We're using in our product Jest for Unit and Integration tests.
At the moment, we're searching for a solution to measure the duration of scenarios (Unit, API and E2E level) between two CI/CD builds, to see if code changes lead to performance decrease/increase.
There are solutions outside like JMeter and Gattling, but it feels not a right fit. On the one side, you have to write tests again that we already have written in Jest. And on the other side, these tools are more focused on Load, Scalability, Breakpoint, Stress testing etc. which feels a bit over dimensioned for our use case. (We're using completely serverless architecture, and we only want to know if code changes have an impact on performance)
So I was thinking if it's not maybe simply possible to utilize the Jest tests that we have already written, to measure also in some way the performance and compare it between CI/CD builds.
Do you know if there is some library or tool that could help me with that? Or do you have perhaps a complete different opinion, how to approach that?
I've built a web app that aggregates trading and blockchain data from several API's and displays them in a React frontend(node backend)
What is the best way to implement tests to check for data integrity or when there are issues?
I am extremely new to testing and would appreciate any guidance/direction. Have gone through several testing frameworks and libraries, and am kind of dumbfounded.
You don't really test apps for 'integrity' of data as you name it.
Especially when data comes from external (not your DB for example) sources.
If you own data, you can test DB integrity, but as you say that is not the case here.
What you do though is - write unit tests (functional, recursive, end2end tests too, but what you want to do will mostly be achieved by using unit tests).
Within tests, you basically provide all kinds of data to your app and check if results are what you expect them to be (both for working and breaking scenarios).
This way, you can be sure it works as you designed it.
If at one point somewhere in future, a bug is exposed or you find it yourself. Define precisely why the bug occurs and add test for it.
When after you fix code responsible for bug, all of your tests pass, you know you are good again.
As for libraries:
"Jest" https://jestjs.io/ is go-to library for many - it's for unit tests mostly.
Jasmine and Mocha are also popular choices.
For end to end testing check Testcafe - I recommend it.
https://github.com/DevExpress/testcafe
You should also test your API with Mocha, Chai, Supertest or Chakram.
This way, all layers of your app are covered and bugs can be spotted quicker.
I'm using MPS to implement a really interesting DSL. What I'm curious to know, and haven't found anything on their site about, is whether I can, within the typesystem, issue an API call or query a database on the fly. So we would see that an equivalence test occurs and I want to be able to issue an API call or database query to see the feasibility of that equivalence test under further constraints and analysis.
You can call any Java code but it will probably make the editor and possibly other parts of MPS unresponsive since asynchronous calls are not supported.
I like a lot Cucumber and I find a very useful tool to solve problems seeing them with an outside-in approach so I would like to use it as part of chef projects too. I have successfully integrated it into the project I'm working on but at the time of writing business goal of features I have some doubts.
Who is the end user here?
Regarding on this the feature will be more service oriented or not, ie:
If the feature is more architecture faced the I could write a MongoDB feature which describes that I need up and running a MongoDB service and that the applications is linked to it.
In the other hand I should just write application features, forgetting about the infrastructure behind and then assume that if the cucumber tests run well for the application then it means that the infrastructure is fine too. (I dont like this approach)
Which of the both approaches are better? I like the most the first one but I'm just a noob on these lands. Please give me your considerations.
I just started getting into BizTalk at work and would love to keep using everything I've learned about DDD, TDD, etc. Is this even possible or am I always going to have to use the Visio like editors when creating things like pipelines and orchestrations?
You can certainly apply a lot of the concepts of TDD and DDD to BizTalk development.
You can design and develop around the concept of domain objects (although in BizTalk and integration development I often find interface objects or contract first design to be a more useful way of thinking - what messages get passed around at my interfaces). And you can also follow the 'Build the simplest possible thing that will work' and 'only build things that make tests pass' philosophies of TDD.
However, your question sounds like you are asking more about the code-centric sides of these design and development approaches.
Am I right that you would like to be able to follow the test driven development approach of first writing a unti test that exercises a requirement and fails, then writing a method that fulfils the requirement and causes the test to pass - all within a traditional programing language like C#?
For that, unfortunately, the answer is no. The majority of BizTalk artifacts (pipelines, maps, orchestrations...) can only really be built using the Visual Studio BizTalk plugins. There are ways of viewing the underlying c# code, but one would never want to try and directly develop this code.
There are two tools BizUnit and BizUnit Extensions that give some ability to control the execution of BizTalk applications and test them but this really only gets you to the point of performing more controled and more test driven integration tests.
The shapes that you drag onto the Orchestration design surface will largely just do their thing as one opaque unit of execution. And Orchestrations, pipelines, maps etc... all these things are largely intended to be executed (and tested) within an entire BizTalk solution.
Good design practices (taking pointers from approaches like TDD) will lead to breaking BizTalk solutions into smaller, more modular and testable chunks, and are there are ways of testing things like pipelines in isolation.
But the detailed specifics of TDD and DDD in code sadly don't translate.
For some related discussion that may be useful see this question:
Mocking WebService consumed by a Biztalk Request-Response port
If you often make use of pipelines and custom pipeline components in BizTalk, you might find my own PipelineTesting library useful. It allows you to use NUnit (or whatever other testing framework you prefer) to create automated tests for complete pipelines, specific pipeline components or even schemas (such as flat file schemas).
It's pretty useful if you use this kind of functionality, if I may say so myself (I make heavy use of it on my own projects).
You can find an introduction to the library here, and the full code on github. There's also some more detailed documentation on its wiki.
I agree with the comments by CKarras. Many people have cited that as their reason for not liking the BizUnit framework. But take a look at BizUnit 3.0. It has an object model that allows you to write the entire test step in C#/VB instead of XML. BizUnitExtensions is being upgraded to the new object model as well.
The advantages of the XML based system is that it is easier to generate test steps and there is no need to recompile when you update the steps. In my own Extensions library, I found the XmlPokeStep (inspired by NAnt) to be very useful. My team could update test step xml on the fly. For example, lets say we had to call a webservice that created a customer record and then checked a database for that same record. Now if the webservice returned the ID (dynamically generated), we could update the test step for the next step on the fly (not in the same xml file of course) and then use that to check the database.
From a coding perspective, the intellisense should be addressed now in BizUnit 3.0. The lack of an XSD did make things difficult in the past. I'm hoping to get an XSD out that will aid in the intellisense. There were some snippets as well for an old version of BizUnit but those havent been updated, maybe if theres time I'll give that a go.
But coming back to the TDD issue, if you take some of the intent behind TDD - the specification or behavior driven element, then you can apply it to some extent to Biztalk development as well because BizTalk is based heavily on contract driven development. So you can specify your interfaces first and create stub orchestrations etc to handle them and then build out the core. You could write the BizUnit tests at that time. I wish there were some tools that could automate this process but right now there arent.
Using frameworks such as the ESB guidance can also help give you a base platform to work off so you can implement the major use cases through your system iteratively.
Just a few thoughts. Hope this helps. I think its worth blogging about more extensively.
This is a good topic to discuss.Do ping me if you have any questions or we can always discuss more over here.
Rgds
Benjy
You could use BizUnit to create and reuse generic test cases both in code and excel(for functional scenarios)
http://www.codeplex.com/bizunit
BizTalk Server 2009 is expected to have more IDE integrated testability.
Cheers
Hemil.
BizUnit is really a pain to use because all the tests are written in XML instead of a programming language.
In our projects, we have "ported" parts of BizUnit to a plain old C# test framework. This allows us to use BizUnit's library of steps directly in C# NUnit/MSTest code. This makes tests that are easier to write (using VS Intellisense), more flexible, and most important, easier to debug in case of a test failure. The main drawback of this approach is that we have forked from the main BizUnit source.
Another interesting option I would consider for future projects is BooUnit, which is a Boo wrapper on top of BizUnit. It has advantages similar to our BizUnit "port", but also has the advantage of still using BizUnit instead of forking from it.