Develop Reference

heroku and django: heroku stop the function before it done

I deployed a Django app on Heroku. I have a function (inside views) in my app that take some time (3m-5m) before it returns.
The problem is that function doesn't return when the app is deployed to Heroku. On my PC it works fine.
Heroku is not giving me useful feedback. There is no 'timeout' or anything in the logs.

Three to five minutes is way too long for a request to take. Heroku will kill such requests:
Best practice is to get the response time of your web application to be under 500ms, this will free up the application for more requests and deliver a high quality user experience to your visitors. Occasionally a web request may hang or take an excessive amount of time to process by your application. When this happens the router will terminate the request if it takes longer than 30 seconds to complete.
I'm not sure why you aren't seeing timeouts in the logs, but if you truly need that much time to compute something you'll need to do it asynchronously.
There are lots of ways to do that, e.g. you could queue the work and then respond immediately with a "loading" state, then poll the back-end and update the view when the result is ready.
Start by reading Worker Dynos, Background Jobs and Queueing and then decide how you wish to proceed. We can't tell you the "right" way of doing this; it's something you need to decide about your application.

Best Way to Handle user triggered task (like import data) in Django

I need your opinion on a challenge that I'm facing. I'm building a website that uses Django as a backend, PostgreSQL as my DB, GraphQL as my API layer and React as my frontend framework. Website is hosted on Heroku. I wrote a python script that logs me in to my gmail account and parse few emails, based on pre-defined conditions, and store the parsed data into Google Sheet. Now, I want the script to be part of my website in which user will specify what exactly need to be parsed (i.e. filters) and then display the parsed data in a table to review accuracy of the parsing task.
The part that I need some help with is how to architect such workflow. Below are few ideas that I managed to come up with after some googling:
generate a graphQL mutation that stores a 'task' into a task model. Once a new task entry is stored, a Django Signal will trigger the script. Not sure yet if Signal can run custom python functions, but from what i read so far, it seems doable.
Use Celery to run this task asynchronously. But i'm not sure if asynchronous tasks is what i'm after here as I need this task to run immediately after the user trigger the feature from the frontend. But i'm might be wrong here. I'm also not sure if I need Redis to store the task details or I can do that on PostgreSQL.
What is the best practice in implementing this feature? The task can be anything, not necessarily parsing emails; it can also be importing data from excel. Any task that is user generated rather than scheduled or repeated task.
I'm sorry in advance if this question seems trivial to some of you. I'm not a professional developer and the above project is a way for me to sharpen my technical skills and learn new techniques.
Looking forward to learn from your experiences.

You can dissect your problem into the following steps:
User specifies task parameters
System executes task
System displays result to the User
You can either do all of these:
Sequentially and synchronously in one swoop; or
Step by step asynchronously.
Synchronously
You can run your script when generating a response, but it will come with the following downsides:
The process in the server processing your request will block until the script is finished. This may or may not affect the processing of other requests by that same server (this will depend on the number of simultaneous requests being processed, workload of the script, etc.)
The client (e.g. your browser) and even the server might time out if the script takes too long. You can fix this to some extent by configuring your server appropriately.
The beauty of this approach however is it's simplicity. For you to do this, you can just pass the parameters through the request, server parses and does the script, then returns you the result.
No setting up of a message queue, task scheduler, or whatever needed.
Asynchronously
Ideally though, for long-running tasks, it is best to have this executed outside of the usual request-response loop for the following advantages:
The server responding to the requests can actually serve other requests.
Some scripts can take a while, some you don't even know if it's going to finish
Script is no longer dependent on the reliability of the network (imagine running an expensive task, then your internet connection skips or is just plain intermittent; you won't be able to do anything)
The downside of this is now you have to set more things up, which increases the project's complexity and points of failure.
Producer-Consumer
Whatever you choose, it's usually best to follow the producer-consumer pattern:
Producer creates tasks and puts them in a queue
Consumer takes a task from the queue and executes it
The producer is basically you, the user. You specify the task and the parameters involved in that task.
This queue could be any datastore: in-memory datastore like Redis; a messaging queue like RabbitMQ; or an relational database management system like PostgreSQL.
The consumer is your script executing these tasks. There are multiple ways of running the consumer/script: via Celery like you mentioned which runs multiple workers to execute the tasks passed through the queue; via a simple time-based job scheduler like crontab; or even you manually triggering the script
The question is actually not trivial, as the solution depends on what task you are actually trying to do. It is best to evaluate the constraints, parameters, and actual tasks to decide which approach you will choose.
But just to give you a more relevant guideline:
Just keep it simple, unless you have a compelling reason to do so (e.g. server is being bogged down, or internet connection is not reliable in practice), there's really no reason to be fancy.
The more blocking the task is, or the longer the task takes or the more dependent it is to third party APIs via the network, the more it makes sense to push this to a background process add reliability and resiliency.
In your email import script, I'll most likely push that to the background:
Have a page where you can add a task to the database
In the task details page, display the task details, and the result below if it exists or "Processing..." otherwise
Have a script that executes tasks (import emails from gmail given the task parameters) and save the results to the database
Schedule this script to run every few minutes via crontab
Yes the above has side effects, like crontab running the script in multiple times at the same time and such, but I won't go into detail without knowing more about the specifics of the task.

gunicorn and/or celery: What is the way get the best out of both?

I've a machine learning application which uses flask to expose api(for production this is not a good idea, but even if I'll use django in future the idea of the question shouldn't change).
The main problem is how to serve multiple requests to my app. Few months back celery has been added to get around this problem. The number of workers in celery that was spawned is equal to the number of cores present in the machine. For very few users this was looking fine and was in production for some time.
When the number of concurrent users got increased, it was evident that we should do a performance testing on it. It turns out: it is able to handle 20 users for 30 GB and 8 core machine without authentication and without any front-end. Which is not looking like a good number.
I didn't know there are things like: application server, web server, model server. When googling for this problem: gunicorn was a good application server python application.
Should I use gunicorn or any other application server along with celery and why
If I remove celery and only use gunicorn with the application can I achieve concurrency. I have read somewhere celery is not good for machine learning applications.
What are the purposes of gunicorn and celery. How can we achieve the best out of both.
Note: Main goal is to maximize concurrency. While serving in production authentication will be added. One front-end application might come into action in between in production.

There is no shame in flask. If in fact you just need a web API wrapper, flask is probably a much better choice than django (simply because django is huge and you'd be using only a fraction of its capability).
However, your concurrency problems are apparently stemming from the fact that you are doing some heavy-duty processing for each request. There is simply no way around that; if you require a certain amount of computational resources per request, you can't magic those up. From here on, it's a juggling act.
If you want a guaranteed response immediately, you need to have as many workers as potential simultaneous requests. This may involve load balancing over multiple servers, if you can't scrounge up enough resources on one server. (cue gunicorn, a web application server, responsible for accepting connections and then distributing them to multiple application processes.)
If you are okay with not getting an immediate response, you can let stuff queue up. (cue celery, a task queue, which worker processes can use to retrieve the next thing to be done, and deposit results). This works best if you don't need a response in the same request-response cycle; e.g. you submit a job from client, and they only get an acknowledgement that the job has been received; you would need a second request to ask about the status of the job, and possibly the results of the job if it is finished.
Alternately, instead of Flask you could use websockets or Tornado, to push out the response to the client when it is available (as opposed to user polling for results, or waiting on a live HTTP connection and taking up a server process).

Status of Python Celery tasks

I'm wondering what kind of options there are for monitoring celery tasks from a browser, after they have been deployed to a worker?
My current application stack is a flask app running inside twisted, using celery to run dozens to thousands of small background tasks (updating metadata in a repository, creating image derivatives, etc.) I'm envisioning using ajax long-polling to monitor the status of the celery tasks initiated by the user. I'm using redis for the backend broker and results.
I see celery has some command line ways to monitor tasks, or flower for a web dashboard. But if I wanted to see more detailed status from a particular task sent to celery, would it make more sense for that task to print / write to a log file, then long-poll that file for changes from the flask front-end?
At this point a user can say, "update these 10,000 items", the tasks are sent to celery, and the front-end very quickly says, "job sent!". And the tasks do complete. But I'd like to have the user navigate to "/status" and see the status of those 10,000 small jobs - even a scrolling log file would probably work.
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Took a lot of head scratching to make it this far sketching things out, but I'm spinning my wheels figuring out exactly WHAT to long-poll from the user front-end.

Try Jobstatic, which is extending Celery.
From project description:
Jobtastic gives you goodies like:
Easy progress estimation/reporting
Job status feedback
Helper methods for gracefully handling a dead task broker (delay_or_eager and delay_or_fail)
Super-easy result caching
Thundering herd avoidance
Integration with a celery jQuery plugin for easy client-side progress display
Memory leak detection in a task run

Jobtastic was a great idea, but not quite what worked for us. In the end, decided to create an incrementing job number (stored in Redis alongside results and broker), push all celery task id's associated with that job number into a python object, then pickle and store that in redis. We can then use that later to see if the entire "job" is complete, or the status thereof. For our purposes, works just lovely.

Do I need celery when I am using gevent?

I am working on a django web app that has functions (say for e.g. sync_files()) that take a long time to return. When I use gevent, my app does not block when sync_file() runs and other clients can connect and interact with the webapp just fine.
My goal is to have the webapp responsive to other clients and not block. I do not expect a zillion users to connect to my webapp (perhaps max 20 connections), and I do not want to set this up to become the next twitter. My app is running on a vps, so I need something light weight.
So in my case listed above, is it redundant to use celery when I am using gevent? Is there a specific advantage to using celery? I prefer not to use celery since it is yet another service that will be running on my machine.
edit: found out that celery can run the worker pool on gevent. I think I am a litle more unsure about the relationship between gevent & celery.

In short you do need a celery.
Even if you use gevent and have concurrency, the problem becomes request timeout. Lets say your task takes 10 minutes to run however the typical request timeout is about up to a minute. So what will happen if you trigger the task directly within a view is that the server will start processing it however after a minute a client (browser) will probably disconnect the connection since it will think the server is offline. As a result, your data can become corrupt since you cannot be guaranteed what will happen when connection will close. Celery solves this because it will trigger a background process which will process the task independent of the view. So the user will get the view response right away and at the same time the server will start processing the task. That is a correct pattern to handle any scenarios which require lots of processing.