I'm trying to understand spring cloud contract so am reading the tour.
My question is specifically regarding this section:
https://cloud.spring.io/spring-cloud-contract/multi/multi__spring_cloud_contract_verifier_introduction.html#_defining_the_contract
Looking at the request body part, there is a difference between the Groovy and YAML contracts.
In the Groovy DSL:
"client.id": $(regex('[0-9]{10}'))
In the YAML:
"client.id": 1234567890
You can see the difference - one is specific, the other is not.
Questions are:
Q1. Is this difference deliberate?
Q2. Is it correct that these are turned into tests on the Producer side, so they are run against my real implementation of the service?
So does that mean my real implementation needs to support the hard coded client.id of 1234567890?
TIA
The difference is such that in Groovy DSL we can code sth and YAML is just declarative. In Groovy, in the body, we can state that the value of a particular part of the body will be dynamic. Then at runtime we will generate the fixed value (e.g. for the generated tests). You could also achieve the same via the bodyMatchers section.
In Yaml however you can't code. You need to provide a fixed value and if you want to have a dynamic part of that particular e.g. body element then you have to provide that value in the matchers sections. That will tell the framework that there is a fixed value for e.g. generated tests BUT also there's a dynamic part to consider e.g. for the stub.
Related
Is there a way for us to define the policies of a GraphQL API, which is both machine-readable and human-readable, which contains a set of rules (in other words, a specification) to describe the format of the API? I'm not talking about the schema, but of a spec where we can add security-related details (for example, complexity value to be assigned per field and depth limitation values) or any other related details. Any thoughts or ideas? Or can we send all of this within the SDL itself?
For example, for REST APIs, we use Swagger to define information on how to define paths, parameters, responses, models, security and more. Is there a need for a similar approach for GraphQL APIs? Your response is highly appreciated
We are working in an approach to add policies to your GraphQL API and allow you to better manage it, especially as you expose the interface externally.
Part of the challenge is that as opposed to a REST call that can easily be differentiated from others, all GraphQL requests look the same, unless a deeper analysis is performed on the incoming query.
This blog post describes how we perform this analysis: https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2019/02/graphql-api-management/
if this is of interest let's connect!
As per my understanding you need a tool to make documentation for the APIs you have build for parameters and so on.
If that's what you are searching, there is like swagger for GraphQL - Swagger-to-GraphQL
Hope that helps.!!
I'm working on extracting patients info in FHIR server however, I've came across two types of searching methods that were somewhat different. What is the difference between the search method of
Bundle bundle = client.seach().forResource(DiagnosticReport.class)
.
.
and
GET [base]/DiagnosticReport?result.code-value-
quantity=http://loinc.org|2823-3$gt5.4|http://unitsofmeasure.org|mmol/L
It's very confusing as it seemed that there isn't much that is mentioned about these two search methods. Can i achieve the same level of filtering with the first method compared to the url method?
The first is how to perform a search using the Java reference implementation. The latter explains what the actual HTTP query looks like that hits the server (and also specifies some additional search criteria). Behind the scenes the Java code in the first example is actually making an HTTP call that looks similar to the second example. The primary documentation in the FHIR specification deals with the HTTP call. The reference implementations work differently based on which language they are and are documented outside the FHIR specification on a reference implementation by reference implementation basis.
So this may be a more general question, but I feel it needs to be asked.
Time and time again I come across examples on Camel's documentation pages where I say "that's exactly what I want!... but it's in Java not Spring. How the heck do I convert it properly?"
So my question is: What is the rule of thumb for converting things?
Is there some conversion guide out there?
For example, I wanted to append a \n to the end of each line as the data comes through a socket into a file using the Netty4 component.
I see an example such as .transform().body(append("\n"))
How would I interpret that as Spring, to put in my Spring-based route?
Maybe this is just a thing that a person new to Camel struggles with and once you get the hang of it you can see the obvious answer. But I feel like I can't be the only one who's thinking this about the examples out there.
It seems like a lot of Java -> Spring conversion can be done in a 1 to 1 ratio, but that's not all the time.
Well, the mapping isn't straightforward and there isn't a 1-to-1 mapping available - generally, a Java DSL method invocation will in most cases translate to a tag in Spring XML DSL but the position of that tag is not always the same - in some cases Java DSL method invocation chains translate to tags being placed on the same level, sometimes (e.g. idempotent consumer) the chain translates to child tags of the first invocation.
I guess that the mapping was done this way because XML and Java are two very different languages and making the mapping 1-1 would have crippled the expressiveness of at least one, if not both, DSLs.
My advice would be to always import the XML schema and rely on your IDE's auto-completion and the documentations from the schema itself and Camel's online documentation.
You can run your camel context via mvn camel:run goal and then use a JMX client to connect to that process. There is an mbean in camel which provides a method called dumpRoutesAsXML or similar. Invoking that one will give u the xml equivalent of your context. But keep in mind that it only prints the routes and all stuff out of routes is discarded.
Hope that helps,
Lars
Is there a way to change the default response format for GET requests like /ws/v1/cluster/info to be XML?
I know that I can specify the Accept: application/xmlheader with my request. However I want to change the default value so that I can omit the header.
From my reading of the Yarn source code, the distinction between JSON and XML is completely delegated to the underlying JAX-RS infrastructure, with annotations like
#Produces({ MediaType.APPLICATION_JSON, MediaType.APPLICATION_XML })
all over the code. This mechanism (called "Static Content Negotiation") specifies that the first in the list is the default, which is consistent with behavior. One could use the javax.ws.rs.core.Variant class (and a technique called "Runtime Content Negotiation") to override this, but I can't find any use of it in the codebase.
If you're willing to make a small modification to the source and rebuild it, you could simply find all of these #Produces declarations and swap the order. If you decide to do this, you'll want to be mindful of the apparent bug described here. If it turns out to still be relevant (and it was recent), you may find you have to tackle all the complexity of runtime content negotiation anyway.
It should be simple enough to try it out, but if you don't have any other reason to build from sources it's probably overkill.
In TDD how should you continue when you know what your final outcome should be, but not the processing steps you need to get there?
For example your class is being passed an object whose API is completely new to you, You know the class has the information you need but you don't know how to retrieve it yet: How would you go about testing this?
Do you just focus on the desired result ignoring the steps?
Edit 1
package com.wesley_acheson.codeReview.annotations;
import com.sun.mirror.apt.AnnotationProcessor;
import com.sun.mirror.apt.AnnotationProcessorEnvironment;
public class AnnotationPresenceWarner implements AnnotationProcessor {
private final AnnotationProcessorEnvironment environment;
public AnnotationPresenceWarner(AnnotationProcessorEnvironment env) {
environment = env;
}
public void process() {
//This is what I'm testing
}
}
I'm trying to test this incomplete class. I want to test I have the right interactions with AnnotationProcessorEnvironment within the process method. However I'm unsure from the API docs what the right interaction is.
This will produce a file that contains details on the occurrence of each annotation within a source tree.
The actual file writing will probably be delegated to another class however. So this class' responsiblity is to create a representation of the annotation occurrences and pass that to whatever classes need to move it.
In non TDD I'd probably invoke a few methods set a breakpoint and see what they return.
Anyway I'm not looking for a solution to this specific example more sometimes you don't know how to get from A to B and you'd like your code to be test driven.
I'm basing my answer on this video:
http://misko.hevery.com/2008/11/11/clean-code-talks-dependency-injection/
If you have a model/business logic class that's supposed to get some data from a service then I'd go about this way:
Have your model class take the data that it needs in the constructor, rather than the service itself. You could then mock the data and unit test your class.
Create a wrapper for the service, you can then unit test then wrapper.
Perform a fuller test where you actually pass the data from the wrapper to the model class.
General Answer
TDD can be used to solve a number of issues, the first and foremost is to ensure that code changes do not break existing code in regards to their expected behavior. Thus, if you've written a class with TDD, you write some code first, see that it fails, then write the behavior to make it green without causing other tests to become red.
The side-effect of writing the test cases is that now you have Documentation. This means that TDD actually provides answers to two distinct problems with code. When learning a new API, regardless of what it is, you can use TDD to explore it's behavior (granted, in some frameworks this can be very difficult). So, when you are exploring an API, it's ok to write some tests to provide documentation to it's use. You can consider this a prototyping step as well, just that prototyping assumes you throw it away when complete. With the TDD approach, you keep it, so you can always return back to it long after you've learned the API.
Specific Answer to the Example Given
There are a number of approaches which attempt to solve the problem with the AnnotationProcessor. There is an Assertion framework which addresses the issue by loading the java code during the test and asserting the line which the error/warning occurs. And here on Stack overflow
I would create a prototype without the testing to get knowledge of how the api is working. When I got that understanding, I would continue on the TDD cycle on my project
I agree with Bassetassen. First do a spike to understand what is this external API call does and what you need for your method. Once you are comfortable with the API you know how to proceed with TDD.
Never ever Unit Test against an unknown API. Follow the same principle is if you didn't own the code. Isolate all the code you are writing from the unknown or unowned.
Write your unit tests as if the environmental processor was going to be code that you were going to TDD later.
Now you can follow #Tom's advice, except drop step 1. Step 2's unit tests now are just a matter of mapping the outputs of the wrapper class to calls on the API of the unknown. Step two is more along the lines of an integration test.
I firmly believe changing your flow from TDD to Prototyping to TDD is a loss in velocity. Stay with the TDD until you are done, then prototype.