I use akka's PersistentActor with sharding in a cluster to keep track of my state. I have a 'Room' which i can update via following code:
case UpdateRoom(id, room, userId) => ((ret: ActorRef) => {
(userRegion ? GetRoleForRoom(userId, id)).mapTo[String] map { role =>
if (role == "owner") {
state = Some(room)
ret ! Success(room)
eventRegion ! RoomEventPackage(id, RoomUpdated(room))
println("works")
persist(RoomUpdated(room))(e => println("this doesn't always fire")
} else {
ret ! Failure(InsufficientRights(role, "Update Room"))
}
}
Problem is that persist only works every other time while the rest of the function works as expected. ("works" gets printed every time, "this doesn't always fire" every other but then two times).
I always have to fire the update command two times to store my Event, but then it appears to be stored for both times i fired the command.
Am i missing an important part of akka persist?
I think that you are making a grave mistake in the world of Actor: accessing the actor (mutable) state from outside. In your case, this happens twice from within the callback of the Future returned by ask/?:
when updating state: state = Some(room)
when calling persist
The only safe way to deal with asking from within your Actor and subsequently modifying the actor's state, is to send a message to the same actor from ask's callback, to that end, you can use pipeTo.
Using a simplified version of your code to illustrate:
case UpdateRoom(id, room, userId) =>
val answer = (userRegion ? GetRoleForRoom(userId, id)).mapTo[String] map(role => RoleForRoom(id, room, userId, role))
answer piepTo self
case RoleForRoom(id, room, userId, room) =>
if (role == "owner") {
state = Some(room)
eventRegion ! RoomEventPackage(id, RoomUpdated(room))
persist(RoomUpdated(room))(e => println("this is safe"))
}
see also: https://doc.akka.io/docs/akka/2.5.6/scala/general/jmm.html#actors-and-shared-mutable-state
Related
I have the following piece of code in my Actor's (I call this Actor MasterActor) receive method:
override def receive: Receive = {
case StopActor(id, actorConfig) =>
log.info(s"Stopping actor with id = $id and config $actorConfig")
stopActor(id, powerPlantCfg).pipeTo(self)
context.become(waitForStop(sender()))
// Other messages... not shown here for simplicity
}
So what I'm doing above is to stop the actor and pipe the result of that which is a Future[Continue] (where Continue is a Monix Ack type) to the Actor that contains the above Receive method. The stopActor looks like this:
private def stopActor(id: Long, cfg: ActorConfig): Future[Ack] = async {
await(fetchActor(id).materialize) match {
case scala.util.Success(actorRef) =>
log.info(s"Stopping Actor with id = $id")
context.watch(actorRef)
context.stop(actorRef)
Continue
case scala.util.Failure(fail) =>
log.error(s"Could not fetch Actor instance for id = $id because of: $fail")
Continue
}
}
I'm doing the context.watch(actorRef) and this is how my waitForStop looks like:
private def waitForStop(source: ActorRef): Receive = {
case Continue =>
source ! Continue
context.become(receive)
case someShit =>
log.error(s"Unexpected message $someShit received while waiting for an actor to be stopped")
}
So I have 2 questions here:
When doing context.become(waitForStop(sender())), I'm closing in on the sender(), so I assume the sender in this case is the ActorRef that contains all this above code which is the MasterActor. Am I correct?
How do I know explicitly that this ActorRef that I'm trying to stop is actually stopped so that I can do a context.unwatch(actorRef) as soon as it is stopped?
Any suggestions?
You can be notified of the stop of an Actor by watching it. You are already familiar with watch:
val kenny = context.actorOf(Props[Kenny], name = "Kenny")
context.watch(kenny)
and then you can wait for a Terminated message. Once you receive it, you can unwatch what you need.
def receive = {
case Terminated(kenny) => println("OMG, they killed Kenny")
case _ => println("Parent received a message")
}
So my reccomendation would be to simply watch, become waiting for terminated, and issue the stop command. But I'm unsure what you are asking exactly, so this cvould be the wrong ans
Blog post example
I hope it is ok to ask this. I am using akka and have two actors, where one is initiated/created fast and the other much slower. The rapidly created one asks the other for something (ask-pattern), and the message is sent to dead letters since the other is not initiated yet. What is the preferred way of making an actor waiting with sending it´s message? I am not so eager to make an actor sleep or something without knowing there is no other way.
I would use the functionality become()/unbecome() Akka provides for Actors. I am assuming in the following code that the slowActor gets created by the fastActor. The trick here is that the fastActor will have two behaviors: one for when the slowActor is getting initiated and the other for when it's ready to do some work. When slowActor is ready, it will send a message to the fastActor to advertise that is able to receive messages. fastActor will be watching slowActor and if it gets terminated, it will change its behavior again. What to do next would be up to your solution.
Here is a mock code as a guide (I have not compiled the code and it might contain some errors):
case object Ready
case object DoWork
case object WorkDone
class FastActor extends Actor with ActorLogging {
val slowActor = context.actorOf(SlowActor.props)
context.watch(slowActor)
def receive = slowActorNotReadyBehavior
def slowActorNotReadyBehavior = {
case DoWork => log.warning("Slow actor in not ready, I am sorry...")
case Ready => context.become(slowActorReadyBehavior)
}
def slowActorReadyBehavior = {
case DoWork => (slowActor ? DoWork).pipeTo(self)
case Terminated(ref) =>
log.error("Slow actor terminated")
context.unbecome()
//... do something with slowActor
}
}
class SlowActor extends Actor {
override def preStart = {
context.parent ! Ready
}
def receive = {
case DoWork =>
//do something
sender ! WorkDone
}
}
In book of akka in actor's chapter three. It use a message event to test silent actor's state.
The actor as this:
object SilentActorProtocol {
case class SilentMessage(data: String)
case class GetState(receiver: ActorRef)
}
class SilentActor extends Actor {
import SilentActorProtocol._
var internalState = Vector[String]()
def receive = {
case SilentMessage(data) =>
internalState = internalState :+ data
case GetState(receiver) => receiver ! internalState
}
}
Test code as this:
"change internal state when it receives a message, multi" in {
import SilentActorProtocol._
val silentActor = system.actorOf(Props[SilentActor], "s3")
silentActor ! SilentMessage("whisper1")
silentActor ! SilentMessage("whisper2")
silentActor ! GetState(testActor)
expectMsg(Vector("whisper1", "whisper2"))
}
Inner the test code why use GetState get result of above SilentMessage event.
Why not use slientActor.internalState get the result straightly?
Update
Some friends seems mislead my problem.For detail,
The books said
use the internalState variable will encounter concurrency problem, so there should use a GetState event tell actor to get the actor's inner state rather then use internalState straightly.
I don't know why it should encounter concurrency problem and why use GetState can fix the problem
Explain
slientActor.internalState can't get inner variable straightly , instand, use silentActor.underlyingActor.internalState can get it.So sorry for the terrible question.
If I understand your question correctly, the answer is that the silentActor in the test code is not the actor, it is the ActorRef instance, therefore it does not have the internalState var to be referenced.
If you want to write unit tests for specific variables and methods on the ActorRef, you need to use the underlyingActor technique as described (with its caveats) in the documentation. (see section on TestActorRef.
I have spent the last two days learning Actors, and I want to create an expiring cache. Now we use a tenant model so I want each tenant to be represented by an actor. I would like these actors to be created when required, and timeout after a period of being idle.
To solve this I have mocked up the following as I am unaware of a provided solution, and am looking for any critique or validation of the approach.
//A simple Message carrying just the name of the actor
case class Message(name:String)
//Actor that will expire after a timeout period and stop itself
class ExpireActor extends Actor {
val id = Random.nextInt(1000)
context.setReceiveTimeout(100 milliseconds)
def receive ={
case Message(_) => println("Message: " + id + " " + System.currentTimeMillis())
case ReceiveTimeout => {
println("Timeout: " + id + " " + System.currentTimeMillis())
self ! PoisonPill
}
}
}
//Router for creating actors on demand
case class LazyRouter() extends RouterConfig {
def routerDispatcher: String = Dispatchers.DefaultDispatcherId
def supervisorStrategy: SupervisorStrategy = SupervisorStrategy.defaultStrategy
def createRoute(routeeProvider: RouteeProvider): Route = {
{
case (sender, Message(name)) ⇒
routeeProvider.context
.child(name)
.map(a => List(Destination(sender, a)))
.getOrElse{
synchronized {
routeeProvider.context
.child(name) //Dont want to call sync until I have to, so need to check existence again
.map(a => List(Destination(sender, a)))
.getOrElse{
val ref = routeeProvider.context.actorOf(Props[ExpireActor], name)
routeeProvider.registerRoutees(List(ref))
List(Destination(sender, ref))
}
}
}
}
}
}
I'm not sure I'm fully on board with your approach. Actors are very lightweight. When they are not doing anything they are not costing you anything CPU wise. Why not just pre-create all of the cache actors (for each possible tenant) before hand so the router does not have to have that scary synchronized block around whether or not it needs to create the routee. Then, instead of stopping the actors when they are idle for a specific amount of time, just clear out their internal state (which I'm assuming is the cached data) if you want to free up that memory. This will greatly simplify your code and make it more reliable (and probably faster to boot).
Anyone know of a good way to unit test Scala actors? In the general sense I have an actor that receives a message and will send out other messages in response. This is done on multiple threads, and an actor that is not correct may either send the wrong messages or no message at all. I need a simple way of creating a mockup actor that send and receives messages to the actor being tested. Any experiences in this area?
Because of the dynamic nature of actor-style message passing, mocking actors is usually no trouble at all. Just create an actor which receives the desired message and you're home free. You will of course need to ensure that this mock actor is the one to which messages are passed, but that shouldn't be a problem as long as the actor you are attempting to test is reentrant.
I think the complexity depends on a couple factors...
How stateful is the actor?
If it behaves like a idempotent function, only asynchronous, then it should be a simple matter of mocking up an actor that sends a message and then checks that it receives the expected messages back. You probably want to use a react/receiveWithin on the mock actor in case there is response within a reasonable period of time you can fail rather than hanging.
However if the messages aren't independent of one another, then you should test it with various sequences of messages and expected results.
How many actors will the actor being tested interact with?
If an actor is expected to interact with many others, and it is stateful, then it should be tested with several actors sending/receiving messages. Since you probably have no guarantee of the order in which the messages will arrive, you should be sure to either permute the orders in which the actors send the messages or introduce random pauses in the actors generating messages and run the test many times.
I'm not aware of any prebuilt frameworks for testing actors, but you could possibly look to Erlang for inspiration.
http://svn.process-one.net/contribs/trunk/eunit/doc/overview-summary.html
I have been wondering about how to test Actors myself.
Here is what I came up with, does anybody see problems with this approach?
Rather than send messages directly, what if your actor delegated message sending to a function?
Then your tests can swap out the function with one that tracks the number of times called and/or the arguments with which the method was called:
class MyActor extends Actor {
var sendMessage:(Actor, ContactMsg) => Unit = {
(contactActor, msg) => {
Log.trace("real sendMessage called")
contactActor ! msg
}
}
var reactImpl:PartialFunction(Any, Unit) = {
case INCOMING(otherActor1, otherActor2, args) => {
/* logic to test */
if(args){
sendMessage(otherActor1, OUTGOING_1("foo"))
} else {
sendMessage(otherActor2, OUTGOING_2("bar"))
}
}
}
final def act = loop {
react {
reactImpl
}
}
Your test case might contain code like:
// setup the test
var myActor = new MyActor
var target1 = new MyActor
var target2 = new MyActor
var sendMessageCalls:List[(Actor, String)] = Nil
/*
* Create a fake implementation of sendMessage
* that tracks the arguments it was called with
* in the sendMessageCalls list:
*/
myActor.sendMessage = (actor, message) => {
Log.trace("fake sendMessage called")
message match {
case OUTGOING_1(payload) => {
sendMessageCalls = (actor, payload) :: sendMessageCalls
}
case _ => { fail("Unexpected Message sent:"+message) }
}
}
// run the test
myActor.start
myActor.reactImpl(Incoming(target1, target2, true))
// assert the results
assertEquals(1, sendMessageCalls.size)
val(sentActor, sentPayload) = sendMessageCalls(0)
assertSame(target1, sentActor)
assertEquals("foo", sentPayload)
// .. etc.
My attempt at unit testing an actor (it works). I'm using Specs as a framework.
object ControllerSpec extends Specification {
"ChatController" should{
"add a listener and respond SendFriends" in{
var res = false
val a = actor{}
val mos = {ChatController !? AddListener(a)}
mos match{
case SendFriends => res = true
case _ => res = false
}
res must beTrue
}
How this works is by sending a synchronous call to the singleton ChatController. ChatController responds by use of reply(). The response is sent as a return of the called function, which gets stored into mos. Then a match is applied to mos getting the case class that was sent from ChatController. If the result is what is expected (SendFriends) set res to true. The res must beTrue assertion determines the success or failure of test.
My actor singleton that I'm testing
import ldc.socialirc.model._
import scala.collection.mutable.{HashMap, HashSet}
import scala.actors.Actor
import scala.actors.Actor._
import net.liftweb.util.Helpers._
//Message types
case class AddListener(listener: Actor)
case class RemoveListener(listener: Actor)
case class SendFriends
//Data Types
case class Authority(usr: Actor, role: String)
case class Channel(channelName: String, password: String, creator: String, motd: String, users: HashSet[Authority])
object ChatController extends Actor {
// The Channel List - Shows what actors are in each Chan
val chanList = new HashMap[String, Channel]
// The Actor List - Shows what channels its in
val actorList = new HashMap[Actor, HashSet[String]]
def notifyListeners = {
}
def act = {
loop {
react {
case AddListener(listener: Actor)=>
actorList += listener -> new HashSet[String]
reply(SendFriends)
}
}
}
start //Dont forget to start
}
Though its not complete it does return the Sendfriends case class as expected.
Suite for unit testing of Actors has recently been added to Akka. You can find some information and code snippets in this blogpost.