ERLang OTP gen_server:call() fails - erlang

I have written a gen_server module (data_cahe.erl) that will save the data in ETS.
My code is as follows:
-export([start_link/0]).
%% gen_server callbacks
-export([init/1, handle_call/3, handle_cast/2, handle_info/2,
terminate/2, code_change/3]).
-define(SERVER, ?MODULE).
-define(TABLE_ID, ?MODULE).
-record(state, {user_id, my_reading, my_status}).
start_link() ->
gen_server:start_link({local, ?SERVER}, ?MODULE, [], []).
init([]) ->
{ok, ?TABLE_ID} = new_cache(?TABLE_ID),
{ok, #state{user_id=undefined, my_reading=undefined, my_status=undefined}}.
The handle_call:
handle_call({save, UserId, Readings}, _From, _Status) ->
io:format("Inside handle_call_save: ~n~p~n",[]);
%Check if email is present
case my_reading(UserId) of
{error, not_found} -> %%Email not present
io:format("Inside handle_call_save Just before save: ~n~p~n",[]),
Result = save_my_readings(UserId, Readings),
{reply, ok, #state{user_id=UserId, my_reading=Readings, my_status=Result}};
{ok, Reading} ->
io:format("Inside handle_call_save Just before delete and save: ~n~p~n",[]),
delete_my_reading(UserId), %%delete last reading
Result = save_my_readings(UserId, Readings), %%Save this new Reading
{reply, ok, #state{user_id=UserId, my_reading=Readings, my_status=Result}}
end;
I'm trying using this handel_call (that has access to Email and AccessToken) to save the data in ETS from the worker module:
case my_app_interface:get_data_summary(binary_to_list(AccessToken)) of
{error, _Reason1} ->
%%Start a new Timer Cycle
..
..
Readings1 ->
gen_server:call(data_cahe, {save, Email, Readings1}), %%HERE IT CRASHES
io:format("Get Data Summary : ~n~p~n",[Readings1]) %%This is printed when the line above is commented
end,
However the gen_server:call(...) crashes. When I comment out this line the Readings are printed in usual sequence.
I've even commeneted out all the lines except the print statement in handle_call method - but nothing is printed. It seems the gen_server:call(...) is not at all going through. Would be extremely grateful if someone throws some light what is going wrong.

maybe you spelled it wrong ? data_cahe instead of ddata_cache..

As general rule, you do not want to expose users of your server to gen_server API. Or to be more specific, you don't want them to call gen_server:call( ModuleName, {SomeAtom, And, DifferentArguments}) since it creates space for many errors (misspellings and missing "arguments" in message tuple). And it makes it hard to find out how you could interact with this server (one would have to look into handle_call's and handle_cast's, which is not easiest approach).
To go around this, all such interactions (all possible calls and casts) should be wrapped in function call. And those functions will be exposed (exported) as module interface. And in the end, the client won't have to even know that it is implemented with gen_server
So if your module is called data_cache, and you have functionality of saving some data, just implement save function.
save( Email, Readings) ->
gen_server:call(?SERVER, {save, Email, Readings1}).
We even used ?SERVER macro (to help a little with possible misspelings), and you can leave handle_call as it was. Now the client call could be changed to
Readings1 ->
data_cache:save(Email, Readings1),
io:format("Get Data Summary : ~n~p~n",[Readings1]) %%This is printed when the line above is commented
end,
which is much easier to read, and harder to break.

Related

Erlang: How to properly dispatch a gen_server with start_child in a supervisor and call the API

I have a gen_server in my cavv application that I need to start first to execute a call to. I want to use a command dispatcher for this. For a short example, this it the gen_server's API:
a gen_server: cavv_user
-module(cavv_user).
-behavior(gen_server).
-define(SERVER(UserId), {via, gproc, {n, l, {?MODULE, UserId}}}).
start_link(UserId) ->
gen_server:start_link(?SERVER(UserId), ?MODULE, [UserId], []).
change_email_address(UserId, EmailAddress) ->
gen_server:call(?SERVER(AggregateId), {execute_command, #change_user_email_address{user_id=UserId, email_address=EmailAddress}}).
Before I can call cavv_user:change_email_address(). I need to start the cavv_user. I do this is as a simple_one_for_one child in a supervisor, like so:
a supervisor: cavv_user_sup
-module(cavv_user_sup).
-behaviour(supervisor).
-define(CHILD(ChildName, Type, Args), {ChildName, {ChildName, start_link, Args}, temporary, 5000, Type, [ChildName]}).
start_link() ->
supervisor:start_link({local, ?SERVER}, ?MODULE, []).
start_child(UserId) ->
supervisor:start_child(?SERVER, [UserId]).
init([]) ->
RestartStrategy = {simple_one_for_one, 1, 5},
Children = [?CHILD(cavv_user, worker, [])],
{ok, { RestartStrategy, Children} }.
The problem I am now facing is how to dispatch commands to a cavv_user. I want to make sure the proper user is started first using start_child, and then call the cavv_user:change_email_address().
I have found this anwser, to use a dispatcher: Erlang: what supervision tree should I end with writing a task scheduler?
So I created a command dispatcher and end up with a cavv_user_dispatcher and a cavv_user_dispatcher_sup that in turn contains the cavv_user_dispatcher and the earlier cavv_user_sup:
cavv_user_dispatch_sup
| |
cavv_user_dispatcher |
(gen_server) |
|
|
cavv_user_sup
| | |
cavv_user_1...cavv_user_N
The cavv_user_dispatcher
This works beautifully.
The problem I am facing now is, how do I properly write the code in cavv_user_dispatcher? I am facing a problem with code duplication. How to properly call start_child and call the appropriate API of cavv_user?
Should I use some kind of Fun like so?
-module(cavv_user_dispatcher).
dispatch_command(UserId, Fun) ->
gen_server:call(?SERVER, {dispatch_command, {UserId, Fun}}).
handle_call({dispatch_command, {UserId, Fun}}, _From, State) ->
cavv_user_sup:start_child(UserId),
Fun(), %% How to pass: cavv_user:change_email_address(..,..)?
{reply, ok, State};
Or duplicate the cavv_user's API like so?
-module(cavv_user_dispatcher).
change_user_email_address(UserId, EmailAddress) ->
gen_server:call(?SERVER, {change_user_email_address, {UserId, EmailAddress}}).
handle_call({change_user_email_address, {UserId, EmailAddress}}, _From, State) ->
cavv_user_sup:start_child(UserId),
cavv_user:change_email_address(UserId, EmailAddress),
{reply, ok, State};
Or should I re-use the command records from cavv_user into some kind of util to properly build them and pass them around? Maybe some better way to pass the function I want to call at cavv_user?
I would like to solve the problem in the best Erlang way as possible, without code duplication.
Is your dispatcher supposed to handle other commands?
If yes then then how will the next command will come, I mean will the requester know the process pid of the user or not?
if yes then you need 2 functions, one to create a user, it will return the pid to the requester for next call, and one to handle next requests by sending the command to the given pid
if no, then you need also 2 functions, one to create the a user and store the user_id along with the user process pid and one to handle next request by retrieving the process pid and then forward it the command (I suppose this is what you want to do).
if no then you don't need to handle any command and should pass directly the email address when creating the user process. Note that this is true for all cases since you need a different interface to create a user.
I would modify your code this way (not tested, it is too late :o) !)
-module(cavv_user_dispatcher).
create_user(UserId,UserMail) ->
gen_server:call(?SERVER,{new_user,UserId,UserMail}).
% Args is a list of argument, empty if
% F needs only one argument (the user Pid)
dispatch_command(UserId, Fun, Args) ->
gen_server:call(?SERVER, {dispatch_command, {UserId, Fun,Args}}).
handle_call({dispatch_command, {UserId, Fun,Args}}, _From, State) ->
Pid = get_pid(UserId,State),
Answer = case Pid of
unknown_user_id -> unknown_user_id;
_ -> apply(Fun,[Pid|Args]),
ok
end,
{reply, Answer, State};
handle_call({new_user,UserId,UserMail},_From,State) ->
% verify that the user id does not already exists
CheckId = check_id(UserId,State),
{Answer,NewState} = case CheckId of
false -> {already_exist,State};
true -> {ok,Pid} = cavv_user_sup:start_child(UserId,UserMail)
{ok,[{UserId,Pid}|State]}
% State must be initialized as an empty list in the init function.
{reply, Answer, NewState};
...
get_pid(UserId,State) ->
proplists:get_value(UserId, State, unknown_user_id).
check_id(UserId,State) ->
not proplists:is_defined(UserId, State).
and the user supervisor mus be modified this way:
start_child(UserId,UserMail) -> % change arity in the export
supervisor:start_child(?SERVER, [UserId,UserMail]).
and then the user server:
start_link(UserId,UserMail) ->
gen_server:start_link(?SERVER(UserId), ?MODULE, [UserId,UserMail],[]).
init([UserId,UserMail]) ->
{ok,[{user_id,UserId},{user_mail,UserMail}]}.

How can I know when it's the last cycle of my process restarted by the supervisor in erlang

I have a simple_one_for_one supervisor which has gen_fsm children.
I want each gen_fsm child to send a message only on the last time it terminates.
Is there any way to know when is the last cycle?
here's my supervisor:
-module(data_sup).
-behaviour(supervisor).
%% API
-export([start_link/0,create_bot/3]).
%% Supervisor callbacks
-export([init/1]).
%%-compile(export_all).
%%%===================================================================
%%% API functions
%%%===================================================================
start_link() ->
supervisor:start_link({local, ?MODULE}, ?MODULE, []).
init([]) ->
RestartStrategy = {simple_one_for_one, 0, 1},
ChildSpec = {cs_fsm, {cs_fsm, start_link, []},
permanent, 2000, worker, [cs_fsm]},
Children = [ChildSpec],
{ok, {RestartStrategy, Children}}.
create_bot(BotId, CNPJ,Pid) ->
supervisor:start_child(?MODULE, [BotId, CNPJ, Pid]).
the Pid is the Pid of the process which starts the superviser and gives orders to start the children.
-module(cs_fsm).
-behaviour(gen_fsm).
-compile(export_all).
-define(SERVER, ?MODULE).
-define(TIMEOUT, 5000).
-record(params, {botId, cnpj, executionId, pid}).
%%%===================================================================
%%% API
%%%===================================================================
start_link(BotId, CNPJ, Pid) ->
io:format("start_link...~n"),
Params = #params{botId = BotId, cnpj = CNPJ, pid = Pid},
gen_fsm:start_link(?MODULE, Params, []).
%%%===================================================================
%%% gen_fsm callbacks
%%%===================================================================
init(Params) ->
io:format("initializing~n"),
process_flag(trap_exit, true),
{ok, requesting_execution, Params, 0}.
requesting_execution(timeout,Params) ->
io:format("erqusting execution"),
{next_state, finished, Params,?TIMEOUT}.
finished(timeout, Params) ->
io:format("finished :)~n"),
{stop, normal, Params}.
terminate(shutdown, _StateName, Params) ->
Params#params.pid ! {terminated, self(),Params},
ok;
terminate(_Reason, _StateName, Params) ->
ok.
my point is that if the process fails in any of the states it should send a message only if it is the last time it is restarted by the supervisor (according to its restart strategy).
If the gen_fsm fails, does it restart from the same state with same state data? If not how can I cause it to happen?
You can add sending the message to the Module:terminate/3 function which is called when one of the StateName functions returns {stop,Reason,NewStateData} to indicate that the gen_fsm should be stopped.
gen_fsm is a finite state machine so you decide how it transitions between states. Something that triggers the last cycle may also set something in the StateData that is passed to Module:StateName/3 so that the function that handles the state knows it's the last cycle. It's hard to give a more specific answer unless you provide some code which we could analyze and comment on.
EDIT after further clarification:
Supervisor doesn't notify its children which time it has restarted them and it also can't notify the child that it's the last restart. This later is simply because it doesn't know that it's going to be the last until the supervisor process actually crashes once more, which the supervisor can't possibly predict. Only after the child crashed supervisor can calculate how many times the child crashed during a period of time and if it is allowed to restart the child once more or if that was the last restart and now it's time for the supervisor to die as well.
However, nothing is stopping the child from registering, e.g. in an ETS table, how many times it has been restarted. But it of course won't help with deducting which restart is the last one.
Edit 2:
When the supervisor restarts the child it starts it from scratch using the standard init function. Any previous state of the child before it crashed is lost.
Please note that a crash is an exceptional situation and it's not always possible to recover the state, because the crash could have corrupted the state. Instead of trying to recover the state or asking supervisor when it's done restarting the child, why not to prevent the crash from happening in the first place? You have two options:
I. Use try/catch to catch any exceptional situations and act accordingly. It's possible to catch any error that would otherwise crash the process and cause supervisor to restart it. You can add try/catch to any entry function inside the gen_fsm process so that any error condition is caught before it crashes the server. See example function 1 or example function 2:
read() ->
try
try_home() orelse try_path(?MAIN_CFG) orelse
begin io:format("Some Error", []) end
catch
throw:Term -> {error, Term}
end.
try_read(Path) ->
try
file:consult(Path)
catch
error:Error -> {error, Error}
end.
II. Spawn a new process to handle the job and trap EXIT signals when the process dies. This allows gen_fsm to handle a job asynchronously and handle any errors in a custom way (not necessarily by restarting the process as a supervisor would do). This section titled Error Handling explains how to trap exit signals from child processes. And this is an example of trapping signals in a gen_server. Check the handle_info function that contains a few clauses to trap different types of EXIT messages from children processes.
init([Cfg, Id, Mode]) ->
process_flag(trap_exit, true),
(...)
handle_info({'EXIT', _Pid, normal}, State) ->
{noreply, State};
handle_info({'EXIT', _Pid, noproc}, State) ->
{noreply, State};
handle_info({'EXIT', Pid, Reason}, State) ->
log_exit(Pid, Reason),
check_done(error, Pid, State);
handle_info(_, State) ->
{noreply, State}.

How to make a gen_server reply with a message?

I have the gen_server shown below. It works for the most part. However when I start it from the shell the replies come right back to the shell prompt. I would have expected them to be sent as messages back to the shells pid and then I would use flush() to see them.
What do I have to change in order to have the foo_worker send its replies as messages ?
-module(foo_worker).
-behaviour(gen_server).
%% API
-export([start_link/1, start/1, init/1, send/3, die/1]).
-export([handle_call/3, handle_cast/2, handle_info/2, terminate/2]).
%%%-------------------------------------------------------------------
send(Worker, Ref, Counter) ->
gen_server:call(Worker, {inc, Ref, Counter}).
die(Worker) ->
gen_server:cast(Worker, die).
%%%-------------------------------------------------------------------
start_link(Limit) ->
gen_server:start_link(?MODULE, [Limit], []).
start(Limit) ->
gen_server:start(?MODULE, [Limit], []).
init([Limit]) ->
{ok, Limit}.
handle_call(_, _, Limit) when Limit =< 0 ->
exit({worker, eol});
handle_call({inc, Ref, Data}, From, Limit) ->
io:format("From ~p~n", [From]),
{reply, {Ref, updated, Data+1}, Limit - 1}.
handle_cast(die, _) ->
io:format("~p Dying ~n",[self()]),
exit(normal).
handle_info(Info, State) ->
io:format("Unkown message ~p for state ~p~n", [Info, State]).
terminate(Reason, State) ->
io:format("~p Died because ~p with state ~p~n", [self(), Reason, State]).
The whole point of gen_server:call/2,3 is to wrap into a function call the passing of a message into a gen_server process and the reception of its reply. If you want to deal only with messages, don't use gen_server:call/2,3 but rather have the caller invoke gen_server:cast/2 and include the caller pid in the message:
send(Worker, Ref, Counter) ->
gen_server:cast(Worker, {inc, Ref, Counter, self()}).
Then have gen_server:handle_cast/2 understand that message and use the pid send the reply back to the caller:
handle_cast({inc, Ref, Data, From}, Limit) ->
From ! {Ref, updated, Data+1},
{noreply, Limit-1}.
By the way, note that when you choose this sort of approach, you need to deal with possible failure. If you pass a message to the gen_server process but it dies before it sends you a reply, you need to make sure the caller doesn't sit and wait forever for a reply that will never arrive. The best way to do this is with a monitor — you can have the caller monitor the gen_server process before sending it a message and demonitor it once it receives the reply. If the gen_server process dies, the caller will get a DOWN message instead (see the monitor documentation for details). Also note that by doing this you're reimplementing a bunch of what gen_server:call/2,3 already does for you.

Writing and compiling custom behaviours in Erlang

I'm trying to write and compile a custom behaviour in Erlang.
I cannot find any clear documentation on how to compile this behaviour.
-module(bla).
-export([start_link/0,behaviour_info/1]).
behaviour_info(callbacks)->
[{init,1}];
behaviour_info(_Other)->
undefined.
%% -callback init(Args :: term()) ->
%% {ok, State :: term()} | {ok, State :: term(), timeout()} |
%% {stop, Reason :: term()} | ignore.
start_link()->
init([]).
my command for comiling is :
erlc.exe .\src\bla.erl
resulting:
bla.erl:24: function init/1 undefined
Anyone an idea on writing and compiling behaviours in erlang, please? any links?
Defining behaviour callbacks results in an obligation towards your implementation of callback module. In erlang, modules are just function containers, not classes nor interfaces. Behaviours are based on runtime module name resolution Mod:fun(). OTP gen_server (check it) keeps its callback module name after you pass it in: gen_server:start_link(CallbackModuleName, Args, Opts) and here is code for applying callback init/1:
init_it(Starter, Parent, Name0, Mod, Args, Options) ->
Name = name(Name0),
Debug = debug_options(Name, Options),
case catch Mod:init(Args) of
{ok, State} ->
proc_lib:init_ack(Starter, {ok, self()}),
loop(Parent, Name, State, Mod, infinity, Debug);
{ok, State, Timeout} ->
proc_lib:init_ack(Starter, {ok, self()}),
loop(Parent, Name, State, Mod, Timeout, Debug);
...
It's applying init/1 of passed callback module kept in Mod parameter, gets its last value, do what you want and keep going (or not, depends on that last value).
Assume we have module bla_impl which looks like this:
-module(bla_impl).
-behaviour(bla).
-export([init/1, start_link/0]).
start_link() -> bla:start_link(?MODULE). %% macro ?MODULE is resolved to bla_impl
init(Args) -> ... .
And now you need to say in bla which module you use by:
-module(bla).
-export([start_link/1]).
start_link(Mod) -> Mod:init([]).
or maybe better solution is to read it from configuration:
-module(bla).
-export([start_link/0]).
start_link() ->
Mod = application:get_env(bla_app, callback_module),
Mod:init([]),
...
There is many ways for doing so.
As you see there is no magic here. This would work even without -behaviour(bla) nor specified callback with -callback. This is just an information for compiler, tools and documentation.
From erlang documentation: Behaviours
And btw. start_link function should spawn another process and link to it.
start_link(Mod) ->
spawn_link(Mod, init, [[]]).

How to create global variables in Erlang

I am writing an ejabberd module to filter packets. I need to get the hostname to pull some configs using gen_mod:get_module_opt().
I have 4 important functions :
start(Host, _Opt) : This is an ejabberd function to load my module. I get the Host atom here
filter_packet({From, To, XML}): This is my packet filter hook. I cannot pass custom params to this function, as it is a hook in ejabberd.
get_translation(XmlData): filter_packet() calls get_translation() in a loop
fetch_translation(XmlData): called recursively from get_translation(). This is where I am calling gen_mod:get_module_opt(), and hence need the Host.
My question is, how can I take Host from start() and put it in a global variable, so that fetch_translation can access it?
The "easiest way" is to create a named ets table, and put it in there.
start(Host, _Opt) ->
ets:new(my_table, [named_table, protected, set, {keypos, 1}]),
ets:insert(my_table, {host, Host}),
...
fetch_translation(XmlData) ->
[{_, Host}] = ets:lookup(my_table, host),
...
Note that this is a "general" solution. Ejabberd might provide facilities for what you want, but I cannot help you with that.
It may sound as an overkill but you may consider implementing a very basic gen_server. It contains a state that is available to its callbacks and the data can be kept there. For your case you can write a module similar to this one:
-module(your_module_name).
-behaviour(gen_server).
-export([init/1, handle_call/3, handle_cast/2, handle_info/2, terminate/2, code_change/3]).
-export([start/2, filter_loop/1]).
start(Host, Opt) ->
%% start the named gen server
gen_server:start({local, ?MODULE}, ?MODULE, Host, []).
filter_packet({From, To, XML}) ->
%% do your thing
gen_server:call(?MODULE, {fetch_translation, XmlData}).
%% this will be called by gen_server:start - just pass the Host
init(Host) ->
{ok, Host}.
handle_call({fetch_translation, XmlData}, _From, Host) ->
%% do your thing
{reply, ok, Host}.
%% you can ignore the rest - they are needed to be present
handle_cast(_Msg, State) ->
{noreply, State}.
handle_info(_Info, State) ->
{noreply, State}.
code_change(_OldVsn, State, _Extra) ->
{ok, State}.
You define your global variable on your module top...like below
-define (Your Variable, "your host name here").
eg.
-define (RelayHost, "smtp.gmail.com").
and you can use this Global variable in all your method in your module.
io:fwrite("Global Value ~p", [?RelayHost]).
-AjAy
You could start a new message filtering process and register it using erlang:register/2, then route all filter_packet/1 requests through it (a potential bottleneck).
-define(?SERVER, msg_filter).
start(Host, Opt) ->
{ok, Pid} = spawn(?MODULE, filter_loop, [Host, Opt]),
register(?SERVER, Pid).
filter_loop(Host, Opt) ->
receive
{Pid, filter_packet, {_From, _To, XML}} ->
Trans = get_translation(XML, Host),
Pid ! {?SERVER, translation, Trans},
filter_loop(Host, Opt)
end.
filter_packet(Pack) ->
?SERVER ! {self(), filter_packet, Pack}
receive
{?SERVER, translation, Trans} ->
% wrap translation
UpdatedPacket
end.
Say you are filtering incoming packets, then To#jid.lserver might be your host.
guessing for your description than you are in a single-domain ejabberd deployment (no virtual hosts),
yo can get the local XMPP domain using the ?MYNAME macro (see ejabberd.hrl for the definition).
Try use persistent_term:
1> persistent_term:put(hello, <<"world">>).
ok
2> persistent_term:get(hello).
<<"world">>
3> persistent_term:erase(hello).
true
4> persistent_term:get(hello).
** exception error: bad argument
in function persistent_term:get/1
called as persistent_term:get(hello)
You cannot create global variable but you can define a record outside your functions and create an instance of that record with properties then pass it down to the methods you call. Therefore, you can only share one record via method parameter.

Resources