BusinessRuleAsync and CSLA0018

[brinawebb]

Hi everyone. I'm trying to define an async business rule and am having a bit of trouble. If I follow the code in the samples for AsyncRule I get an analyzer error saying that I should remove the context.Complete(). If I remove context.Complete() the rule doesn't seem to complete and my unit tests fail. Curious if the sample is correct and if not, if anyone has a sample class that shows how to use these? Here's the sample code from Csla Samples with the error.

Version and Platform CSLA version: 5.1.0 OS: Windows Platform: .NET Standard 2.0

[JasonBock]

What you're getting here is an analyzer error - specifically, this one: https://github.com/MarimerLLC/csla/blob/master/docs/analyzers/CSLA0018-IsCompleteCalledInAsynchronousBusinessRuleAnalyzer.md. @rockfordlhotka and I talked about this, and my understanding is that Complete() should not be called in ExecuteAsync().

Now, if removing Complete() is causing an issue with the rule itself, you can "Configure or Suppress issues" for now, or set the severity level of the rule in an .editorconfig for now. Then you won't get the error. Hopefully @rockfordlhotka can clarify what's going on here.

[rockfordlhotka]

@brinawebb you shouldn't need to call Complete in an ExecuteAsync method.

For example, this works:

using System;
using System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
using Csla;
using Csla.Rules;

namespace ConsoleApp5
{
    class Program
    {
        static async Task Main(string[] args)
        {
            Console.WriteLine("Starting");

            var obj = await DataPortal.CreateAsync<Test>();
            Console.WriteLine("non-async results:");
            foreach (var item in obj.BrokenRulesCollection)
                Console.WriteLine(item.Description);
            Console.WriteLine();

            obj.Name = "someone";
            Console.WriteLine("non-async property changed results:");
            foreach (var item in obj.BrokenRulesCollection)
                Console.WriteLine(item.Description);
            Console.WriteLine();

            while (obj.IsBusy)
                await Task.Delay(10);
            Console.WriteLine("after isbusy wait");
            Console.WriteLine();

            Console.WriteLine("all results:");
            foreach (var item in obj.BrokenRulesCollection)
                Console.WriteLine(item.Description);
            Console.WriteLine();
        }
    }

    [Serializable]
    public class Test : BusinessBase<Test>
    {
        public static readonly PropertyInfo<string> NameProperty = RegisterProperty<string>(nameof(Name));
        [Required]
        public string Name
        {
            get => GetProperty(NameProperty);
            set => SetProperty(NameProperty, value);
        }

        protected override void AddBusinessRules()
        {
            base.AddBusinessRules();
            BusinessRules.AddRule(new DelayRule(NameProperty));
        }
    }

    public class DelayRule : BusinessRuleAsync
    {
        public DelayRule(Csla.Core.IPropertyInfo primaryProperty)
            : base(primaryProperty)
        {
            InputProperties.Add(PrimaryProperty);
        }

        protected override async Task ExecuteAsync(IRuleContext context)
        {
            var value = (string)context.InputPropertyValues[PrimaryProperty];
            if (!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(value))
            {
                await Task.Delay(2000);
                context.AddInformationResult("info is here");
            }
        }
    }
}

[JasonBock]

@brinawebb is it possible that the rule is firing but the object's IsBusy is true in your test?

As a side note, doing a spin on IsBusy feels really dirty to check to see if an async rule has been run.

[brinawebb]

Hi Rocky. You have an await Task.Delay(2000); in your code. If you take that out then you'll get a warning that your method lacks an await. Is that OK? I've confirmed that my unit tests are indeed failing if they're set up this way.

Thanks Jason, I'm not using IsBusy in any of my unit tests.

[JasonBock]

@brinawebb I'm guessing @rockfordlhotka has that Task.Delay() in his example to simulate asynchronous work. You're right, if you take that out, you get a warning, so the example needs something to do async.

If you don't have an await in an async methods, my guess is that the async machinery will do optimizations to actually act in a synchronous fashion (the details are pretty complex to get into here). But the whole point of having an async rule is that you want to await asynchronous work and get the advantages of doing that.

Side note @rockfordlhotka, would it be beneficial to have a BusyChanged event that people can set up a handler on, rather than spinning on IsBusy? Or does this already exist?

[brinawebb]

Thanks Jason. It does look like it has something to do with IsBusy? But it's perplexing as I'm not calling it, maybe MSTest is?

Just created a simple unit test with MsTest and added the simple object above. I had to add this code to create the item:

    public async static Task<Test> NewTestAsync()
    {
        Test item = await DataPortal.CreateAsync<Test>();
        return item;
    }

It fails in the unit test when I try and create the object.

    // Exeption below when calling this line
    Test theTest = await Test.NewTestAsync(); 
    Assert.IsTrue(theTest.BrokenRulesCollection.Count == 1);
    theTest.Name = "ABC123";
    Assert.IsTrue(theTest.BrokenRulesCollection.Count == 0);

Test method OptionTests.TestRockyCode threw exception: Csla.DataPortalException: DataPortal.Create failed (Test.IsBusy == true) ---> System.InvalidOperationException: Test.IsBusy == true

[rockfordlhotka]

Actually there is a BusyChanged event, I forgot about it...

[JasonBock]

@brinawebb is there any way you can post an example to a GitHub repo or something similar so we can see the full example?

[rockfordlhotka]

I suspect the issue is that the object is still busy when the Create method completes, and the data portal won't transport a busy object.

Either don't run the async rule on create, or await BusyChanged before allowing the Create method to complete.

[JasonBock]

@rockfordlhotka so that makes me wonder, would it be possible to set some configuration on CSLA to say "WaitOnBusy" (or a better name than that) that tells the DataPortal not to return the object until the object is not busy? Or would that cause far more headaches than it's worth?

[brinawebb]

Sure, I'll post something here shortly. Thanks for all the help guys!

---

From: Jason Bock [email protected] Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 7:16:38 AM To: MarimerLLC/cslaforum [email protected] Cc: Brian Webb [email protected]; Mention [email protected] Subject: Re: [MarimerLLC/cslaforum] BusinessRuleAsync and CSLA0018 (#903)

@rockfordlhotkahttps://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Frockfordlhotka&data=02%7C01%7Cbrian.webb%40avontus.com%7Cca7fc0a8593e4f5c10db08d7ccd94ed2%7Cbd98204bb9814d038796356d537927eb%7C0%7C0%7C637203106026456860&sdata=nKntJLZ9w2vab5nfLEYsxRrXJu%2BCr6tc2lkMVBnzrlM%3D&reserved=0 so that makes me wonder, would it be possible to set some configuration on CSLA to say "WaitOnBusy" (or a better name than that) that tells the DataPortal not to return the object until the object is not busy? Or would that cause far more headaches than it's worth?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FMarimerLLC%2Fcslaforum%2Fissues%2F903%23issuecomment-601723093&data=02%7C01%7Cbrian.webb%40avontus.com%7Cca7fc0a8593e4f5c10db08d7ccd94ed2%7Cbd98204bb9814d038796356d537927eb%7C0%7C0%7C637203106026456860&sdata=%2BxspuIfvn0XgxAlObFk8UN%2BHQ7KgyE%2FPcgOT3G04iwA%3D&reserved=0, or unsubscribehttps://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fnotifications%2Funsubscribe-auth%2FABBEHPTLSAJWNSNTJGL4S3LRIN3ENANCNFSM4LO7VQZA&data=02%7C01%7Cbrian.webb%40avontus.com%7Cca7fc0a8593e4f5c10db08d7ccd94ed2%7Cbd98204bb9814d038796356d537927eb%7C0%7C0%7C637203106026466815&sdata=GmP6ZogXkxSwbcANayHE9esKi89ZXU9nti0bTwS4h0M%3D&reserved=0.

[brinawebb]

Hi @JasonBock and @rockfordlhotka . Thank you very very much for your help! I've created a repo here: https://github.com/brinawebb/TempBizRuleAsync

Start the Test Explorer and run the one unit test that's there. You can toggle between lines 22 and 23 in Person.cs to see the error.

[JasonBock]

So I ran the code in the repo, and @rockfordlhotka, I think CSLA might have a bug. If you run his code, he's not doing anything to run the rules or not run them. The failure occurs within DataPortal.CreateAsync(). I don't see what the code could do to stop it, unless I'm missing a switch somewhere.

[rockfordlhotka]

Bug is such a strong word!! 👀 This behavior is probably not desired, but it is a result of the implementation - does that make it a bug?

The question then, is how to best address it from

1. What do people do today
2. What changes could/should happen to CSLA to make this better in the future

Today

Today the answer is to not let the async rule run when the object is being created. Possibilities:

1. Don't have rules run at all during creation
   1. Don't call base.DataPortal_Create() b/c that's what runs rules during creation
   2. Use BypassPropertyChecks in your create method to prevent per-property rule invocation
2. Prevent the specific rule from running during creation
   1. Add a check for IsNew in your rule or default value (like in my example code)
   2. Use short-circuiting to prevent the rule from running due to IsNew or default value

Future enhancement

The cleanest answer might be to have the data portal wait, after your operation method completes, until the object isn't busy.

I don't think this is so easy to do, because we're really talking about the entire object graph, not just the root object. I don't recall if we currently have an aggregated IsBusy vs IsSelfBusy concept, but I don't think so. That concept might be required if it doesn't exist - because really the data portal would need to wait until the entire graph is not busy.

Also we'd need a timeout, because (due a bug or whatever) it is possible that some rule might never complete, and we can't leave a server task/thread tied up forever. This would need a setting and a default (30 secs? 90 secs?).

[brinawebb]

Great, thank you Rocky. I'll just continue to use the non-Async rules for now. I don't have any long-running rules anyways, but was wanting to use it in case I do so that the busy indicator will show. It would be a last resort for me to do something that would delay the rule, like a command object or something.

Not a dealbreaker, I can easily work around this. Thanks again!

[rockfordlhotka]

Here's what happens on a create operation, in three different scenarios:

1. You don't implement any server-side create code yourself
   1. The DataPortal_Create base class method is invoked, and it calls CheckRules
2. You override DataPortal_Create
   1. You choose whether to invoke base.DataPortal_Create() or to manually call CheckRules
3. You use the Create attribute (recommended)
   1. You choose whether to call CheckRules

In other words, in your code you can add

        [Create]
        private void Create()
        { }

to your business class and you'll find that no rules run when creating a new instance of the type. Thus not running any async rules.

The drawback is that NO rules run, even the ones you might prefer did run as a new instance is created.

So there's a problem here - but I think the workaround allow most folks to get by. I say this with some confidence because this behavior has been around since CSLA started supporting async rules (many years ago), and (believe it or not) you are the first person to bring up the issue to me.

[Chicagoan2016]

I love this discussion, years ago when I switched to csla 4.0 and started implementing business rules , I also followed the rules samples ( developed by @jonnybee, if memory serves). I asked a question about asynchronous business rules and @jonnybee reccomended to stick with synchronous rules which I did!!!! But I am just curious is there a need for asynchronous rules? Regards

[rockfordlhotka]

Oh yes, very much!!

The most common example is where you allow the user to enter something like a product code for a new product, and this code must be unique.

Rather than having the user fill in the entire form, click Save, and then find out that the product code is already used, you can run a rule that finds out if the product code already exists.

But in all modern smart client UI frameworks (WPF,UWP,XF,Blazor) such a rule must be async because it needs to call an app server or database.

[Chicagoan2016]

Thank you @rockfordlhotka , so in the example you mentioned we need to make sure two things happen

1. not to run the async rules while 'creating' the object by using the techniques you recommended ( check for IsNew() etc.)
2. only run the async rule when the property changes, product code in your example , we don't have to do anything for this, cala takes.
   care of this. Hope my understanding is correct. Regards

[brinawebb]

Hi @Chicagoan2016. I've found this is happening with both Fetch and Create.

[rockfordlhotka]

It it is happening in Fetch you must not be using BypassPropertyChecks. That's not good, as you should use that structure to avoid a number of negative side effects.

[Chicagoan2016]

It it is happening in Fetch you must not be using BypassPropertyChecks. That's not good, as you should use that structure to avoid a number of negative side effects.

That's what I have been using in all of my applications so far, there was only instance where I didn't trust the 'data source'. But if we put the 'IsNew()' check in our async rules, they wouldn't get called during Fetch?

[brinawebb]

Hi @rockfordlhotka . I put a DataPortal_Fetch in the sample repo and added a new unit test for the Get and cannot get it to work there either. I used BypassPropertyChecks, plus a call to BusinessRules.CheckRules()

We have always called CheckRules() here but maybe this isn't the correct thing to do anymore if we go with an async rule? We have CheckRules() in case rules changed and existing data is invalid, nice to see this when it's loaded. Or, another case is that we have some objects where the end-user can customize their required fields.

[rockfordlhotka]

You have hit on the key point I'm trying to make.

If you run business rules (CheckRules) you must wait for IsBusy to be false before exiting your data portal method. That's all that's necessary.

So if you call base.DataPortal_Create it calls CheckRules. Or if you explicitly call CheckRules. These are what are running the rules on the server.

If you don't exit the method until IsBusy is false you won't have a problem.

[brinawebb]

OK, thanks. I think I'll wait for a Csla official Rocky solution :-)

[JasonBock]

The problem with all of this is that it requires the developer to have to remember if they have asynchronous rules and then don't call CheckRules(). The problem becomes that a user would have to handle the IsBusy case directly in their implementation, which means you either spin on IsBusy (bad) or do some kind of magic to create a Task that will finish when the object is no longer busy. This seems really messy to me :|.

I really don't want to discourage developers from building asynchronous rules, because I/O operations should be async whenever possible. And while I get @rockfordlhotka's point about a "timeout" in the operation, I also fear that too, because maybe it will take the entire object graph X amount of seconds to finish, whether it was sync or async.

[hurcane]

Playing devil's advocate, I would contend that if you're writing code for the data portal of the object, you should know what rules are running on the object. Those belong together. In most operations, the developer writing the data portal coffee also wrote the rules classes.

On the other hand, I agree that having fewer details to remember is better.

Get Outlook for Androidhttps://aka.ms/ghei36

Don Benson | Developer Ph: 800.874.2883, ext. 271 Email: [email protected]

[cid:[email protected]]http://www.tribute.com

Connect with us! [cid:[email protected]]https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=tribute%2C%20inc [cid:[email protected]] http://twitter.com/tributeinc [cid:[email protected]] https://www.linkedin.com/company-beta/434273/ [cid:[email protected]] http://blog.tribute.com/

[cid:[email protected]] http://www.tribute.com

---

From: Jason Bock [email protected] Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2020 8:03:10 PM To: MarimerLLC/cslaforum [email protected] Cc: Subscribed [email protected] Subject: Re: [MarimerLLC/cslaforum] BusinessRuleAsync and CSLA0018 (#903)

The problem with all of this is that it requires the developer to have to remember if they have asynchronous rules and then don't call CheckRules(). The problem becomes that a user would have to handle the IsBusy case directly in their implementation, which means you either spin on IsBusy (bad) or do some kind of magic to create a Task that will finish when the object is no longer busy. This seems really messy to me :|.

I really don't want to discourage developers from building asynchronous rules, because I/O operations should be async whenever possible. And while I get @rockfordlhotkahttps://github.com/rockfordlhotka's point about a "timeout" in the operation, I also fear that too, because maybe it will take the entire object graph X amount of seconds to finish, whether it was sync or async.

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/MarimerLLC/cslaforum/issues/903#issuecomment-602122666, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AANWEOBXV4MFQ3V4GBLF2Y3RIVIT5ANCNFSM4LO7VQZA.

---

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any files transmitted with it are the property of Tribute Inc. and/or its affiliates. The contents of this communication are confidential and may contain information that is privileged and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. It is intended solely for use of the individual or entity to whom this email is addressed. If you are not one of the named recipient(s) or otherwise have reason to believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and immediately delete this message and any attachments. Any unauthorized use, retention, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited.

[Chicagoan2016]

On a sort of unrelated note, software development does require a certain burning passion (mental illness?) that makes you want to discuss asynchronous vs synchronous rules on a Saturday night : ) but I digress! Back to the point, I am going to go ahead and suggest we could have two 'CheckRules' methods, one for synchronous and other for asynchronous, we could name them CheckSyncRules() and CheckASynchRules(), while typing this I realize may be could keep the one method CheckRules() but change the implementation and pass a boolean to it like the 'ForceUpdate' boolean. When the boolean is passed by the developer CheckRules() will check both asynchronous and synchronous rules.

Kind regards

[rockfordlhotka]

Fwiw, I've started prototyping some thoughts in the actual work issue.

[rockfordlhotka]

@hurcane I agree, and the problem we face right now is that there's not an easy way for a developer to prevent the server-side data portal from attempting to return the object graph to the caller while it remains busy running async rules.

You should be able to run async rules on the server. And it should be easy to ensure they finish before the data portal returns.

My current thinking (as per the actual work issue) is a CheckRulesAsync method that doesn't complete until all async rules have completed.