Are Sitecore events handled synchronously? - sitecore

I want to hook the item:renamed event to do some processing. It may take a few minutes though. Are event handlers executed asynchronously or synchronously with normal pipeline execution? Is there a standard Sitecore way to kick this off asynchronously if I need to do that myself?
The only time this handler needs to execute is when an item is renamed in Content Editor.

Sitecore events are executed synchronously. There is a Sitecore Development Toolkit module on Sitecore Marketplace which contains a code for firing events asynchronously which you can easily reuse in your solution Sitecore Development Toolkit.
Here is a part of their code which fires methods asynchronously when the event is fired:
public void OnItemRenamed(object sender, EventArgs args)
{
if (args != null)
{
var item = Event.ExtractParameter(args, 0) as Item;
Assert.IsNotNull(item, "No item in parameters");
var name = Event.ExtractParameter(args, 1) as string;
Assert.IsNotNullOrEmpty(name, "No name in parameters");
DoAsync(() => OnItemRenameAsync(item, name));
}
}
private void OnItemRenameAsync(Item item, string name)
{
var itemRef = new ItemReference(item.Parent);
var itemRefText = itemRef.ToString();
// do some work here
}

Sitecore events are synchronous. You can kick off your long running task as a job. First create a class to handle the event:
namespace MyNamespace
{
public class MyClass
{
public void ItemRenamed (object sender, EventArgs args)
{
Run("LongRenameTask");
}
protected void Run(string methodName, EventArgs args)
{
var item = Event.ExtractParameter(args, 0) as Item;
var name = Event.ExtractParameter(args, 1) as string;
RunJob(methodName, item, name);
}
protected Handle RunJob(string methodName, Item item, string name)
{
var options = new JobOptions(
"Preparing rename job '{0}' for '{1}'".FormatWith(
methodName,
item.ID.ToString()),
"item:renamed",
"shell",
new ItemRenamedManager(item, name),
methodName)
{
WriteToLog = true,
AtomicExecution = true,
};
var job = new Job(options);
JobManager.Start(job);
return job.Handle;
}
}
}
Then create a class to do your work (this will be called on a background thread by Sitecore):
namespace MyNamespace
{
public class ItemRenamedManager
{
protected Item RenamedItem { get; set; }
protected string Name { get; set; }
public ItemRenamedManager(Item item, string name)
{
RenamedItem = item;
Name = name;
}
public void LongRenameTask()
{
// Do your long running task here.
// The property 'RenamedItem' will give you the item
}
}
}
Then patch your event handler in:
<configuration xmlns:patch="http://www.sitecore.net/xmlconfig/">
<sitecore>
<events>
<event name="item:renamed">
<handler type="MyNamespace.MyClass" method="ItemRenamed" />
</event>
</events>
</sitecore>
</configuration>
The above code is cribbed a bit from memory and needs some error handling, but should be pretty close, but this way, your long running task won't block the Content Editor UI.

Related

Manual pause and resume functionality in AWS SWF java framework

Does SWF natively supports manual pause and resume workflow functionality in java framework? If not is there any way to achieve to achieve that semantics?
Edit: I implemented following example, seems to be working with initial testing. Is there anything which can break with this. My workflow is going to be long running (~3-5 hours) with same activity being multiple times with different params.
import com.amazonaws.services.simpleworkflow.flow.annotations.Asynchronous;
import com.amazonaws.services.simpleworkflow.flow.core.Promise;
import com.amazonaws.services.simpleworkflow.flow.core.Settable;
public class GreeterWorkflowImpl implements GreeterWorkflow {
private GreeterActivitiesClient operations = new GreeterActivitiesClientImpl();
Settable<Void> paused = new Settable<>();
public void greet() {
Promise<String> fs = getGreeting(0, operations.getName());
print(fs);
}
#Asynchronous
private Promise<String> getGreeting(int count, Promise<String> name)
{
if (count > 10)
return name;
return getGreeting(count, name, paused);
}
#Asynchronous
private Promise<String> getGreeting(int count, Promise<String> name, Settable<Void> paused) {
Promise<String> returnString = operations.getGreeting(name.get());
return getGreeting(count + 1, returnString);
}
#Asynchronous
private void print(Promise<String> finalString)
{
System.out.println("Final String is " + finalString.get());
}
// #Signal method
#Override
public void pause() {
paused = new Settable<>();
}
// #Signal method
#Override
public void resume() {
paused.set(null);
}
}
In case you get multiple signals for resume, you will be setting the paused settable again (which is already ready) so you might end up with unhandled IllegalStateException

Sitecore Publishing Restriction Override

I have two publishing target - one is stage and one is production.The publishing on Production should adhere to the publishing restrictions, but publishing on Stage should not look at or discard the valid to and valid from dates and publish under any circumstance.
I have written a publishing pipeline (PipelinePublishProvider). I am not sure how could I manage to overwrite the field values temporarily so it publishes on to stage every-time.
public class StagePublishOverride : PipelinePublishProvider
{
public override PublishHelper CreatePublishHelper(PublishOptions options)
{
Assert.ArgumentNotNull(options, "options");
if (options.TargetDatabase.Name.ToLower() == "stage")
{
Item itemToBePublished = new Item(options.RootItem.ID, options.RootItem.InnerData, new Database("web"));
itemToBePublished.Editing.BeginEdit();
itemToBePublished.Publishing.ValidTo = DateTime.MaxValue;
itemToBePublished.Publishing.ValidFrom = DateTime.MinValue;
itemToBePublished.Editing.EndEdit();
options.RootItem = itemToBePublished;
}
if (options is ExtendedPublishOptions)
return new ExtendedPublishHelper(options as ExtendedPublishOptions);
return new PublishHelper(options);
}
}
public class ExtendedPublishHelper : PublishHelper
{
private readonly ExtendedPublishOptions _options;
public ExtendedPublishHelper(ExtendedPublishOptions options)
: base(options)
{
_options = options;
}
public override Item GetVersionToPublish(Item sourceItem)
{
Assert.ArgumentNotNull(sourceItem, "sourceItem");
if (Options is ExtendedPublishOptions)
{
return sourceItem.Publishing.GetValidVersion(Options.PublishDate, _options.RequireApproval);
}
return sourceItem.Publishing.GetValidVersion(Options.PublishDate, true);
}
}
public class ExtendedPublishOptions : PublishOptions
{
public ExtendedPublishOptions(Database sourceDatabase, Database targetDatabase, PublishMode mode, Language language, DateTime publishDate, bool requireApproval)
: base(sourceDatabase, targetDatabase, mode, language, publishDate)
{
RequireApproval = requireApproval;
}
public bool RequireApproval { get; set; }
}
}
I believe you'll be better off adding a processor to the publishItem pipeline. Here is some UNTESTED code, which I think will serve your purpose:
public class PublishOverride : PublishItemProcessor
{
public override void Process(PublishItemContext context)
{
Assert.ArgumentNotNull((object)context, "context");
if (context.Action != PublishAction.None)
return;
Item sourceItem = this.GetSourceItem(context);
if (sourceItem == null)
return;
var stagingDB = Factory.GetDatabase("Stage");
if (stagingDB != null && !sourceItem.Publishing.NeverPublish && context.PublishContext.PublishOptions.TargetDatabase == stagingDB)
{
context.Action = PublishAction.PublishVersion;
context.VersionToPublish = sourceItem;
}
}
private Item GetSourceItem(PublishItemContext context)
{
Assert.ArgumentNotNull((object)context, "context");
return context.PublishHelper.GetSourceItem(context.ItemId);
}
}
Make sure you patch it in before the DetermineAction processor in the default config. So your config patch would look like this:
<configuration xmlns:patch="http://www.sitecore.net/xmlconfig/" xmlns:x="http://www.sitecore.net/xmlconfig/">
<sitecore>
<pipelines>
<publishItem>
<processor patch:before="*[#type='Sitecore.Publishing.Pipelines.PublishItem.DetermineAction, Sitecore.Kernel']"
type="YourNamespace.PublishOverride, YourAssembly" />
</publishItem>
</pipelines>
</sitecore>
</configuration>

Run code when Publishing Restriction is saved in Sitecore

I need to run code when an author saves a publishing restriction for an item.
How would I go about doing that?
The time restrictions are stored in the "__Valid to" and "__Valid from" fields. Attach a new pipe like this:
<event name="item:saved">
<handler type="Test.ValidTest, Test" method="OnItemSaved" />
</event>
And then test if those fields changed and do your thing:
public class ValidTest
{
private static readonly ID __Validfrom = new ID("{C8F93AFE-BFD4-4E8F-9C61-152559854661}");
private static readonly ID __Validto = new ID("{4C346442-E859-4EFD-89B2-44AEDF467D21}");
public void OnItemSaved(object sender, EventArgs args)
{
Item obj = Event.ExtractParameter(args, 0) as Item;
if (obj == null)
return;
//if (!(obj.TemplateID == YourTemplateId)) //restrict this to a limited set of templates if possible
// return;
try
{
ItemChanges itemChanges = Event.ExtractParameter(args, 1) as ItemChanges;
if (itemChanges != null &&
(itemChanges.FieldChanges.Contains(__Validfrom) || itemChanges.FieldChanges.Contains(__Validto)))
{
//YOUR THING here
Log.Info("Changed!", (object)this);
}
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Log.Error("failed", ex, (object)this);
}
}
}

RavenDB keeps throwing a ConcurrencyException

I keep getting a ConcurrencyException trying to update the same document multiple times in succession. PUT attempted on document '<id>' using a non current etag is the message.
On every save from our UI we publish an event using MassTransit. This event is sent to the subscriberqueues, but I put the Eventhandlers offline (testing offline subscribers). Once the eventhandler comes online the queue is read and the messages are processed as intended.
However since the same object is in the queue multiple times the first write succeeds, the next doesn't and throws this concurrencyexception.
I use a factory class to have a consistent IDocumentStore and IDocumentSession in all my applications. I specifically set the UseOptimisticConcurrency = false in the GetSession() method.
public static class RavenFactory
{
public static IDocumentStore CreateDocumentStore()
{
var store = new DocumentStore() { ConnectionStringName = "RavenDB" };
// Setting Conventions
store.Conventions.RegisterIdConvention<MyType>((db, cmd, e) => e.MyProperty.ToString());
store.Conventions.RegisterAsyncIdConvention<MyType>((db, cmd, e) => new CompletedTask<string>(e.MyProperty.ToString()));
// Registering Listeners
store
.RegisterListener(new TakeNewestConflictResolutionListener())
.RegisterListener(new DocumentConversionListener())
.RegisterListener(new DocumentStoreListener());
// Initialize and return
store.Initialize();
return store;
}
public static IDocumentSession GetSession(IDocumentStore store)
{
var session = store.OpenSession();
session.Advanced.UseOptimisticConcurrency = false;
return session;
}
}
The eventhandler looks like this. The IDocumentSession gets injected using Dependency Injection.
Here is the logic to get an instance of IDocumentSession.
private static void InitializeRavenDB(IUnityContainer container)
{
container.RegisterInstance<IDocumentStore>(RavenFactory.CreateDocumentStore(), new ContainerControlledLifetimeManager());
container.RegisterType<IDocumentSession, DocumentSession>(new PerResolveLifetimeManager(), new InjectionFactory(c => RavenFactory.GetSession(c.Resolve<IDocumentStore>())));
}
And here is the actual EventHandler which has the ConcurrencyException.
public class MyEventHandler:Consumes<MyEvent>.All, IConsumer
{
private readonly IDocumentSession _session;
public MyEventHandler(IDocumentSession session)
{
if (session == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("session");
_session = session;
}
public void Consume(MyEvent message)
{
Console.WriteLine("MyEvent received: Id = '{0}'", message.MyProperty);
try
{
_session.Store(message);
_session.SaveChanges();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
var exc = ex.ToString();
// Deal with concurrent writes ...
throw;
}
}
}
I want to ignore any concurrencyexception for now until we can sort out with the business on how to tackle concurrency.
So, any ideas why I get the ConcurrencyException? I want the save to happen no matter whether the document has been updated before or not.
I am unfamiliar with configuring Unity, but you always want Singleton of the IDocumentStore. Below, I have coded the Singleton out manually, but I'm sure Unity would support it:
public static class RavenFactory
{
private static IDocumentStore store;
private static object syncLock = new object();
public static IDocumentStore CreateDocumentStore()
{
if(RavenFactory.store != null)
return RavenFactory.store;
lock(syncLock)
{
if(RavenFactory.store != null)
return RavenFactory.store;
var localStore = new DocumentStore() { ConnectionStringName = "RavenDB" };
// Setting Conventions
localStore .Conventions.RegisterIdConvention<MyType>((db, cmd, e) => e.MyProperty.ToString());
localStore .Conventions.RegisterAsyncIdConvention<MyType>((db, cmd, e) => new CompletedTask<string>(e.MyProperty.ToString()));
// Registering Listeners
localStore
.RegisterListener(new TakeNewestConflictResolutionListener())
.RegisterListener(new DocumentConversionListener())
.RegisterListener(new DocumentStoreListener());
// Initialize and return
localStore.Initialize();
RavenFactory.store = localStore;
return RavenFactory.store;
}
}
// As before
// public static IDocumentSession GetSession(IDocumentStore store)
//
}

Periodic java logging

Can i flush all the logs based on time interval using configuration file. Searched a lot. Didn't find any. Short cut is using Timer ourselves and flush all loggers. But wanted to know whether configuraiton file allows it.
The configuration file options are explained in the LogManager documentation. At this time, the only way to do this is via the configuration file is to use the 'config' option to install your custom code to flush all loggers and perform the timer management. If you need to access to the JVM lifecycle, you can create a custom handler that ignores all log records but listens to constructor and close method calls.
public class FlushAllHandler extends Handler {
private final ScheduledExecutorService ses;
private final Future<?> task;
public FlushAllHandler() {
//TODO: Look these up from the LogManager.
super.setLevel(Level.OFF); //Ignore all published records.
ses = Executors.newScheduledThreadPool(1);
long delay = 1L;
TimeUnit unit = TimeUnit.HOURS;
task = ses.scheduleWithFixedDelay(new Task(), delay, delay, unit);
}
#Override
public void publish(LogRecord record) {
//Allow a trigger filter to kick off a flush.
if (isLoggable(record)) {
ses.execute(new Task());
}
}
#Override
public void flush() {
}
#Override
public void close() throws SecurityException {
super.setLevel(Level.OFF);
task.cancel(false);
ses.shutdown();
try {
ses.awaitTermination(30, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
ses.shutdownNow();
}
private static class Task implements Runnable {
Task() {
}
#Override
public void run() {
final ArrayList<Handler> handlers = new ArrayList<>();
final LogManager manager = LogManager.getLogManager();
synchronized (manager) { //avoid ConcurrentModificationException
final Enumeration<String> e = manager.getLoggerNames();
while (e.hasMoreElements()) {
final Logger l = manager.getLogger(e.nextElement());
if (l != null) {
Collections.addAll(handlers, l.getHandlers());
}
}
}
//Don't hold LogManager lock while flushing handlers.
for (Handler h : handlers) {
h.flush();
}
}
}
}