Is there a way to instruct the Erlang VM to apply a set of process flags to every new process that is spawned in the system?
For example in testing environment I would like every process to have save_calls flag set.
One way for doing this is to combine the Erlang tracing functionalities with a .erlang file.
Specifically, you could either use the low-level tracing capabilities provided by erlang:trace/3 or you could simply exploit the dbg:tracer/2 function to create a new tracing process which executes your custom handler function every time a tracing message is received.
To automate things a bit, you could then create an Erlang Start Up File in the directory where you're running your code or in your home directory. The Erlang Start Up File is a special file, called .erlang, which gets executed every time you start the run-time system.
Something like the following should do the job:
% -*- Erlang -*-
erlang:display("This is automatically executed.").
dbg:tracer(process, {fun ({trace, Pid, spawn, Pid2, {M, F, Args}}, Data) ->
process_flag(Pid2, save_calls, Data),
Data;
(_Trace, Data) ->
Data
end, 100}).
dbg:p(new, [procs, sos]).
Basically, I'm creating a new tracing process, which will trace processes (first argument). I'm specifying an handler function to get executed and some initial data. In the handler function, I'm setting the save_calls flag for newly spawned processes, whilst I'm ignoring all other tracing messages. I set the save_calls' option to 100, using the Initial Data parameter. In the last call, I'm telling dbg that I'm interested only in newly created processes. I'm also setting the sos (set_on_spawn) option to ensure inheritance of the tracing flags.
Finally, note how you need to use a variant of the process_flag function, which takes an extra argument (the Pid of the process you want to set the flag for).
Related
I need to watch or listen to a folder on an SFTP server for any changes. At some given time in the future (I don't know when), the folder will be updated with a file. Instead of pinging every minute, how would I setup a listener or watcher on that folder so I know when it has that file? Does Erlang's ssh_sftp module provide a function for this?
Neither SFTP nor FTP protocol have any mechanism to notify a client about changes in a remote folder. The only solution to detect changes is to periodically enumerate remote directory tree and find differences.
Ref : https://winscp.net/eng/docs/library_example_watch_for_changes
I don't know whether you still need it or not but I have already implemented what you need. I won't be able to share the code due to legal agreements however I can hint you the way to implement it.
Requirement: Run a function whenever a file lands to a directory instead of polling the directory at a defined interval to make processing efficient.
Step 1: Start the ssh daemon process with sftp as a subsystem
{ok, Pid} = ssh:daemon(Port, [{user_passwords, [{User, Pass}]},
{system_dir, SystemDir},
{user_dir, UserDir},
{key_cb, cac_auth},
{shell, {cacsftpd_server, display_info, []}},
{subsystems, [ssh_sftpd:subsystem_spec([{cwd,
Home}, {file_handler, sftpd_file_handler}])]}])
Step 2: In sftpd_file_handler you can apply the trigger to call ur desired handler once the file is completely transferred ;)).
While not in Erlang, but rather Elixir, take a look at: https://github.com/Codenaut/exsftpd/blob/master/lib/sftpd_file_handler.ex
The essential bit is the write function:
defmodule Exsftpd.SftpFileHandler do
...
def write(io_device, data, state) do
{:file.write(io_device, data), state}
my_custom_function(state)
{:ok, state}
end
...
end
Here you can call whatever function you desire after (or instead of) writing the content to the filesystem.
Initialise the server like so: (see https://github.com/Codenaut/exsftpd/blob/master/lib/server.ex for a more elaborate example):
:ssh.daemon(2222,
system_dir: '/tmp/ssh',
subsystems: [
Exsftpd.SftpdChannel.subsystem_spec(
file_handler: {Exsftpd.SftpFileHandler, []}
)
],
user_dir: '/tmp/ssh/users'
)
In Erlang, can I call some function f (BIF or not), whose job is to spawn a process, run the function argf I provided, and doesn't "return" until argf has "returned", and do this without using receive clause (the reason for this is that f will be invoked in a gen_server, I don't want pollute the gen_server's mailbox).
A snippet would look like this:
%% some code omitted ...
F = fun() -> blah, blah, timer:sleep(10000) end,
f(F), %% like `spawn(F), but doesn't return until 10 seconds has passed`
%% ...
The only way to communicate between processes is message passing (of course you can consider to poll for a specific key in an ets or a file but I dont like this).
If you use a spawn_monitor function in f/1 to start the F process and then have a receive block only matching the possible system messages from this monitor:
f(F) ->
{_Pid, MonitorRef} = spawn_monitor(F),
receive
{_Tag, MonitorRef, _Type, _Object, _Info} -> ok
end.
you will not mess your gen_server mailbox. The example is the minimum code, you can add a timeout (fixed or parameter), execute some code on normal or error completion...
You will not "pollute" the gen_servers mailbox if you spawn+wait for message before you return from the call or cast. A more serious problem with this maybe that you will block the gen_server while you are waiting for the other process to terminate. A way around this is to not explicitly wait but return from the call/cast and then when the completion message arrives handle it in handle_info/2 and then do what is necessary.
If the spawning is done in a handle_call and you want to return the "result" of that process then you can delay returning the value to the original call from the handle_info handling the process termination message.
Note that however you do it a gen_server:call has a timeout value, either implicit or explicit, and if no reply is returned it generates an error in the calling process.
Main way to communicate with process in Erlang VM space is message passing with erlang:send/2 or erlang:send/3 functions (alias !). But you can "hack" Erlang and use multiple way for communicating over process.
You can use erlang:link/1 to communicate stat of the process, its mainly used in case of your process is dying or is ended or something is wrong (exception or throw).
You can use erlang:monitor/2, this is similar to erlang:link/1 except the message go directly into process mailbox.
You can also hack Erlang, and use some internal way (shared ETS/DETS/Mnesia tables) or use external methods (database or other things like that). This is clearly not recommended and "destroy" Erlang philosophy... But you can do it.
Its seems your problem can be solved with supervisor behavior. supervisor support many strategies to control supervised process:
one_for_one: If one child process terminates and is to be restarted, only that child process is affected. This is the default restart strategy.
one_for_all: If one child process terminates and is to be restarted, all other child processes are terminated and then all child processes are restarted.
rest_for_one: If one child process terminates and is to be restarted, the 'rest' of the child processes (that is, the child processes after the terminated child process in the start order) are terminated. Then the terminated child process and all child processes after it are restarted.
simple_one_for_one: A simplified one_for_one supervisor, where all child processes are dynamically added instances of the same process type, that is, running the same code.
You can also modify or create your own supervisor strategy from scratch or base on supervisor_bridge.
So, to summarize, you need a process who wait for one or more terminating process. This behavior is supported natively with OTP, but you can also create your own model. For doing that, you need to share status of every started process, using cache or database, or when your process is spawned. Something like that:
Fun = fun
MyFun (ParentProcess, {result, Data})
when is_pid(ParentProcess) ->
ParentProcess ! {self(), Data};
MyFun (ParentProcess, MyData)
when is_pid(ParentProcess) ->
% do something
MyFun(ParentProcess, MyData2) end.
spawn(fun() -> Fun(self(), InitData) end).
EDIT: forgot to add an example without send/receive. I use an ETS table to store every result from lambda function. This ETS table is set when we spawn this process. To get result, we can select data from this table. Note, the key of the row is the process id of the process.
spawner(Ets, Fun, Args)
when is_integer(Ets),
is_function(Fun) ->
spawn(fun() -> Fun(Ets, Args) end).
Fun = fun
F(Ets, {result, Data}) ->
ets:insert(Ets, {self(), Data});
F(Ets, Data) ->
% do something here
Data2 = Data,
F(Ets, Data2) end.
I want to pass some arguments to supervisor:init/1 function and it is desirable, that the application's interface was so:
redis_pool:start() % start all instances
redis_pool:start(Names) % start only given instances
Here is the application:
-module(redis_pool).
-behaviour(application).
...
start() -> % start without params
application:ensure_started(?APP_NAME, transient).
start(Names) -> % start with some params
% I want to pass Names to supervisor init function
% in order to do that I have to bypass application:ensure_started
% which is not GOOD :(
application:load(?APP_NAME),
case start(normal, [Names]) of
{ok, _Pid} -> ok;
{error, {already_started, _Pid}} -> ok
end.
start(_StartType, StartArgs) ->
redis_pool_sup:start_link(StartArgs).
Here is the supervisor:
init([]) ->
{ok, Config} = get_config(),
Names = proplists:get_keys(Config),
init([Names]);
init([Names]) ->
{ok, Config} = get_config(),
PoolSpecs = lists:map(fun(Name) ->
PoolName = pool_utils:name_for(Name),
{[Host, Port, Db], PoolSize} = proplists:get_value(Name, Config),
PoolArgs = [{name, {local, PoolName}},
{worker_module, eredis},
{size, PoolSize},
{max_overflow, 0}],
poolboy:child_spec(PoolName, PoolArgs, [Host, Port, Db])
end, Names),
{ok, {{one_for_one, 10000, 1}, PoolSpecs}}.
As you can see, current implementation is ugly and may be buggy. The question is how I can pass some arguments and start application and supervisor (with params who were given to start/1) ?
One option is to start application and run redis pools in two separate phases.
redis_pool:start(),
redis_pool:run([] | Names).
But what if I want to run supervisor children (redis pool) when my app starts?
Thank you.
The application callback Module:start/2 is not an API to call in order to start the application. It is called when the application is started by application:start/1,2. This means that overloading it to provide differing parameters is probably the wrong thing to do.
In particular, application:start will be called directly if someone adds your application as a dependency of theirs (in the foo.app file). At this point, they have no control over the parameters, since they come from your .app file, in the {mod, {Mod, Args}} term.
Some possible solutions:
Application Configuration File
Require that the parameters be in the application configuration file; you can retrieve them with application:get_env/2,3.
Don't start a supervisor
This means one of two things: becoming a library application (removing the {mod, Mod} term from your .app file) -- you don't need an application behaviour; or starting a dummy supervisor that does nothing.
Then, when someone wants to use your library, they can call an API to create the pool supervisor, and graft it into their supervision tree. This is what poolboy does with poolboy:child_spec.
Or, your application-level supervisor can be a normal supervisor, with no children by default, and you can provide an API to start children of that, via supervisor:start_child. This is (more or less) what cowboy does.
You can pass arguments in the AppDescr argument to application:load/1 (though its a mighty big tuple already...) as {mod, {Module, StartArgs}} according to the docs ("according to the docs" as in, I don't recall doing it this way myself, ever: http://www.erlang.org/doc/apps/kernel/application.html#load-1).
application:load({application, some_app, {mod, {Module, [Stuff]}}})
Without knowing anything about the internals of the application you're starting, its hard to say which way is best, but a common way to do this is to start up the application and then send it a message containing the data you want it to know.
You could make receipt of the message form tell the application to go through a configuration assertion procedure, so that the same message you send on startup is also the same sort of thing you would send it to reconfigure it on the fly. I find this more useful than one-shotting arguments on startup.
In any case, it is usually better to think in terms of starting something, then asking it to do something for you, than to try telling it everything in init parameters. This can be as simple as having it start up and wait for some message that will tell the listener to then spin up the supervisor the way you're trying to here -- isolated one step from the application inclusion issues RL mentioned in his answer.
I have a process running on node2. Can I register this process using register/2 on node1? Basically I am trying to do this:
register(process_name, spawn_link(node2, module, function, [Arg1, Arg2]))
I get this error:
** exception error: bad argument
in function register/2
called as register(process_name, <5902.92.0>)
When I register a process local to node1, this works perfectly fine. I could not find any documentation which prevents registration of processes of other nodes.
Thanks.
Actually it is well documented, and the expected behaviour as register() is for local process registration.
http://www.erlang.org/doc/man/erlang.html#register-2
Failure: badarg if PidOrPort is not an existing, local process or port, [...]
If you want global registration across your cluster, read http://erlang.org/doc/man/global.html
Note that if you use standard OTP behaviours, (gen_server, etc) most of the time you don't need to use the global module directly.
In project gproc's file gen_leader.erl，a customized behavior is created. But In the following statement, what is module "gen"? I can't find this module in the "erlang document tools http://www.erlang.org/erldoc"? Could you give me some explanation?
behaviour_info(callbacks) ->
[{init,1},
{elected,2},
{surrendered,3},
{handle_leader_call,4},
{handle_leader_cast,3},
{handle_local_only, 4},
{from_leader,3},
{handle_call,3},
{handle_cast,2},
{handle_DOWN,3},
{handle_info,2},
{terminate,2},
{code_change,4}];
behaviour_info(_Other) ->
undefined.
start_link(Name, [_|_] = CandidateNodes, Workers,
Mod, Arg, Options) when is_atom(Name) ->
gen:start(?MODULE, link, {local,Name}, Mod, %<<++++++ What's the meaning?
{CandidateNodes, Workers, Arg}, Options).
It looks like gen:start() is referring to gen.erl. According to the documentation in the file, gen.erl implements the generic parts of gen_server, gen_fsm and other OTP behaviors. In this case, it looks like gen_start handles spawning new processes. It checks to see if a process has already been spawned with the given name. If it has, an error is returned. If it has not, a new process is spawned by calling the module's start or start_link function.
In other words, when you call gen_server:start or gen_fsm:start, it calls gen:start (which does basic sanity checking) and gen:start, in turn, calls the module's start or start_link. When you're creating custom OTP behaviors, you'll have to call gen:start directly so that you don't need to replicate the error checking code in gen.erl.