We have a drawing creation task that we'd like to offload to the design automation API. Every time the task runs, it will need as input a bunch of data that will affect what it creates in the DWG. What's the best way to make this job-specific data available to each job? In our case if we could include a text file that might be 1mb in size, that would work fine.
I have looked at the API documentation and other than the zip package, I don't see a way to accomplish this other than attempting to have our automation make outbound web service calls when it runs which i'm not sure would be allowed on the remote server.
You should be able to create a custom App package with a job that accepts your custom data has input argument, take a look at those demos:
design.automation-.net-input.output.sample
design.automation-.net-custom.activity.sample
You can also have your own web service that returns the needed payload, it is possible to issue an http call from an activity, see following sample for a demo:
https://github.com/szilvaa/variadic
Hope that helps
Related
We do something called feature testing like so -> https://blog.twitter.com/engineering/en_us/topics/insights/2017/the-testing-renaissance.html
TLDR of that article, we send request to microservice(REST POST with body), mock GCP Storage, mock downstream api call so the entire microservice can be refactored. Also, we can swap out our platforms/libs with no changes in our testing which makes us extremely agile.
My first questions is can DataFlow (apache beam) receive a REST request to trigger the job? I see much of the api is around 'create job' but I don't see 'execute job' in the docs while I do see get status returns the status of job execution. I just don't see a way to trigger a job to
read from my storage api (which is mockable and sits in front of GCP)
process the file hopefully across many nodes
call the apis downstream (which is also mockable)
Then, I simply want to in my test simulate the http call, then when file is read, return a real customer file and then after done, my test will verify all the correct requests were sent to the apis downstream.
We are using apache beam in our feature tests though not sure if it's the same version as google's dataflow :( as that would be the most ideal!!! -> hmmm, is there a reported apache beam version of google's dataflow we can get?
thanks,
Dean
thanks,
Dean
Apache Beam's DirectRunner should be very close to Dataflow's environment, and it's what we recommend for this type of single-process pipeline test.
My advise would be the same: Use the DirectRunner for your feature tests.
You can also use the Dataflow runner, but that sounds like it would be a full integration test. Depending on the data source / data sink, you may be able to pass it mocking utilities.
BigQueryIO is a good example. It has a withTestServices method that you can use to pass objects that mock the behavior of external services
I have been using response templating to give dynamic responses, given that all the request and query parameters are associated with that request itself. However, I wanted to make a POST request with several parameters, and later use those parameters in a stubbed GET method's body response by using response templating. Is this something possible to do in wiremock? Any input is greatly appreciated, thank you!
Storing state between requests is not a default feature of WireMock outside of mocking the behavior through Stateful Behaviour, which is different from being actually stateful.
Without a custom plugin being able to share information between several requests is therefor not possible. In the WireMock documentation there is a section in the documentation on how to create such a plugin yourself. With a little development experience this is certainly doable.
On GitHub there are several plugin that create a storage mechanism to store information
WireMockCsv: store and retrieve information using HSQL Database.
wiremock-redis-extension does something similar using Redis.
An alternative to these approaches is to create mappings/data just before the test starts. For example generating all the responses beforehand and then using Templated BodyFileName tag to retrieve the just-in-time created file. Another way of achieving this result is to use the Admin API to create the mappings themselves directly.
Is there a way to mock requests when writing automated UI tests in Swift 2.0. As far as I am aware the UI tests should be independent of other functionality. Is there a way to mock the response from server requests in order to test the behaviour of the UI dependant on the response. For example, if the server is down, the UI tests should still run. Quick example, for login, mock if password failed then UI should show alert, however, if the login is successful the next page should be shown.
In its current implementation, this is not directly possible with UI Testing. The only interface the framework has directly to the code is through it's launch arguments/environment.
You can have the app look for a specific key or value in this context and switch up some functionality. For example, if the MOCK_REQUESTS key is set, inject a MockableHTTPClient instead of the real HTTPClient in your networking layer. I wrote about setting the parameters and NSHipster has an article on how to read them.
While not ideal, it is technically possible to accomplish what you are looking for with some legwork.
Here's a tutorial on stubbing network data for UI Testing I put together. It walks you through all of the steps you need to get this up and running.
If you are worried about the idea of mocks making it into a production environment for any reason, you can consider using a 3rd party solution like Charles Proxy.
Using the map local tool you can route calls from a specific endpoint to a local file on your machine. You can past plain text in your local file containing the response you want it to return. Per your example:
Your login hits endpoint yoursite.com/login
in Charles you using the map local tool you can route the calls hitting that endpoint to a file saved on your computer i.e mappedlocal.txt
mappedlocal.txt contains the following text
HTTP/1.1 404 Failed
When Charles is running and you hit this endpoint your response will come back with a 404 error.
You can also use another option in Charles called "map remote" and build an entire mock server which can handle calls and responses as you wish. This may not be exactly what you are looking for, but its an option that may help others, and its one I use myself.
Preamble: I'm trying to put together a proposal for what I assume to be a very common use-case, and I'd like to use Amazon's SWF and SQS to accomplish my goals. There may be other services that will better match what I'm trying to do, so if you have suggestions please feel free to throw them out.
Problem: The need at its most basic is for a client (mobile device, web server, etc.) to post a message that will be processed asynchronously without a response to the client - very basic.
The intended implementation is to for the client to post a message to a pre-determined SQS queue. At that point, the client is done. We would also have a defined SWF workflow responsible for picking up the message off the queue and (after some manipulation) placing it in a Dynamo DB - again, all fairly straightforward.
What I can't seem to figure out though, is how to trigger the workflow to start. From what I've been reading a workflow isn't meant to be an indefinite process. It has a start, a middle, and an end. According to the SWF documentation, a workflow can run for no longer than a year (Setting Timeout Values in SWF).
So, my question is: If I assume that a workflow represents one message-processing flow, how can I start the workflow whenever a message is posted to the SQS?
Caveat: I've looked into using SNS instead of SQS as well. This would allow me to run a server that could subscribe to SNS, and then start the workflow whenever a notification is posted. That is certainly one solution, but I'd like to avoid setting up a server for a single web service which I would then have to manage / scale according to the number of messages being processed. The reason I'm looking into using SQS/SWF in the first place is to have an auto-scaling system that I don't have to worry about.
Thank you in advance.
I would create a worker process that listens to the SQS queue. Upon receiving a message it calls into SWF API to start a workflow execution. The workflow execution id should be generated based on the message content to ensure that duplicated messages do not result in duplicated workflows.
You can use AWS Lambda for this purpose . A lambda function will be invoked by SQS event and therefore you don't have to write a queue poller explicitly . The lambda function could then make a post request to SWF to initiate the workflow
So I have the following scenario (it's a Grails 2.1 app):
I have a Controller that can be accessed via //localhost:8080/myController
This controller in turn executes a call to another URL opening a connection using new URL("https://my.other.url").openConnection()
I want to capture the request so I can log the information
I have a Filter present in my web.xml already which does the job well for controllers mapped in my app. But as soon as a request is fired to an external URL, I don't get anything.
I understand that my filter will only be invoked to URLs inside my app, and that depends on my filter mapping which is fine.
I'm struggling to see how a solution inside the app is actually viable. I'm thinking of using a mixed approach with the DevOps team to capture such outgoing calls from the container and then log them into a separate file.
I guess my questions are:
Is there a way to do it inside the app itself?
Is the approach I'm planning a sensible one?
Cheers!
Any reason why you don't want to use http-builder? There a Grails plugin for it, and it makes remote XML calls much easier than handling the plumbing yourself. At the bottom of the linked page they describe how you can enable request logging via log4j configuration.