I am running a Jmeter Test Plan with an HTTP Request, to test the performance of a web service.
In my test, I need a variable named REF to be changed in the body data of my HTTP Request.
REF can have 3000 values. So I have created a CSV file with all these 3000 values, a CSV Data Set Config, and a parameter in Jmeter named REF, and I use it in my HTTP Request like that :
<measure>
<measureRef id="${REF}"></measureRef>
<measureTime>${__time(yyyy-MM-dd'T'HH:mm:ss)}</measureTime>
<measureVal>
<value>${__Random(1,100,)}</value>
</measureVal>
</measure>
As you can see it in this XML, I use the functions time and Random of Jmeter to have different requests everytime I run the test plan.
I would like yo run the test plan automatically for all the 3000 values of REF. To do that, I tried to configure the thread group like this : Number of Threads = 3000 and Loop Control = 1.
The problem is that the test takes 3 minutes to be done. So I would like to know if there is another way to do. The thing is that I need the test to be done for all the differents 3000 values in my CSV, and I don't see another way to do. I tried to put another measure in my Body Data, like this :
<measure>
<measureRef id="${REF}"></measureRef>
<measureTime>${__time(yyyy-MM-dd'T'HH:mm:ss)}</measureTime>
<measureVal>
<value>${__Random(1,100,)}</value>
</measureVal>
</measure>
<measure>
<measureRef id="${REF}"></measureRef>
<measureTime>${__time(yyyy-MM-dd'T'HH:mm:ss)}</measureTime>
<measureVal>
<value>${__Random(1,100,)}</value>
</measureVal>
</measure>
But the value of REF that is used this the same in the two measures, and what I want is to have different values picked in the CSV.
I also tried to configure the Thread Group like this : Number of Threads = 1 and Loop Control = 3000. But it's not working, I have a lot of errors...
I want the test to be runned quickly because to test my web service, I'd like to inject the 3000 values every 1 minute (by using a Flow Control Action maybe). And if the test runs in 3 minutes, I would be too long, and all the values would not be tested...
Thank you for your help !
If you are using 2 data in 1 request then you can use max 1500 virtual users if you are not repeating your data.
If it is fine then add 2 columns in csv file like REF1 and REF2 and each column will have 1500 data. Then you can use ${REF1} and ${REF2} in your requests.
If it takes you 3 minutes to add 3000 values with 3000 users and you need this to be done in 1 minute I can think of 2 possible causes:
Your application cannot process the requests faster. You can try increasing number of threads i.e. to 9000 in the Thread Group and see whether it helps or not. If you still have this 3 minutes processing time - it's your application to blame
JMeter is not capable of sending requests fast enough.
First of all make sure to follow JMeter Best Practices
Then make sure to monitor the health of the machine where JMeter is running using i.e. JMeter PerfMon Plugin as JMeter must have enough headroom to operate
If a single machine cannot produce 3000 requests per minute - you will have to go for Distributed Testing
I'm making a Community Connector with the following fields, among others: Age, gender and impressions.
When I try to do a bar chart with Impressions as a metric, Age as a dimension and Gender as a breakdown dimension (or Gender and Age, inverted) I get the following error:
User Configuration Error
This data source was improperly configured.
Invalid argument type.
Error ID: b44d6288
Debugging, I found the problem is that it isn't making a single request to getData() including the three fields (which, when processed, would make the right call to the API and get the right data). Instead it only requests the pair dimension-metric on one request and sometimes also breakdown dimension-metric on others (and, sometimes, dimension-metric with filter info), which gives it a "broken" data which it apparently can't make sense of. As the request to my getData() only includes two fields, I return two fields per row. Info about the third one can't be found nowhere, especially on the request parameter, as far as I can see.
This behavior appeared somewhere along the development of the connector -- at some points this exact combination worked normal.
As this behavior doesn't include code it's really scaring me. Any idea would be deeply appreciated.
I am trying to ingest data from a 3rd party API into a Dataflow pipeline. Since the 3rd party doesn't make webhooks available, I wrote a custom script that constantly polls their endpoint for more data.
The data is refreshed every 15 minutes, but since I don't want to miss any datapoints and I want to consume as soon as new data is available, my "crawler" runs every 1 minute. The script then sends the data to a PubSub topic. Easy to see that PubSub will receive about 15 repeated messages for each datapoint in the source.
My first attempt to identify and discard those repeated messages was to add a custom attribute to each PubSub message (eventid), created from a hash of its [ID + updated_time] at source.
const attributes = {
eventid: Buffer.from(`${item.lastupdate}|${item.segmentid}`).toString('base64'),
timestamp: item.timestamp.toString()
};
const dataBuffer = Buffer.from(JSON.stringify(item))
publisher.publish(dataBuffer, attributes)
Then I configured Dataflow with a withIdAttribute() (which is the new idLabel(), based on Record IDs).
PCollection<String> input = p
.apply("ReadFromPubSub", PubsubIO
.readStrings()
.fromTopic(String.format("projects/%s/topics/%s", options.getProject(), options.getIncomingDataTopic()))
.withTimestampAttribute("timestamp")
.withIdAttribute("eventid"))
.apply("OutputToBigQuery", ...)
With that implementation, I was expecting that when the script sends the same datapoint a second time, the repeated eventid would be the same and the message discarded. But for some reason, I still see duplicates on the output dataset.
Some questions:
Is there a clever way to ingest the data to dataflow from that 3rd party API if they don't provide webhooks?
Any ideas on why dataflow is not discarding the messages on this situation?
I know about the 10-minute restriction for deduplication on dataflow, but I see duplicated data even on the 2nd insertion (2 minutes).
Any help will be greatly appreciated!
I think you are on the right track, instead of the hash I recommend to use timestamps. A better way to to this is by using windows. Review this document which filters data that is outside of the window.
Regarding the additional duplicate data, if you are using pull subscriptions and the acknowledgement deadline is reached before having the data processed the message will be resent as per the at-least-once delivery. In this case change the acknowledgement deadline, the defaults is 10 seconds.
When handling POST, PUT, and PATCH requests on the server-side, we often need to process some JSON to perform the requests.
It is obvious that we need to validate these JSONs (e.g. structure, permitted/expected keys, and value types) in some way, and I can see at least two ways:
Upon receiving the JSON, validate the JSON upfront as it is, before doing anything with it to complete the request.
Take the JSON as it is, start processing it (e.g. access its various key-values) and try to validate it on-the-go while performing business logic, and possibly use some exception handling to handle vogue data.
The 1st approach seems more robust compared to the 2nd, but probably more expensive (in time cost) because every request will be validated (and hopefully most of them are valid so the validation is sort of redundant).
The 2nd approach may save the compulsory validation on valid requests, but mixing the checks within business logic might be buggy or even risky.
Which of the two above is better? Or, is there yet a better way?
What you are describing with POST, PUT, and PATCH sounds like you are implementing a REST API. Depending on your back-end platform, you can use libraries that will map JSON to objects which is very powerful and performs that validation for you. In JAVA, you can use Jersey, Spring, or Jackson. If you are using .NET, you can use Json.NET.
If efficiency is your goal and you want to validate every single request, it would be ideal if you could evaluate on the front-end if you are using JavaScript you can use json2.js.
In regards to comparing your methods, here is a Pro / Cons list.
Method #1: Upon Request
Pros
The business logic integrity is maintained. As you mentioned trying to validate while processing business logic could result in invalid tests that may actually be valid and vice versa or also the validation could inadvertently impact the business logic negatively.
As Norbert mentioned, catching the errors before hand will improve efficiency. The logical question this poses is why spend the time processing, if there are errors in the first place?
The code will be cleaner and easier to read. Having validation and business logic separated will result in cleaner, easier to read and maintain code.
Cons
It could result in redundant processing meaning longer computing time.
Method #2: Validation on the Go
Pros
It's efficient theoretically by saving process and compute time doing them at the same time.
Cons
In reality, the process time that is saved is likely negligible (as mentioned by Norbert). You are still doing the validation check either way. In addition, processing time is wasted if an error was found.
The data integrity can be comprised. It could be possible that the JSON becomes corrupt when processing it this way.
The code is not as clear. When reading the business logic, it may not be as apparent what is happening because validation logic is mixed in.
What it really boils down to is Accuracy vs Speed. They generally have an inverse relationship. As you become more accurate and validate your JSON, you may have to compromise some on speed. This is really only noticeable in large data sets as computers are really fast these days. It is up to you to decide what is more important given how accurate you think you data may be when receiving it or whether that extra second or so is crucial. In some cases, it does matter (i.e. with the stock market and healthcare applications, milliseconds matter) and both are highly important. It is in those cases, that as you increase one, for example accuracy, you may have to increase speed by getting a higher performant machine.
Hope this helps.
The first approach is more robust, but does not have to be noticeably more expensive. It becomes way less expensive even when you are able to abort the parsing process due to errors: Your business logic usually takes >90% of the resources in a process, so if you have an error % of 10%, you are already resource neutral. If you optimize the validation process so that the validations from the business process are performed upfront, your error rate might be much lower (like 1 in 20 to 1 in 100) to stay resource neutral.
For an example on an implementation assuming upfront data validation, look at GSON (https://code.google.com/p/google-gson/):
GSON works as follows: Every part of the JSON can be cast into an object. This object is typed or contains typed data:
Sample object (JAVA used as example language):
public class someInnerDataFromJSON {
String name;
String address;
int housenumber;
String buildingType;
// Getters and setters
public String getName() { return name; }
public void setName(String name) { this.name=name; }
//etc.
}
The data parsed by GSON is by using the model provided, already type checked.
This is the first point where your code can abort.
After this exit point assuming the data confirmed to the model, you can validate if the data is within certain limits. You can also write that into the model.
Assume for this buildingType is a list:
Single family house
Multi family house
Apartment
You can check data during parsing by creating a setter which checks the data, or you can check it after parsing in a first set of your business rule application. The benefit of first checking the data is that your later code will have less exception handling, so less and easier to understand code.
I would definitively go for validation before processing.
Let's say you receive some json data with 10 variables of which you expect:
the first 5 variables to be of type string
6 and 7 are supposed to be integers
8, 9 and 10 are supposed to be arrays
You can do a quick variable type validation before you start processing any of this data and return a validation error response if one of the ten fails.
foreach($data as $varName => $varValue){
$varType = gettype($varValue);
if(!$this->isTypeValid($varName, $varType)){
// return validation error
}
}
// continue processing
Think of the scenario where you are directly processing the data and then the 10th value turns out to be of invalid type. The processing of the previous 9 variables was a waste of resources since you end up returning some validation error response anyway. On top of that you have to rollback any changes already persisted to your storage.
I only use variable type in my example but I would suggest full validation (length, max/min values, etc) of all variables before processing any of them.
In general, the first option would be the way to go. The only reason why you might need to think of the second option is if you were dealing with JSON data which was tens of MBs large or more.
In other words, only if you are trying to stream JSON and process it on the fly, you will need to think about second option.
Assuming that you are dealing with few hundred KB at most per JSON, you can just go for option one.
Here are some steps you could follow:
Go for a JSON parser like GSON that would just convert your entire
JSON input into the corresponding Java domain model object. (If GSON
doesn't throw an exception, you can be sure that the JSON is
perfectly valid.)
Of course, the objects which were constructed using GSON in step 1
may not be in a functionally valid state. For example, functional
checks like mandatory fields and limit checks would have to be done.
For this, you could define a validateState method which repeatedly
validates the states of the object itself and its child objects.
Here is an example of a validateState method:
public void validateState(){
//Assume this validateState is part of Customer class.
if(age<12 || age>150)
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Age should be in the range 12 to 120");
if(age<18 && (guardianId==null || guardianId.trim().equals(""))
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Guardian id is mandatory for minors");
for(Account a:customer.getAccounts()){
a.validateState(); //Throws appropriate exceptions if any inconsistency in state
}
}
The answer depends entirely on your use case.
If you expect all calls to originate in trusted clients then the upfront schema validation should be implement so that it is activated only when you set a debug flag.
However, if your server delivers public api services then you should validate the calls upfront. This isn't just a performance issue - your server will likely be scrutinized for security vulnerabilities by your customers, hackers, rivals, etc.
If your server delivers private api services to non-trusted clients (e.g., in a closed network setup where it has to integrate with systems from 3rd party developers), then you should at least run upfront those checks that will save you from getting blamed for someone else's goofs.
It really depends on your requirements. But in general I'd always go for #1.
Few considerations:
For consistency I'd use method #1, for performance #2. However when using #2 you have to take into account that rolling back in case of non valid input may become complicated in the future, as the logic changes.
Json validation should not take that long. In python you can use ujson for parsing json strings which is a ultrafast C implementation of the json python module.
For validation, I use the jsonschema python module which makes json validation easy.
Another approach:
if you use jsonschema, you can validate the json request in steps. I'd perform an initial validation of the most common/important parts of the json structure, and validate the remaining parts along the business logic path. This would allow to write simpler json schemas and therefore more lightweight.
The final decision:
If (and only if) this decision is critical I'd implement both solutions, time-profile them in right and wrong input condition, and weight the results depending on the wrong input frequency. Therefore:
1c = average time spent with method 1 on correct input
1w = average time spent with method 1 on wrong input
2c = average time spent with method 2 on correct input
2w = average time spent with method 2 on wrong input
CR = correct input rate (or frequency)
WR = wrong input rate (or frequency)
if ( 1c * CR ) + ( 1w * WR) <= ( 2c * CR ) + ( 2w * WR):
chose method 1
else:
chose method 2
What is an idempotent operation?
In computing, an idempotent operation is one that has no additional effect if it is called more than once with the same input parameters. For example, removing an item from a set can be considered an idempotent operation on the set.
In mathematics, an idempotent operation is one where f(f(x)) = f(x). For example, the abs() function is idempotent because abs(abs(x)) = abs(x) for all x.
These slightly different definitions can be reconciled by considering that x in the mathematical definition represents the state of an object, and f is an operation that may mutate that object. For example, consider the Python set and its discard method. The discard method removes an element from a set, and does nothing if the element does not exist. So:
my_set.discard(x)
has exactly the same effect as doing the same operation twice:
my_set.discard(x)
my_set.discard(x)
Idempotent operations are often used in the design of network protocols, where a request to perform an operation is guaranteed to happen at least once, but might also happen more than once. If the operation is idempotent, then there is no harm in performing the operation two or more times.
See the Wikipedia article on idempotence for more information.
The above answer previously had some incorrect and misleading examples. Comments below written before April 2014 refer to an older revision.
An idempotent operation can be repeated an arbitrary number of times and the result will be the same as if it had been done only once. In arithmetic, adding zero to a number is idempotent.
Idempotence is talked about a lot in the context of "RESTful" web services. REST seeks to maximally leverage HTTP to give programs access to web content, and is usually set in contrast to SOAP-based web services, which just tunnel remote procedure call style services inside HTTP requests and responses.
REST organizes a web application into "resources" (like a Twitter user, or a Flickr image) and then uses the HTTP verbs of POST, PUT, GET, and DELETE to create, update, read, and delete those resources.
Idempotence plays an important role in REST. If you GET a representation of a REST resource (eg, GET a jpeg image from Flickr), and the operation fails, you can just repeat the GET again and again until the operation succeeds. To the web service, it doesn't matter how many times the image is gotten. Likewise, if you use a RESTful web service to update your Twitter account information, you can PUT the new information as many times as it takes in order to get confirmation from the web service. PUT-ing it a thousand times is the same as PUT-ing it once. Similarly DELETE-ing a REST resource a thousand times is the same as deleting it once. Idempotence thus makes it a lot easier to construct a web service that's resilient to communication errors.
Further reading: RESTful Web Services, by Richardson and Ruby (idempotence is discussed on page 103-104), and Roy Fielding's PhD dissertation on REST. Fielding was one of the authors of HTTP 1.1, RFC-2616, which talks about idempotence in section 9.1.2.
No matter how many times you call the operation, the result will be the same.
Idempotence means that applying an operation once or applying it multiple times has the same effect.
Examples:
Multiplication by zero. No matter how many times you do it, the result is still zero.
Setting a boolean flag. No matter how many times you do it, the flag stays set.
Deleting a row from a database with a given ID. If you try it again, the row is still gone.
For pure functions (functions with no side effects) then idempotency implies that f(x) = f(f(x)) = f(f(f(x))) = f(f(f(f(x)))) = ...... for all values of x
For functions with side effects, idempotency furthermore implies that no additional side effects will be caused after the first application. You can consider the state of the world to be an additional "hidden" parameter to the function if you like.
Note that in a world where you have concurrent actions going on, you may find that operations you thought were idempotent cease to be so (for example, another thread could unset the value of the boolean flag in the example above). Basically whenever you have concurrency and mutable state, you need to think much more carefully about idempotency.
Idempotency is often a useful property in building robust systems. For example, if there is a risk that you may receive a duplicate message from a third party, it is helpful to have the message handler act as an idempotent operation so that the message effect only happens once.
A good example of understanding an idempotent operation might be locking a car with remote key.
log(Car.state) // unlocked
Remote.lock();
log(Car.state) // locked
Remote.lock();
Remote.lock();
Remote.lock();
log(Car.state) // locked
lock is an idempotent operation. Even if there are some side effect each time you run lock, like blinking, the car is still in the same locked state, no matter how many times you run lock operation.
An idempotent operation produces the result in the same state even if you call it more than once, provided you pass in the same parameters.
An idempotent operation is an operation, action, or request that can be applied multiple times without changing the result, i.e. the state of the system, beyond the initial application.
EXAMPLES (WEB APP CONTEXT):
IDEMPOTENT:
Making multiple identical requests has the same effect as making a single request. A message in an email messaging system is opened and marked as "opened" in the database. One can open the message many times but this repeated action will only ever result in that message being in the "opened" state. This is an idempotent operation. The first time one PUTs an update to a resource using information that does not match the resource (the state of the system), the state of the system will change as the resource is updated. If one PUTs the same update to a resource repeatedly then the information in the update will match the information already in the system upon every PUT, and no change to the state of the system will occur. Repeated PUTs with the same information are idempotent: the first PUT may change the state of the system, subsequent PUTs should not.
NON-IDEMPOTENT:
If an operation always causes a change in state, like POSTing the same message to a user over and over, resulting in a new message sent and stored in the database every time, we say that the operation is NON-IDEMPOTENT.
NULLIPOTENT:
If an operation has no side effects, like purely displaying information on a web page without any change in a database (in other words you are only reading the database), we say the operation is NULLIPOTENT. All GETs should be nullipotent.
When talking about the state of the system we are obviously ignoring hopefully harmless and inevitable effects like logging and diagnostics.
Just wanted to throw out a real use case that demonstrates idempotence. In JavaScript, say you are defining a bunch of model classes (as in MVC model). The way this is often implemented is functionally equivalent to something like this (basic example):
function model(name) {
function Model() {
this.name = name;
}
return Model;
}
You could then define new classes like this:
var User = model('user');
var Article = model('article');
But if you were to try to get the User class via model('user'), from somewhere else in the code, it would fail:
var User = model('user');
// ... then somewhere else in the code (in a different scope)
var User = model('user');
Those two User constructors would be different. That is,
model('user') !== model('user');
To make it idempotent, you would just add some sort of caching mechanism, like this:
var collection = {};
function model(name) {
if (collection[name])
return collection[name];
function Model() {
this.name = name;
}
collection[name] = Model;
return Model;
}
By adding caching, every time you did model('user') it will be the same object, and so it's idempotent. So:
model('user') === model('user');
Quite a detailed and technical answers. Just adding a simple definition.
Idempotent = Re-runnable
For example,
Create operation in itself is not guaranteed to run without error if executed more than once.
But if there is an operation CreateOrUpdate then it states re-runnability (Idempotency).
Idempotent Operations: Operations that have no side-effects if executed multiple times.
Example: An operation that retrieves values from a data resource and say, prints it
Non-Idempotent Operations: Operations that would cause some harm if executed multiple times. (As they change some values or states)
Example: An operation that withdraws from a bank account
It is any operation that every nth result will result in an output matching the value of the 1st result. For instance the absolute value of -1 is 1. The absolute value of the absolute value of -1 is 1. The absolute value of the absolute value of absolute value of -1 is 1. And so on. See also: When would be a really silly time to use recursion?
An idempotent operation over a set leaves its members unchanged when applied one or more times.
It can be a unary operation like absolute(x) where x belongs to a set of positive integers. Here absolute(absolute(x)) = x.
It can be a binary operation like union of a set with itself would always return the same set.
cheers
In short, Idempotent operations means that the operation will not result in different results no matter how many times you operate the idempotent operations.
For example, according to the definition of the spec of HTTP, GET, HEAD, PUT, and DELETE are idempotent operations; however POST and PATCH are not. That's why sometimes POST is replaced by PUT.
An operation is said to be idempotent if executing it multiple times is equivalent to executing it once.
For eg: setting volume to 20.
No matter how many times the volume of TV is set to 20, end result will be that volume is 20. Even if a process executes the operation 50/100 times or more, at the end of the process the volume will be 20.
Counter example: increasing the volume by 1. If a process executes this operation 50 times, at the end volume will be initial Volume + 50 and if a process executes the operation 100 times, at the end volume will be initial Volume + 100. As you can clearly see that the end result varies based upon how many times the operation was executed. Hence, we can conclude that this operation is NOT idempotent.
I have highlighted the end result in bold.
If you think in terms of programming, let's say that I have an operation in which a function f takes foo as the input and the output of f is set to foo back. If at the end of the process (that executes this operation 50/100 times or more), my foo variable holds the value that it did when the operation was executed only ONCE, then the operation is idempotent, otherwise NOT.
foo = <some random value here, let's say -2>
{ foo = f( foo ) } curly brackets outline the operation
if f returns the square of the input then the operation is NOT idempotent. Because foo at the end will be (-2) raised to the power (number of times operation is executed)
if f returns the absolute of the input then the operation is idempotent because no matter how many multiple times the operation is executed foo will be abs(-2).
Here, end result is defined as the final value of variable foo.
In mathematical sense, idempotence has a slightly different meaning of:
f(f(....f(x))) = f(x)
here output of f(x) is passed as input to f again which doesn't need to be the case always with programming.
my 5c:
In integration and networking the idempotency is very important.
Several examples from real-life:
Imagine, we deliver data to the target system. Data delivered by a sequence of messages.
1. What would happen if the sequence is mixed in channel? (As network packages always do :) ). If the target system is idempotent, the result will not be different. If the target system depends of the right order in the sequence, we have to implement resequencer on the target site, which would restore the right order.
2. What would happen if there are the message duplicates? If the channel of target system does not acknowledge timely, the source system (or channel itself) usually sends another copy of the message. As a result we can have duplicate message on the target system side.
If the target system is idempotent, it takes care of it and result will not be different.
If the target system is not idempotent, we have to implement deduplicator on the target system side of the channel.
For a workflow manager (as Apache Airflow) if an idempotency operation fails in your pipeline the system can retry the task automatically without affecting the system. Even if the logs change, that is good because you can see the incident.
The most important in this case is that your system can retry the task that failed and doesn't mess up the pipeline (e.g. appending the same data in a table each retry)
Let's say the client makes a request to "IstanceA" service which process the request, passes it to DB, and shuts down before sending the response. since the client does not see that it was processed and it will retry the same request. Load balancer will forward the request to another service instance, "InstanceB", which will make the same change on the same DB item.
We should use idempotent tokens. When a client sends a request to a service, it should have some kind of request-id that can be saved in DB to show that we have already executed the request. if the client retries the request, "InstanceB" will check the requestId. Since that particular request already has been executed, it will not make any change to the DB item. Those kinds of requests are called idempotent requests. So we send the same request multiple times, but we won't make any change