A spring integration based converter consumes the messages from one system, checks, converts and sends it to the other one.
Should the target system be down, we stop the inbound adapters, but would also like to persist locally or forward the currently "in-flight" converted messages. For that would simply like to reroute the messages from the normal output channel to some "backup"-channel dynamically.
In the docs I have found only the option to route the messages based on their headers ( so on some step before in flow I would have to add those dynamically once the targer system is not availbale), or based on the payload type, which is not really my case. The case with adding dynamically some header, and then filtering it out down the pipe, or during de-/serializing still seems not the best approach for me. I would like rather to be able to turn a switch(on some internal Event) that would then reroute those "in-flight" messages to the "backup"-channel.
What would be a best SI approach to achive this? Thanks!
The router could not only be based on the the payload type or some header. You really can have a general POJO method invocation to return a channel, its name or some routing key which is mapped. That POJO method indeed can check some internal system state and produce this or that routing key.
So, you may have something like this in the router configuration:
.route(myRouter())
where your myRouter is something like this:
#Bean
MyRouter myRouter() {
return;
}
and its internal code might be like this:
public class MyRouter {
#Autowired
private SystemState systemState;
String route(Object payload) {
return this.systemState.isActive() ? "successChannel" : "backupChannel";
}
}
The same can be achieved a simple lambda definition:
.<Object, Boolean>route(p -> systemState().isActive(),
m -> m.channelMapping(true, "sucessChannel")
.channelMapping(false, "backupChannel"))
Also...
private final AtomicBoolean switcher = new AtomicBoolean();
#Bean
public IntegrationFlow flow() {
return IntegrationFlows.from(() -> "foo", e -> e.poller(Pollers.fixedDelay(Duration.ofSeconds(5))))
.route(s -> switcher.get() ? "foo" : "bar")
.get();
}
Related
Is it possible to have a dynamic reply queue with Jms OutboundGateway via DSL?
Jms.inboundGateway(jmsListenerContainer)
.defaultReplyQueueName("queue1 or queue2")
Working Solution using ThreadLocal and DestinationResolver:
private static final ThreadLocal<String> REPLY_QUEUE = new ThreadLocal<>();
IntegrationFlows.from(Jms.inboundGateway(listenerContainer)
.defaultReplyQueueName("defaultQueue1")
.destinationResolver(destinationResolver())
.transform(p -> {
// on some condition, else "defaultQueue1"
REPLY_QUEUE.set("changedToQueue2");
return p;
})
#Bean
public DestinationResolver destinationResolver() {
return (session, destinationName, pubSubDomain) -> session.createQueue(REPLY_QUEUE.get());
}
It is not clear from where you'd like to take that dynamic reply queue name, but there is another option:
/**
* #param destinationResolver the destinationResolver.
* #return the spec.
* #see ChannelPublishingJmsMessageListener#setDestinationResolver(DestinationResolver)
*/
public S destinationResolver(DestinationResolver destinationResolver) {
By default this one is a DynamicDestinationResolver which does only this: return session.createQueue(queueName);. Probably here you can play somehow with your different names to determine.
Another way is to have a JMSReplyTo property set in the request message from the publisher.
UPDATE
Since you cannot rely on a default Reply-To JMS message property, I suggest you to look into a ThreadLocal in your downstream flow where you can place your custom header. Then a custom DestinationResolver can take a look into that ThreadLocal variable for a name to delegate to the same mentioned DynamicDestinationResolver.
We are using fluentvalidation (with service stack) to validate our request DTO's. We have recently extended our framework to accept "PATCH" requests, which means we now have a requirement to apply validation ONLY when the patch contained the field being validated.
We have done this using an extension method such as this:
RuleFor(dto => dto.FirstName).Length(1,30)).WhenFieldInPatch((MyRequest dto)=>dto.FirstName);
RuleFor(dto => dto.MiddleName).Length(1,30)).WhenFieldInPatch((MyRequest dto)=>dto.MiddleName);
RuleFor(dto => dto.LastName).Length(1,30)).WhenFieldInPatch((MyRequest dto)=>dto.LastName);
This means we can run the same validation for a POST/PUT or a PATCH.
I have been looking for a way of hooking in to the fluent validation framework in such as way that we do not need to duplicate the .WhenFieldInPatch() rule on EVERY line in our validations, but have not yet found a nice way to do this.
I have tried the following:
Creating a helper method (in a in a base class) to intercept the initial "RuleFor" which adds the .When() clause up front, but the this does not work as fluent validation requires the .When() to be last
Intercepting the calls in PreValidation, but I can only intercept based on the whole class, and not on a rule by rule basis
Adding an extension method to apply to the end of every rule (as per example), but I cannot access the initial expression in order to check whether the field should be mapped - so I need to pass it in again.
Am I missing something, or am I attempting the impossible?
Thanks
When I need to share Fluent Validation Logic I'd use extension methods, here's an example of shared Extension methods for TechStacks, e.g:
public static class ValidatorUtils
{
public static bool IsValidUrl(string arg) => Uri.TryCreate(arg, UriKind.Absolute, out _);
public static string InvalidUrlMessage = "Invalid URL";
public static IRuleBuilderOptions<T, string> OptionalUrl<T>(
this IRuleBuilderInitial<T, string> propertyRule)
{
return propertyRule
.Length(0, UrlMaxLength)
.Must(IsValidUrl)
.When(x => !string.IsNullOrEmpty(x as string))
.WithMessage(InvalidUrlMessage);
}
}
And some examples where they're shared:
public class CreatePostValidator : AbstractValidator<CreatePost>
{
public CreatePostValidator()
{
RuleSet(ApplyTo.Post, () =>
{
RuleFor(x => x.Url).OptionalUrl();
});
}
}
public class UpdatePostValidator : AbstractValidator<UpdatePost>
{
public UpdatePostValidator()
{
RuleSet(ApplyTo.Put, () =>
{
RuleFor(x => x.Url).OptionalUrl();
});
}
}
I have a list of items which I want to retrieve and return as fast as possible.
For each item I also need to retrieve details, they may be returned a few seconds later.
I could of course create two different routes with HTTP gateways and request first the list, then the details. However, I then have to wait until all details have arrived. I want to send back the list immediately and then the details as soon as I get them.
UPDATE
Following Artem Bilan's advice my flow returns a Flux as payload which merges the list of items as a Mono and the processed items as a Flux.
Note that the example below simulates detail processing of the items by calling toUpperCase; my real use case requires routing and outgoing calls to get the details for each item:
#Bean
public IntegrationFlow sseFlow() {
return IntegrationFlows
.from(WebFlux.inboundGateway("/strings/sse")
.requestMapping(m -> m.produces(MediaType.TEXT_EVENT_STREAM_VALUE))
.mappedResponseHeaders("*"))
.enrichHeaders(Collections.singletonMap("aHeader", new String[]{"foo", "bar"}))
.transform("headers.aHeader")
.<String[]>handle((p, h) -> {
return Flux.merge(
Mono.just(p),
Flux.fromArray(p)
.map(t -> {
return t.toUpperCase();
// return detailsResolver.resolveDetail(t);
}));
})
.get();
}
That comes closer to my goal. When I request data from this flow using curl, I get the list of items immediately and the processed items slightly later:
λ curl http://localhost:8080/strings/sse
data:["foo","bar"]
data:FOO
data:BAR
While simply converting the string to uppercase works fine, I have difficulty to make an outgoing call for details using WebFlux.outboundGateway. The detailsResolver in the commented out code above is defined as follows:
#MessagingGateway
public interface DetailsResolver {
#Gateway(requestChannel = "itemDetailsFlow.input")
Object resolveDetail(String item);
}
#Bean
IntegrationFlow itemDetailsFlow() {
return f -> f.handle(WebFlux.<String>outboundGateway(m ->
UriComponentsBuilder.fromUriString("http://localhost:3003/rest/path/")
.path(m.getPayload())
.build()
.toUri())
.httpMethod(HttpMethod.GET)
.expectedResponseType(JsonNode.class)
.replyPayloadToFlux(false));
}
When I comment in the detailsResolver call and comment out t.toUpperCase, the outboundGateway seems to be set up properly (the log says Subscriber present, Demand signaled) but never gets a response (doesn't reach a breakpoint in ExchangeFunctions.exchange#91).
I have ensured that the DetailsResolver itself is working by getting it as a bean from the context and invoking its method - that gives me a JsonNode response.
What can be the reason?
Yes, I wouldn't use toReactivePublsiher() there because you have a context of the current request. You need fluxes per request. I would use something like Flux.merge(Publisher<? extends I>... sources), where the first Flux is for items and the second is for details per item (something like Tuple2).
For this purpose you really can use something like this:
IntegrationFlows
.from(WebFlux.inboundGateway("/sse")
.requestMapping(m -> m.produces(MediaType.TEXT_EVENT_STREAM_VALUE)))
And your downstream flow should produce Flux as a payload for reply.
I have a sample like this in test cases:
#Bean
public IntegrationFlow sseFlow() {
return IntegrationFlows
.from(WebFlux.inboundGateway("/sse")
.requestMapping(m -> m.produces(MediaType.TEXT_EVENT_STREAM_VALUE))
.mappedResponseHeaders("*"))
.enrichHeaders(Collections.singletonMap("aHeader", new String[] { "foo", "bar", "baz" }))
.handle((p, h) -> Flux.fromArray((String[]) h.get("aHeader")))
.get();
}
I am Spring Integration 4.3.13 and trying to pass patterns when configuring #GlobalChannelInterceptor
Here is the example
#Configuration
public class IntegrationConfig{
#Bean
#GlobalChannelInterceptor(patterns = "${spring.channel.interceptor.patterns:*}")
public ChannelInterceptor channelInterceptor(){
return new ChannelInterceptorImpl();
}
}
properties file has following values:
spring.channel.interceptor.patterns=*intchannel, *event
I am using direct channels with names that end with these two string
springintchannel
registrationevent
With the above config, both the channels should have interceptor configured but it is not getting configured.
The comma-separate value isn't support there currently.
I agree that we need to fix it, so feel free to raise a JIRA on the matter and we will file a solution from some other place.
Meanwhile you can do this as a workaround:
#Bean
public GlobalChannelInterceptorWrapper channelInterceptorWrapper(#Value("${spring.channel.interceptor.patterns:*}") String[] patterns) {
GlobalChannelInterceptorWrapper globalChannelInterceptorWrapper = new GlobalChannelInterceptorWrapper(channelInterceptor());
globalChannelInterceptorWrapper.setPatterns(patterns);
return globalChannelInterceptorWrapper;
}
I don't know if this question is about spring-integration, spring-integration-dsl or both, so I just added the 2 tags...
I spend a considerable amount of time today, first doing a simple flow with a filter
StandardIntegrationFlow flow = IntegrationFlows.from(...)
.filter(messagingFilter)
.transform(transformer)
.handle((m) -> {
(...)
})
.get();
The messagingFilter being a very simple implementation of a MessageSelector. So far so good, no much time spent. But then I wanted to log a message in case the MessageSelector returned false, and here is where I got stuck.
After quite some time I ended up with this:
StandardIntegrationFlow flow = IntegrationFlows.from(...)
.filter(messagingFilters, fs -> fs.discardFlow( i -> i.channel(discardChannel()))
.transform(transformer)
.handle((m) -> {
(...)
})
.get();
(...)
public MessageChannel discardChannel() {
MessageChannel channel = new MessageChannel(){
#Override
public boolean send(Message<?> message) {
log.warn((String) message.getPayload().get("msg-failure"));
return true;
}
#Override
public boolean send(Message<?> message, long timeout) {
return this.send(message);
}
};
return channel;
}
This is both ugly and verbose, so the question is, what have I done wrong here and how should I have done it in a better, cleaner, more elegant solution?
Cheers.
Your problem that you don't see that Filter is a EI Pattern implementation and the maximum it can do is to send discarded message to some channel. It isn't going to log anything because that approach won't be Messaging-based already.
The simplest way you need for your use-case is like:
.discardFlow(df -> df
.handle(message -> log.warn((String) message.getPayload().get("msg-failure")))))
That your logic to just log. Some other people might do more complicated logic. So, eventually you'll get to used to with channel abstraction between endpoints.
I agree that new MessageChannel() {} approach is wrong. The logging indeed should be done in the MessageHandler instead. That is the level of the service responsibility. Also don't forget that there is LoggingHandler, which via Java DSL can be achieved as:
.filter(messagingFilters, fs -> fs.discardFlow( i -> i.log(message -> (String) message.getPayload().get("msg-failure"))))