We Keep Coding

Mocking a resource on Android instrumentation test

I want to test the effects of a library call of my program with a real device. This call starts a service, that sends an HTTP request to a server whose URL that is hard-coded in the resources.
I want to verify that the request is sent correctly. So I set up a local HTTP server, but to be able to use it I have to change/override/mock the resource so it points to http://127.0.0.1 instead.
I want to do "end-to-end" testing; in this case it's important that the service makes an actual network request, although locally.
I've tried to override the value by creating a string resource with the same name in androidTest/res/values/strings.xml, but that resource is only visible in the test package, not in the application package.
Using the Instrumentation class only allows me to obtain the Context reference, but there's no way to replace it (or the return value of getResources()) with a mock or something similar.
How can I change a resource value of an Application under test?

You have a couple choices:
Dependency injection
Stubs/mocks
SharedPreferences
Scripts or gradle tasks
Dependency injection
Use a library like RoboGuice or Dapper. Inject an object that handles making the API requests. Then, in your test setup, you can replace the injection modules with testing versions instead. That way your test code runs instead of the original; that code can pass in different strings (either hard-coded or from the test strings.xml) instead.
DI libraries can be expensive to setup: high learning curve and can be performance problems if not used correctly. Or even can introduce hard to debug problems if the scope/lifetime of the objects isn't configured correctly. If testing is the only reason to use DI, it might not be worth it to you if you're not comfortable with a DI container.
Stubs/mocks
Wrap up your calls in something that implements a custom interface you write. Your main implementation then fills in the host URL and calls the API. Then, in tests, use a combination of stubs or mocks on that interface to replace the code that fills in the host URL part.
This is less of an integration test since the stubs or mocks will be replacing parts of the code. But is simpler than setting up a dependency injection framework.
SharedPreferences
Use the Android SharedPreferences system. Have it default to a certain endpoint (production). But allow the app to be started on the testing device, then some dialog or settings to let you change the host URL. Run the tests again and now they point to a different API URL.
Scripts or gradle tasks
Write some script or gradle task to modify the source before it is compiled in certain scenarios.
This can be fairly complicated and might even be too platform or system-dependent if not done right. Will probably be fairly brittle to changes in the system. Might introduce bugs if the wrong command is run to build the final packaged version and the wrong code goes out to the market.
Personal opinion
Which do I recommend? If you and/or your team is familiar with a DI library like RoboGuice or Dapper, I recommend that option. It is the most formal, type-safe and strict solution. It also maintains more of the integrity of the stack to test the whole solution.
If you're not familiar with a good DI library, stubs/mocks and interface wrappers are a good fall back solution. They partly have to be used in the DI solution anyway, and you can write enough tests around them to cover a good majority of the cases you need to test (and are in control of). It is close enough to the DI solution that I would recommend this to everyone who doesn't use DI in the project already.
The SharedPreferences solution works great for switching between staging and production environments for QA and support. However, I wouldn't recommend it for automated tests since the app will most likely be reinstalled/reset so often during development, it would get annoying resetting that URL that often. Also, first runs of tests would probably fail; headless tests on a CI server would fail, etc. (You could default the URL to the localhost, but then you run the risk of accidentally release that default to production sometime.)
I don't recommend scripts or the hacked-up gradle tasks. Too brittle, less clear to other developers that come behind you, and more complicated then they're worth, IMO.

In addition to Jon Adams's solutions, there's a further one:
Override resource in build type
By default, a library module is built in release mode when it's used by another module. The debug mode is only used for testing (unit tests and instrumented tests). Therefore, using the resource overriding it's possible to change the resource value for the instrumentation tests for that library only, and use the original value in the library's users.
This has some caveats though:
Instrumented/integration tests must stay on the library itself, not on the main application package;
The same resource values have to be shared across all tests (unless using product flavors)

What is a good practice to deploy webservices? [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
Is it a good practice to deploy web services separately or should they be part of the web application? For instance, I am developing a spring rest based web service. The function of this service is to, let's say, to get user data.
Each webapplication that queries this web service has it's user data in different schema. So, now the webservice will need to know who is calling it - is it Appilcation A or Application B? If it's AppA, then it should get data from Schema A, if it's AppB, then its another schema. Note, that AppA and AppB are just the same code packed into two different wars and the schema they are supposed to query is supplied from properties file.
In a situation like this, does it make sense to pack the webservice with the webapp code and deploy it under different contexts, so it becomes a duplciate service running in a different context. Or, should it be deployed separately and somehow the AppA and AppB are supposed to identify themselves to this web service?

I prefer below approach, which is in use for 50K concurrent users.
Make sure that each web service encapsulates both UI and Schema independently by executing required business use case. Each web service will have all three layers - Model, View and Controller for that business service. That means your App-A is one web service & App-B is other web service.
All web services will register and un-register with Master web service. Master web service is responsible to redirecting user request to appropriate web service like App-A OR App-B.
You should have cluster of Master web service & cluster of individual web services - App-A & App-B
In this approach, your schema can reside on different database instead of single database
Advantages of this approach:
Each web service can scale horizontally. Just add additional VM nodes if you want to increase the scale.
If you have different schemas on different databases in different locations, you are avoiding network performane bottlenecks in OLTP queries (Online transaction processing queries).
Disadvantages:
I see only one disadvantage since Master Web Service acts like a Facade and it should know the internals of individual web service. But it's not a drawback for the advantages it is offering if you consider the trade-off.

I have no idea about your business requirement to maintain different schemas for user data and going with webservice.
But instead of maintaining multiple wars with same code, i would suggest you to configure multiple datasources within the application and switch to datasource as per your requirement.
This link may help you to configure multiple DS
If you fallow aforementioned logic, you may end up with single deployable context.
Still want to stick with multiple wars as webservice, i would suggest you to have look at SpringBoot simple, container less deployable and scalable.

It is a matter of opinion, both choices are okay. You should take into account the usage of the service, scaling concerns etc.
You could look at Microservices as an idea, but it has to make sense from your standpoint.
About the two different apps: if the differences are only in configuration, try externalizing it (23. Externalized Configuration). This way you can have a single artifact being deployed twice.

Given that scenario, it is a good practice having only one web service, in this way you improve the maintainability of the system because you don’t have the same code twice. If you have in the future other new similar app you don’t have to implement a new service.

Approach 1:- (Preffered)
You should have a single web application in which will have the entire code for application UI and Repo/data interaction.
Based on the type of request dynamically switch the data source as needed. You can have at look at Spring Dynamic datasource routing here
Approach 2:-
In case your UI has a completely different type of interactions managed by different teams, it makes sense to have separate UI components and the backend web services maintained at a same location.
Again based on the type of request you can dynamically route the datasource.
Hope this helps :)

my inputs:
1) Any specific reasons to build 2 different wars for same code? Is it only because you have two different data sources for each of them?
Why cant you have single application deploy with some parameterized mechanism in each request to identify which schema to get data from?
2) Why do you need a web service in first place? Why not application hook directly to database it needed.
3) Is underlying database transactional DB or some historical data? How about merging both schemas in one as one-time effort OR using some sort of virtualized views which picks data from 2 schemas based on input parameters.
***** edited after Jay's inputs:
My suggestion will be to have web service deployed separately from 2 web apps because it provides single place to manage code in long run. I have following additional suggestions:
Define your own headers in SOAP XML Schema which can give you both appContext(application making call) as well as userContext(user). Give a good thought on this aspect keeping long term view.
Keep SOAP request-response stateless which will give you scalability. Dont maintain any state of SOAP request at server side.
I have in past used a data virtualization solution (CISCO Composite)..what benefits it provides: if there are two (or more) data sources containing similar type of data(entities), it can join,cleanse & merge it virtually and expose it as REST/SOAP based web service. Try evaluating this option as well.
What it can further help if in future you have other consumers to access your information using plain SQL/JDBC call, they will be able to do it...also data virtualization solutions support many other interfaces to consumers like Hadoop, OData etc...again it depends on budget and other constraints of project...I am not sure if there is any effective open source data virtualization solution available or not?

Personally, in my experience, it's a lot better to have them separated, it usually depends on how big and how critical your main project is.
But even if at the beginning your project isn't that big and there's only 1 person working on it, later on, as it continues to grow, if you have microservices for all the things your main project do, it will be a lot easier to maintain, rather than having many people working on the same code handling many versions of an unique project, handling many small projects is less confusing and errors are easier to find.
Plus if something fails, you can have 1 microservice down while your main still runs without interruption, it will only by denied of 1 service, instead of having everything down while you fix it.
High availability is very important in production, and having them separated helps with this.

Given your situation I'd advice going with ONE webapp (one "project") with some caveat and then consider one of the two solutions:
1) Given you are using spring, I'll assume (hope) you are using maven as well..
Make a different compilation goal and make it so that, based on the goal invoked to produce the war, the relevant properties file is different..
This way you have ONE webapp, and based on the compilation (or rather based on the properties file tied to that specific compilation) you will obtain a war tied to a specific environment&schema... You deploy an individual war for each webservice with a clean separation, though the root code is the very same and it's only one application... [CLEANER SOLUTION]
2) Make it so that you don't only get the json request but also the https certificate of the sender (thus you identify a specific "webapp" based on the https certificate exposed), and based on the certificate AND The source of the request, you ensure the source as "qualified" to receive data from schema X rather than schema Y.. You deploy ONE war only that will, at his own discretion, apply logic to reroute your "user data fetch query" to one database or the other [I DISCOURAGE THIS PRACTICE]
of course there are other approach as well, but I think these two are the most feasible..

It really depends on what you want to achieve.
If you want to encapsulate the database/schema/table, then it should really be one service for each application. The main advantage of doing this is that you could swap the database later on if there is some problem with the current one, it also simplifies caching and invalidation, etc etc.
If the database/schema/table is not encapsulated anyway, then the single service is much easier and better. Each web application just have to identify themselves, and each of them will get exactly what they need. This could be achieved by putting the query/schema information in property file, or creating db views with the same name as client, etc.
If we were to go for this approach, a question will pop up. Why bother having this layer at all? Couldn't each web application just query the db directly? If the answer is yes, then just remove the whole layer completely.

You are trying to implement a Data Provider, or DAO as a service.
To make it -
Simple
Scalable
Maintainence-friendly,
Adaptable
You can simply have a single webservice, deployed outside the WebApp(s) and driven off configuration. The configuration itself can be stored as property file, or from a DB. The identifier for the client should be being passed in the webservice request.
This is actually a pretty standard approach implemented to enable optimizations at the Data tier outside of DB, like caching (again driven of configuration), expiry, pooling, etc.
The other option, to include as a shared jar within the webapp, yes, has advantage of code-reuse (which you get with externally deployed service as well), but the following disadvantages outweigh the option.
Coupling
Employing optimizations are difficult
Release management (this also depends upon how your code is organized)
Versioning.
Hope it helps.

I would deploy to one instance. No matter what. Of course, there are circumstances where it may be necessary to deploy separately. From a best "coding" practice, one instance should be used to allow for "right once, use many".
Then...
Define different XSD's for each AppA, AppB, etc. Marshall accordingly.
Or, use Groovy to marshall appropriate objects as json or xml.

Dropwizard: handling multiple dropwizard instances

As I'm developing micro-services using Dropwizard I'm trying to find a balance between having many resources on one running instance/application of Dropwizard versus many instances.
For example - I have a project-A having 3 resources. In another project-B I would like to use one of the resources in project-A. The resource in common is related to user data.
Now I have options like :
make http call to user resource in project-A from project-B. I can use client approach of dropwizard here
as user resource is common - I can take it out from project-A to say project-C. And the I need to create client code in both project-A and project-B
i can extract jar containing user code and use in project-B. this will avoid making http calls.
Another point where I would like to have expert opinion is how to balance/minimize network calls associated with communication between different instances of microservice. In general should one use http to communicate between different instances? or can any other inter-process communication approach be used for performance perse [particularly if different instances are on same system]?
I feel this could be common problem/confusion for new comers in the world of micro-services. And hence would like to know any general guideline or best practices.
many thanks
Pradeep

make http call to user resource in project-A from project-B. I can use client approach of dropwizard here
I would not pursue this option if I were you. It's going to slow down your service unnecessarily, create potential logging headaches, and just feels wrong. The only time this might make sense is when the code is out of your control (but even then there's probably a better solution).
as user resource is common - I can take it out from project-A to say project-C. And the I need to create client code in both project-A and project-B
i can extract jar containing user code and use in project-B. this will avoid making http calls.
It sounds like project A and project B are logically different units with some common dependencies. It might make sense to consider a multi-module project (or a multi-module Maven project if you're using Maven). You could have a module containing any common code (and resources) that gets referenced by separate project modules. This is where Maven really excels since it can manage all these dependencies for you. It's like a combination of the last two options you listed.

One of the main advantages of micro-services is the opportunity to release and deploy each of them separately. Whatever option you choose make sure you don't loose this property.
Another property of a micro-service should be that it has only one responsibility. So it is all about finding the right boundaries for your services (in DDD-terms 'bounded contexts'), and indeed it is not easy to find the right boundaries. It is a balancing act.
For instance in your theoretical case:
If the communication between A and C will be very chatty, then it is not a great idea to extract C.
If A and C have a different lifecycle (business-wise), then it is a good idea to extract C.

That's essentially a design choice: are you ready to trade the simplicity of each one of your small services against the complexity of having to orchestrate them and the outcome of the overall latency.
If you choose the small service approach, you could stick to the documentation guidelines at http://dropwizard.io/manual/core.html#organizing-your-project : 1 project with 3 modules for api (that can be referenced from consumers), application and the optional client (also potentially used in consumers)
Other questions you will have to answer:
- each of your service will be hosted on a separate SCM repository...or not
- each of your service could (should?) have it's own version

If the user you feel is bounded context as if user management like user registration, authentication etc. This can certainly be a separate micro service. However you should invoke the user API from a single API gateway and convert it to a JWT token and pass it on to your other APIs in header.
In another case if your Business use case requires to invoke multiple micro services that logic (orchestration) should be developed in composite service layer.
Regarding inter micro service communication - talking each other through API calls takes you back to "point to point" communication introducing a lot of complexity and difficult to manage for a large project.
As per bounded context theory none of the transaction should go beyond one micro service. However in real world scenarios I think we still have dependency at least for the validation of the reference data. Example order service needs to validate product IDs. In this case the best I can think is to have eventing between microservices to feed each other with the reference data. You can try event sourcing for generating business events and async io for publish / subscribe.
Thanks,
Amit

How to use different versions of a class in the same application?

I'm currently working on a Java application which should have the capability to use different versions of a class at the same time (because of multi tenancy support). I was wondering, is there any good approach to manage this? My basic approach is to have an interface, lets say Car, and implement the different versions as CarV1, CarV2, and so on. Every version gets its own class.
My approach is kind of wiered, I think. But I didn't found any literature regarding to this topic, but I actually don't know what I should search for.

The interface idea is prudent. Combine it with a factory that can produce the required implementation instance depending on some external input, e. g. the tenant-id. If you don't need to support multiple tenants in the same running instance of the application, you could also use something like the ServiceLocator from the JDK which allows to use a file-based configuration approach.
If you are running in an application server, consider just firing up multiple instances, each configured for a different client. The server will then take care of the separation of instances, just fine.
Otherwise, if you really think you need multiple implementations at the same time (at runtime) in a non-Java EE application, this is a tricky problem. Maybe you want to consider a look at OSGi containers, which provide features for having multiple versions of a class. However, an approach like this add significant complexity, if you are not already familiar with it.

In theory you can handle this using multiple class loaders like JBoss for example does.
BUT: I would strongly advise against implementing this yourself. This is a rather complicated matter and easily gotten wrong. If you are talking about a web application, you can instead create one web app instance per tenant. If you are working on a stand-alone app, you should check, if running one instance per tenant might be feasible.

Architecture - Multiple web apps operating on the same data

I'm asking for a suitable architecture for the following Java web application:
The goal is to build several web applications which all operate on the same data. Suppose a banking system in which account data can be accessed by different web applications; it can be accessed by customers (online banking), by service personal (mostly read) and by the account administration department (admin tool). These applications run as separate web applications on different machines but they use the same data and a set of common data manipulation and search queries.
A possible approach is to build a core application which fits the common needs of the clients, namely data storage, manipulation and search facilities. The clients can then call this core application to fulfil their requests. The requirement is the applications are build on top of a Wicket/Spring/Hibernate stack as WARs.
To get a picture, here are some of the possible approaches we thought of:
A The monolithic approach. Build one huge web application that fits all needs (this is not really an option)
B The API approach. Build a core database access API (JAR) for data access/manipulation. Each web application is build as a separate WAR which uses the API to access a database. There is no separate core application.
C RMI approach. The core application runs as a standalone application (possibly a WAR) and offers services via RMI (or HttpInvoker).
D WS approach. Just like C but replace RMI with Web Services
E OSGi approach. Build all the components as OSGi modules and which run in an OSGi container. Possibly use SpringSource dm Server or ModuleFusion. This approach was not an option for us for some reasons ...
Hope I could make clear the problem. We are just going the with option B, but I'm not very confident with it. What are your opinions? Any other solutions? What are the drawbacks of each solution?

I think that you have to go in the oppposite direction - from the bottom up. Of course, you have to go forth and back to verify that everything is playing, but here is the general direction:
Think about your data - DB scheme, how transactions are important (for example in banking systems everything is about transactions) etc.
Then define common access method - from set of stored procedures to distributed transaction engine...
Next step is a business logic/presentation - what could be generalized and what is a subject of customization.
And the final stage are the interfaces, visualisation and reports

B, C, and D are all just different ways to accomplish the same thing.
My first thought would be to simply have all consumer code connecting to a common database. This is certainly doable, and would eliminate the code you don't want to place in the middle. The drawback, of course, is that if the schema changes, all consumers need to be updated.
Another solution you may want to consider is giving each consumer its own database, using some sort of replication to keep them in sync.

It looks like A and E are out of the picture as you have stated in your question for various reasons. Option A would be one huge application which would make maintenance difficult in the future.
B, C and D are essentially the same architecturally since they involve remote access to common libraries from the various web applications, the only difference is the transport mechanism. I would recommend implementing this in EJB 3 or Spring if possible instead of with your own RMI libraries since either of these provide a good framework over RMI / Webservices.
So I think this problem basically boils down to the following two options:
1) Include the business and DAO layer classes as a common jar included in the deployment of all web applications.
Advantages:
Deployment is easier.
Applications will perform better initially since there is no remote access to other servers.
Disadvantages:
You cannot add more hardware to the middle tier specifically (service and DAO layers) since it is included in each web application.
Other business teams in the organisation will not have access to your business services since there is no remote interface.
2) Deploy the business service and DAO layer classes in a separate application server and expose business methods remotely.
Advantages:
You can scale up the business service and DAO layer as needed depending on load from the various web applications calling it.
Other applications in the organisation can make use of your interfaces if needed.
More scalable
You get all the advantages of Java EE.
Disadvantages:
More complex deployment.
Another server to maintain and monitor.
Could be slower since calls will be made over the network although this shouldn't be too much of a problem.
In both cases if the interfaces change the client code will need to change so this isn't a factor in the decision. Transactions should be handled on the business service method level so this shouldn't be a factor either.
I think it depends on the size of the applications as well and how scalable the solution needs to be to warrant the extra complexity of option 2 above.

I think you need to have a separate application that all the client applications will use as their data layer. The reason for this is that you want to ensure they're all accessing the database in the same way. There are also some race conditions you can get into that database transactions may not be able to prevent. The other reason is that using the database as a form of RPC is a known antipattern. If all your apps access the database directly, you will almost inevitably end up with some "event" table that the various applications poll periodically... don't do that.

Apart from the provided responses, if you are considering having multiple applications working with the database at the same time, consider a distributed cache as part of your solution, as well. The beauty of the distributed cache is that it can be accessed by multiple applications at the same time, apart from being distributed. I am not sure if this holds true for all of the Java variations, such as Ehcache, etc, as I do not come from a Java background.
What we are currently doing is abstracting the data a level further than before. We now have a DAL that can be accessed directly, but we have put a "Model Factory" in front of the DAL. The purpose of the Model Factory is to broker both the cache and the data layer, acting as a passthrough. So, the caller always calls the Model Factory and not the DAL or caching code directly. This abstraction layer will basically retrieve data from the DAL on a cache miss without adding the complexity to the API.