Using commit messages for changelogs is obviously terrible, and the suggested method from https://keepachangelog.com/ doesn't scale, but works well for smaller teams. Is there a library or a common way to handle changelogs for larger teams?
Related
We tested the fluid framework with minimal requirements.
Everything works fine in the demo application. https://github.com/microsoft/FluidExamples
questions:
How does the Fluid framework work offline?
Our backend is written in asp.net core. The server side of the fluid framework is written in node.js.
How to integrate the asp.net core backend with the fluid service to get the latest document state?
Need to write a driver for a Fluid service?
Offline.
Offline is an interesting topic for CRDTs generally. The Fluid Framework handles intermittent (short) offline scenarios well as long as all the connected clients have the metadata necessary to merge the change in. When the user makes changes, she does so with respect to a minimum sequence number (MinSeq.) If the her offline changes get added to the total order broadcast such that they are above her change's MinSeq, they will be merged with no additional handling.
MinSeq deserves a whole post, but it's the sequence number beneath which all connected clients can garbage collect the metadata necessary to merge changes. Therefore, as long as every client has that metadata, even if you were offline, the merge is easy.
For longer offline scenarios, the reconnecting client could request to lower the MinSeq (probably to the last MinSeq of the offline client.) All clients would then fetch the ops since the requested MinSeq and recreate the metadata. At this point, new changes could easily go in as we have mimicked the scenario where the new changes are above the minimum sequence number.
This could cause temporary perf & memory issues, but hasn't been a problem in reasonable experiments. I don't believe this feature is currently implemented in the Fluid Framework code base, but has been designed as above. (A PR on this topic would be very interesting!)
For even longer offline scenarios, you would probably need a three-way merge. For example: Two users open a document. User A goes on an airplane (loses internet) and writes Macbeth and user B writes Pride & Prejudice, what is the expected behavior when user A rejoins the session? These are entirely incompatible document states, so we'd need to present the users with a dialogue of some sort.
This is not implemented, but we have discussed some of the framework ergonomics of handling the three-way merge (i.e. what APIs would the app developer need.)
Running Fluid in a non NodeJS backend
Document state is managed by the clients and is opaque to the server. There's a similar discussion in this issue. The easiest way to get Fluid Framework document state in an .NET backend would be to run a JS engine and open the Fluid document. You could also run a NodeJS micro service that hosts the Fluid document. This service would have a simple API surface that lets you fetch the data you need.
I'm looking for a solution that allows my team to collaborate in the development of a single Dialogflow agent, because the typical scenario is that 2 or more developers work on the same agent.
Usually for other kind of technologies we adopt git for source code versioning (also for webhooks in example) applying the proper branching strategy.
We tried to use git also for agents exports, but in this case it seems to be impossible because we are facing issues in merging intents ids (that seems to be generated with a not well known way).
Then in this scenario, we need to synchronize each other, for consistency checks, before exporting and committing the zip to git, losing the chance to leverage the power of git.
Searching with Google I got that we can solve the problem start using such framework like Narratory.
Said that, my questions are:
Do you know if is there any way ther to accomplish our need without using Narratoy?
Do you know if exist alternative to Narratory?
I am evaluating options for a new messaging system. I have been looking at spring integration, mulesoft and camel. Key to any framework is it's industry footprint and support. I haven't been able to find any good indication of the spring integration module being used widely and searches return blogs and the like from the early 2010s not more recent.
Does spring integration have a significant industry footprint?
Thanks
This survey is a few years old. The framework is still very actively developed and used. One gauge of that would be to look at the question history here. We get several tens of questions per month.
It now has a popular Java DSL and no longer requires XML configuration (although that is still supported for those who prefer it).
Disclaimer: I am a previous project lead and still a committer, but the DZone survey was independent.
I was wondering whether the namespaces themselves can be grouped?
Our REST server project has a highly decentralized structure (along the lines of a Redux fractal pattern) and every feature has its own namespace. This predictably has led to many namespaces, and the swagger page is getting rather full now.
If this is not achievable, I guess we can live with it, or consider emitting only the swagger json to be consumed by the official Swagger UI that we can run in a separate server. But I'd much prefer a restplus-y solution, since that represents the least amount of code friction.
The underlying OpenAPI Specification has a concept of tags. The namespace feature in Flask-RESTPlus assigns these names as tags for path definitions, so this is how you get the grouping in a Swagger UI. The specification does not offer any hierarchical grouping mechanism, so therefore Flask-RESTPlus doesn't offer any such feature.
You could consider a different strategy for assigning namespaces/tags to create more manageable groupings, split the API across multiple Swagger UI pages/sites, etc. Sounds like there is no way around your Swagger UI needing to render a very large number of API methods, so making it more understandable via general content structuring may be your best approach.
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.