2017-02-10 10:09:31 +01:00
|
|
|
# Real-time Push and Events
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zulip's "events system" is the server-to-client push system that
|
|
|
|
powers our real-time sync. This document explains how it works; to
|
|
|
|
read an example of how a complete feature using this system works,
|
|
|
|
check out the
|
2017-11-08 17:55:36 +01:00
|
|
|
[new application feature tutorial](../tutorials/new-feature-tutorial.html).
|
2017-02-10 10:09:31 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Any single-page web application like Zulip needs a story for how
|
|
|
|
changes made by one client are synced to other clients, though having
|
|
|
|
a good architecture for this is particularly important for a chat tool
|
|
|
|
like Zulip, since the state is constantly changing. When we talk
|
|
|
|
about clients, think a browser tab, mobile app, or API bot that needs
|
|
|
|
to receive updates to the Zulip data. The simplest example is a new
|
|
|
|
message being sent by one client; other clients must be notified in
|
|
|
|
order to display the message. But a complete application like Zulip
|
|
|
|
has dozens of different types of data that need to be synced to other
|
|
|
|
clients, whether it be new streams, changes in a user's name or
|
|
|
|
avatar, settings changes, etc. In Zulip, we call these updates that
|
|
|
|
need to be sent to other clients **events**.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An important thing to understand when designing such a system is that
|
|
|
|
events need to be synced to every client that has a copy of the old
|
|
|
|
data if one wants to avoid clients displaying inaccurate data to
|
|
|
|
users. So if a user has two browser windows open and sends a message,
|
|
|
|
every client controlled by that user as well as any recipients of the
|
|
|
|
message, including both of those two browser windows, will receive
|
|
|
|
that event. (Technically, we don't need to send events to the client
|
|
|
|
that triggered the change, but this approach saves a bunch of
|
|
|
|
unnecessary duplicate UI update code, since the client making the
|
|
|
|
change can just use the same code as every other client, maybe plus a
|
|
|
|
little notification that the operation succeeded).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Architecturally, there are a few things needed to make a successful
|
|
|
|
real-time sync system work:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* **Generation**. Generating events when changes happen to data, and
|
|
|
|
determining which users should receive each event.
|
|
|
|
* **Delivery**. Efficiently delivering those events to interested
|
|
|
|
clients, ideally in an exactly-once fashion.
|
|
|
|
* **UI updates**. Updating the UI in the client once it has received
|
|
|
|
events from the server.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reactive JavaScript libraries like React and Vue can help simplify the
|
|
|
|
last piece, but there aren't good standard systems for doing
|
|
|
|
generation and delivery, so we have to build them ourselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This document discusses how Zulip solves the generation and delivery
|
|
|
|
problems in a scalable, correct, and predictable way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Generation system
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zulip's generation system is built around a Python function,
|
|
|
|
`send_event(event, users)`. It accepts an event data structure (just
|
|
|
|
a Python dictionary with some keys and value; `type` is always one of
|
|
|
|
the keys but the rest depends on the specific event) and a list of
|
|
|
|
user IDs for the users whose clients should receive the event. In
|
|
|
|
special cases such as message delivery, the list of users will instead
|
|
|
|
be a list of dicts mapping user IDs to user-specific data like whether
|
|
|
|
that user was mentioned in that message. The data passed to
|
|
|
|
`send_event` are simply marshalled as JSON and placed in the
|
|
|
|
`notify_tornado` RabbitMQ queue to be consumed by the delivery system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Usually, this list of users is one of 3 things:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* A single user (e.g. for user-level settings changes).
|
|
|
|
* Everyone in the realm (e.g. for organization-level settings changes,
|
|
|
|
like new realm emoji).
|
|
|
|
* Everyone who would receive a given message (for messages, emoji
|
|
|
|
reactions, message editing, etc.); i.e. the subscribers to a stream
|
|
|
|
or the people on a private message thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is the responsibility of the caller of `send_event` to choose the
|
|
|
|
list of user IDs correctly. There can be security problems if e.g. an
|
|
|
|
event containing private message content is sent to the entire
|
|
|
|
organization. However, if an event isn't sent to enough clients,
|
|
|
|
there will likely be user-visible real-time sync bugs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most of the hard work in event generation is about defining consistent
|
|
|
|
event dictionaries that are clear, readable, will be useful to the
|
|
|
|
wide range of possible clients, and make it easy for developers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Delivery system
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zulip's event delivery (real-time push) system is based on Tornado,
|
|
|
|
which is ideal for handling a large number of open requests. Details
|
|
|
|
on Tornado are available in the
|
2017-11-08 17:55:36 +01:00
|
|
|
[architecture overview](../overview/architecture-overview.html), but in short it
|
2017-02-10 10:09:31 +01:00
|
|
|
is good at holding open a large number of connections for a long time.
|
|
|
|
The complete system is about 1500 lines of code in `zerver/tornado/`,
|
|
|
|
primarily `zerver/tornado/event_queue.py`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zulip's event delivery system is based on "long-polling"; basically
|
|
|
|
clients make `GET /json/events` calls to the server, and the server
|
|
|
|
doesn't respond to the request until it has an event to deliver to the
|
|
|
|
client. This approach is reasonably efficient and works everywhere
|
|
|
|
(unlike websockets, which have a decreasing but nonzero level of
|
|
|
|
client compatibility problems).
|
|
|
|
|
2017-03-08 03:51:53 +01:00
|
|
|
For each connected client, the **Event Queue Server** maintains an
|
2017-02-10 10:09:31 +01:00
|
|
|
**event queue**, which contains any events that are to be delivered to
|
|
|
|
that client which have not yet been acknowledged by that client.
|
|
|
|
Ignoring the subtle details around error handling, the protocol is
|
|
|
|
pretty simple; when a client does a `GET /json/events` call, the
|
|
|
|
server checks if there are any events in the queue. If there are, it
|
|
|
|
returns the events immediately. If there aren't, it records that
|
|
|
|
queue as having a waiting client (often called a `handler` in the
|
|
|
|
code).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When it pulls an event off the `notify_tornado` RabbitMQ queue, it
|
|
|
|
simply delivers the event to each queue associated with one of the
|
|
|
|
target users. If the queue has a waiting client, it breaks the
|
|
|
|
long-poll connection by returning an HTTP response to the waiting
|
|
|
|
client request. If there is no waiting client, it simply pushes the
|
|
|
|
event onto the queue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When starting up, each client makes a `POST /json/register` to the
|
2017-03-08 03:51:53 +01:00
|
|
|
server, which creates a new event queue for that client and returns the
|
2017-02-10 10:09:31 +01:00
|
|
|
`queue_id` as well as an initial `last_event_id` to the client (it can
|
|
|
|
also, optionally, fetch the initial data to save an RTT and avoid
|
|
|
|
races; see the below section on initial data fetches for details on
|
|
|
|
why this is useful). Once the event queue is registered, the client
|
|
|
|
can just do an infinite loop calling `GET /json/events` with those
|
|
|
|
parameters, updating `last_event_id` each time to acknowledge any
|
|
|
|
events it has received (see `call_on_each_event` in the
|
|
|
|
[Zulip Python API bindings][api-bindings-code] for a complete example
|
|
|
|
implementation). When handling each `GET /json/events` request, the
|
2017-11-29 08:20:40 +01:00
|
|
|
queue server can safely delete any events that have an event ID less
|
2017-02-10 10:09:31 +01:00
|
|
|
than or equal to the client's `last_event_id` (event IDs are just a
|
|
|
|
counter for the events a given queue has received.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If network failures were impossible, the `last_event_id` parameter in
|
|
|
|
the protocol would not be required, but it is important for enabling
|
|
|
|
exactly-once delivery in the presence of potential failures. (Without
|
|
|
|
it, the queue server would have to delete events from the queue as
|
|
|
|
soon as it attempted to send them to the client; if that specific HTTP
|
|
|
|
response didn't reach the client due to a network TCP failure, then
|
|
|
|
those events could be lost).
|
|
|
|
|
2017-07-18 09:07:14 +02:00
|
|
|
[api-bindings-code]: https://github.com/zulip/python-zulip-api/blob/master/zulip/zulip/__init__.py
|
2017-02-10 10:09:31 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The queue servers are a very high-traffic system, processing at a
|
2017-11-29 08:20:40 +01:00
|
|
|
minimum one request for every message delivered to every Zulip client.
|
2017-02-10 10:09:31 +01:00
|
|
|
Additionally, as a workaround for low-quality NAT servers that kill
|
|
|
|
HTTP connections that are open without activity for more than 60s, the
|
|
|
|
queue servers also send a heartbeat event to each queue at least once
|
|
|
|
every 45s or so (if no other events have arrived in the meantime).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To avoid a large memory and other resource leak, the queues are
|
|
|
|
garbage collected after (by default) 10 minutes of inactivity from a
|
|
|
|
client, under the theory that the client has likely gone off the
|
|
|
|
Internet (or no longer exists) access; this happens constantly. If
|
|
|
|
the client returns, it will receive a "queue not found" error when
|
|
|
|
requesting events; it's handler for this case should just restart the
|
|
|
|
client / reload the browser so that it refetches initial data the same
|
|
|
|
way it would on startup. Since clients have to implement their
|
|
|
|
startup process anyway, this approach adds minimal technical
|
|
|
|
complexity to clients. A nice side effect is that if the Event Queue
|
|
|
|
Server server (which stores queues in memory) were to crash and lose
|
|
|
|
its data, clients would recover, just as if they had lost Internet
|
|
|
|
access briefly (there is some DoS risk to manage, though).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(The Event Queue Server is designed to save any event queues to disk
|
|
|
|
and reload them when the server is restarted, and catches exceptions
|
|
|
|
carefully, so such incidents are very rare, but it's nice to have a
|
|
|
|
design that handles them without leaving broken out-of-date clients
|
|
|
|
anyway).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## The initial data fetch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When a client starts up, it usually wants to get 2 things from the
|
|
|
|
server:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* The "current state" of various pieces of data, e.g. the current
|
|
|
|
settings, set of users in the organization (for typeahead), stream,
|
|
|
|
messages, etc. (aka the "initial state").
|
|
|
|
* A subscription to receive updates to those data when they are
|
|
|
|
changed by a client (aka an event queue).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ideally, one would get those two things atomically, i.e. if some other
|
2017-08-15 05:21:08 +02:00
|
|
|
user changes their name, either the name change happens after the
|
2017-02-10 10:09:31 +01:00
|
|
|
fetch (and thus the old name is in the initial state and there will be
|
2017-08-15 05:21:08 +02:00
|
|
|
an event in the queue for the name change) or before (the new name is
|
2017-02-10 10:09:31 +01:00
|
|
|
in the initial state, and there is no event for that name change in
|
|
|
|
the queue).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Achieving this atomicity goals means we save a huge amount of work
|
|
|
|
that the N clients for Zulip don't need to worry about a wide range of
|
|
|
|
potential rare and hard to reproduce race conditions; we just have to
|
|
|
|
implement things correctly once in the Zulip server.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is quite challenging to do technically, because fetching the
|
|
|
|
initial state for a complex web application like Zulip might involve
|
|
|
|
dozens of queries to the database, caches, etc. over the course of
|
|
|
|
100ms or more, and it is thus nearly impossible to do all of those
|
|
|
|
things together atomically. So instead, we use a more complicated
|
|
|
|
algorithm that can produce the atomic result from non-atomic
|
|
|
|
subroutines. Here's how it works when you make a `register` API
|
2017-02-10 23:04:46 +01:00
|
|
|
request; the logic is in `zerver/views/events_register.py` and
|
|
|
|
`zerver/lib/events.py`. The request is directly handled by Django:
|
2017-02-10 10:09:31 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Django makes an HTTP request to Tornado, requesting that a new event
|
|
|
|
queue be created, and records its queue ID.
|
|
|
|
* Django does all the various database/cache/etc. queries to fetch the
|
|
|
|
data, non-atomically, from the various data sources (see
|
|
|
|
the `fetch_initial_state_data` function).
|
|
|
|
* Django makes a second HTTP request to Tornado, requesting any events
|
|
|
|
that had been added to the Tornado event queue since it
|
|
|
|
was created.
|
|
|
|
* Finally, Django "applies" the events (see the `apply_events`
|
|
|
|
function) to the initial state that it fetched. E.g. for a name
|
|
|
|
change event, it finds the user data in the `realm_user` data
|
|
|
|
struture, and updates it to have the new name.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This achieves everything we desire, at the cost that we need to write
|
|
|
|
the `apply_events` function. This is a difficult function to
|
|
|
|
implement correctly, because the situations that it tests for almost
|
|
|
|
never happen (being race conditions). So we have a special test
|
|
|
|
class, `EventsRegisterTest`, that is specifically designed to test
|
|
|
|
this function by ensuring the possible race condition always happens.
|
|
|
|
In particular, it does the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Call `fetch_initial_state_data` to get the current state.
|
|
|
|
* Call a state change function that issues an event,
|
|
|
|
e.g. `do_change_full_name`, and capture any events that are generated.
|
|
|
|
* Call `apply_events(state, events)`, and compare the result to
|
|
|
|
calling `fetch_initial_state_data` again now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The `apply_events` code is correct if those two results are identical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The final detail we need to ensure that `apply_events` always works
|
|
|
|
correctly is to make sure that we have `EventsRegisterTest` tests for
|
|
|
|
every event type that can be generated by Zulip. This can be tested
|
|
|
|
manually using `test-backend --coverage EventsRegisterTest` and then
|
|
|
|
checking that all the calls to `send_event` are covered. Someday
|
|
|
|
we'll add automation that verifies this directly by inspecting the
|
|
|
|
coverage data.
|
|
|
|
|
2017-05-14 07:49:35 +02:00
|
|
|
In the Zulip webapp, the data returned by the `register` API is
|
|
|
|
available via the `page_params` parameter.
|
|
|
|
|
2017-02-10 10:09:31 +01:00
|
|
|
### Messages
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One exception to the protocol described in the last section is the
|
|
|
|
actual messages. Because Zulip clients usually fetch them in a
|
|
|
|
separate AJAX call after the rest of the site is loaded, we don't need
|
|
|
|
them to be included in the initial state data. To handle those
|
|
|
|
correctly, clients are responsible for discarding events related to
|
|
|
|
messages that the client has not yet fetched.
|