162's performance test did not return a single 408 yet there was evidence of three semantic facet requests timing out. Those requests ended up getting a status code of 500 (internal error). Since that does not compel the data service proxies to retry the request, one may consider the priority low.
Expected Behavior/Solution:
Below is a copy of the serialized exception for one of the timed out semantic facet requests. Given nothing therein indicates the request timed out, we may want luxErrorHandler.mjs to go by elapsed time. All instances in #162 and https://git.yale.edu/lux-its/marklogic/issues/1033 had an elapsed duration of 58 seconds or more. But since our timeouts vary by request type, we may also need to take exception details into account. For instance, facet requests are given 59 seconds and _getViaSearchFacets is unique to semantic facet requests, which is present below. If we go down that path, we need to determine which request types are in scope of this ticket.
2024-06-07 18:28:15.100 Notice: JS-BAD: .toArray() -- Unexpected failure: checkMaybeLocal wrapValue valObj
2024-06-07 18:28:15.100 Notice:+in [anonymous], at 44:5 [javascript]
2024-06-07 18:28:15.100 Notice:+in ./utils/utils.mjs, at 111:14, in evalInContentDatabase() [javascript]
2024-06-07 18:28:15.100 Notice:+in ./SearchCriteriaProcessor.mjs, at 188:17, in getSearchResults() [javascript]
2024-06-07 18:28:15.100 Notice:+in ./searchLib.mjs, at 178:38, in _search() [javascript]
2024-06-07 18:28:15.100 Notice:+in ./searchLib.mjs, at 81:9, in search() [javascript]
2024-06-07 18:28:15.100 Notice:+in ../../lib/facetsLib.mjs, at 313:17, in _getViaSearchFacetValues() [javascript]
2024-06-07 18:28:15.100 Notice:+in ../../lib/facetsLib.mjs, at 269:17, in _getViaSearchFacets() [javascript]
2024-06-07 18:28:15.100 Notice:+in ../../lib/facetsLib.mjs, at 52:37, in getFacets() [javascript]
2024-06-07 18:28:15.100 Notice:+in /ds/lux/facets.mjs, at 12:9 [javascript]
2024-06-07 18:28:15.100 Notice:+in ../../lib/requestHandleLib.mjs, at 10:9, in handleRequest() [javascript]
2024-06-07 18:28:15.100 Notice:+in /ds/lux/facets.mjs, at 11:0 [javascript]
2024-06-07 18:28:15.100 Notice:+in xdmp:eval("\nconst op = require(\"/MarkLogic/optic\");\nconst crm = op.pref...", {}, {database:"7947491399340755119", update:"false"}) [javascript]
2024-06-07 18:28:15.100 Notice:+in /ds/lux/facets.mjs [javascript]
2024-06-07 18:28:15.100 Notice:+in /ds/lux/facets.mjs [javascript]
Requirements:
List of details required for the completion of the issue or requirements for the feature/bug. This can also include requirements that lie outside of the teams such as new design docs or clarification from an outside source.
Needed for promotion:
If an item on the list is not needed, it should be crossed off but not removed.
brent-hartwig
commented
2 weeks ago
Problem Description:
162's performance test did not return a single 408 yet there was evidence of three semantic facet requests timing out. Those requests ended up getting a status code of 500 (internal error). Since that does not compel the data service proxies to retry the request, one may consider the priority low.
Expected Behavior/Solution: Below is a copy of the serialized exception for one of the timed out semantic facet requests. Given nothing therein indicates the request timed out, we may want luxErrorHandler.mjs to go by elapsed time. All instances in #162 and https://git.yale.edu/lux-its/marklogic/issues/1033 had an elapsed duration of 58 seconds or more. But since our timeouts vary by request type, we may also need to take exception details into account. For instance, facet requests are given 59 seconds and
_getViaSearchFacetsis unique to semantic facet requests, which is present below. If we go down that path, we need to determine which request types are in scope of this ticket.Requirements: List of details required for the completion of the issue or requirements for the feature/bug. This can also include requirements that lie outside of the teams such as new design docs or clarification from an outside source.
Needed for promotion: If an item on the list is not needed, it should be crossed off but not removed.
~- [ ] Wireframe/Mockup - Mike~
UAT/LUX Examples: Developer will need to come up with a request / scenario that exceeds the applicable threshold.
Dependencies/Blocks: This ticket and https://github.com/project-lux/lux-marklogic/issues/89 are mutually-exclusive.
Related Github Issues: None.
Related links: None.
Wireframe/Mockup: Not needed.