mirror of
https://github.com/corda/corda.git
synced 2024-12-19 04:57:58 +00:00
532 lines
31 KiB
ReStructuredText
532 lines
31 KiB
ReStructuredText
.. highlight:: kotlin
|
|
.. raw:: html
|
|
|
|
<script type="text/javascript" src="_static/jquery.js"></script>
|
|
<script type="text/javascript" src="_static/codesets.js"></script>
|
|
|
|
Writing flows
|
|
=============
|
|
|
|
This article explains our approach to modelling business processes and the lower level network protocols that implement
|
|
them. It explains how the platform's flow framework is used, and takes you through the code for a simple
|
|
2-party asset trading flow which is included in the source.
|
|
|
|
Introduction
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
Shared distributed ledgers are interesting because they allow many different, mutually distrusting parties to
|
|
share a single source of truth about the ownership of assets. Digitally signed transactions are used to update that
|
|
shared ledger, and transactions may alter many states simultaneously and atomically.
|
|
|
|
Blockchain systems such as Bitcoin support the idea of building up a finished, signed transaction by passing around
|
|
partially signed invalid transactions outside of the main network, and by doing this you can implement
|
|
*delivery versus payment* such that there is no chance of settlement failure, because the movement of cash and the
|
|
traded asset are performed atomically by the same transaction. To perform such a trade involves a multi-step flow
|
|
in which messages are passed back and forth privately between parties, checked, signed and so on.
|
|
|
|
There are many benefits of this flow based design and some development complexities as well. Some of the development challenges include:
|
|
|
|
* Avoiding "callback hell" in which code that should ideally be sequential is turned into an unreadable mess due to the
|
|
desire to avoid using up a thread for every flow instantiation.
|
|
* Surviving node shutdowns/restarts that may occur in the middle of the flow without complicating things. This
|
|
implies that the state of the flow must be persisted to disk.
|
|
* Error handling.
|
|
* Message routing.
|
|
* Serialisation.
|
|
* Catching type errors, in which the developer gets temporarily confused and expects to receive/send one type of message
|
|
when actually they need to receive/send another.
|
|
* Unit testing of the finished flow.
|
|
|
|
Actor frameworks can solve some of the above but they are often tightly bound to a particular messaging layer, and
|
|
we would like to keep a clean separation. Additionally, they are typically not type safe, and don't make persistence or
|
|
writing sequential code much easier.
|
|
|
|
To put these problems in perspective, the *payment channel protocol* in the bitcoinj library, which allows bitcoins to
|
|
be temporarily moved off-chain and traded at high speed between two parties in private, consists of about 7000 lines of
|
|
Java and took over a month of full time work to develop. Most of that code is concerned with the details of persistence,
|
|
message passing, lifecycle management, error handling and callback management. Because the business logic is quite
|
|
spread out the code can be difficult to read and debug.
|
|
|
|
As small contract-specific trading flows are a common occurrence in finance, we provide a framework for the
|
|
construction of them that automatically handles many of the concerns outlined above.
|
|
|
|
Theory
|
|
------
|
|
|
|
A *continuation* is a suspended stack frame stored in a regular object that can be passed around, serialised,
|
|
unserialised and resumed from where it was suspended. This concept is sometimes referred to as "fibers". This may
|
|
sound abstract but don't worry, the examples below will make it clearer. The JVM does not natively support
|
|
continuations, so we implement them using a library called Quasar which works through behind-the-scenes
|
|
bytecode rewriting. You don't have to know how this works to benefit from it, however.
|
|
|
|
We use continuations for the following reasons:
|
|
|
|
* It allows us to write code that is free of callbacks, that looks like ordinary sequential code.
|
|
* A suspended continuation takes far less memory than a suspended thread. It can be as low as a few hundred bytes.
|
|
In contrast a suspended Java thread stack can easily be 1mb in size.
|
|
* It frees the developer from thinking (much) about persistence and serialisation.
|
|
|
|
A *state machine* is a piece of code that moves through various *states*. These are not the same as states in the data
|
|
model (that represent facts about the world on the ledger), but rather indicate different stages in the progression
|
|
of a multi-stage flow. Typically writing a state machine would require the use of a big switch statement and some
|
|
explicit variables to keep track of where you're up to. The use of continuations avoids this hassle.
|
|
|
|
A two party trading flow
|
|
------------------------
|
|
|
|
We would like to implement the "hello world" of shared transaction building flows: a seller wishes to sell some
|
|
*asset* (e.g. some commercial paper) in return for *cash*. The buyer wishes to purchase the asset using his cash. They
|
|
want the trade to be atomic so neither side is exposed to the risk of settlement failure. We assume that the buyer
|
|
and seller have found each other and arranged the details on some exchange, or over the counter. The details of how
|
|
the trade is arranged isn't covered in this article.
|
|
|
|
Our flow has two parties (B and S for buyer and seller) and will proceed as follows:
|
|
|
|
1. S sends a ``StateAndRef`` pointing to the state they want to sell to B, along with info about the price they require
|
|
B to pay.
|
|
2. B sends to S a ``SignedTransaction`` that includes two inputs (the state owned by S, and cash owned by B) and three
|
|
outputs (the state now owned by B, the cash now owned by S, and any change cash still owned by B). The
|
|
``SignedTransaction`` has a single signature from B but isn't valid because it lacks a signature from S authorising
|
|
movement of the asset.
|
|
3. S signs the transaction and sends it back to B.
|
|
4. B *finalises* the transaction by sending it to the notary who checks the transaction for validity, recording the
|
|
transaction in B's local vault, and then sending it on to S who also checks it and commits the transaction to S's
|
|
local vault.
|
|
|
|
You can find the implementation of this flow in the file ``finance/workflows/src/main/kotlin/net/corda/finance/TwoPartyTradeFlow.kt``.
|
|
|
|
Assuming no malicious termination, they both end the flow being in possession of a valid, signed transaction that
|
|
represents an atomic asset swap.
|
|
|
|
Note that it's the *seller* who initiates contact with the buyer, not vice-versa as you might imagine.
|
|
|
|
We start by defining two classes that will contain the flow definition. We also pick what data will be used by
|
|
each side.
|
|
|
|
.. note:: The code samples in this tutorial are only available in Kotlin, but you can use any JVM language to
|
|
write them and the approach is the same.
|
|
|
|
.. container:: codeset
|
|
|
|
.. literalinclude:: ../../docs/source/example-code/src/main/kotlin/net/corda/docs/kotlin/tutorial/flowstatemachines/TutorialFlowStateMachines.kt
|
|
:language: kotlin
|
|
:start-after: DOCSTART 1
|
|
:end-before: DOCEND 1
|
|
|
|
This code defines several classes nested inside the main ``TwoPartyTradeFlow`` singleton. Some of the classes are
|
|
simply flow messages or exceptions. The other two represent the buyer and seller side of the flow.
|
|
|
|
Going through the data needed to become a seller, we have:
|
|
|
|
- ``otherSideSession: FlowSession`` - a flow session for communication with the buyer
|
|
- ``assetToSell: StateAndRef<OwnableState>`` - a pointer to the ledger entry that represents the thing being sold
|
|
- ``price: Amount<Currency>`` - the agreed on price that the asset is being sold for (without an issuer constraint)
|
|
- ``myParty: PartyAndCertificate`` - the certificate representing the party that controls the asset being sold
|
|
|
|
And for the buyer:
|
|
|
|
- ``sellerSession: FlowSession`` - a flow session for communication with the seller
|
|
- ``notary: Party`` - the entry in the network map for the chosen notary. See “Notaries” for more information on
|
|
notaries
|
|
- ``acceptablePrice: Amount<Currency>`` - the price that was agreed upon out of band. If the seller specifies
|
|
a price less than or equal to this, then the trade will go ahead
|
|
- ``typeToBuy: Class<out OwnableState>`` - the type of state that is being purchased. This is used to check that the
|
|
sell side of the flow isn't trying to sell us the wrong thing, whether by accident or on purpose
|
|
- ``anonymous: Boolean`` - whether to generate a fresh, anonymous public key for the transaction
|
|
|
|
Alright, so using this flow shouldn't be too hard: in the simplest case we can just create a Buyer or Seller
|
|
with the details of the trade, depending on who we are. We then have to start the flow in some way. Just
|
|
calling the ``call`` function ourselves won't work: instead we need to ask the framework to start the flow for
|
|
us. More on that in a moment.
|
|
|
|
Suspendable functions
|
|
---------------------
|
|
|
|
The ``call`` function of the buyer/seller classes is marked with the ``@Suspendable`` annotation. What does this mean?
|
|
|
|
As mentioned above, our flow framework will at points suspend the code and serialise it to disk. For this to work,
|
|
any methods on the call stack must have been pre-marked as ``@Suspendable`` so the bytecode rewriter knows to modify
|
|
the underlying code to support this new feature. A flow is suspended when calling either ``receive``, ``send`` or
|
|
``sendAndReceive`` which we will learn more about below. For now, just be aware that when one of these methods is
|
|
invoked, all methods on the stack must have been marked. If you forget, then in the unit test environment you will
|
|
get a useful error message telling you which methods you didn't mark. The fix is simple enough: just add the annotation
|
|
and try again.
|
|
|
|
.. note:: Java 9 is likely to remove this pre-marking requirement completely.
|
|
|
|
Whitelisted classes with the Corda node
|
|
---------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
For security reasons, we do not want Corda nodes to be able to just receive instances of any class on the classpath
|
|
via messaging, since this has been exploited in other Java application containers in the past. Instead, we require
|
|
every class contained in messages to be whitelisted. Some classes are whitelisted by default (see ``DefaultWhitelist``),
|
|
but others outside of that set need to be whitelisted either by using the annotation ``@CordaSerializable`` or via the
|
|
plugin framework. See :doc:`serialization`. You can see above that the ``SellerTradeInfo`` has been annotated.
|
|
|
|
Starting your flow
|
|
------------------
|
|
|
|
The ``StateMachineManager`` is the class responsible for taking care of all running flows in a node. It knows
|
|
how to register handlers with the messaging system (see ":doc:`messaging`") and iterate the right state machine
|
|
when messages arrive. It provides the send/receive/sendAndReceive calls that let the code request network
|
|
interaction and it will save/restore serialised versions of the fiber at the right times.
|
|
|
|
Flows can be invoked in several ways. For instance, they can be triggered by scheduled events (in which case they need to
|
|
be annotated with ``@SchedulableFlow``), see ":doc:`event-scheduling`" to learn more about this. They can also be triggered
|
|
directly via the node's RPC API from your app code (in which case they need to be annotated with `StartableByRPC`). It's
|
|
possible for a flow to be of both types.
|
|
|
|
You request a flow to be invoked by using the ``CordaRPCOps.startFlowDynamic`` method. This takes a
|
|
Java reflection ``Class`` object that describes the flow class to use (in this case, either ``Buyer`` or ``Seller``).
|
|
It also takes a set of arguments to pass to the constructor. Because it's possible for flow invocations to
|
|
be requested by untrusted code (e.g. a state that you have been sent), the types that can be passed into the
|
|
flow are checked against a whitelist, which can be extended by apps themselves at load time. There are also a series
|
|
of inlined Kotlin extension functions of the form ``CordaRPCOps.startFlow`` which help with invoking flows in a type
|
|
safe manner.
|
|
|
|
The process of starting a flow returns a ``FlowHandle`` that you can use to observe the result, and which also contains
|
|
a permanent identifier for the invoked flow in the form of the ``StateMachineRunId``. Should you also wish to track the
|
|
progress of your flow (see :ref:`progress-tracking`) then you can invoke your flow instead using
|
|
``CordaRPCOps.startTrackedFlowDynamic`` or any of its corresponding ``CordaRPCOps.startTrackedFlow`` extension functions.
|
|
These will return a ``FlowProgressHandle``, which is just like a ``FlowHandle`` except that it also contains an observable
|
|
``progress`` field.
|
|
|
|
.. note:: The developer `must` then either subscribe to this ``progress`` observable or invoke the ``notUsed()`` extension
|
|
function for it. Otherwise the unused observable will waste resources back in the node.
|
|
|
|
Implementing the seller
|
|
-----------------------
|
|
|
|
Let's implement the ``Seller.call`` method that will be run when the flow is invoked.
|
|
|
|
.. container:: codeset
|
|
|
|
.. literalinclude:: ../../finance/workflows/src/main/kotlin/net/corda/finance/flows/TwoPartyTradeFlow.kt
|
|
:language: kotlin
|
|
:start-after: DOCSTART 4
|
|
:end-before: DOCEND 4
|
|
:dedent: 8
|
|
|
|
We start by sending information about the asset we wish to sell to the buyer. We fill out the initial flow message with
|
|
the trade info, and then call ``otherSideSession.send``. which takes two arguments:
|
|
|
|
- The party we wish to send the message to
|
|
- The payload being sent
|
|
|
|
``otherSideSession.send`` will serialise the payload and send it to the other party automatically.
|
|
|
|
Next, we call a *subflow* called ``IdentitySyncFlow.Receive`` (see :ref:`subflows`). ``IdentitySyncFlow.Receive``
|
|
ensures that our node can de-anonymise any confidential identities in the transaction it's about to be asked to sign.
|
|
|
|
Next, we call another subflow called ``SignTransactionFlow``. ``SignTransactionFlow`` automates the process of:
|
|
|
|
* Receiving a proposed trade transaction from the buyer, with the buyer's signature attached.
|
|
* Checking that the proposed transaction is valid.
|
|
* Calculating and attaching our own signature so that the transaction is now signed by both the buyer and the seller.
|
|
* Sending the transaction back to the buyer.
|
|
|
|
The transaction then needs to be finalized. This is the the process of sending the transaction to a notary to assert
|
|
(with another signature) that the time-window in the transaction (if any) is valid and there are no double spends.
|
|
In this flow, finalization is handled by the buyer, we just wait for them to send it to us. It will have the same ID as
|
|
the one we started with but more signatures.
|
|
|
|
Implementing the buyer
|
|
----------------------
|
|
|
|
OK, let's do the same for the buyer side:
|
|
|
|
.. container:: codeset
|
|
|
|
.. literalinclude:: ../../finance/workflows/src/main/kotlin/net/corda/finance/flows/TwoPartyTradeFlow.kt
|
|
:language: kotlin
|
|
:start-after: DOCSTART 1
|
|
:end-before: DOCEND 1
|
|
:dedent: 8
|
|
|
|
This code is longer but no more complicated. Here are some things to pay attention to:
|
|
|
|
1. We do some sanity checking on the proposed trade transaction received from the seller to ensure we're being offered
|
|
what we expected to be offered.
|
|
2. We create a cash spend using ``Cash.generateSpend``. You can read the vault documentation to learn more about this.
|
|
3. We access the *service hub* as needed to access things that are transient and may change or be recreated
|
|
whilst a flow is suspended, such as the wallet or the network map.
|
|
4. We call ``CollectSignaturesFlow`` as a subflow to send the unfinished, still-invalid transaction to the seller so
|
|
they can sign it and send it back to us.
|
|
5. Last, we call ``FinalityFlow`` as a subflow to finalize the transaction.
|
|
|
|
As you can see, the flow logic is straightforward and does not contain any callbacks or network glue code, despite
|
|
the fact that it takes minimal resources and can survive node restarts.
|
|
|
|
Flow sessions
|
|
-------------
|
|
|
|
It will be useful to describe how flows communicate with each other. A node may have many flows running at the same
|
|
time, and perhaps communicating with the same counterparty node but for different purposes. Therefore flows need a
|
|
way to segregate communication channels so that concurrent conversations between flows on the same set of nodes do
|
|
not interfere with each other.
|
|
|
|
To achieve this in order to communicate with a counterparty one needs to first initiate such a session with a ``Party``
|
|
using ``initiateFlow``, which returns a ``FlowSession`` object, identifying this communication. Subsequently the first
|
|
actual communication will kick off a counter-flow on the other side, receiving a "reply" session object. A session ends
|
|
when either flow ends, whether as expected or pre-maturely. If a flow ends pre-maturely then the other side will be
|
|
notified of that and they will also end, as the whole point of flows is a known sequence of message transfers. Flows end
|
|
pre-maturely due to exceptions, and as described above, if that exception is ``FlowException`` or a sub-type then it
|
|
will propagate to the other side. Any other exception will not propagate.
|
|
|
|
Taking a step back, we mentioned that the other side has to accept the session request for there to be a communication
|
|
channel. A node accepts a session request if it has registered the flow type (the fully-qualified class name) that is
|
|
making the request - each session initiation includes the initiating flow type. The *initiated* (server) flow must name the
|
|
*initiating* (client) flow using the ``@InitiatedBy`` annotation and passing the class name that will be starting the
|
|
flow session as the annotation parameter.
|
|
|
|
.. _subflows:
|
|
|
|
Sub-flows
|
|
---------
|
|
|
|
Flows can be composed via nesting. Invoking a sub-flow looks similar to an ordinary function call:
|
|
|
|
.. container:: codeset
|
|
|
|
.. sourcecode:: kotlin
|
|
|
|
@Suspendable
|
|
fun call() {
|
|
val unnotarisedTransaction = ...
|
|
subFlow(FinalityFlow(unnotarisedTransaction))
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
.. sourcecode:: java
|
|
|
|
@Suspendable
|
|
public void call() throws FlowException {
|
|
SignedTransaction unnotarisedTransaction = ...
|
|
subFlow(new FinalityFlow(unnotarisedTransaction))
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
Let's take a look at the three subflows we invoke in this flow.
|
|
|
|
FinalityFlow
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|
On the buyer side, we use ``FinalityFlow`` to finalise the transaction. It will:
|
|
|
|
* Send the transaction to the chosen notary and, if necessary, satisfy the notary that the transaction is valid.
|
|
* Record the transaction in the local vault, if it is relevant (i.e. involves the owner of the node).
|
|
* Send the fully signed transaction to the other participants for recording as well.
|
|
|
|
On the seller side we use ``ReceiveFinalityFlow`` to receive and record the finalised transaction.
|
|
|
|
.. warning:: If the buyer stops before sending the finalised transaction to the seller, the buyer is left with a
|
|
valid transaction but the seller isn't, so they don't get the cash! This sort of thing is not
|
|
always a risk (as the buyer may not gain anything from that sort of behaviour except a lawsuit), but if it is, a future
|
|
version of the platform will allow you to ask the notary to send you the transaction as well, in case your counterparty
|
|
does not. This is not the default because it reveals more private info to the notary.
|
|
|
|
We simply create the flow object via its constructor, and then pass it to the ``subFlow`` method which
|
|
returns the result of the flow's execution directly. Behind the scenes all this is doing is wiring up progress
|
|
tracking (discussed more below) and then running the object's ``call`` method. Because the sub-flow might suspend,
|
|
we must mark the method that invokes it as suspendable.
|
|
|
|
Within FinalityFlow, we use a further sub-flow called ``ReceiveTransactionFlow``. This is responsible for downloading
|
|
and checking all the dependencies of a transaction, which in Corda are always retrievable from the party that sent you a
|
|
transaction that uses them. This flow returns a list of ``LedgerTransaction`` objects.
|
|
|
|
.. note:: Transaction dependency resolution assumes that the peer you got the transaction from has all of the
|
|
dependencies itself. It must do, otherwise it could not have convinced itself that the dependencies were themselves
|
|
valid. It's important to realise that requesting only the transactions we require is a privacy leak, because if
|
|
we don't download a transaction from the peer, they know we must have already seen it before. Fixing this privacy
|
|
leak will come later.
|
|
|
|
CollectSignaturesFlow/SignTransactionFlow
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|
We also invoke two other subflows:
|
|
|
|
* ``CollectSignaturesFlow``, on the buyer side
|
|
* ``SignTransactionFlow``, on the seller side
|
|
|
|
These flows communicate to gather all the required signatures for the proposed transaction. ``CollectSignaturesFlow``
|
|
will:
|
|
|
|
* Verify any signatures collected on the transaction so far
|
|
* Verify the transaction itself
|
|
* Send the transaction to the remaining required signers and receive back their signatures
|
|
* Verify the collected signatures
|
|
|
|
``SignTransactionFlow`` responds by:
|
|
|
|
* Receiving the partially-signed transaction off the wire
|
|
* Verifying the existing signatures
|
|
* Resolving the transaction's dependencies
|
|
* Verifying the transaction itself
|
|
* Running any custom validation logic
|
|
* Sending their signature back to the buyer
|
|
* Waiting for the transaction to be recorded in their vault
|
|
|
|
We cannot instantiate ``SignTransactionFlow`` itself, as it's an abstract class. Instead, we need to subclass it and
|
|
override ``checkTransaction()`` to add our own custom validation logic:
|
|
|
|
.. container:: codeset
|
|
|
|
.. literalinclude:: ../../finance/workflows/src/main/kotlin/net/corda/finance/flows/TwoPartyTradeFlow.kt
|
|
:language: kotlin
|
|
:start-after: DOCSTART 5
|
|
:end-before: DOCEND 5
|
|
:dedent: 12
|
|
|
|
In this case, our custom validation logic ensures that the amount of cash outputs in the transaction equals the
|
|
price of the asset.
|
|
|
|
Persisting flows
|
|
----------------
|
|
|
|
If you look at the code for ``FinalityFlow``, ``CollectSignaturesFlow`` and ``SignTransactionFlow``, you'll see calls
|
|
to both ``receive`` and ``sendAndReceive``. Once either of these methods is called, the ``call`` method will be
|
|
suspended into a continuation and saved to persistent storage. If the node crashes or is restarted, the flow will
|
|
effectively continue as if nothing had happened. Your code may remain blocked inside such a call for seconds,
|
|
minutes, hours or even days in the case of a flow that needs human interaction!
|
|
|
|
.. note:: There are a couple of rules you need to bear in mind when writing a class that will be used as a continuation.
|
|
The first is that anything on the stack when the function is suspended will be stored into the heap and kept alive by
|
|
the garbage collector. So try to avoid keeping enormous data structures alive unless you really have to. You can
|
|
always use private methods to keep the stack uncluttered with temporary variables, or to avoid objects that
|
|
Kryo is not able to serialise correctly.
|
|
|
|
The second is that as well as being kept on the heap, objects reachable from the stack will be serialised. The state
|
|
of the function call may be resurrected much later! Kryo doesn't require objects be marked as serialisable, but even so,
|
|
doing things like creating threads from inside these calls would be a bad idea. They should only contain business
|
|
logic and only do I/O via the methods exposed by the flow framework.
|
|
|
|
It's OK to keep references around to many large internal node services though: these will be serialised using a
|
|
special token that's recognised by the platform, and wired up to the right instance when the continuation is
|
|
loaded off disk again.
|
|
|
|
.. warning:: If a node has flows still in a suspended state, with flow continuations written to disk, it will not be
|
|
possible to upgrade that node to a new version of Corda or your app, because flows must be completely "drained"
|
|
before an upgrade can be performed, and must reach a finished state for draining to complete (see
|
|
:ref:`draining_the_node` for details). While there are mechanisms for "evolving" serialised data held
|
|
in the vault, there are no equivalent mechanisms for updating serialised checkpoint data. For this
|
|
reason it is not a good idea to design flows with the intention that they should remain in a suspended
|
|
state for a long period of time, as this will obstruct necessary upgrades to Corda itself. Any
|
|
long-running business process should therefore be structured as a series of discrete transactions,
|
|
written to the vault, rather than a single flow persisted over time through the flow checkpointing
|
|
mechanism.
|
|
|
|
``receive`` and ``sendAndReceive`` return a simple wrapper class, ``UntrustworthyData<T>``, which is
|
|
just a marker class that reminds us that the data came from a potentially malicious external source and may have been
|
|
tampered with or be unexpected in other ways. It doesn't add any functionality, but acts as a reminder to "scrub"
|
|
the data before use.
|
|
|
|
Exception handling
|
|
------------------
|
|
|
|
Flows can throw exceptions to prematurely terminate their execution. The flow framework gives special treatment to
|
|
``FlowException`` and its subtypes. These exceptions are treated as error responses of the flow and are propagated
|
|
to all counterparties it is communicating with. The receiving flows will throw the same exception the next time they do
|
|
a ``receive`` or ``sendAndReceive`` and thus end the flow session. If the receiver was invoked via ``subFlow``
|
|
then the exception can be caught there enabling re-invocation of the sub-flow.
|
|
|
|
If the exception thrown by the erroring flow is not a ``FlowException`` it will still terminate but will not propagate to
|
|
the other counterparties. Instead they will be informed the flow has terminated and will themselves be terminated with a
|
|
generic exception.
|
|
|
|
.. note:: A future version will extend this to give the node administrator more control on what to do with such erroring
|
|
flows.
|
|
|
|
Throwing a ``FlowException`` enables a flow to reject a piece of data it has received back to the sender. This is typically
|
|
done in the ``unwrap`` method of the received ``UntrustworthyData``. In the above example the seller checks the price
|
|
and throws ``FlowException`` if it's invalid. It's then up to the buyer to either try again with a better price or give up.
|
|
|
|
.. _progress-tracking:
|
|
|
|
Progress tracking
|
|
-----------------
|
|
|
|
Not shown in the code snippets above is the usage of the ``ProgressTracker`` API. Progress tracking exports information
|
|
from a flow about where it's got up to in such a way that observers can render it in a useful manner to humans who
|
|
may need to be informed. It may be rendered via an API, in a GUI, onto a terminal window, etc.
|
|
|
|
A ``ProgressTracker`` is constructed with a series of ``Step`` objects, where each step is an object representing a
|
|
stage in a piece of work. It is therefore typical to use singletons that subclass ``Step``, which may be defined easily
|
|
in one line when using Kotlin. Typical steps might be "Waiting for response from peer", "Waiting for signature to be
|
|
approved", "Downloading and verifying data" etc.
|
|
|
|
A flow might declare some steps with code inside the flow class like this:
|
|
|
|
.. container:: codeset
|
|
|
|
.. literalinclude:: ../../finance/workflows/src/main/kotlin/net/corda/finance/flows/TwoPartyTradeFlow.kt
|
|
:language: kotlin
|
|
:start-after: DOCSTART 2
|
|
:end-before: DOCEND 2
|
|
:dedent: 8
|
|
|
|
.. literalinclude:: ../../docs/source/example-code/src/main/java/net/corda/docs/java/tutorial/flowstatemachines/TutorialFlowStateMachines.java
|
|
:language: java
|
|
:start-after: DOCSTART 1
|
|
:end-before: DOCEND 1
|
|
:dedent: 4
|
|
|
|
Each step exposes a label. By defining your own step types, you can export progress in a way that's both human readable
|
|
and machine readable.
|
|
|
|
Progress trackers are hierarchical. Each step can be the parent for another tracker. By setting
|
|
``Step.childProgressTracker``, a tree of steps can be created. It's allowed to alter the hierarchy at runtime, on the
|
|
fly, and the progress renderers will adapt to that properly. This can be helpful when you don't fully know ahead of
|
|
time what steps will be required. If you *do* know what is required, configuring as much of the hierarchy ahead of time
|
|
is a good idea, as that will help the users see what is coming up. You can pre-configure steps by overriding the
|
|
``Step`` class like this:
|
|
|
|
.. container:: codeset
|
|
|
|
.. literalinclude:: ../../finance/workflows/src/main/kotlin/net/corda/finance/flows/TwoPartyTradeFlow.kt
|
|
:language: kotlin
|
|
:start-after: DOCSTART 3
|
|
:end-before: DOCEND 3
|
|
:dedent: 12
|
|
|
|
.. literalinclude:: ../../docs/source/example-code/src/main/java/net/corda/docs/java/tutorial/flowstatemachines/TutorialFlowStateMachines.java
|
|
:language: java
|
|
:start-after: DOCSTART 2
|
|
:end-before: DOCEND 2
|
|
:dedent: 4
|
|
|
|
Every tracker has not only the steps given to it at construction time, but also the singleton
|
|
``ProgressTracker.UNSTARTED`` step and the ``ProgressTracker.DONE`` step. Once a tracker has become ``DONE`` its
|
|
position may not be modified again (because e.g. the UI may have been removed/cleaned up), but until that point, the
|
|
position can be set to any arbitrary set both forwards and backwards. Steps may be skipped, repeated, etc. Note that
|
|
rolling the current step backwards will delete any progress trackers that are children of the steps being reversed, on
|
|
the assumption that those subtasks will have to be repeated.
|
|
|
|
Trackers provide an `Rx observable <http://reactivex.io/>`_ which streams changes to the hierarchy. The top level
|
|
observable exposes all the events generated by its children as well. The changes are represented by objects indicating
|
|
whether the change is one of position (i.e. progress), structure (i.e. new subtasks being added/removed) or some other
|
|
aspect of rendering (i.e. a step has changed in some way and is requesting a re-render).
|
|
|
|
The flow framework is somewhat integrated with this API. Each ``FlowLogic`` may optionally provide a tracker by
|
|
overriding the ``progressTracker`` property (``getProgressTracker`` method in Java). If the
|
|
``FlowLogic.subFlow`` method is used, then the tracker of the sub-flow will be made a child of the current
|
|
step in the parent flow automatically, if the parent is using tracking in the first place. The framework will also
|
|
automatically set the current step to ``DONE`` for you, when the flow is finished.
|
|
|
|
Because a flow may sometimes wish to configure the children in its progress hierarchy *before* the sub-flow
|
|
is constructed, for sub-flows that always follow the same outline regardless of their parameters it's conventional
|
|
to define a companion object/static method (for Kotlin/Java respectively) that constructs a tracker, and then allow
|
|
the sub-flow to have the tracker it will use be passed in as a parameter. This allows all trackers to be built
|
|
and linked ahead of time.
|
|
|
|
In future, the progress tracking framework will become a vital part of how exceptions, errors, and other faults are
|
|
surfaced to human operators for investigation and resolution.
|
|
|
|
Future features
|
|
---------------
|
|
|
|
The flow framework is a key part of the platform and will be extended in major ways in future. Here are some of
|
|
the features we have planned:
|
|
|
|
* Exception management, with a "flow hospital" tool to manually provide solutions to unavoidable
|
|
problems (e.g. the other side doesn't know the trade)
|
|
* Being able to interact with people, either via some sort of external ticketing system, or email, or a custom UI.
|
|
For example to implement human transaction authorisations
|
|
* A standard library of flows that can be easily sub-classed by local developers in order to integrate internal
|
|
reporting logic, or anything else that might be required as part of a communications lifecycle
|