (which ideally should be event driven and asynchronous, although that's not a requirement either) is outside the scope of CQRS.
PS: ignoring an event is not the same as rejecting a command. Rejection implies a direct answer to the command sender. Something "difficult" if you return nothing to the sender (not even a correlation ID?)
Source:
https://gregfyoung.wordpress.com/tag/cqrs/
https://cqrs.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/cqrs_documents.pdf