I have a service composed of several micro services working in workflow. Some of these MS are calling dependencies.
Now I'd like to mock these calls, so when I send a message at the entrance of the workflow the dependencies answers get mocked, but my system works as normal.
The challenge is that I would want to configure the mock from the outside: Configure on the fly the answer I want to get from the mock, run my test, verify that my system behaves properly.
I worked for a company that shall remain unnamed that has an internal tool doing just that, but I'm wondering if there is a public tool doing this? I can't believe it doesn't exist, I bet more on my lack of knowledge about this, at that point ;)
Cheers
So far best I've found is https://wiremock.org/docs/
I don't want to do any ad here, it's just the only one I see that gets its mocks configured from a distance
Related
I try to setup an integration/API test suite with Karate and consider to use Karate Netty for mocking required services. For the test setup the system under test A (a Spring Boot app) is started up completely. The Karate tests are then executed by a Maven test run against this instance.
The service A depends on multiple other services these needs to be mocked away for the tests. To do so my idea was to configure a running Karate Netty standalone instance as HTTP proxy (done by JVM args of the service A).
Now my idea was to create one test feature file: xyz-test.feature
And the required mocks for this file are defined in an associated mock feature file: xyz-mock.feature
(The test scenarios are rather complex and the responses of the external services could vary)
This means for a full test run I need to load up a couple of mock feature files. So:
What is the matching strategy for multiple mock feature files? Which scenario wins, so to say.
Is there any way to ensure, that the right mock file is used for the associated test file?
(Clearly I can reconfigure the running standalone instance and advice it to use xyz-mock.feature next.
But this would stop me from using parallel execution for my API tests, right?)
I already thought about reusing the Correlation-Id which I can send in for each test and then match against this in the mock file (it is also sent to all called services). But:
Is there a way to define a global matcher per mock file?
It sounds like you need only one mock file. You could boot 2 on different ports if you wanted, but there is no way to "merge" them into one port - if that is what you were looking for.
In my experience, you will be able to have a single mock take care of all your edge cases. This is because Karate's approach is un-conventional: you pretty much write a stateful server. But by keeping variables in memory and some clever JSON-path, you can simulate CRUD with very few lines of code: https://github.com/intuit/karate/tree/master/karate-netty#background
You can use only one at a time, by design
Given the above limitation, here's an interesting idea: add something like an extra pathMatches('/__test/reset') scenario that cleans-up your state and sets the Background variables to things like * def cats = []. Now in each feature, just call the special "reset" URL at the start. The good thing is Karate is thread-safe. Another idea as you said is you can maintain two or three different variables and use some logic to "route" based on a header, again very easy IMO. Use a map of maps, e.g:
def data = { cats1: {}, cats2: {}, cats3: {} }
And you can get the header, e.g. if it is mode: cats1
* def mode = karate.get('requestHeaders.mode[0]')
* def cats = data[mode]
not sure if this answers your question, but if the last Scenario has an "empty" description, it is a "catch all" and can in theory delegate to another server (or mock): https://github.com/intuit/karate/tree/develop/karate-netty#proxy-mode
Your question is a little confusing, so you may have to edit and re-word it if I haven't understood.
EDIT: using multiple mock files should be possible in 1.1.0 onwards: https://github.com/intuit/karate/issues/1566
I made some first steps with Arquillian and get it starting and some simple tests like testing DI etc are working. However, I need to test EJBs that are secured (RolesAllowed) adn I didn't find any solution till now. Further, I have a book regarding Testing with Arquillian and WildFly - the topic about security etc is not mentioned at all - not with a single word. I have also another two books regarding Java EE development where testing is also mentioned, however, always without involving security... I don't need any code just few tips what is required in order to get it working...
Thanks in advance for any suggestions/support.
BR,
Erno
You need to test entire request and issue login before request (If you are doing so called client tests. If you are doing this, your IT class would probably have #RunAsClient annotation).
If you don't have #RunAsClient, you can try to mock the session with the desired roles.
I was tasked with creating a health check for our production site. It is a .NET MVC web application. There are a lot of dependencies and therefore points of failure e.g. a document repository, Java Web services, Site Minder policy server etc.
Management wants us to be the first to know if ever any point fails. Currently we are playing catch up if a problem arises, because it is the the client that informs us. I have written a suite of simple Selenium WebDriver based integration tests that test the sign in and a few light operations e.g. retrieving documents via the document api. I am happy with the result but need to be able to run them on a loop and notify IT when any fails.
We have a TFS build server but I'm not sure if it is the right tool for the job. I don't want to continuously build the tests, just run them. Also it looks like I can't define a build schedule more frequently than on a daily basis.
I would appreciate any ideas on how best achieve this. Thanks in advance
What you want to do is called a suite of "Smoke Tests". Smoke Tests are basically very short and sweet, independent tests that test various pieces of the app to make sure it's production ready, just as you say.
I am unfamiliar with TFS, but I'm sure the information I can provide you will be useful, and transferrable.
When you say "I don't want to build the tests, just run them." Any CI that you use, NEEDS to build them TO run them. Basically "building" will equate to "compiling". In order for your CI to actually run the tests, it needs to compile.
As far as running them, If the TFS build system has any use whatsoever, it will have a periodic build option. In Jenkins, I can specify a Cron time to run. For example:
0 0 * * *
means "run at 00:00 every day (midnight)"
or,
30 5 * 1-5 *
which means, "run at 5:30 every week day"
Since you are making Smoke Tests, it's important to remember to keep them short and sweet. Smoke tests should test one thing at a time. for example:
testLogin()
testLogout()
testAddSomething()
testRemoveSomething()
A web application health check is a very important feature. The use of smoke tests can be very useful in working out if your website is running or not and these can be automated to run at intervals to give you a notification that there is something wrong with your site, preferable before the customer notices.
However where smoke tests fail is that they only tell you that the website does not work, it does not tell you why. That is because you are making external calls as the client would, you cannot see the internals of the application. I.E is it the database that is down, is a network issue, disk space, a remote endpoint is not functioning correctly.
Now some of these things should be identifiable from other monitoring and you should definitely have an error log but sometimes you want to hear it from the horses mouth and the best thing that can tell you how you application is behaving is your application itself. That is why a number of applications have a baked in health check that can be called on demand.
Health Check as a Service
The health check services I have implemented in the past are all very similar and they do the following:
Expose an endpoint that can be called on demand, i.e /api/healthcheck. Normally this is private and is not accessible externally.
It returns a Json response containing:
the overall state
the host that returned the result (if behind a load balancer)
The application version
A set of sub system states (these will indicate which component is not performing)
The service should be resilient, any exception thrown whilst checking should still end with a health check result being returned.
Some sort of aggregate that can present a number of health check endpoints into one view
Here is one I made earlier
After doing this a number of times I have started a library to take out the main wire up of the health check and exposing it as a service. Feel free to use as an example or use the nuget packages.
https://github.com/bronumski/HealthNet
https://www.nuget.org/packages/HealthNet.WebApi
https://www.nuget.org/packages/HealthNet.Owin
https://www.nuget.org/packages/HealthNet.Nancy
I have an Angular SPA retrieving its data from a node backend.
Since the node project is fully covered with tests I want to mock the Angular HTTP calls.
(I do not want to start a discussion about functional-/smoke-tests in general, thanks).
What I'd like to have is s.th. like this
Api = $injector.get('Api');
sinon.mock(Api, 'getSomethingFromServer').andRespondWith({foo: 'bar'})
assert(Api.getSomethingFromServer.wasCalledOnce);
But no matter how I can't find a nice solution.
I found several posts regarding the same issue.
For example this one.
Since protractor is changing a lot and frequently, I just like to ask here on SO if anyone found a proper solution for mocking the HTTP requests.
we are currently doing that using http://apiary.io
Besides being able to "mock" your responses, you get a nice API description as a bonus!
What we do is we run the Angular app against a proxy, which depending on whether we are in dev or in production can forward either to real backend or the one provided by apiary.
I agree with previous answer. An answer to frequent change of Protractor is to completly decorrelate the backend from the system under test, no matter if it is mock, stub, or fake.
The difficulty is to maintain a strong coherence with the real backend, but it is not said that it is more overhead than trying to maintain an always changing way of mocking with angular.
Does anyone know if it is possible to test remote procedure calls in Cairngorm Commands with FlexUnit 4. I have an old app full of them and before I introduce FlexUnit into the mix would like to hear if anyone has been successful with this.
Many thanks,
It's pretty easy using asynchronous tests (as you've found the relevant doc) - as long as you can exchange the remote service with a mock service, e.g. by injecting a different service locator that returns mock services, or better by using a DI framework like Spring ActionScript or Parsley. In that case you will have a real unit test that is not depending on a running server.