Add the ability to cancel the channel without forcing it to close

[avra-m3]

I'd like to stop consuming messages when I receive a SIGTERM and wait for some long running tasks to complete and ack/nack. before calling broker.shutdown().

The deferChannelClose option is not workable as it forces me to wait an arbitrary fixed period of time after which if any tasks are still running they can no longer be acknowledged. Is it possible to add a parameter to avoid calling scheduleClose on the channel? or alternatively expose the channel so I can call cancel directly?

[cressie176]

Hi @Hammer-Inc, Agree this is a reasonable thing to do, but unfortunately not currently supported by rascal. I'll give some thought to how it might be implemented.

[avra-m3]

Hey @cressie176,

If I raised a pr would you consider it? I went diving through the code to understand whether I could achieve this, so have a rough idea of how to achieve it.

Thanks for the fast reply 😃

[cressie176]

Hi @Hammer-Inc,

Very happy to accept contributions to Rascal, however in this case I haven't thought about which API we should adopt. So far I've avoided exposing channels to the user application so Rascal can manage the error handling. I'm as yet on whether I would prefer a different method, or an option passed to the existing one.

I can also envisage the following complications

1. Support for the same functionality from broker.unsubscribeAll
2. What to do if a channel error occurs after cancelling the consumer but before closing the channel. The existing error handler would grab a new channel and start consuming again. Not having an error handler would crash your app.

I'll give it some thought over the weekend. Also happy for you to comment with a proposal / some options.

[avra-m3]

Good points; I definitely agree that exposing channels is likely not be the best way to solve this. I see exposing a separate method being counterintuitive to anyone familiar with amqp as it currently stands, and I'm unsure what the naming would look like - can't call it unsubscribe which is my first thought.

Regarding point 2, what happens if such an error occurs during the deferChannelClose period currently? my thinking was that the same behavior would be adopted. The primary difference is the user must manually close the channel rather than rascal doing it for them after deferChannelClose.

[avra-m3]

I'll leave you with it over the weekend and avoid re-writing our consumer in amqplib as it's getting more complex by the minute.

Thanks again for the quick response 😄

[cressie176]

On reflection I think the graceful shutdown behaviour you want is superior to the existing deferCloseChannel functionality and should be provided out of the box. I believe the work involved is as follows...

• Replace the deferCloseChannel functionality (1, 2) with an inflight message counter held in the SubscriberSession, incremented when an acknowledgeable (i.e. subscriber.options.noAck != true) message is delivered and decremented after the message is acked or nacked. Rascal should also provide a timeout option in case the inflight messages is not acked or nacked within a reasonable time, but the timeout should not be defaulted.

• Removing deferCloseChannel is a breaking change because applications may rely on the deferCloseChannel to allow inflight messages with post acknowledgement steps to complete. It therefore requires a major version bump.

• We do not need to worry about a channel error occurring while waiting for inflight messages, as this is already handled in subscribeNow.

• We do not need to worry about non publishing recovery strategies, as they share the message ack (1, 2, 3) and nack (1, 2) code.

• We must worry about publishing recovery strategies (1, 2) since they only acknowledge the original message after a successful publish. This means that if the publish fails the message will not be acknowledged, hence broker shutdown may hang unless a timeout was specified. While the recovery error will be yielded to the ackOrNack caller, there is no way for the application to directly ack or nack the message. Hence it will remain unconfirmed until the channel is closed. This is an existing problem for Rascal, and for which there are no good solutions. The options are...

  • nack without requeue, hopefully routing it to a DLQ but potentially deleting it
  • nack with requeue, potentially causing duplication issues or infinitely looping messages
  • continue doing nothing, leaving an unconfirmed message on the queue indefinitely and potentially using a prefetch slot

  Therefore as a precursor to solving this issue, I suggest the first option - nacking the original message without requeue following a failed recovery and releasing as a breaking change. The README and CHANGELOG should be updated accordingly.

• deferCloseChannel must be removed from the test config, and closeTimeout: nnn used instead.

• The README AND CHANGELOG must be updated to record that deferCloseChannel has been removed, explaining that the broker will now complete shutdown as soon as the last message has been acknowledged, meaning that asynchronous post acknowledgement steps may still be in progress, and that applications must handle this themselves.

[cressie176]

Precursor here. @BorePlusPlus, any chance of a review?

[cressie176]

I've had a stab at the above. PR can be found here

[avra-m3]

Replace the deferCloseChannel functionality (1, 2) with an inflight message counter held in the SubscriberSession, incremented when an acknowledgeable (i.e. subscriber.options.noAck != true) message is delivered and decremented after the message is acked or nacked. Rascal should also provide a timeout option in case the inflight messages is not acked or nacked within a reasonable time, but the timeout should not be defaulted.

This is exactly what I was trying to achieve, awesome to see how fast you've got on to it, absolutely interested in alpha testing your work :)

[cressie176]

Would love an alpha test - are you able to build directly from GitHub?

I still have to do some destructive manual testing for things like a queue deletion, heartbeat failure, server restart, network failure etc.

Also I want to check whether thinks like broker.nuke work properly if the unsubscribe times out.

[cressie176]

Manual tests all passed.

[avra-m3]

I've added your commit to our code and it works exactly as expected, no changes or hacking around required.

For reference, here is our shutdown code with this change;

process.once("SIGTERM", async () => {
    process.on("SIGTERM", () =>
      console.log(
        "Shutdown in progress already, send SIGKILL to shutdown immediately"
      )
    );
    process.on("SIGINT", () => process.exit(1));
    await broker.shutdown();
    process.exit(0);
  });

let's just say it used to be much longer that that 😅

[cressie176]

Great stuff. I hadn't ever thought of nesting a second SIGTERM to warn people that shutdown was already in progress. Nice idea.

[cressie176]

@Hammer-Inc, a small change...

Now indirect calls to cancel a consumer (i.e. broker.shutdown, broker.nuke and broker.bounce) will emit an error if the timeout is expired but continue, whereas direct calls (i.e. broker.unsubscribeAll and subscription.cancel will yield/reject if they fail to complete in time.

[cressie176]

FYI hoping to publish this weekend. Sorry it's been so long.

[cressie176]

Published as Rascal@14 (decided to do a single release after all)