I start a process as follows
start() ->
register (dist_erlang, spawn(?MODULE, loop, [])),
ok.
But get the following error when trying to run start().
Error in process <0.62.0> with exit value: {undef,[{dist_erlang,loop,[]}]}
The module is called dist_erlang.
What am I doing wrong?
Thanks
Although the question is old, I post what helped me when I was wrestling with the Erlang compiler.
This (incomplete) snippet
-export([start/0]).
start() ->
Ping = spawn(?MODULE, ping, [[]]),
...
ping(State) ->
receive
...
end.
fails with error:
=ERROR REPORT==== 2-Sep-2013::12:17:46 ===
Error in process <0.166.0> with exit value: {undef,[{pingpong,ping,[[]],[]}]}
until you export explicitly ping/1 function. So with this export:
-export([start/0, ping/1]).
it works. I think that the confusion came from some examples from Learn You Some Erlang for great good where the modules sometimes have
-compile(export_all).
which is easy to overlook
Based on your previous question, your loop function takes one parameter, not none. Erlang is looking for loop/0 but can't find it because your function is loop/1.
The third parameter to spawn/3 is a list of parameters to pass to your function, and in the case you've shown the list is empty. Try:
register (dist_erlang, spawn(?MODULE, loop, [[]]))
In this case, the third parameter is a list that contains one element (an empty list).
Related
I use EUNIT module and including "eunit/include/eunit.hrl". I call spawn/1 with the argument func/0 to spawn a new process in a test function and call io:format/1 in the new process. The argument func/0 is a recursive function like this:
func() ->
A = 2,
io:format("#######~p~n", [A]),
timer:sleep(1000),
func().
Then
10> bt:test().
All 2 tests passed.
ok
11>
=ERROR REPORT==== 19-Jun-2013::19:50:54 ===
Error in process <0.122.0> with exit value: {terminated,[{io,format,[<0.121.0>,"
#######~p~n",[2]],[]},{bt,func,0,[{file,"bt.erl"},{line,6}]}]}
What's wrong and what should I do?
If I correcly understand the problem is that you are spawning a process running a never ending function func(), but when the EUnit process terminates it probably closes standard output.
This makes the process issuing io:format() to exit (raises an exception). Indeed the ERROR REPORT mentions exactly this function.
My suggestion is to review the need of spawning a function that never ends.
The way fun() is written, it's infinite recursive. It's basically:
fun() ->
fun().
That will never return (keep running) and is probably the reason for termination by EUNIT.
Good day, i have following setup for my little service:
-module(mrtask_net).
-export([start/0, stop/0, listen/1]).
-define(SERVER, mrtask_net).
start() ->
Pid = spawn_link(fun() -> ?MODULE:listen(4488) end),
register(?SERVER, Pid),
Pid.
stop() ->
exit(?SERVER, ok).
....
And here is the repl excerpt:
(emacs#rover)83> mrtask_net:start().
<0.445.0>
(emacs#rover)84> mrtask_net:stop().
** exception error: bad argument
in function exit/2
called as exit(mrtask_net,ok)
in call from mrtask_net:stop/0
(emacs#rover)85>
As you see, stopping process produces error, process is stopping though.
What does this error mean and how to make thing clean ?
Not being an Erlang programmer and just from the documentation of exit (here), I'd say, that exit requires a process id as first argument whereas you are passing an atom (?SERVER) to it.
Try
exit(whereis(?SERVER), ok).
instead (whereis returns the process id associated with a name, see here)
You need to change the call to exit/2 as #MartinStettner has pointed out. The reason the process stops anyway is that you have started it with spawn_link. Your process is then linked to the shell process. When you called mrtask_net:stop() the error caused the shell process to crash which then caused your process to crash as they were linked. A new shell process is then automatically started so you can keep working with the shell. You generally do want to start your servers with spawn_link but it can cause confusion when your are testing them from the shell and they just "happen" to die.
I would suggest you to stick with OTP. It really gives you tons of advantages (I hardly can immagine the case where OTP doesn't benefit).
So, if you want to stop process in OTP you should do something like this for gen_server:
% process1.erl
% In case you get cast message {stopme, Message}
handle_cast({stopme, Message}, State) ->
% you will stop
{stop, normal, State}
handle_cast(Msg, State) ->
% do your stuff here with msg
{noreply, State}.
% process2.erl
% Here the code to stop process1
gen_server:cast(Pid, {stopme, "It's time to stop!"}),
More about it you can find here: http://www.erlang.org/doc/man/gen_server.html
I have been trying to learn Erlang and came across some code written by Joe Armstrong:
start() ->
F = fun interact/2,
spawn(fun() -> start(F, 0) end).
interact(Browser, State) ->
receive
{browser, Browser, Str} ->
Str1 = lists:reverse(Str),
Browser ! {send, "out ! " ++ Str1},
interact(Browser, State);
after 100 ->
Browser ! {send, "clock ! tick " ++ integer_to_list(State)},
interact(Browser, State+1)
end.
It is from a blog post about using websockets with Erlang: http://armstrongonsoftware.blogspot.com/2009/12/comet-is-dead-long-live-websockets.html
Could someone please explain to me why in the start function, he spawns the anonymous function start(F, 0), when start is a function that takes zero arguments. I am confused about what he is trying to do here.
Further down in this blog post (Listings) you can see that there is another function (start/2) that takes two arguments:
start(F, State0) ->
{ok, Listen} = gen_tcp:listen(1234, [{packet,0},
{reuseaddr,true},
{active, true}]),
par_connect(Listen, F, State0).
The code sample you quoted was only an excerpt where this function was omitted for simplicity.
The reason for spawning a fun in this way is to avoid having to export a function which is only intended for internal use. One problem with is that all exported functions are available to all users even if they only meant for internal use. One example of this is a call-back module for gen_server which typically contains both the exported API for clients and the call-back functions for the gen_server behaviour. The call-back functions are only intended to be called by the gen_server behaviour and not by others but they are visible in the export list and not in anyway blocked.
Spawning a fun decreases the number of exported internal functions.
In Erlang, functions are identified by their name and their arity (the number of parameters they take). You can have more than one function with the same name, as long as they all have different numbers of parameters. The two functions you've posted above are start/0 and interact/2. start/0 doesn't call itself; instead it calls start/2, and if you take a look further down the page you linked to, you'll find the definition of start/2.
The point of using spawn in this way is to start a server process in the background and return control to the caller. To play with this code, I guess that you'd start up the Erlang interpreter, load the script and then call the start/0 function. This method would then start a process in the background and return so that you could continue to type into the Erlang interpreter.
A common pattern in Erlang is the recursive loop that maintains state:
loop(State) ->
receive
Msg ->
NewState = whatever(Msg),
loop(NewState)
end.
Is there any way to query the state of a running process with a bif or tracing or something? Since crash messages say "...when state was..." and show the crashed process's state, I thought this would be easy, but I was disappointed that I haven't been able to find a bif to do this.
So, then, I figured using the dbg module's tracing would do it. Unfortunately, I believe because these loops are tail call optimized, dbg will only capture the first call to the function.
Any solution?
If your process is using OTP, it is enough to do sys:get_status(Pid).
The error message you mentions is displayed by SASL. SASL is an error reporting daemon in OTP.
The state you are referring in your example code is just an argument of tail recursive function. There is no way to extract it using anything except for tracing BIFs. I guess this would be not a proper solution in production code, since tracing is intended to be used only for debug purposes.
Proper, and industry tested, solution would be make extensive use of OTP in your project. Then you can take full advantage of SASL error reporting, rb module to collect these reports, sys - to inspect the state of the running OTP-compatible process, proc_lib - to make short-lived processes OTP-compliant, etc.
It turns out there's a better answer than all of these, if you're using OTP:
sys:get_state/1
Probably it didn't exist at the time.
It looks like you're making the problem out of nothing. erlang:process_info/1 gives enough information for debugging purposes. If your REALLY need loop function arguments, why don't you give it back to caller in response to one of the special messages that you define yourself?
UPDATE:
Just to clarify terminology. The closest thing to the 'state of the process' on the language level is process dictionary, usage of which is highly discouraged. It can be queried by erlang:process_info/1 or erlang:process/2.
What you actually need is to trace process's local functions calls along with their arguments:
-module(ping).
-export([start/0, send/1, loop/1]).
start() ->
spawn(?MODULE, loop, [0]).
send(Pid) ->
Pid ! {self(), ping},
receive
pong ->
pong
end.
loop(S) ->
receive
{Pid, ping} ->
Pid ! pong,
loop(S + 1)
end.
Console:
Erlang (BEAM) emulator version 5.6.5 [source] [smp:2] [async-threads:0] [kernel-poll:false]
Eshell V5.6.5 (abort with ^G)
1> l(ping).
{module,ping}
2> erlang:trace(all, true, [call]).
23
3> erlang:trace_pattern({ping, '_', '_'}, true, [local]).
5
4> Pid = ping:start().
<0.36.0>
5> ping:send(Pid).
pong
6> flush().
Shell got {trace,<0.36.0>,call,{ping,loop,[0]}}
Shell got {trace,<0.36.0>,call,{ping,loop,[1]}}
ok
7>
{status,Pid,_,[_,_,_,_,[_,_,{data,[{_,State}]}]]} = sys:get_status(Pid).
That's what I use to get the state of a gen_server. (Tried to add it as a comment to the reply above, but couldn't get formatting right.)
As far as I know you cant get the arguments passed to a locally called function. I would love for someone to prove me wrong.
-module(loop).
-export([start/0, loop/1]).
start() ->
spawn_link(fun () -> loop([]) end).
loop(State) ->
receive
Msg ->
loop([Msg|State])
end.
If we want to trace this module you do the following in the shell.
dbg:tracer().
dbg:p(new,[c]).
dbg:tpl(loop, []).
Using this tracing setting you get to see local calls (the 'l' in tpl means that local calls will be traced as well, not only global ones).
5> Pid = loop:start().
(<0.39.0>) call loop:'-start/0-fun-0-'/0
(<0.39.0>) call loop:loop/1
<0.39.0>
6> Pid ! foo.
(<0.39.0>) call loop:loop/1
foo
As you see, just the calls are included. No arguments in sight.
My recommendation is to base correctness in debugging and testing on the messages sent rather than state kept in processes. I.e. if you send the process a bunch of messages, assert that it does the right thing, not that it has a certain set of values.
But of course, you could also sprinkle some erlang:display(State) calls in your code temporarily. Poor man's debugging.
This is a "oneliner" That can be used in the shell.
sys:get_status(list_to_pid("<0.1012.0>")).
It helps you convert a pid string into a Pid.
I keep running into this. I want to spawn processes and pass arguments
to them without using the MFA form (module/function/arguments), so
basically without having to export the function I want to spawn with
arguments. I've gotten around this a few times using closures(fun's)
and having the arguments just be bound values outside the fun(that I then reference inside the fun), but its
limiting my code structure... I've looked at the docs and spawn only
has the regular spawn/1 and the spawn/3 form, nothing else...
I understand that code reloading in spawned processes is not possible without the use of the MFA form but the spawned processes are not of the long running nature and finish relatively quickly so that's not an issue (I also want to contain all the code in one module-level function with sub-jobs being placed in funs inside that function).
much appreciated
thanks
actually Richard pointed me in the right direction to take to avoid the issue nicelly (in a reply to the same post I put up on the Erlang GoogleGroups):
http://groups.google.com/group/erlang-programming/browse_thread/thread/1d77a697ec67935a
His answer:
By "using closures", I hope you mean something like this:
Pid = spawn(fun () -> any_function(Any, Number, Of, Arguments) end)
How would that be limiting to your code structure?
/Richard
thank you for promptly commenting you my question. Much appreciated
Short answer: you can't. Spawn (in all it's varying forms) only takes a 0-arity function. Using a closure and bringing in bound variables from the spawning function is the way to go, short of using some sort of shared data store like ETS (which is Monster Overkill).
I've never found using a closure to severely hamper my code structure, though; can you give an example of the problems you're having, and perhaps someone can tidy it up for you?
This is an old question but I believe it can be properly answered with a bit of creativity:
The goal of the question is to
Invoke a function
With the following limits;
No M:F/A formatting
No exporting of the Invoked function
This can be solved in the following;
Using the 1st limitation leads us to the following solution:
run() ->
Module = module,
Function = function,
Args = [arg1, arg2, arg3],
erlang:spawn(Module, Function, Args).
In this solution however, the function is required to be exported.
Using the 2nd limitation (No exporting of the Invoked function) alongside the 1st leads us to the following solution using conventional erlang logic:
run() ->
%% Generate an anonymous fun and execute it
erlang:spawn(fun() -> function(arg1, arg2, arg3) end).
This solution generates Anonymous Funs every execution which may or may not be wanted based on your design due to the extra work that the Garbage Colelctor will need to perform (note that, generally, this will be neglible and issues will potentially only be seen in larger systems).
An alternative way to write the above without generating Anonymous Funs would be to spawn an erlang:apply/2 which can execute functions with given parameters.
By passing a Function Ref. to erlang:apply/2, we can reference a local function and invoke it with the given arguments.
The following implements this solution:
run() ->
%% Function Ref. to a local (non-exported) function
Function = fun function/arity,
Args = [arg1, arg2, arg3],
erlang:spawn(erlang, apply, [Function, Args]).
Edit: This type of solution can be found within the Erlang Src whereby erlang:apply/2 is being called to execute a fun() with args.
%% https://github.com/erlang/otp/blob/71af97853c40d8ac5f499b5f2435082665520642/erts/preloaded/src/erlang.erl#L2888%% Spawn and atomically set up a monitor.
-spec spawn_monitor(Fun) -> {pid(), reference()} when
Fun :: function().
spawn_monitor(F) when erlang:is_function(F, 0) ->
erlang:spawn_opt(erlang,apply,[F,[]],[monitor]);
spawn_monitor(F) ->
erlang:error(badarg, [F]).
first, there is no code and we can't help you a lot, so the best way to control your functions and their args with your spawned processes is to spawn the process with a receive function then you will be in contact with your process across the send and receive method, try:
Pid=spawn(Node, ModuleName, functionThatReceive, [])
%%or just spawn(ModuleName....) if the program is not %%distributed
Pid ! {self(), {M1, f1, A1}},
receive
{Pid, Reply} ->Reply
end,
Pid ! {self(), {M2, f2, A2}},
receive
{Pid, Reply} ->Reply
end,
.......
functionThatReceive() ->
receive
{From, {M1, f1, A1}} ->From ! {self(), doSomething1} ;
{From, {M2, f2, A2}} ->From ! {self(), doSomething2}
end.