Develop Reference

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.

Using celery to send tasks from component A to component B

The technology I would like to use in this example is Celery for queueing and python for component implementation.
Imagine a simple project hat exists of 2 components. One is a web app that connects to an API and gathers data. Component 2 is a processor that can then process the data. When the web app has gotten a piece of data from the API it is supposed to send a task into a task queue including the just crawled data which is then consumed by the processor to process the Data.
Whether or not this is a sensible way to go about a task like this is debatable and not the point of my question.
My question is, the tasks to process things are defined within the processor since they state what processing function shall be executed and the definition of that function is obviously within the processor. Now that the web app doesn't have access to the task definition how does he communicate the task to the processor?
Do you have to hold a copy of the source code of the processor within the web app?
Do you make the processor a dependency of the web app?
What is the best practice approach to handle such a scenario?

What you are describing is probably one of the most common use-cases for Celery. Just look how many people are asking Django/Flask + Celery questions here on StackOverflow... If you are a Django user, there is an entire section in the Celery documentation describing how to do exactly what you want. Things should be similar with other frameworks.
Do you have to hold a copy of the source code of the processor within the web app?
As far as I know you do not have to (I do not use any web framework) but it could be that you do need to because of some deeper integration with Celery. If your web application knows the Celery task name, and its parameters, it can schedule it to run without actually having access to the Python code. This is accomplished using send_task(task_name, ...).
Do you make the processor a dependency of the web app?
As I wrote above there are several ways to use it. If you want tighter integration then yes. If you just want to run task and get result using the send_task() than your web application should only depend on Celery.
What is the best practice approach to handle such a scenario?
Follow the Django guide. I advise you to run Celery independently, run some tasks, just so you learn about basic principles how it distributes the work, etc.

Django Background tasks vs Celery

I am trying to do some tasks in django that consume alot of time. For that, I will be running background tasks.
After some R&D, i have found two solutions:
Celery with RabbitMQ.
Django Background tasks.
Both options seem to fulfill the criteria but setting up Celery will require some work. Now as far as the second option is concerned, setup is fairly simple and in fairly quick amount of time, i can go on writing background tasks. Now my questions if i adopt the 2nd option is this:
How well does Django Background tasks perform ? (Scalability wise in Production environment).
Can i poll the tasks (after some time) in DB to check the task's status?
Architecture of Django-Background-tasks? Couldn't find any clear explanation about it's architecture (Or have I missed some resource?)
Again coming to the first point, how well does Django Background tasks perform in production. (Talking about prior experience of using this in prod.)

Setting up celery takes work (although less when using Redis). It's also serious tool with almost a decade of investment and widespread industry adoption.
As for performance, scaling behaviors of task systems which are backed by queues vs those backed by RDBMs are well understood – but may not be relevant to you as "scalability" is a very subjective term. This thread provides some good framing on the subject and questions.
Comparing stars on GitHub (bg tasks' 3XX vs Celery's 13XXX), you should realize Django-Background-tasks has a smaller user base, and you're probably going to need to get into the internals to understand the architecture and precise mechanics. That shouldn't stop you – just be prepared to DIY when answers aren't forthcoming.

How well does Django Background tasks perform ? - This will depend upon how and what you implement. One thing to note is, Django-background-tasks is based upon database where celery can have redis/rabbitmq as backend, so most probably we'll see considerable performance difference here.
Can I poll the tasks (after some time) in DB to check the task's status? - It's possible in celery and maybe you can find a solution by inspecting django-background-tasks internal code. But one thing is, we can abort celery task, which maybe not possible in Django-Background-tasks.
Architecture of Django-Background-tasks? Couldn't find any clear explanation about it's architecture (Or have I missed some resource?) - It's simple Django based project. You can have a look at code. It's seems to be pretty straightforward.
Again coming to the first point, how well does Django Background tasks perform in production. - Haven't used in production. But since Django-Background-tasks is database based and celery can be configured to use redis/rabbitmq - I think celery have a plus point here.
To me this comparison, seems to be link comparing pistol with a high-end automatic machine guns. Both do same job. But one simple straightforward - other little complicated but with lots of options and scope.
Choose based on your use case.

I have decided to use Django-Background-Tasks. Let me clarify my motivations.
The tasks that will be processed by Django-Background-Tasks doesn't need to be processed in a fast manner. As it is stated by the name, they are background tasks. I accept delays.
The architecture of Django-Background-Tasks is very simple. When you call a method to be process in the background in your code a task record is inserted to the Django-Background-Tasks tables in your database. And the method you called is not executed actually. It is proxied. Then you should trigger another process to execute the jobs. Your method is then executed in this process.
The process that execute jobs can be executed by a cron entry in your server.
Since this setup is so easy and work for I decided to use Django-Background-Tasks. But If I needed something more responsive and fast I would use Celery since it is using memory and there is an active process that processes the jobs. Which isn't the case in Django-Background-Tasks.

Daemon background tasks on flask (uwsgi) application

Edit for clarify my question:
I want to attach a python service on uwsgi using this feature (I can't understand the examples) and I also want to be able to communicate results between them. Below I present some context and also present my first thought on the communication matter, expecting maybe some advice or another approach to take.
I have an already developed python application that uses multiprocessing.Pool to run on demand tasks. The main reason for using the pool of workers is that I need to share several objects between them.
On top of that, I want to have a flask application that triggers tasks from its endpoints.
I've read several questions here on SO looking for possible drawbacks of using flask with python's multiprocessing module. I'm still a bit confused but this answer summarizes well both the downsides of starting a multiprocessing.Pool directly from flask and what my options are.
This answer shows an uWSGI feature to manage daemon/services. I want to follow this approach so I can use my already developed python application as a service of the flask app.
One of my main problems is that I look at the examples and do not know what I need to do next. In other words, how would I start the python app from there?
Another problem is about the communication between the flask app and the daemon process/service. My first thought is to use flask-socketIO to communicate, but then, if my server stops I need to deal with the connection... Is this a good way to communicate between server and service? What are other possible solutions?
Note:
I'm well aware of Celery, and I pretend to use it in a near future. In fact, I have an already developed node.js app, on which users perform actions that should trigger specific tasks from the (also) already developed python application. The thing is, I need a production-ready version as soon as possible, and instead of modifying the python application, that uses multiprocessing, I thought it would be faster to create a simple flask server to communicate with node.js through HTTP. This way I would only need to implement a flask app that instantiates the python app.
Edit:
Why do I need to share objects?
Simply because the creation of the objects in questions takes too long. Actually, the creation takes an acceptable amount of time if done once, but, since I'm expecting (maybe) hundreds to thousands of requests simultaneously having to load every object again would be something I want to avoid.
One of the objects is a scikit classifier model, persisted on a pickle file, which takes 3 seconds to load. Each user can create several "job spots" each one will take over 2k documents to be classified, each document will be uploaded on an unknown point in time, so I need to have this model loaded in memory (loading it again for every task is not acceptable).
This is one example of a single task.
Edit 2:
I've asked some questions related to this project before:
Bidirectional python-node communication
Python multiprocessing within node.js - Prints on sub process not working
Adding a shared object to a manager.Namespace
As stated, but to clarify: I think the best solution would be to use Celery, but in order to quickly have a production ready solution, I trying to use this uWSGI attach daemon solution

I can see the temptation to hang on to multiprocessing.Pool. I'm using it in production as part of a pipeline. But Celery (which I'm also using in production) is much better suited to what you're trying to do, which is distribute work across cores to a resource that's expensive to set up. Have N cores? Start N celery workers, which of which can load (or maybe lazy-load) the expensive model as a global. A request comes in to the app, launch a task (e.g., task = predict.delay(args), wait for it to complete (e.g., result = task.get()) and return a response. You're trading a little bit of time learning celery for saving having to write a bunch of coordination code.

How to circumvent Django's req/resp cycle when updating it's internal state

I have a Django application that uses large data structures in-memory (due to performance constraints). This wouldn't be a problem, but I'm using Heroku, where if the python web process takes more than 30s to start, it will be stopped as it's considered a timeout error. Because of the problem aforementioned, I've used a daemon process(worker in Heroku) to handle the construction of the data structures and Redis to handle the message passing between processes.
When the worker finishes(approx 1 minute), it stores the data structures(50Mb or so) in Redis.
And now comes the crux of the matter...Django follows the request/response paradigm and it's synchronised. This implies a Django view should exist to handle the callback from the worker announcing it's done. Even if I use something fancier like a pub/sub from Redis, I'm still forced to evaluate the queue populated by a publisher in a view.
How can I circumvent the necessity of using a Django view? Isn't there an async way of doing this?
Below is the solution where I use a pub/sub inside a view. This seems bad, but I can't think of another way.
views.py
...
# data_handler can enqueue tasks on the default queue
data_handler = DataHandler()
strict_redis = redis.from_url(settings.DEFAULT_QUEUE)
pub_sub = strict_redis.pubsub()
# this puts the job of constructing the large data structures
# on the default queue so a worker can pick it up. Being async,
# it returns with an empty set of data structures.
data_structures = data_handler.start()
pub_sub.subscribe(settings.FINISHED_DATA_STRUCTURES_CHANNEL)
#require_http_methods(['POST'])
def store_and_fetch(request):
user_data = json.load(request.body.decode('utf8'))
message = pub_sub.get_message()
if message:
command = message['data'] if 'data' in message else ''
if command == settings.FINISHED_DATA_STRUCTURES_INIT.encode('utf-8'):
# this takes the data from redis and updates data_structures
data_handler.update(data_structures)
return HttpResponse(compute_response(user_data, data_structures))
Update: After working for multiple months with this, I can now say it's definitely better(and wiser) NOT to fiddle with Django's request/response cycle. There are things like Django RQ Scheduler, or Celery that can do async tasks just fine. If you want to update the main web process after some repeatable job completed, it's simpler to use something like python requests package, sending a POST to the web process from the worker that did the scheduled job. In this way we don't circumvent Django's mechanisms, and more importantly, it's simpler to do overall.
Regarding the Heroku constraints I mentioned at the beginning of the post. At the moment I wrote this question I was quite a newbie with heroku and didn't know much about the release phase. In the release phase we can set up all the complex logic we need for the main process. Thus, at the end of the release phase, we simply need to notify the web process, in the manner I've described above and use some distributed memory buffer (even Redis will work just fine).