Hi everybody and thanks for taking time to look at my issue/question.
I am getting different results when deploying my AWS Lambda stand-alone versus within an Application Stack.
I'm trying to connect to AWS Elasticache Redis from within my Lambda. I have .Net Core 3.1 Lambdas (using StackExchange.Redis) which can connect. But I also need to be able to connect from my Node.js Lambdas.
For the Node.js Lambdas, I'm using "node-redis" and "async-redis". I have two Lambdas which are essentially identical except that one is deployed in an Application Stack and the other is deployed as a stand-alone Lambda. Both Lambdas reference the same Lambda Layer (i.e. same "node_modules"), have the same VPC settings, the same Execution Role, and essentially the same code. So they've pushed it up to another group.
The stand-alone Lambda connects to Redis without issue. The Application Stack Lambda does not and exits processing before completing but without raising any error.
At first I thought I might just need to configure my Application Stack but I cannot find any information indicating we even can configure Application Stacks. So I'm at a loss.
The stand-alone Lambda:
exports.handler = async (event) => {
const asyncRedis = require("async-redis");
const redisOptions =
{
host: "XXXXXXXXX.XXXXX.XXXX.use2.cache.amazonaws.com",
port: 6379
}
console.log('A');
const client = asyncRedis.createClient(redisOptions);
console.log(client);
console.log('B');
const value = await client.get("Key");
console.log('C');
console.log(value);
console.log('D');
console.log(client);
};
The output of this function is essentially:
A
{RedisClient} --> the "client" object --> Shows connected = false
B
C
{ Correct Data From Redis }
D
{RedisClient} --> the "client" object --> Shows connected = true
The Application Stack Lambda:
async function testRedis2(event, context) {
console.log('In TestRedis2');
const asyncRedis = require("async-redis");
const redisOptions =
{
host: "XXXXXXXXX.XXXXX.XXXX.use2.cache.amazonaws.com",
port: 6379
}
console.log('A');
const client = asyncRedis.createClient(redisOptions);
console.log(client);
console.log('B');
var value = await client.get("Key");
console.log('C');
console.log(value);
console.log('D');
console.log(client);
}
module.exports = {
testRedis2
};
The output of this function is essentially:
In TestRedis2
A
{RedisClient} --> the "client" object --> Shows connected = false
B
I don't understand why these don't perform identically. And I don't get why I don't see further entries in the output.
Has anyone else experienced issues connecting to VPC resources from within an Application Stack?
Thanks
I stumbled across the answer through extensive trial and error. It may be obvious to Node/js developers but, just in case another Javascript/Node newbie has the same issue, I'll post the answer here.
The import/require and creation of the client must be at the top of the module. Not in the function itself.
So, the following does work in my application stack:
const asyncRedis = require("async-redis");
const redisOptions = {
host: "XXXXXXXXX.XXXXX.XXXX.use2.cache.amazonaws.com",
port: 6379
};
const client = asyncRedis.createClient(redisOptions);
async function redisGet(key: string){
// console.log('In redisGet');
return await client.get(key);
}
Related
For the past few days I've been trying to solve the problem of publishing a message from Lambda to the AWS cloud, using Greengrass v2.
The code in python was even provided in the documentation, only had to be slightly reworked.
When it comes to SDK v2 JS in documentation there is only minimal mention about publish function in AWS-CRT library.
I tried to create code using components from this library, but it looks like the library also requires a script with parameters.
This is my code that requires installation of aws-iot-sdk-v2 js.
const iotsdk = require("aws-iot-device-sdk-v2");
const mqtt = iotsdk.mqtt;
const os = require("os");
const util = require("util");
const GROUP_ID = process.env.GROUP_ID;
const THING_NAME = process.env.AWS_IOT_THING_NAME;
const THING_ARN = process.env.AWS_IOT_THING_ARN;
(topic = "gg/message"),
(payload = JSON.stringify({ message: util.format("ping") }));
function greengrassHelloWorldRun() {
mqtt.MqttClientConnection.prototype.publish(topic, payload);
}
console.log(topic);
console.log(payload);
setInterval(greengrassHelloWorldRun, 5000);
exports.handler = function (event, context) {
console.log("event: " + JSON.stringify(event));
console.log("context: " + JSON.stringify(context));
};
I get errors about arguments and NAPI.
The same errors also appear when using this function as lambda component in greengrass logs
Maybe someone has some example how to publish some message on topic using Node lambda with sdk v2.
After contacting AWS Support I know it is impossible.
AWS doesn't support mqttProxy IPC for SDK V2 JS yet.
ChristopherTal
I'm also using the Greengrass SDKs for JS and indeed they're still a work in progress. But I was able to send messages to the IoTCore from Greengrass using the JS SDKs.
A few things to mention:
You seem to use the aws-iot-device-sdk-v2 SDK which is for things
The aws-greengrass-core-sdk npm package is made for components
It is important to differ between things and components and decide who's doing what.
To send data to IoTCore from a thing, you need indeed to use MQTT. On the deployment page on the Greengrass console, you need to revise the deployment and add following components:
MQTT Broker
MQTT Bridge
Client device auth
This way your thing connects to the local MQTT Broker through the client device auth component and the MQTT Bridge decides how the traffic is routed. You can read all info on the links above.
I even realised this using the standard mqtt npm package. You need to create a certificate and a thing using lambda or the console and use those certificates to access the broker.
const mqtt = require('mqtt')
const fs = require('fs')
const ca = fs.readFileSync(locationOfTheCA)
const key = fs.readFileSync(locationOfThePrivateKey)
const cert = fs.readFileSync(locationOfTheCertificate)
console.log('Welcome to MQTT Connector')
const client = mqtt.connect('mqtts://localhost:8883', {
clientId: 'yourThingNameHere',
ca: ca,
key: key,
cert: cert
})
client.on('connect', function () {
console.log('Connected to MQTT')
/* client.subscribe('$aws/*', function (err) {
if (!err) {
//client.publish('presence', 'Hello mqtt')
}
})*/
})
client.on('message', function (topic, message) {
// message is Buffer
console.log(message.toString())
client.end()
})
Hopefully this helps you out!
Warm regards
Hacor
I'm using Next.js for my side project. I have a PostrgeSQL database hosted on ElephantSQL. Inside the Next.js project, I have a GraphQL API set up, using the apollo-server-micro package.
Inside the file where the GraphQL API is set up (/api/graphql), I import a database helper-module. Inside that, I set up a pool connection and export a function which uses a client from the pool to execute a query and return the result. This looks something like this:
// import node-postgres module
import { Pool } from 'pg'
// set up pool connection using environment variables with a maximum of three active clients at a time
const pool = new Pool({ max: 3 })
// query function which uses next available client to execute a single query and return results on success
export async function queryPool(query) {
let payload
// checkout a client
try {
// try executing queries
const res = await pool.query(query)
payload = res.rows
} catch (e) {
console.error(e)
}
return payload
}
The problem I'm running into, is that it appears as though the Next.js API doesn't (always) keep the connection alive but rather opens up a new one (either for every connected user or maybe even for every API query), which results in the database quickly running out of connections.
I believe that what I'm trying to achieve is possible for example in AWS Lambda (by setting context.callbackWaitsForEmptyEventLoop to false).
It is very possible that I don't have a proper understanding of how serverless functions work and this might not be possible at all but maybe someone can suggest me a solution.
I have found a package called serverless-postgres and I wonder if that might be able to solve it but I'd prefer to use the node-postgres package instead as it has much better documentation. Another option would probably be to move away from the integrated API functionality entirely and build a dedicated backend-server, which maintains the database connection but obviously this would be a last resort.
I haven't stress-tested this yet, but it appears that the mongodb next.js example, solves this problem by attaching the database connection to global in a helper function. The important bit in their example is here.
Since the pg connection is a bit more abstract than mongodb, it appears this approach just takes a few lines for us pg enthusiasts:
// eg, lib/db.js
const { Pool } = require("pg");
if (!global.db) {
global.db = { pool: null };
}
export function connectToDatabase() {
if (!global.db.pool) {
console.log("No pool available, creating new pool.");
global.db.pool = new Pool();
}
return global.db;
}
then in, eg, our API route, we can just:
// eg, pages/api/now
export default async (req, res) => {
const { pool } = connectToDatabase();
try {
const time = (await pool.query("SELECT NOW()")).rows[0].now;
res.end(`time: ${time}`);
} catch (e) {
console.error(e);
res.status(500).end("Error");
}
};
This is a little hard articulate so I hope my title isn't too terrible.
I have a frontend/backend React/Node.js(REST API) Web app that I want to add Redis support to for storing retrieving app global settings and per-user specific settings (like language preference, last login, etc... simple stuff) So I was considering adding a /settings branch to my backend REST API to push/pull this information from a redis instance.
This is where my Node.js inexperience comes through. I'm looking at using the ioredis client and it seems too easy. If I have a couple of helpers (more than one .js which will call upon redis) will constructing the client as a const in each be safe to do? Or is there another recommended approach to reusing a single instance of it be the way to go?
Here's a sample of what I'm thinking of doing. Imagine if I had 3 helper modules that require access to the redis client. Should I declare them as const in each? Or centralize them in a single helper module, and get the client from it? Is there a dis-advantage to doing either?
const config = require('config.json');
const redis_url = config.redis_url;
//redis setup
const Redis = require('ioredis');
const redis = new Redis(redis_url);
module.exports = {
test
}
async function test(id) {
redis.get(id, function (err, result) {
if (err) {
console.error(err);
throw(err);
} else {
return result;
}
});
Thank you.
If no redis conflicts...
If the different "helper" modules you are referring to have no conflicts when interacting with redis, such as overwriting / using the same redis keys, then I can't see any reason not to use the same redis instance (as outlined by garlicman) and export this to the different modules in which it is used.
Otherwise use separate redis databases...
If you do require separate redis database connections, redis ships with 16 databases so you can specify which to connect to when creating a new instance - see below:
const redis = new Redis({ // SET UP CONFIG FOR CONNECTION TO REDIS
port: 6379, // Redis port
host: 127.0.0.1, // Redis host
family: 4, // 4 (IPv4) or 6 (IPv6)
db: 10, // Redis database to connect to
});
Normally what I would do (in Java say) is implement any explicit class with singleton access the hold the connection and any connection error/reconnect handling.
All modules in Node.js are already singletons I believe, but what I will probably go with will be a client class to hold it and my own access related methods. Something like:
const config = require('config.json');
const Redis = require("ioredis");
class Redis {
constructor(){
client = new Redis(config.redis_url);
}
get(key) {
return this.client.get(key);
}
set(key, value, ttl) {
let rp;
if (ttl === 0) {
rp = this.client.set(key, value);
}
else {
rp = this.client.set(key, value)
.then(function(res) {
this.client.expire(key, ttl);
});
}
return rp;
}
}
module.exports = new Redis;
I'll probably include a data_init() method to check and preload an initial key/value structure on first connect.
Let's say I have a NodeJS program that has two separate instances of an express server running.
const express = require('express')
const app1 = express()
app1.listen(3000, () => { //... })
//...
const app2 = express()
app2.listen(3001, () => { //... })
I've been able to instrument a program like this via open telemetry, and have my spans sent/exported successfully to Zipkin. All I needed to do is/was add code like the following to the start of my program.
const { NodeTracerProvider } = require('#opentelemetry/node');
const { ZipkinExporter } = require('#opentelemetry/exporter-zipkin');
const provider = new NodeTracerProvider({
plugins: {
express: {
enabled: true,
},
http: {
requestHook: (span, request) => {
span.setAttribute("custom request hook attribute", "request");
},
},
}
});
const options = {
url: 'http://localhost:9411/api/v2/spans',
serviceName: 'service-main'
}
const zipkinExporter = new ZipkinExporter(options);
provider.addSpanProcessor(new SimpleSpanProcessor(zipkinExporter))
provider.register();
and make sure that the express and http plugins were/are installed
npm install #opentelemetry/plugin-http #opentelemetry/plugin-express
This all works great -- except for one thing. Open Telemetry sees both my express services running as the same service-main service.
When I instrumented these services directly with Zipkin -- I would add the Zipkin middleware to each running express server
app1.use(zipkinMiddleware({tracer: tracer1}));
app2.use(zipkinMiddleware({tracer: tracer2}));
Each tracer could be instantiated with its own service name, which allowed each service to have its individual name and show up as a different service in Zipkin.
(/main, /hello, and /goobye are all service via a different express service in the above URL)
Is this sort of thing (instrumenting two services in one program) possible with Open Telemetry? Or would I need to separate these two services out into separate programs in order to have each services have an individual name? This question is less about solving a particular problem, and more about understanding the semantics of Open Telemetry.
It is possible to create two separate tracer providers. Only one of them will be the global tracer provider, which the API will use if you call API methods. You can't use the plugins in this configuration, which means you will have to manually instrument your application. If this is a use-case which is important to you, I suggest you create an issue on the github repo.
yes, you can have multiple express running in the same node process (thats how clustering works in node as well)
but you will need to have them running on different ports.;
# const express = require('express')
const app1 = express()
app1.listen(3001, () => { //... })
//...
const app2 = express()
app2.listen(3002, () => { //... })
I am trying to seed some sample data into my local firestore emulator database. I adapted the example from this github issue
My code looks like this:
const {Firestore} = require('#google-cloud/firestore');
const {credentials} = require('grpc');
const db = new Firestore({
projectId: 'my-project-id',
servicePath: 'localhost',
port: 8100,
sslCreds: credentials.createInsecure(),
customHeaders: {
"Authorization": "Bearer owner"
}
});
async function load_data() {
await db.collection("mycollection").doc("myid").set({ foo: "test" })
}
load_data();
But I receive the error
this.credentials._getCallCredentials is not a function
Tested on node 10 and 12 with same error.
Library versions:
#google-cloud/firestore 3.5.1
grpc 1.24.2
Is there a better approach to writing to local emulated firestore? Or is there something wrong with my code?
The problem here is that you're trying to use two different implementations of gRPC together. Internally firestore uses #grpc/grpc-js, so that is what you should be using. You should only need to change the second line to const {credentials} = require('#grpc/grpc-js'); and switch the dependency to that library.