I should send and wait for response using an Udp server from a Play controller. Where is the correct place to create de Actor? Local Variable or Object property?
This question come to my mind becouse working with play, when I change code in the actor play recompiles (I'm using play debug ~run), but changes are not applied, so I think I may be doing something wrong.
My actual code:
public class Application extends Controller {
static final ActorRef server = Akka.system().actorOf(Props.create(Listener.class));
public static Result index() {
// ActorRef sender = Akka.system().actorOf(Props.create(SimpleSender.class));
Related
If I have an Apex function that is named authorize() that just gets a username, password, and session token, and another function called getURL('id#', 'key'), that takes an id# for the record as a string and a key for the image to return as a string as parameters. getURL calls the authorize function inside it in order to get the credentials for its callout. The authorize is a post request, and the getURL is a get request.
I am trying to figure out how to test both of these callouts just so I can make sure that getURL is returning the proper JSON as a response. It doesn't even have to be the URL yet which is its intention eventually. But I just need to test it to make sure these callouts are working and that I am getting a response back for the 75% code coverage that it needs.
I made a multiRequestMock class that looks like this:
public class MultiRequestMock implements HttpCalloutMock {
Map<String, HttpCalloutMock> requests;
public MultiRequestMock(Map<String, HttpCalloutMock> requests) {
this.requests = requests;
}
public HTTPResponse respond(HTTPRequest req) {
HttpCalloutMock mock = requests.get(req.getEndpoint());
if (mock != null) {
return mock.respond(req);
} else {
throw new MyCustomException('HTTP callout not supported for test methods');
}
}
public void addRequestMock(String url, HttpCalloutMock mock) {
requests.put(url, mock);
}
}
I then began to write a calloutTest.cls file but wasn't sure how to use this mock class in order to test my original functions. Any clarity or assistance on this would be helpful Thank you.
I believe in your calloutTest class you use Test.setMock(HttpCalloutMock.class, new MultiRequestMock(mapOfRequests)); then call the getUrl and/or authorize methods and instead of the request really executing the response returned will be that which is specified in the response(HttpRequest) method you have implemented in the MultiRequestMock class. That is basically how I see it working, for more info and an example you can see this resource on testing callout classes. This will get you the code coverage you need but unfortunately cannot check you are getting the correct JSON response. For this, you may be able to use the dev console and Execute Anonymous?
You may want to look at simplifying your HttpCalloutMock Implementation and think about removing the map from the constructor as this class really only needs to return a simple response then your calloutTest class can be where you make sure the returned response is correct.
Hope this helps
In my application, I need to call an external endpoint and if it is too slow a fallback is activated.
The following code is an example of how my app looks like:
#FeignClient(name = "${config.name}", url = "${config.url:}", fallback = ExampleFallback.class)
public interface Example {
#RequestMapping(method = RequestMethod.GET, value = "/endpoint", produces = MediaType.APPLICATION_JSON_VALUE, consumes = MediaType.APPLICATION_JSON_VALUE)
MyReturnObject find(#RequestParam("myParam") String myParam);
}
And its fallback implementation:
#Component
public Class ExampleFallback implements Example {
private final FallbackService fallback;
#Autowired
public ExampleFallback(final FallbackService fallback) {
this.fallback = fallback;
}
#Override
public MyReturnObject find(final String myParam) {
return fallback.find(myParam);
}
Also, a configured timeout for circuit breaker:
hystrix.command.default.execution.isolation.thread.timeoutInMilliseconds: 5000
How can I implement an integration test to check if my circuit break is working, i.e, if my endpoint (mocked in that case) is slow or if it returns an error like 4xx or 5xx?
I'm using Spring Boot 1.5.3 with Spring Cloud (Feign + Hystrix)
Note i donot know Feign or Hystrix.
In my opinion it is problematic to implement an automated integrationtest that simulates different implementatondetails of Feign+Hystrix - this implementation detail can change at any time. There are many different types of failure: primary-Endpoint not reachable, illegal data (i.e. receiving a html-errormessage, when exprecting xml data in a special format), disk-full, .....
if you mock an endpoint you make an assumption of implementationdetail of Feign+Hystrix how the endpoint behaves in a errorsituation (i.e. return null, return some specific errorcode, throw an exception of type Xyz....)
i would create only one automated integration test with a real primary-enpoint that has a never reachable url and a mocked-fallback-endpoint where you verify that the processed data comes from the mock.
This automated test assumes that handling of "networkconnection too slow" is the same as "url-notfound" from your app-s point of view.
For all other tests i would create a thin wrapper interface around Feign+Hystrix where you mock Feign+Hystrix. This way you can automatically test for example what happens if you receive 200bytes from primary interface and then get an expetion.
For details about hiding external dependencies see onion-architecture
Here is a question on the Caching Proxy design pattern.
Is it possible to create with PHP a dynamic Proxy Caching implementation for automatically adding cache behaviour to any object?
Here is an example
class User
{
public function load($login)
{
// Load user from db
}
public function getBillingRecords()
{
// a very heavy request
}
public function computeStatistics()
{
// a very heavy computing
}
}
class Report
{
protected $_user = null;
public function __construct(User $user)
{
$this->_user = $user;
}
public function generate()
{
$billing = $this->_user->getBillingRecords();
$stats = $this->_user->computeStatistics();
/*
...
Some rendering, and additionnal processing code
...
*/
}
}
you will notice that report will use some heavy loaded methods from User.
Now I want to add a cache system.
Instead of designing a classic caching system, I just wonder if it is possible to implement a caching system in a proxy design pattern with this kind of usage:
<?php
$cache = new Cache(new Memcache(...));
// This line will create an object User (or from a child class of User ex: UserProxy)
// each call to a method specified in 3rd argument will use the configured cache system in 2
$user = ProxyCache::create("User", $cache, array('getBillingRecords', 'computeStatistics'));
$user->load('johndoe');
// user is an instance of User (or a child class) so the contract is respected
$report = new report($user)
$report->generate(); // long execution time
$report->generate(); // quick execution time (using cache)
$report->generate(); // quick execution time (using cache)
each call to a proxyfied method will run something like:
<?php
$key = $this->_getCacheKey();
if ($this->_cache->exists($key) == false)
{
$records = $this->_originalObject->getBillingRecords();
$this->_cache->save($key, $records);
}
return $this->_cache->get($key);
Do you think it is something we could do with PHP? do you know if it is a standard pattern? How would you implement it?
It would require to
implement dynamically a new child class of the original object
replace the specified original methods with the cached one
instanciate a new kind of this object
I think PHPUnit does something like this with the Mock system...
You can use the decorator pattern with delegation and create a cache decorator that accepts any object then delegates all calls after it runs it through the cache.
Does that make sense?
I am using ServiceStack's SocialBootstrapApi and it contains a class CustomUserSession that I can use to override the OnRegistered method. I want to override it because I am attempting to obtain information about the registration so that I can publish an event that a new user has registered. This handler provides an instance of the RegistrationService that handled the registration but not anything about the registration request itself or the resulting UserAuth instance. For instance, I'd like to get the e-mail address used to register.
public override void OnRegistered(IServiceBase registrationService)
{
base.OnRegistered(registrationService);
// Ideally, I could do get the registered user's primary e-mail address from the UserAuth instance.
var primaryEmail = ((RegistrationService) registrationService)
.UserAuthRepo
.GetUserAuth(this, null) //<--- 'this' is a mostly empty session instance
.PrimaryEmail;
}
This of course doesn't work because the session instance I'm using for the GetUserAuth call doesn't contain any of the necessary authentication information to be useful for looking up the user's authentication information. So GetUserAuth returns null as you would expect. So how should I go about obtaining this information? Would it be incorrect design for the OnRegistered handler to be passed the UserAuth instance created by the RegistrationService?
public interface IAuthSession
{
...
void OnRegistered(IServiceBase registrationService, UserAuth userAuth); // <-- new signature
...
}
That would be convenient! :)
Or perhaps there's another way to go about this?
Thanks in advance.
So how should I go about obtaining this information?
You should be able to access all the data of the Registration request via the registrationService. You just have to do a little digging and casting...
public override void OnRegistered(IServiceBase registrationService)
{
base.OnRegistered(registrationService);
var requestContext = (HttpRequestContext)registrationService.RequestContext;
var dto = ((Registration)requestContext.Dto);
var primaryEmail = dto.Email;
}
Would it be incorrect design for the OnRegistered handler to be passed the UserAuth instance created by the RegistrationService?
I'll leave design decisions to the professionals. The above code should work. The casting seems a bit ugly but all the necessary data is there.
I do not like hack into SS, so I chose to select user auth info from UserAuth collection by dto.UserName
When my app closes will the values i have set still be there when I re open it?
Or is there a way to save them somewhere?
No they won't,
When you jump-out from the application, application will go to a state called TombStoned, it is your responsibility to store and retrieve useful page elements.
In order to do this, you need to store information on the following event on your page:
public override void OnNavigatedFrom(...)
{
State["XXX"] = txtName.Text; // save your data on page state (keep it low in size!)
}
the same way you need to retrieve your data on the following event
public override void OnNavigatedTo(...)
{
txtName.Text = State["XXX"]; // read your data from page state
// also check if state has any entry with this key
}
If you need to store application level data, you need to do it in your App.xaml.cs in the following events:
public override void OnDeactivated(...)
{
// Store in IsolatedStorageSettings
}
public override void OnActivated(...)
{
// Read from IsolatedStorageSettings
}
For more details about Tombstoning read the following article:
http://www.scottlogic.co.uk/blog/colin/2011/05/a-simple-windows-phone-7-mvvm-tombstoning-example/
When you app closes, all data information is lost unless you save it somewhere. For transient data, like page state things (e.g. textboxes, checkbox etc..), you can use PhoneApplicationPage.State. If you need to store data permanently so that it's there the next time the user launches the app, you should store it in Isolated Storage. You can learn more about tombstoning and when you should store states in this MSDN page.
There is also a helper library on CodePlex called Tombstone Helper which will make it easier to store data during tombstoning.