I want to use a MockServerContainer to mock a webhook site.
My current code will make a request to that webhook while I'm executing it. On the test, I do expect to get 3 requests to it with different bodies. The test I want to make is to run the code and check if I have the 3 requests to the MockServerContainer with the expected bodies.
I need a method from the test containers that retrieves all the requests registered on the Mockserver. Is there any?
In the end, it was not so hard to find the solution. But maybe I could save someone half an hour.
My main error was focusing on the MockServerContainer instead of the client. The client has a really nice method (retrieveRecordedRequests) that makes what I need.
In the end I do need to store the client:
public class NotificationContainer {
public static final MockServerContainer server =
new MockServerContainer(DockerImageName.parse("jamesdbloom/mockserver")
.withTag("mockserver-5.5.4"));
public static MockServerClient client;
public static String getUrl() {
return server.getEndpoint();
}
public void callAfterStartSever() {
ContainerUtils.waitFor(server, Duration.ofSeconds(10));
NotificationContainer.client = new MockServerClient(server.getHost(), server.getServerPort());
client.when(HttpRequest.request())
.respond(HttpResponse.response());
}
}
And then use it on the test so I get the responses
#Test
void checkWebhook(){
//Do the call that makes the webhooks
val responses = NotificationContainer.client.retrieveRecordedRequests(null);
//validate the request are the expected ones
}
Related
I have a feign client like this with endpoints to two APIs from PROJECT-SERVICE
#FeignClient(name = "PROJECT-SERVICE", fallbackFactory = ProjectServiceFallbackFactory.class)
public interface ProjectServiceClient {
#GetMapping("/api/projects/{projectKey}")
public ResponseEntity<Project> getProjectDetails(#PathVariable("projectKey") String projectKey);
#PostMapping("/api/projects")
public ResponseEntity<Project> createProject(#RequestBody Project project);
}
I'm using those clients like this:
#Service
public class MyService {
#Autowired
private ProjectServiceClient projectServiceClient;
public void doSomething() {
// Some code
ResponseEntity<Project> projectResponse = projectServiceClient.getProjectDetails(projectKey);
// Some more code
}
public void doSomethingElse() {
// Some code
ResponseEntity<Project> projectResponse = projectServiceClient.createProject(Project projectToBeCreated);
// Some more code
}
}
My problem is, most of the times (around 60% of the time), either one of these Feign calls result in a HystrixTimeoutException.
I initially thought there could be a problem in the downstream micro service (PROJECT-SERVICE in this case), but that is not the case. In fact, when getProjectDetails() or createProject() is called, the PROJECT-SERVICE actually does the job and returns a ResponseEntity<Project> with status 200 and 201 respectively, but my fallback is activated with the HystrixTimeoutException.
I'm trying in vain to find what might be causing this issue.
I, however, have this in my main application configuration:
feign.hystrix.enabled=true
feign.client.config.default.connect-timeout=5000
feign.client.config.default.read-timeout=60000
Can anyone point me towards a solution?
Thanks,
Sriram Sridharan
Hystrix's timeout is not tied to that of Feign. There is a default 1 second execution timeout enabled for Hystrix. You need to configure this timeout to be slightly longer than Feign's, to avoid HystrixTimeoutException getting thrown earlier than desired timeout. Like so:
feign.client.config.default.connect-timeout=5000
feign.client.config.default.read-timeout=5000
hystrix.command.default.execution.isolation.thread.timeoutInMilliseconds=6000
Doing so would allow FeignException, caused by timeout after 5 seconds, to be thrown first, and then wrapped in a HystrixTimeoutException
I've just started with Vert.x and would like to understand what is the right way of handling potentially long (blocking) operations as part of processing a REST HttpRequest. The application itself is a Spring app.
Here is a simplified REST service I have so far:
public class MainApp {
// instantiated by Spring
private AlertsRestService alertsRestService;
#PostConstruct
public void init() {
Vertx.vertx().deployVerticle(alertsRestService);
}
}
public class AlertsRestService extends AbstractVerticle {
// instantiated by Spring
private PostgresService pgService;
#Value("${rest.endpoint.port:8080}")
private int restEndpointPort;
#Override
public void start(Future<Void> futureStartResult) {
HttpServer server = vertx.createHttpServer();
Router router = Router.router(vertx);
//enable reading of the request body for all routes
router.route().handler(BodyHandler.create());
router.route(HttpMethod.GET, "/allDefinitions")
.handler(this::handleGetAllDefinitions);
server.requestHandler(router)
.listen(restEndpointPort,
result -> {
if (result.succeeded()) {
futureStartResult.complete();
} else {
futureStartResult.fail(result.cause());
}
}
);
}
private void handleGetAllDefinitions( RoutingContext routingContext) {
HttpServerResponse response = routingContext.response();
Collection<AlertDefinition> allDefinitions = null;
try {
allDefinitions = pgService.getAllDefinitions();
} catch (Exception e) {
response.setStatusCode(500).end(e.getMessage());
}
response.putHeader("content-type", "application/json")
.setStatusCode(200)
.end(Json.encodePrettily(allAlertDefinitions));
}
}
Spring config:
<bean id="alertsRestService" class="com.my.AlertsRestService"
p:pgService-ref="postgresService"
p:restEndpointPort="${rest.endpoint.port}"
/>
<bean id="mainApp" class="com.my.MainApp"
p:alertsRestService-ref="alertsRestService"
/>
Now the question is: how to properly handle the (blocking) call to my postgresService, which may take longer time if there are many items to get/return ?
After researching and looking at some examples, I see a few ways to do it, but I don't fully understand differences between them:
Option 1. convert my AlertsRestService into a Worker Verticle and use the worker thread pool:
public class MainApp {
private AlertsRestService alertsRestService;
#PostConstruct
public void init() {
DeploymentOptions options = new DeploymentOptions().setWorker(true);
Vertx.vertx().deployVerticle(alertsRestService, options);
}
}
What confuses me here is this statement from the Vert.x docs: "Worker verticle instances are never executed concurrently by Vert.x by more than one thread, but can [be] executed by different threads at different times"
Does it mean that all HTTP requests to my alertsRestService are going to be, effectively, throttled to be executed sequentially, by one thread at a time? That's not what I would like: this service is purely stateless and should be able to handle concurrent requests just fine ....
So, maybe I need to look at the next option:
Option 2. convert my service to be a multi-threaded Worker Verticle, by doing something similar to the example in the docs:
public class MainApp {
private AlertsRestService alertsRestService;
#PostConstruct
public void init() {
DeploymentOptions options = new DeploymentOptions()
.setWorker(true)
.setInstances(5) // matches the worker pool size below
.setWorkerPoolName("the-specific-pool")
.setWorkerPoolSize(5);
Vertx.vertx().deployVerticle(alertsRestService, options);
}
}
So, in this example - what exactly will be happening? As I understand, ".setInstances(5)" directive means that 5 instances of my 'alertsRestService' will be created. I configured this service as a Spring bean, with its dependencies wired in by the Spring framework. However, in this case, it seems to me the 5 instances are not going to be created by Spring, but rather by Vert.x - is that true? and how could I change that to use Spring instead?
Option 3. use the 'blockingHandler' for routing. The only change in the code would be in the AlertsRestService.start() method in how I define a handler for the router:
boolean ordered = false;
router.route(HttpMethod.GET, "/allDefinitions")
.blockingHandler(this::handleGetAllDefinitions, ordered);
As I understand, setting the 'ordered' parameter to TRUE means that the handler can be called concurrently. Does it mean this option is equivalent to the Option #2 with multi-threaded Worker Verticles?
What is the difference? that the async multi-threaded execution pertains to the one specific HTTP request only (the one for the /allDefinitions path) as opposed to the whole AlertsRestService Verticle?
Option 4. and the last option I found is to use the 'executeBlocking()' directive explicitly to run only the enclosed code in worker threads. I could not find many examples of how to do this with HTTP request handling, so below is my attempt - maybe incorrect. The difference here is only in the implementation of the handler method, handleGetAllAlertDefinitions() - but it is rather involved... :
private void handleGetAllAlertDefinitions(RoutingContext routingContext) {
vertx.executeBlocking(
fut -> { fut.complete( sendAsyncRequestToDB(routingContext)); },
false,
res -> { handleAsyncResponse(res, routingContext); }
);
}
public Collection<AlertDefinition> sendAsyncRequestToDB(RoutingContext routingContext) {
Collection<AlertDefinition> allAlertDefinitions = new LinkedList<>();
try {
alertDefinitionsDao.getAllAlertDefinitions();
} catch (Exception e) {
routingContext.response().setStatusCode(500)
.end(e.getMessage());
}
return allAlertDefinitions;
}
private void handleAsyncResponse(AsyncResult<Object> asyncResult, RoutingContext routingContext){
if(asyncResult.succeeded()){
try {
routingContext.response().putHeader("content-type", "application/json")
.setStatusCode(200)
.end(Json.encodePrettily(asyncResult.result()));
} catch(EncodeException e) {
routingContext.response().setStatusCode(500)
.end(e.getMessage());
}
} else {
routingContext.response().setStatusCode(500)
.end(asyncResult.cause());
}
}
How is this different form other options? And does Option 4 provide concurrent execution of the handler or single-threaded like in Option 1?
Finally, coming back to the original question: what is the most appropriate Option for handling longer-running operations when handling REST requests?
Sorry for such a long post.... :)
Thank you!
That's a big question, and I'm not sure I'll be able to address it fully. But let's try:
In Option #1 what it actually means is that you shouldn't use ThreadLocal in your worker verticles, if you use more than one worker of the same type. Using only one worker means that your requests will be serialised.
Option #2 is simply incorrect. You cannot use setInstances with instance of a class, only with it's name. You're correct, though, that if you choose to use name of the class, Vert.x will instantiate them.
Option #3 is less concurrent than using Workers, and shouldn't be used.
Option #4 executeBlocking is basically doing Option #3, and is also quite bad.
I have implemented a simple Rest service by which I'd like to test deferredResult from Spring. While am I getting texts in that order:
TEST
TEST 1
TEST AFTER DEFERRED RESULT
I am very interested why in a browser (client) I need to wait that 8 seconds. Isn't that deferedResult shouldn't be non-blocking and run a task in the background? If no, how to create a rest service which will be non-blocking and run tasks in the background without using Java 9 and reactive streams?
#RestController("/")
public class Controller {
#GetMapping
public DeferredResult<Person> test() {
System.out.println("TEST");
DeferredResult<Person> result = new DeferredResult<>();
CompletableFuture.supplyAsync(this::test1)
.whenCompleteAsync((res, throwable) -> {
System.out.println("TEST AFTER DEFERRED RESULT");
result.setResult(res);
});
System.out.println("TEST 1");
return result;
}
private Person test1() {
try {
Thread.sleep(8000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
return new Person("michal", 20);
}
}
class Person implements Serializable {
private String name;
private int age;
}
DeferredResult is a holder for a WebRequest to allow the serving thread to release and serve another incoming HTTP request instead of waiting for the current one's result. After setResult or setError methods will be invoked - Spring will release that stored WebRequest and your client will receive the response.
DeferredResult holder is a Spring Framework abstraction for Non-blocking IO threading.
Deferred result abstraction has nothing with background tasks. Calling it without threading abstractions will cause the expected same thread execution. Your test1 method is running in the background because of CompletableFuture.supplyAsync method invocation that gives the execution to common pool.
The result is returned in 8 seconds because the whenCompleteAsync passed callback will be called only after test1 method will return.
You cannot receive the result immediately when your "service call logic" takes 8 seconds despite you are performing it in the background. If you want to release the HTTP request - just return an available proper object (it could contain a UUID, for example, to fetch the created person later) or nothing from the controller method. You can try to GET your created user after N seconds. There are specific HTTP response codes (202 ACCEPTED), that means the serverside is processing the request. Finally just GET your created object.
The second approach (if you should notify your clientside - but I will not recommend you to do it if this is the only reason) - you can use WebSockets to notify the clientside and message with it.
I have a flow that ends with sending a SOAP request. I'd like to write some kind of integration tests, for which I give 10 elements in input, and after going through the flow, I validate that 4 requests were fired for the 4 elements I expect (the 6 others got filtered and didn't make it through).
I'm using WebServiceTemplate, and I've read about MockWebServiceServer, but I am not sure it allows to do it out of the box. I'd like to maybe extend it, so that all sent requests are saved in a List that I can access to perform the assertions. I've looked at the source code, of MockWebServiceServer / MockWebServiceMessageSender but I don't see where I would do it.
Any ideas of how to achieve this ?
Thanks
One way of doing this is to extend RequestMatcher, not MockWebServiceServer. Here's an example of the class :
public class NeverFailingRequestMatcherWithMemory implements RequestMatcher {
List<WebServiceMessage> sentRequests=new ArrayList<WebServiceMessage>();
#Override
public void match(URI uri, WebServiceMessage request) throws IOException, AssertionError {
sentRequests.add(request);
}
public void clearMemory(){
sentRequests.clear();
}
public List<WebServiceMessage> getSentRequests(){
return sentRequests;
}
}
And you use it like this in your tests :
NeverFailingRequestMatcherWithMemory matcherWithMemory=new NeverFailingRequestMatcherWithMemory();
#Before
public void configureMockWsServer() {
WebServiceTemplate usedWebServiceTemplate = appCtx.getBean(WebServiceTemplate.class);
mockServer = MockWebServiceServer.createServer(usedWebServiceTemplate);
matcherWithMemory.clearMemory();
}
and later in your tests, something like :
mockServer.expect(matcherWithMemory).andRespond(withPayload(someResponsePayload));
assertThat(matcherWithMemory.getSentRequests()).hasSize(1);
Then you have access to the requests that were sent and can parse them the way you want.
I am connection through SockJS over STOMP to my Spring backend. Everything work fine, the configuration works well for all browsers etc. However, I cannot find a way to send an initial message. The scenario would be as follows:
The client connects to the topic
function connect() {
var socket = new SockJS('http://localhost:8080/myEndpoint');
stompClient = Stomp.over(socket);
stompClient.connect({}, function(frame) {
setConnected(true);
console.log('Connected: ' + frame);
stompClient.subscribe('/topic/notify', function(message){
showMessage(JSON.parse(message.body).content);
});
});
}
and the backend config looks more or less like this:
#Configuration
#EnableWebSocketMessageBroker
public class WebSocketAppConfig extends AbstractWebSocketMessageBrokerConfigurer {
...
#Override
public void registerStompEndpoints(final StompEndpointRegistry registry) {
registry.addEndpoint("/myEndpoint").withSockJS();
}
I want to send to the client an automatic reply from the backend (on the connection event) so that I can already provide him with some dataset (e.g. read sth from the db) without the need for him (the client) to send a GET request (or any other). So to sum up, I just want to send him a message on the topic with the SimMessagingTemplate object just after he connected.
Usually I do it the following way, e.g. in a REST controller, when the template is already autowired:
#Autowired
private SimpMessagingTemplate template;
...
template.convertAndSend(TOPIC, new Message("it works!"));
How to achieve this on connect event?
UPDATE
I have managed to make it work. However, I am still a bit confused with the configuration. I will show here 2 configurations how the initial message can be sent:
1) First solution
JS part
stompClient.subscribe('/app/pending', function(message){
showMessage(JSON.parse(message.body).content);
});
stompClient.subscribe('/topic/incoming', function(message){
showMessage(JSON.parse(message.body).content);
});
Java part
#Controller
public class WebSocketBusController {
#SubscribeMapping("/pending")
Configuration
#Override
public void configureMessageBroker(final MessageBrokerRegistry config) {
config.enableSimpleBroker("/topic");
config.setApplicationDestinationPrefixes("/app");
}
... and other calls
template.convertAndSend("/topic/incoming", outgoingMessage);
2) Second solution
JS part
stompClient.subscribe('/topic/incoming', function(message){
showMessage(JSON.parse(message.body).content);
})
Java part
#Controller
public class WebSocketBusController {
#SubscribeMapping("/topic/incoming")
Configuration
#Override
public void configureMessageBroker(final MessageBrokerRegistry config) {
config.enableSimpleBroker("/topic");
// NO APPLICATION PREFIX HERE
}
... and other calls
template.convertAndSend("/topic/incoming", outgoingMessage);
SUMMARY:
The first case uses two subscriptions - this I wanted to avoid and thought this can be managed with one only.
The second one however has no prefix for application. But at least I can have a single subscription to listen on the provided topic as well as send initial message.
If you just want to send a message to the client upon connection, use an appropriate ApplicationListener:
#Component
public class StompConnectedEvent implements ApplicationListener<SessionConnectedEvent> {
private static final Logger log = Logger.getLogger(StompConnectedEvent.class);
#Autowired
private Controller controller;
#Override
public void onApplicationEvent(SessionConnectedEvent event) {
log.debug("Client connected.");
// you can use a controller to send your msg here
}
}
You can't do that on connect, however the #SubscribeMapping does the stuff in that case.
You just need to mark the service method with that annotation and it returns a result to the subscribe function.
From Spring Reference Manual:
An #SubscribeMapping annotation can also be used to map subscription requests to #Controller methods. It is supported on the method level, but can also be combined with a type level #MessageMapping annotation that expresses shared mappings across all message handling methods within the same controller.
By default the return value from an #SubscribeMapping method is sent as a message directly back to the connected client and does not pass through the broker. This is useful for implementing request-reply message interactions; for example, to fetch application data when the application UI is being initialized. Or alternatively an #SubscribeMapping method can be annotated with #SendTo in which case the resulting message is sent to the "brokerChannel" using the specified target destination.
UPDATE
Referring to this example: https://github.com/revelfire/spring4Test how would that be possible to send anything when the line 24 of the index.html is invoked: stompClient.subscribe('/user/queue/socket/responses' ... from the spring controllers?
Well, look like this:
#SubscribeMapping("/queue/socket/responses")
public List<Employee> list() {
return getEmployees();
}
The Stomp client part remains the same.