-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 56
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add missing hooks and tracing for GraphQL operations #79
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -47,6 +47,44 @@ module.exports = function(mixinOptions) { | |
}; | ||
}, | ||
}, | ||
context: { | ||
visibility: "private", | ||
tracing: false, | ||
handler(ctx) { | ||
const { req, connection } = ctx.params; | ||
let context = { | ||
dataLoaders: new Map(), // create an empty map to load DataLoader instances into | ||
}; | ||
|
||
if (req) { | ||
context = { | ||
...context, | ||
ctx: req.$ctx, | ||
service: req.$service, | ||
params: req.$params, | ||
}; | ||
} else if (connection) { | ||
context = { | ||
...context, | ||
ctx, | ||
connectionCtx: connection.context.$ctx, | ||
service: connection.context.$service, | ||
params: connection.context.$params, | ||
}; | ||
} else { | ||
throw new Error("Unrecognized request type for context action"); | ||
} | ||
|
||
return context; | ||
}, | ||
}, | ||
actionOptions: { | ||
visibility: "private", | ||
tracing: false, | ||
handler() { | ||
return {}; | ||
}, | ||
}, | ||
}, | ||
|
||
events: { | ||
|
@@ -95,7 +133,7 @@ module.exports = function(mixinOptions) { | |
|
||
if (service.version != null) | ||
return ( | ||
(typeof service.version == "number" | ||
(typeof service.version === "number" | ||
? "v" + service.version | ||
: service.version) + | ||
"." + | ||
|
@@ -155,10 +193,18 @@ module.exports = function(mixinOptions) { | |
params: staticParams = {}, | ||
rootParams = {}, | ||
fileUploadArg = null, | ||
fieldName = "", | ||
typeName = "", | ||
} = def; | ||
const rootKeys = Object.keys(rootParams); | ||
|
||
return async (root, args, context) => { | ||
// Record the span if possible | ||
let operationSpan; | ||
if (context.ctx) | ||
operationSpan = context.ctx.startSpan(`GQL ${typeName} ${fieldName}`); | ||
let result; | ||
|
||
try { | ||
if (useDataLoader) { | ||
const dataLoaderMapKey = this.getDataLoaderMapKey( | ||
|
@@ -205,33 +251,41 @@ module.exports = function(mixinOptions) { | |
} | ||
|
||
if (dataLoaderKey == null) { | ||
return null; | ||
result = null; | ||
} else { | ||
result = Array.isArray(dataLoaderKey) | ||
? await dataLoader.loadMany(dataLoaderKey) | ||
: await dataLoader.load(dataLoaderKey); | ||
} | ||
|
||
return Array.isArray(dataLoaderKey) | ||
? await dataLoader.loadMany(dataLoaderKey) | ||
: await dataLoader.load(dataLoaderKey); | ||
} else if (fileUploadArg != null && args[fileUploadArg] != null) { | ||
if (Array.isArray(args[fileUploadArg])) { | ||
return await Promise.all( | ||
result = await Promise.all( | ||
args[fileUploadArg].map(async uploadPromise => { | ||
const { | ||
createReadStream, | ||
...$fileInfo | ||
} = await uploadPromise; | ||
const stream = createReadStream(); | ||
return context.ctx.call(actionName, stream, { | ||
meta: { $fileInfo }, | ||
}); | ||
return context.ctx.call( | ||
actionName, | ||
stream, | ||
{ meta: { $fileInfo } }, | ||
await this.actions.actionOptions(root, args, context) | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Can this pattern be changed to only have the call to One other note on these options is it seems like it would need to apply to the DataLoader callback as well, so the options should probably be passed to that function and added to the call there. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I think you're right. As for DataLoader, you're probably correct there as well, I don't know much about DataLoader, so I'll have to take a look. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. So... I'm trying to make the change mentioned... but for some reason, calling |
||
); | ||
}) | ||
); | ||
} else { | ||
const { createReadStream, ...$fileInfo } = await args[ | ||
fileUploadArg | ||
]; | ||
const stream = createReadStream(); | ||
result = await context.ctx.call( | ||
actionName, | ||
stream, | ||
{ meta: { $fileInfo } }, | ||
await this.actions.actionOptions(root, args, context) | ||
); | ||
} | ||
|
||
const { createReadStream, ...$fileInfo } = await args[fileUploadArg]; | ||
const stream = createReadStream(); | ||
return await context.ctx.call(actionName, stream, { | ||
meta: { $fileInfo }, | ||
}); | ||
} else { | ||
const params = {}; | ||
if (root && rootKeys) { | ||
|
@@ -240,12 +294,17 @@ module.exports = function(mixinOptions) { | |
}); | ||
} | ||
|
||
return await context.ctx.call( | ||
result = await context.ctx.call( | ||
actionName, | ||
_.defaultsDeep({}, args, params, staticParams) | ||
_.defaultsDeep({}, args, params, staticParams), | ||
{}, | ||
await this.actions.actionOptions(root, args, context) | ||
); | ||
} | ||
if (operationSpan) operationSpan.finish(); | ||
return result; | ||
} catch (err) { | ||
if (operationSpan) operationSpan.finish(); | ||
if (nullIfError) { | ||
return null; | ||
} | ||
|
@@ -324,17 +383,29 @@ module.exports = function(mixinOptions) { | |
subscribe: filter | ||
? withFilter( | ||
() => this.pubsub.asyncIterator(tags), | ||
async (payload, params, { ctx }) => | ||
payload !== undefined | ||
? ctx.call(filter, { ...params, payload }) | ||
: false | ||
async (payload, params) => { | ||
return payload !== undefined | ||
? this.createAsyncIteratorContext().call(filter, { | ||
...params, | ||
payload, | ||
}) | ||
: false; | ||
} | ||
) | ||
: () => this.pubsub.asyncIterator(tags), | ||
resolve: (payload, params, { ctx }) => | ||
ctx.call(actionName, { ...params, payload }), | ||
resolve: (payload, params) => { | ||
return this.createAsyncIteratorContext().call(actionName, { | ||
...params, | ||
payload, | ||
}); | ||
}, | ||
}; | ||
}, | ||
|
||
createAsyncIteratorContext() { | ||
return this.broker.ContextFactory.create(this.broker, null, {}, {}); | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. This change seems to imply that a fresh moleculer context is not being created earlier (previous comment), but is instead necessary to be created here. Is that correct? If so, I have a few concerns. First, it does seem like the code in the server setup area is creating several instances of Context that it really cannot make use of. If they were being used then that would make sense, but if they're not it seems like a drag on connection/request time otherwise. If they are being used, then I'm not sure I'm understanding the reason to create a new Context here. Can you clarify for me? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. My other concern here is that if we need to create a fresh moleculer context here, at action call time (and it can't be done in the server setup callback) then we probably have a (likely preexisting) issue with request to the DataLoader instances. If those instances are not being created for each new "request" (subscription, query, or mutation) then we're likely to run into caching issues on those instances. That is, repeated requests several hours later will still be using the same DataLoader cached results, which is not the prescribed "DataLoader per request" pattern. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. The reason for the new context here is due to the fact that these are actions fired on subscription events. So not as a direct result of the Subscription operation, but created later as a result of a pubsub event. The problem I found with using the previous context (the one created with the initial the subscription operation) is particularly evident when I don't know that DataLoader should be involved at all here, am I mistaken? |
||
}, | ||
|
||
/** | ||
* Generate GraphQL Schema | ||
* | ||
|
@@ -442,7 +513,11 @@ module.exports = function(mixinOptions) { | |
const name = this.getFieldName(query); | ||
queries.push(query); | ||
resolver.Query[name] = this.createActionResolver( | ||
action.name | ||
action.name, | ||
{ | ||
typeName: "query", | ||
fieldName: name, | ||
} | ||
); | ||
}); | ||
} | ||
|
@@ -457,6 +532,8 @@ module.exports = function(mixinOptions) { | |
action.name, | ||
{ | ||
fileUploadArg: def.fileUploadArg, | ||
typeName: "mutation", | ||
fieldName: name, | ||
} | ||
); | ||
}); | ||
|
@@ -607,20 +684,7 @@ module.exports = function(mixinOptions) { | |
this.apolloServer = new ApolloServer({ | ||
schema, | ||
..._.defaultsDeep({}, mixinOptions.serverOptions, { | ||
context: ({ req, connection }) => ({ | ||
...(req | ||
? { | ||
ctx: req.$ctx, | ||
service: req.$service, | ||
params: req.$params, | ||
} | ||
: { | ||
ctx: connection.context.$ctx, | ||
service: connection.context.$service, | ||
params: connection.context.$params, | ||
}), | ||
dataLoaders: new Map(), // create an empty map to load DataLoader instances into | ||
}), | ||
context: integrationContext => this.actions.context(integrationContext), | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Forgive my lack of knowledge with subscription behaviors, so I'll probably ask questions along the way here. Does this specific change imply that a fresh moleculer context will be created each time a subscription does to resolve, or is this the moleculer context for the entire lifespan of the connected subscription? As far as I can tell, the primary reason for the There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. No problem, it's taking me a bit to really wrap my head around all this too, and I may be wrong, so I'm more than glad to do some mental gymnastics to make sure we get this right. If you haven't caught up or had the opportunity recently to read my original issue You may want to do that because I go over my reasoning for a lot of this and the problems I'm trying to solve. Apollo will create a new context for for every GQL operation. So you can actually connect, and do nothing. So the There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. OK, so if I am understanding this correctly, the lifecycle is as follows:
So in each of these scenarios, an action call is being used which is establishing a new moleculer What I think I am still missing then is the need for the Assuming that I am misinterpreting this and a fresh moleculer context is needed each time a publish event is fired, I'm concerned about a few things:
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. @NickClark I sent you a message on Discord to see if we can schedule some time to discuss this. It would probably be more efficient if we can do some interactive back and forth rather than trying to hash things out with this delay. Let me know if that works for you. |
||
subscriptions: { | ||
onConnect: (connectionParams, socket) => | ||
this.actions.ws({ connectionParams, socket }), | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@icebob I am unfamiliar with how best to approach setting up spans for tracing, so I'm not sure if this is an appropriate pattern. Can you weigh in?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The method is correct but it would be good to add the
typeName
andfieldName
into tags, as well.