I have a class that it uses a synthetic service in the constructor.
I am going to inject this service (which uses another synthetic service in itself) into the state provider of the API Platform in Symfony.
https://api-platform.com/docs/core/state-providers/
After mocking and setting the container with this synthetic service, my Phpunit exits during its process like a memory leak.
When I use this service somewhere else like a controller and mock it in a functional test, I do not have any problem and I can mock it in a container and PHPUnit runs well
Related
I want to locally store data in absence of internet connection and thus am using job scheduler to schedule my syncing. So my service needs access to dao and I am not sure what the correct components needs to be defined for dagger to correctly inject dao inside my service. I do not know how to constructor inject in service either. I think it should not be constructor injected into the service. What is the proper approach? And lastly, which coroutine scope should i be using to access database from service? I also need retrofit api to make network calls. How should i inject them into my jobservice?
I am new to PACT and trying to use pact-net for contract testing for a .net microservice. I understand the concept of consumer test which generates a pact file.
There is the concept of a provider state middleware which is responsible for making sure that the provider's state matches the Given() condition in the generated pact.
I am bit confused on the following or how to achieve this:
The provider tests are run against the actual service. So we start the provider service before tests are run. My provider service interacts with a database to store and retrieve records. PACT also mentions that all the dependencies of a service should be stubbed.
So we run the actual provider api that is running against the actual db?
If we running the api against actual db how do we inject the data into the db? Should we be using the provider api's own endpoints to add the Given() data?
If the above is not the correct approach then what is?
All the basic blog articles I have come across do not explain this and usually have examples with no provider states or states that are just some text files on the file system.
Help appreciated.
I'm going to add to Matt's comment, you have three options:
Do your provider test with a connected environment but you will have to do some cleanup manually afterwards and make sure your data is always available in your db or/and the external APIs are always up and running. Simple to write but can be very hard to maintain.
You mock your API calls but call the real database.
You mock all your external dependencies: the API and the DB calls.
For 2) or 3) you will have to have test routes and inject the provider state middleware in your provider test fixture. Then, you can configure provider states to be called to generate in-memory data if solution 3) or add some data-init if you are in solution 2)
You can find an example here: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-net/tree/master/Samples/EventApi/Provider.Api.Web.Tests
The provider tests are run against the actual service
Do you mean against a live environment, or the actual service running locally to the unit test (the former is not recommended, because of (2) above).
This is one of the exceptions to that rule. You can choose to use a real DB or an in-memory one - whatever is most convenient. It's common to use docker and tools like that for testing.
In your case, I'd have a specific test-only set of routes that respond to the provider state handler endpoints, that also have access to the repository code and can manipulate state of the system.
I am trying to adopt Pact. I understand the consumer side of the equation and it looks very nice. But I am confused about the producer side.
It seems the documentation advocate running the provider app, and verifying the contracts against a running server.
I prefer not to do it. First, I need to curate a database with proper information for each pact, which is painful to say the least. Second, starting up the application is going to be a hassle - did I mention it is a monolith? -, finally, there are POSTS which are going to mutate the state of the database, and make test running brittle.
What I want to do is to do a mockMvc style testing with the pacts. I would like to mock my services, and just test the endpoint, which I think what should be tested in this case.
How can I achieve this with Pact?
Well if you don't test your contracts against your Provider that loses the whole point of Contract testing, since your contracts aren't tested against both sides. Because the main point is that Consumers dictate how the Provider should behave and in your case you would like to bypass the provider with a mockMvc and there is no point for doing contract testing only against your Consumer not the Provider. Even though your Provider is a monolith it's still better to run it and test with a contract, then to run all the microservices for end-to-end testing.
Yes you can achieve it with PACT, however I have the same opinion with Cotnic that it beats the purpose of having PACT on provider side. The main purpose of PACT is to verify that your server as the provider is working as according to the agreement (PACT). Therefore in my opinion the proper way to use PACT as a CONTRACT is by running it against a fully deployed server, and using #State to "Prepare" the Server (db, startup applications, etc)
Anyway, if you are using Spring, you probably can have a look at this sample for using Pact with MockMvc
https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/tree/master/pact-jvm-provider-spring
Pact-JVM now supports Spring mockmvc tests to verify a Spring or Springboot provider. See https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/tree/master/pact-jvm-provider-spring
Let me start with a little setup info... I am using the repository pattern and dependency injection via Unity. The repository is implemented via Linq-To-Sql. I inject my repositories into class constructors in my web project. The repositories have a PerWebRequest lifetime.
I have implemented a few SignalR hubs and have setup a Unity dependency resolver for SignalR. I'm injecting the same repositories into the hubs using the same Unity config file, which specifies these repositories are PerWebRequest also.
Now the punchline... I ran into a problem where the web project would update an Linq-To-Sql entity and the SignalR hub would read that entity and not get the updates. I have "solved" this problem by clearing the Linq-To-Sql cache before reading the entity in the SignalR hub; DataContact.Refresh() didn't update the entire object graph.
My DataContext for these repositories used in hubs are also PerWebRequest but it seams that the SignalR hubs are using a separate DataContext that does not get destroyed after the web request completes. It appears they are acting as singleton instances instead.
Do SignalR apps run in their own process and therefore my DataContext access from the hubs is a separate DataContext in that separate process?
How could the DataContext in the SignalR hub be instantiated with a PerWebRequest lifetime if it a separate process, apart from the web request lifecycle? Also, how does it seemingly act like a Singleton?
It's a while I don't use stuff like Linq2Sql or concepts like PerWebRequest, so I'm not 100% sure, but if I'm correct in saying that PerWebRequest is definitely tied to the lifetime of underlying HTTP requests, then those will hardly work with SignalR because its behavior can change a lot according to the chosen transport strategy. With WebSockets you might have several hub instantiations/method calls over the same connection, while with Long Polling you would probably have one (or zero) per HTTP request. Check here and here.
Given that the code you write with SignalR should be the same regardless of the transport, I think for hubs you'd always have to handle repositories in a specific way, maybe with an ad-hoc factory always clearing the cache each time a repository has to be supplied to a SignalR hub (you could try to be smart and check the transport strategy used, but those could be muddy waters).
I am currently designing an application in Symfony2 and had a question around when services are instantiated. Basically, are all services instantiated when the container is configured in the application load cycle or at the point when the service is requested from the container?
I understand you can flag services to be lazy loaded through the proxy manager but I just wanted to know what happens by default.
To add some context, I want to create a factory method that returns different services and am unsure whether to define the services in the service config and fetch them from the container when requested or simply instantiate them in the factory itself.
If Symfony loads all the services when the container is loaded then that's a lot of excessive overheard for what I'm trying to do. Also I'd rather not define concrete classes in the factory method.
Thanks for your help.