i'm looking for a test framework (preverably in Java) to create system tests.
The system i need to test is an ESB offering multiple http endpoint for receiving and pushing messages, a JMS Server and a JBoss-Application Server with a Database at the end.
I want to create test scenarios which defines incoming messages to the ESB, the response which should be send to the request and the expected values in the database.
The chain is:
http(ESB) -> JMS -> JBoss -> Database
but also:
Database -> JBoss -> JMS -> ESB(http)
The tests should be implemented as JUnit test or in a way that they can be fired by Hudson.
It would be nice, if it is also possible to test the exchanged JMS messages.
I used to work with a framework that fits the needs, but this was in a different company, and, it was self written and sometimes a pain in the a..
I know i'm not the only and first one who needs something like this =)
I implemented something similar using JUnit test. The project was maven-based and I ran it on Hudson. I used maven-surefire-plugin for test execution and maven-sql-plugin to set clean DB on each execution.
Hope it helps...
Related
I have been working with the Citrus Framework to write integration tests for applications consisting of multiple interacting Spring Boot services. The services communicate via HTTP REST calls.
I am at a point where I need to write a test that will do end-to-end integration testing on a multi-service application.
The application scenario is as follows:
A master service that is invoked from a client via a POST call. The master calls two worker services, in sequence - it cannot be done in parallel, via POST calls. The master expects a response from each worker. Once the process is complete, the master returns a completion response to the client that triggered the whole process.
I have written Citrus tests for all three of these services, and in the case of the master, there are test actions that essentially mock the two worker services, dictating what they should receive and respond with. It took some time and hair pulling to get it to work correctly.
Now, I want to write a Citrus test that will allow for the testing of the process from start to finish with all of the services being real and not mocked. I would think that this test would be similar to the master integration test, except that the workers are no longer mocked.
I don't know how to do this with Citrus. There is a section in the user guide (https://citrusframework.org/citrus/reference/2.8.0/html/index.html#test-actors) that seems to address this, but it's quite short and I can't see how it's actually done. How are the "real" actors "wired up"? How are they configured and started/stopped? Also, the section only provides examples in XML, there are no Java DSL examples.
Is this question outside the scope of just Citrus? Does it need to involve a wider cast of characters, such as maven or a maven plugin?
What I am looking for is a "best practices" description or example by which testing can be automated for components that are deployed to a Weblogic server.
I am not expecting anyone to present a step by step solution to this problem.
I am looking for a resource (book, manual, website, etc.) that can describe a path to this integration and testing goal.
The situation is that we have a pair of (Maven) Project deployments (in Eclipse) which are managed/reviewed/maintained through: Git, Stash, and Jenkins.
The first component is providing Web Services (RESTful services as well as Stateful and Stateless services). It is connected to the second component. The second component exposes Stateless and RESTful services that provide access services (CRUD: Create Read Update Delete) to an Oracle SQL Database.
Currently, the Jenkins Service is testing the Client UI through Jasmine Zzzzz.spec.js tests. This is all well and good for the "front-end hipsters", but not helpful for the Java service component developers.
What I would like to do is to be able to write (?JUnit?) tests to evaluate Service component operations that can be automatically executed by Jenkins continuous integration components. What I would like to avoid doing is mocking up everything to the point that the tests become trivial and pointless.
What needs to happen is:
1. Developer completes a Work Product (JIRA Task) to add functionality to a Service hosted by a Weblogic Server.
2. Work Product contains a Test (?JUnit?).
3. Work Product (including test) is pushed by Git to Stash.
4. Work Product Test is added to Integration Tests.
5. Stash and Jenkins execute and evaluate Work Product JUnit Test as part of [Integration Testing].
Integration Testing will:
1. Start a (configured) Weblogic Server (if one is not already started).
2. Compile and Publish Deployment containing Work Product.
3. Deployment will connect to a Configured Datasource.
4. Start [Work Product JUnit Test].
Work Product JUnit Test will:
1. Connect and authenticate to Weblogic Service Deployment.
2. Call tested Service methods.
3. Evaluate test results
Yes, that is a tall order with a hive full of buzzwords. However, I am having difficulty finding a worthwhile resource that isn't trying to direct me to mock up the very components that I am trying to test.
What you have described is a pretty standard CI setup; the sort of thing that is notable via its absence rather than its existence.
In that vein, it's probably appropriate for you and your team to read up on the fundamentals.
Continuous Integration (Fowler series)
Continuous Delivery (Fowler series)
The DevOps Handbook
then if you really want, you can pick up books on the specifics of Jenkins:
Jenkins: the definitive guide (oreilly)
Jenkins CI Cookbook
I would like to create a rest api service in java that will run Jsystem test scenarios by user request.
i need somehow to be able to receive some test parameters , parameters for SUT file, and a scenario, and somehow execute it as a test suite
is there a Jsystem mechanism that support this ?
Consider using a CI server. There are many.
One of them is Jenkins, which is most well known in the Java world.
Most of CI servers have UI and REST API to start builds, they can get build parameters from users etc.
You will have to configure your build to run the unit tests.
Jenkins: https://jenkins.io
Bamboo: https://xebialabs.com/technology/bamboo/
A list of others: https://xebialabs.com/the-ultimate-devops-tool-chest/continuous-integration/
I have a service that calls out to a third-party endpoint using java.net.URLConnection. As part of an integration test that uses this service I would like to use a fake endpoint of my own construction.
I have made a Spring MVC Controller that simulates that behaviour of the endpoint I require. (I know this endpoint works as expected as I included it in my web app's servlet config and hit it from a browser once started).
I am having trouble figuring out how I can get this fake endpoint available for my integration test.
Is there some feature of Spring-Test that would help me here?
Do I somehow need to start up a servlet at the beginning of my test?
Are there any other solutions entirely?
It's a bad idea to use a Spring MVC controller as a fake endpoint. There is no way to simply have the controller available for the integration test and starting a servlet with just that controller alongside whatever you are testing requires a lot of configuration.
It is much better to use a mocking framework like MockServer (http://www.mock-server.com/) to create your fake endpoint. MockServer should be powerful enough to cover even complex responses from the fake endpoint, with relatively little setup.
Check out Spring MVC Test that was added to Spring in version 3.2.
Here are some tutorials: 1, 2, 3
First I think we should get the terminology right. There are two general groups of "fake" objects in testing (simplified): a mock, which returns predefined answers on predefined input and stubs which are a simplified version of the object the SUT (system under test) communicates with. While a mock basically does nothing than to provide a response, a stub might use a live algorithm, but not store it's results in a database or send them to customers via eMail for example. I am no expert in testing, but those two fake objects are rather to be used in unit and depending on their scope in acceptance tests.
So your sut communicates with a remote system during integration test. In my book this is the perfect time to actually test how your software integrates with other systems, so your software should be tested against a test version of the remote system. In case this is not possible (they might not have a test system) you are conceptually in some sort of trouble. You can shape your stub or mock only in a way you expect it to work, very much like the part of the software you have written to communicate with that remote service. This leaves out some important things you want to test with integration tests: Was the client side implemented correctly so that it will work with the live server. Do we have to develop work around as there are implementation errors on the server side? In which scale will the communication with the remote system affect our software's performance? Do our authentication credentials work? Does the authentication mechanism work? What are the technical and conceptual implications of this communication relationship no one has thought of so far? (Believe me, the latter will happen more often than you might expect!)
Generally speaking: What will happen if you do integration tests against a mock or a stub is that you test against your own understanding of how to implement the client and the server side of communication, and you do not test how your client works with the actual remote server or at least the best thing next to that, a test system. I can tell you from experience: never make assumptions on how a remote system should behave - test it. Even when talking of a JMS server: test it!
In case you are working for a company, testing against a provided test system is even more important: if you software works against a test system and you can prove it (selenium is a good helper here, as well as good logging, believe it or not) and your software does not work with a live version, you have a situation which I call "instablame": it is immediately obvious that it is not your fault the software isn't working. I myself hate fingerpointing to the bone, but most suits tend to ask "Who's fault was it?" even before "Can we fix that immediately?" and way before "How can we solve that problem?". And there is a special group of suits called lawyers, you know ... ;)
That being said: if you absolutely have to use those stubs during your integration tests, I would create an own project for them (let's say "MyProject-IT-Stubs" and build and run the latest version of MyProject-IT-Stubs before I run the IT of my main project. When using maven, you could create MyProject-IT-Stubs with war packaging, call it as a dependency during the pre-integration-test phase and fire up a jetty for this war in the same phase. Then your integration tests run, either successful or not and you can tear down the jetty in the post-integration-test phase.
The IMHO best way to organize your project with maven would be to have a project with three modules: MyProject,MyProject-IT-Stubs and MyProject-IT(declaring dependencies on MyProject and MyProject-IT-Stubs. This keeps your projects nice and tidy and the stubs do not pollute your project. You might want to think about organizing MyProject-IT-Stubs into modules as well, one for each remote system you have to talk to. As soon as you have test access, you can simply deactivate the according module in MyProject-IT-Stubs.
I am sure according options exist for InsertYourBuildToolHere.
I want to allow consumers of a web services layer (web services are written in Java) to create automated integration tests to validate that the version of the web services layer that the consumers will use will still work for the consumer (i.e. the web services are on a different release lifecycle than the consumers and their APIs or behavior might change-- they shouldn't change wihtout notifying the consumer, but the point of this automated test is to validate that they haven't changed)
What would I do if the web service actually executes a transaction (updates database tables). Is there a common practice for how to handle this without having to put logic into the web service itself to know its in a unit test and rollback the transaction once finished? (basically baking in the capability to deal with testing of the web service). Or is that the recommended way to do it?
The consumers are created by one development team at our company and the web services are created by a seperate team. The tests would run in an integration environment (the integration environment is one environment behind the test environment used by QA functional testers, one environment behind the prod environment)
The best approach to this sort of thing is dependency injection.
Put your database handling code in a service or services that are injected into the webservice, and create mock versions that are used in your testing environment and do not actually update a database, or in which you add capability of reset under test control.
This way your tests can exercise the real webservices but not a real database, and the tests can be more easily made repeatable.
Dependency injection in Java can be done using (among others) Spring or Guice. Guice is a bit more lightweight.
It may be sensible in your situation to have the injection decision made during application startup based on a system property as you note.
If some tests need to actually update a database to be valid, then your testing version of the database handling will need to use a real database, but should also provide a way accessible from tests to reset your database to a known (possibly empty) state so that tests can be repeated.
My choice would be to host the web services layer in production and in pre-production. Your customers can test against pre-production, but won't get billed for their transactions.
Obviously, this requires you to update production and pre-production at the same time.
Let the web services run unchanged and update whatever they need to in the database.
Your integration tests should check that the correct database records have been written/updated after each test step.
We use a soapUI testbed to accomplish this.
You can write your post-test assertion scripts in Groovy and Java, which can easily connect to the db using JDBC and check records.
People get worried about using the actual database - I wouldn't get hung up on this, it's actually a GOOD thing and makes for a really accurate testbed.
Regarding the "state" of the db, you can approach this in a number of ways:
Restore a db in a known state before the tests run
Get the test to cleanup after themselves
Let the db fill up as more tests run and clean it out occassionally
We've taken the last approach for now but may change in future if it becomes problematic.
I actually don't mind filling the db up with records as it makes it even more like a real customer database. It also is really useful when investigating test failures.
e.g. cxf allows you to change the transport layer. so you can just change the configuration and use localTransport. then you can have to objects: client and server without any network activity. it's great for testing (un)marhasling. everything else should be separated so the business logic is not aware of webservices so it can be tested as any other class