CPS-821 Spike: Support Async read-write operations on CPS-NCMP interface
- 1 Description/Scope
- 2 Issues/Decisions
- 3 Proposed Design
- 4 Proposed Message Format
- 4.1 Success Scenario
- 4.2 Failure Scenario
- 4.3 Sample Output
- 5 Manual Testing
- 6 Kafka config & Implementation
- 7 Future or alternative (Out of Scope)
- 8 Request ID Generation
- 9 Async Request Option using Messaging (Out of Scope)
- 10 Webflux Investigation (Out of Scope)
- 10.1 What is Webflux?
- 10.2 Pros & cons
- 11 Kafka Strimzi Investigation
- 12 Can Robot Framework verify Kafka Events?
- 13 Demo/Test
- 14 References
https://lf-onap.atlassian.net/browse/CPS-821
Description/Scope
The scope of this spike is to ascertain:
How to use messaging (producer, agree topic etc))
Using existing rest endpoint with additional flag indicating async response
Also consider asynchronous request option using messaging in the proposal
Associated Jira Created for Implementation
Issues/Decisions
Color | Meaning |
|---|---|
| New/Open |
| Reopened |
| Agreed/Closed |
# | Issue | Notes/Jira | Decision |
|---|---|---|---|
1 | What topic to use for client? | Topic provided by client as a parameter which will be injected into our environment and used for asynchronous requests sent back to client. | Feb 17, 2022 Update: @Toine Siebelink had a conversation with @Tony Finnerty it has been agreed CPS is to configure a (temporary) dedicated client-topic as final destination for the async replies: we now want to propose to use a common ‘cps-broadcast’ topic which also will used for broadcasting messages like cm handles being added o removed etc. Still it is only a temporary solution until the client have a better way of declaring their own topics. It does not affect our proposed interfaces, just the name of the topic that will be accepted by NCMP (for now) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Feb 16, 2022 Update: After discussion with @Fiachra Corcoran regarding Kafka-strimzi it has been agreed that we will define a topic for client responses in advance (defined upfront). After release K it is envisioned that auto creation of topics will be disbaled by default thus the client will have to use our predefined topic. Agreement on topic name outstanding --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To be supplied by cient |
2 | What topic to use for private DMI-NCMP? | Contact Fiachra Corcoran regarding ONAP conventions. Response was that there aren't any conventions to speak of but we would use dashes (i.e. my-new-topic) instead of dot notation (i.e. my.new.topic) for topic name | ncmp-async-m2m |
3 | Are adding a new REST endpoint for async or modifying an existing endpoint? | To facilitate asynchronous requests to DMI we will need to either create a new endpoint or modify existing endpoint to include /async flag. The second solution may not be backwards compatible. However creating a new endpoint solely for a flag is also not ideal. We could add async to list of options (but this might interfere with the purpose of /options. Additionally, considered adding a new endpoint for async which simply re-routes the response to the original endpoint while adding the logic for OK response to the client. However, would this lead to a change in the schema? If so, would this be backwards compatible? | /ncmp/v1/data/ch/123ee5/ds/ncmp-datastore:*?topic=<topic-name> |
4 | Agree URL for async once #2 is clarified | /ncmp/v1/data/ch/123ee5/ds/ncmp-datastore:*?topic=<topic-name>
| |
5 | Passthrough request need to be able to handle different response types (using accept header) but the async option would have a fixed and possibly different response type. | The async response can 'wrap' the native response inside a json object identical to the synchronous response | |
6 | Should we create a standalone app to demo or are tests sufficient? | CSIT tests may require more involved effort - perhaps we could add standalone app to nexus and use it as part of CSIT test? | See #13 |
7 | Do we need to persist the generated requestID? | We should be be stateless | No - Further disc |
8 | Error Reporting - Topic Correctness/Availability | At a minimum we should report to the client if a topic was not found or if the topic name was incorrect | In Scope |
9 | Error Reporting - Kafka Issues | Issues such full buffer/queue, drop messages, failure not in scope | Out of scope |
10 | Async Request Option using Messaging | Out of scope | |
11 | Do we actually require futures in this implementation proposal? | It could be argued that the need for futures is made redundant by the fact we call dmi from ncmp through rest and the response will be consumed via Kafka. What benefit would future give us in this case? | Not needed |
12 | ID Generation | Which mechanism to use? Look at CPS-Temporal and follow to keep consistency | |
13 | Can robot framework verify if Kafka events have been sent/received | This would be less work and overhead (rather than creating/.maintaining client app) Will need to verify if 3PP libraries are safe to introduce into codebase. If so, what is the process? Do they need to be FOSSed? | Integration testing should be carried out by a client of NCMP. Demo can be performed up the point NCMP produces message for the client. |
14 | Can Webflux do this work with less code/impl? | @Sourabh Sourabh suggested using this to compliment our existing approach. By adding webflux we add an event loop to synchronize and access I/O connections to the database. | No, It will compliment the design by adding an event loop for I/O synchronization and access. See: CPS-850 |
15 | ONAP may be deprecating PLAINTEXT for Kafka. Strimzi Kafka might need to be used | No relevant information could be found relating to this. See: https://lf-onap.atlassian.net/wiki/display/DW/CPS-821+Spike%3A+Support+Async+read-write+operations+on+CPS-NCMP+interface#CPS821Spike:SupportAsyncreadwriteoperationsonCPSNCMPinterface-KafkaStrimziInvestigation | The underlying implementation won't be affected. The config will contain relevant configuration for protocol (e.g. PLAINTEXT, SASL) and connections. This information needs to be made configurable when implementing. |
16 | Should we have something like the message count in the response or an indication of the last message at least.? | On the topic=Xyz async analysis, One item I forgot to mention was when a client might know when they have received the last response message for a request. If async there may be many responses (otherwise there's no need for async) Therefore should it not have something like the message count in it or an indication of the last message at least. | This is another step in an evolution of the product. Multiple response messages might become a necessity for asycnc bulk operations and maybe that is when we can discuss it in more detail. I don’t think it has to affect our current implementation additional field to handle that can always be added in a backward compatible way. |
17 | Do we need Kafka messaging between DMI and NCMP? | This was discussed as it was argued that the client and CPS ecosystem is decoupled and async using only bus between ncmp and client. However, this would not rectify blocking calls between ncmp and dmi. | It was decided to have two separate kafka topics for client → ncmp & ncmp → dmi |
18 | Can NCMP list all existing topics | https://lf-onap.atlassian.net/browse/CPS-828 AC Point 3 : Topic does not exists (not allowed to create new topics, assuming NCMP can 'list' existing topics) @Gareth Roper Need your suggestion. |
|
19 | https://lf-onap.atlassian.net/browse/CPS-828 Async: NCMP Rest impl. including Request ID generation | AC Points : 2. cm handle does not exists 3. No DMI registration for CM Handle | AC point 2 : We agreed to check only if cm handle exists. If cm does not exists will get Http status 404 as below. { AC point 3 . Is not valid. |
20 | Client Kafka User & Privileges | Feb 16, 2022 After discussion with @Fiachra Corcoran regarding Kafka-strimzi we will need to ensure client can access Kafka user and be allocated sufficient privileges (principle of least privilege) |
|
21 | agree client response format | Message gets forwarded to original Client Topic | |
22 | Async Ack | { | Agreed & implemented |
Proposed Design
High-level Steps/Possible Tickets:
Modify REST endpoint to include param topic (1)
Add logic to send response and request (2a)
Send request if async is implemented or NotSupportedException if not (2b)
Add producer to DMI (implementation and config) (31 & 3b)
Add consumer to NCMP (implementation and config) (4a)
Add Producer to NCMP (implementation and config) (4b)
Demo & Test (5)
Alternative Approaches
# | Person | Approach |
|---|---|---|
1 | @renu kumari | [Relates to point 3 from high-level steps] It would be good to have async implementation only dependent on NCMP. So that it does not break or work with only few DMI plugins. 2. No async request get lost because of pod restart or JVM crash. |
Proposed Message Format
Legend
SCOPE OF THE WORK : the black highlighted parts of the above events.
The blue highlight is not in current scope. The blue bits will be up to the dmi plugins.
In the future these blue bits may become part of the standard onap base release.
Success Scenario
DMI Event sent to NCMP
{
"eventId" : "9999", # some generic event uuid generated by DMI Plugin
“eventCorrelationId” : “request-009995”, # for event correlation - acts as the request Id when
# eventType=org.onap.ncmp.async-request-response-event
"eventTime" : "2021-11-16T16:42:25-04:00", (@kieran mccarthy is this format agreed?)
"eventSource" : "org.onap.ncmp", # ??? Is this needed? @Joseph Keenan will use dmiAsyncRequestResponseEvent.setEventSource(Application.class.getPackageName());
"eventType" : "org.onap.ncmp.async-request-response-event", # event type for async request response events (@kieran mccarthy Who owns this schema? How do the schemas relate?)
”eventSchema” : “org.onap.ncmp:async-request-response-event:v1", # event schema for async request response events (who owns this? table with owner, repo, color coded)
“eventTarget” : “topic:client-application-topic”, # indicates where to route the event - ‘topic’ is default target type (@kieran mccarthy will it be in format of topic:<topic> always or could it be extended e.g. ip:<ip-address>?)
"event": {
“response-data-schema” : “org.onap.cps.yang-patch-json:v1”,
“response-status” : “SUCCESS”,
“response-code” : “201”,
“response-data” : {
…
<response-data-payload>
…
}
}
}
NCMP Event forwarded to Client topic (in eventTarget)
{
"eventId" : "33001", # some generic event uuid generated by NCMP
“eventCorrelationId” : “request-009995”, # for event correlation - acts as the request Id when
# eventType=org.onap.ncmp.async-request-response-event
"eventTime" : "2015-11-16T16:42:26-05:06", ( @kieran mccarthy Is this a timezone?)
"eventSource" : "org.onap.ncmp", # The source of the event
"eventType" : "org.onap.ncmp.async-request-response-event", # event type for async request response events
”eventSchema” : “org.onap.ncmp:async-request-response-event:v1", # event schema for async request response events
"eventOrigin" : {
"eventId" : "00001", # some generic event uuid generated by DMI Plugin
"eventTime" : "2021-11-16T16:42:25-04:00", (@kieran mccarthy is this agreed upon?)
“eventCorrelationId” : “request-009995”,
"eventSource" : "org.onap.dmi", # ??? Is this needed?
"eventType" : "org.onap.ncmp.async-request-response-event", # event type for async request response events
”eventSchema” : “org.onap.ncmp:async-request-response-event:v1", # event schema for async request response events
“eventTarget” : “topic:client-application-topic”
},
"event": {
“response-data-schema” : “org.onap.cps.yang-patch-json:v1”,
“response-status” : “SUCCESS”,
“response-code” : “201”,
“response-data” : {
…
<response-data-payload>
…
}
}
}
Failure Scenario
DMI Event sent to NCMP
{
"eventId" : "9999", # some generic event uuid generated by DMI Plugin
“eventCorrelationId” : “request-009995”, # for event correlation - acts as the request Id when
# eventType=org.onap.ncmp.async-request-response-event
"eventTime" : "2021-11-16T16:42:25-04:00",
"eventSource" : "org.onap.ncmp", # ??? Is this needed?
"eventType" : "org.onap.ncmp.async-request-response-event", # event type for async request response events
”eventSchema” : “org.onap.ncmp:async-request-response-event:v1", # event schema for async request response events
“eventTarget” : “topic:client-application-topic” , # indicates where to route the event
# - ‘topic’ is default target type
"event": {
“response-data-schema” : “org.onap.cps.generic-error:v1”,
“response-status” : “FAILURE”,
“response-code” : “404”,
“response-data” : {
…
<response-data-payload-as-org.onap.ncmp.generic-error:v1>
…
}
}
}
NCMP Event forwarded to Client topic (defined in eventTarget)
{
"eventId" : "33001", # some generic event uuid generated by NCMP
“eventCorrelationId” : “request-009995”, # for event correlation - acts as the request Id when
# eventType=org.onap.ncmp.async-request-response-event
"eventTime" : "2015-11-16T16:42:26-05:06",
"eventSource" : "org.onap.ncmp", # The source of the event
"eventType" : "org.onap.ncmp.async-request-response-event", # event type for async request response events
”eventSchema” : “org.onap.ncmp:async-request-response-event:v1", # event schema for async request response events
"eventOrigin" : {
"eventId" : "00001", # some generic event uuid generated by DMI Plugin
"eventTime" : "2021-11-16T16:42:25-04:00",
“eventCorrelationId” : “request-009995”,
"eventSource" : "org.onap.dmi", # ??? Is this needed?
"eventType" : "org.onap.ncmp.async-request-response-event", # event type for async request response events
”eventSchema” : “org.onap.ncmp:async-request-response-event:v1", # event schema for async request response events
“eventTarget” : “topic:client-application-topic”
},
"event": {
“response-data-schema” : “org.onap.cps.generic-error:v1”,
“response-status” : “FAILURE”,
“response-code” : “404”,
“response-data” : {
…
<response-data-payload-as-org.onap.ncmp.generic-error:v1>
…
}
}
}
Sample Output
Manual Testing
Kafka config & Implementation
Example Kafka Consumer Implementation from CPS-Temporal
The below code snippet taken from cps-temporal can be used in the same way in NCMP to listen to message from DMI substituting the topics and errorHandler
Example Kafka Consumer Config from CPS-Temporal
Example Kafka Producer Implementation from CPS-NCMP
Example Kafka Producer Config from CPS-NCMP
Example Kafka Docker-Compose
Future or alternative (Out of Scope)
What are Futures?
A Java Future, java.util.concurrent.Future, represents the result of an asynchronous computation. When the asynchronous task is created, a Java Future object is returned. This Future object functions as a handle to the result of the asynchronous task. Once the asynchronous task completes, the result can be accessed via the Future object returned when the task was started
source: http://tutorials.jenkov.com/java-util-concurrent/java-future.html
CompletableFuture (Java8+)
Java 8 introduced the CompletableFuture class. Along with the Future interface, it also implemented the CompletionStage interface. This interface defines the contract for an asynchronous computation step that we can combine with other steps.
CompletableFuture is at the same time a building block and a framework, with about 50 different methods for composing, combining, and executing asynchronous computation steps and handling errors.
source: https://www.callicoder.com/java-8-completablefuture-tutorial/
Alternatives - Thread
Please attached different sequence diagrams for the discussion:
Option 1: Client is sending a REST request, NCMP is publishing the request message, DMI is listening and processing the request message
As mentioned by Renu, it introduces an additional responsibility for DMI implementations to provide a Kafka client for both consuming and producing the messages.
Option 2: Client is sending a REST request, NCMP is publishing the request message, NCMP is listening and processing the request message using DMI
This option have a minimum impact (no impact ?) on DMI implementations. This is the preferred approach if the client request has to be REST HTTP.
Option 3 : Client is publishing and listening using the same Kafka protocol
This could be a possible option to offer a message API to clients for sending requests also.