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
}
}
Related
I'd like an actor to send a message on startup and receive a reply later.
Sending the message from within preStart results in a temporary sender reference (because the Actor hasn't yet started?). So the reply will likely be a dead letter.
Any tips would be appreciated. Apologies if my premise is mis-informed - I am new to Akka.
One approach is to send a message to self in preStart:
class MyActor extends Actor {
def preStart(): Unit = {
self ! CallService
}
def receive = {
case CallService =>
(service ? ServiceRequest).mapTo[ServiceResponse].pipeTo(self)
case ServiceResponse =>
// do something with the response
}
}
As described in this answer, if you want the actor to send the message before it processes all other messages, then you could stash the other messages:
class MyActor extends Actor with Stash {
def preStart(): Unit = {
self ! CallService
}
def uninitialized: Receive = {
case CallService =>
(service ? ServiceRequest).mapTo[ServiceResponse].pipeTo(self)
unstashAll()
context.become(initialized)
case _ => stash() // if we get a message other than CallService, stash it
}
def initialized: Receive = {
case ServiceResponse =>
// do something with the response from the service
case ...
}
def receive = uninitialized
}
Your premise is indeed not correct: when preStart runs the actor is already fully started, it's self reference never is a temporary one. Without code it is impossible to help you further, though.
The sender should always be considered "temporary" -- cf. this blog post, for example:
The rule is simply never close over the sender method in a block of
code that is potentially executed in another thread, such as a
scheduled task or a Future. The trick is to capture the current sender
in a val, as illustrated below...
-- Closing Over An Akka Actor Sender In The Receive
Make a copy of sender, and then later when you are ready to reply, reply to that copy of the actorRef and not to "sender".
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
Can anyone explain how and when to use ActorIdentity with a good example?
From documents I can find that "There is a built-in Identify message that all Actors will understand and automatically reply to with a ActorIdentity message containing the ActorRef".
Does that statement mean obtained actor say actorSelector have ActorIdentity message wrapped in my actor?
ActorSelection actorSelector = getContext().actorSelection("/A/B/*");
When you send an Identify message to an ActorSelection the actor will respond, if it exists, with an ActorIdentity message.
If the actor exists the ActorIdentity message will contain a Some(actorRef). It is more efficient to send messages to ActorRefs than ActorSelections.
For example (from the manual):
class Follower extends Actor {
val identifyId = 1
context.actorSelection("/user/another") ! Identify(identifyId)
def receive = {
case ActorIdentity(`identifyId`, Some(ref)) =>
context.watch(ref)
context.become(active(ref))
case ActorIdentity(`identifyId`, None) => context.stop(self)
}
def active(another: ActorRef): Actor.Receive = {
case Terminated(`another`) => context.stop(self)
}
}
The section in the manual that covers this is called Identifying Actors via Actor Selection.
I am brand new to Akka but my understanding about the Stop directive is that it is used inside of SupervisorStrategies when the child should be considered permanently out of service, but there is a way to handle the total outage.
If that understanding is correct, then what I would like to do is have some kind of a “backup actor” that should be engaged after the normal/primary child is stopped and used from that point forward as a fallback. For example, say I have a parent actor who has a child actor - Notifier - whose job it is to send emails. If the Notifier truly dies (say, the underlying mail server goes offline), a backup to this actor might be another actor, say, QueueClient, that sends the notification request to a message broker, where the message will be queued up and replayed at a later time.
How can I define such a SupervisorStrategy to have this built in fault tolerance/actor backup inside of it? Please show code examples, its the only way I will learn!
Overriding Supervisor Strategies beyond the default directives is not commonly done, and not really necessary in your case. A solution would be to watch the child actor from the parent, and when the parent finds that the child is stopped, engage the backup actor.
import akka.actor.SupervisorStrategy.Stop
import akka.actor._
class Parent extends Actor {
var child: ActorRef = context.actorOf(Props[DefaultChild])
context.watch(child)
def receive = {
case Terminated(actor) if actor == child =>
child = context.actorOf(Props[BackupChild])
}
override def supervisorStrategy = OneForOneStrategy() {
case ex: IllegalStateException => Stop
}
}
class DefaultChild extends Actor {
def receive = { case _ => throw new IllegalStateException("whatever") }
}
class BackupChild extends Actor {
def receive = { case _ => }
}
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.