Skip to main content

Past Mistakes - Out of Process Commands

Some of the best lessons you can learn are from failure. I figured a series on mistakes I've made in the past would highlight where I went wrong and more importantly what to remember going forward. These real life examples vary from my early days of programming all the way up until present day.


I once wrote a feature that sent email to users on their behalf. On localhost this was fine. Fast, stable and good enough to get the job done.

Despite early successes, under load in a live environment, things were different. Sometimes the process would out right fail, requiring the user to retry. Other times it would be slow to process. This meant the users browser would hang while the email was being sent.

It was hard to replicate these problems. The actual code itself was pretty simple, there was nothing to optimize it seemed.

Mistakes

The core mistake was performing an operation out of process from within the life cycle of a HTTP request.

When sending the email was slow, the HTTP response was slow as the thread was blocked. This was blindingly obvious after the fact.

Frustratingly actually demonstrating or testing this feature was hard. Locally the server was nearby so latency was less. This started to introduce other red herrings such as was the server misconfigured?

What to do Instead

After the user has requested an email, record this fact and simply display a success message. Do this as quickly and simply as possible. While the message states an email has been sent this is not strictly true.

Instead the act of requesting the email is recorded. Ideally via a message queue or other durable storage solution. A separate service then monitors this queue and periodically sends out emails.

Users will not care if an email lands a few seconds or minutes after the fact. Additionally if anything goes wrong during this process no data is lost. The user will get their email eventually. Most e-commerce sites work in this exact manner.

This approach works great when commands from users cannot and should not fail. Examples such as processing payments or key user interactions would be excellent candidates.

Unfortunately not all out of process requests can be avoided. HTTP queries to retrieve data being one example. This cannot be faked. In these cases minimize the number and rely on other techniques, such as HTTP's excellent caching policies to reduce the affect on the system.

Lessons

  • Never perform commands that cannot fail out of process from within the same HTTP transaction.
  • Fear all out of process calls - they are costly, prone to failure and can cause chaos with your systems performance. Reduce and replace where possible.
  • When commands that should not fail are required, use a message queue to record the command prior to processing them.
  • Rely on HTTP caching policies to reduce the effect of queries that cannot be avoided.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Constant Object Anti Pattern

Most constants are used to remove magic numbers or variables that lack context. A classic example would be code littered with the number 7. What does this refer to exactly? If this was replaced with DaysInWeek or similar, much clarity is provided. You can determine that code performing offsets would be adding days, rather than a mysterious number seven.Sadly a common pattern which uses constants is the use of a single constant file or object. The beauty of constants is clarity, and the obvious fact such variables are fixed. When a constant container is used, constants are simply lumped together. These can grow in size and often become a dumping ground for all values within the application.A disadvantage of this pattern is the actual value is hidden. While a friendly variable name is great, there will come a time where you will want to know the actual value. This forces you to navigate, if only to peek at the value within the constant object. A solution is to simple perform a refactor …

Three Steps to Code Quality via TDD

Common complaints and problems that I've both encountered and hear other developers raise when it comes to the practice of Test Driven Development are: Impossible to refactor without all the tests breakingMinor changes require hours of changes to test codeTest setup is huge, slow to write and difficult to understandThe use of test doubles (mocks, stubs and fakes is confusing)Over the next three posts I will demonstrate three easy steps that can resolve the problems above. In turn this will allow developers to gain one of the benefits that TDD promises - the ability to refactor your code mercifully in order to improve code quality.StepsStop Making Everything PublicLimit the Amount of Dependencies you Use A Unit is Not Always a Method or ClassCode quality is a tricky subject and highly subjective, however if you follow the three guidelines above you should have the ability to radically change implementation details and therefore improve code quality when needed.

DRY vs DAMP in Tests

In the previous post I mentioned that duplication in tests is not always bad. Sometimes duplication becomes a problem. Tests can become large or virtually identically excluding a few lines. Changes to these tests can take a while and increase the maintenance overhead. At this point, DRY violations need to be resolved.SolutionsTest HelpersA common solution is to extract common functionality into setup methods or other helper utilities. While this will remove and reduce duplication this can make tests a bit harder to read as the test is now split amongst unrelated components. There is a limit to how useful such extractions can help as each test may need to do something slightly differently.DAMP - Descriptive and Meaningful PhrasesDescriptive and Meaningful Phrases is the alter ego of DRY. DAMP tests often use the builder pattern to construct the System Under Test. This allows calls to be chained in a fluent API style, similar to the Page Object Pattern. Internally the implementation wil…