I would like to test how many connections it can support.
I am using orbited, specifically the streaming, not long polling.
Webload is the thing you are looking for.
I highly recommend Jmeter. It's easy to setup a basic test, and can be incredibly flexible.
Overview: http://jmeter.apache.org/index.html
Manual: http://jmeter.apache.org/usermanual/index.html
Related
since Apache released the first final version of Johnzon, it would be really interesting to see if there are already some comparison between Johnzon and FastXML Jackson to see if it is worth to switch. The most important topic is probably the performance.
Has anyone already done performance tests? Can you share your result?
Best
There are some performance benchmarks up on github.
But for each of them you really have to verify if the benchmark is actually correctly implemented.
For what I've seen most benchmarks use the official javax.* APIs in a sub-optimal way. Most use Json.createGenerator, etc but they should actually use JsonProvider.provider() and store this away for your operations. Then call createGenerator etc on this JsonProvider.
That way you can make sure that you really get comparable results.
We have done quite a few tests and for me the numbers of Johnzon look really good. And especially since it's much smaller than most other JSON libs.
As mentioned in several other sources and mailing lists(TomEE, for example), the performance gain, if any, is negligible especially when you compare it to the overall request-response processing chain.
If you use Spring Boot, you will find a lot more community support and flexibility in terms of features for Jackson.
Jackson has tons of different modules and good support for other JVM languages(for example KotlinModule).
We, in my project, also use quite a lot of Clojure, where we use Cheshire, which relies on Jackson under the hood.
In the end, it's up to you what to use and whether the cases I mentioned are applicable to your project, but so far I haven't seen any compelling performance reports about Johnson and until it happens, I would go for a library with a lot higher adoption in the industry.
I'm a bit new to actionscript, but find myself investigating good programming practices from other OO languages (java/C#) into an actionscript environment. I've given Mock4as and mockito-flex a purusal and was interested in using both.
Has anyone had good/bad experiences using either?
I started out mocking for FlexUnit with mock4as, and it does its job. But it made me spend way too much time writing boilerplate code for my taste. I haven't tried mockito-flex, but I'll check it out - the Java version I really like.
Recently, I've been really happy with mockolate. Drew Bourne does a really nice job with that - give it a try!
I have had excellent experience with Mockito-flex for the past couple years. The primary reason I enjoy Mockito-flex over Mocholate is that Mockito lets you test your code using the actual class signatures, thus refactor tools will update your Tests.
Mocholate on the other hand requires that you hardcode the method names with a string, which means no auto-complete help when your creating your tests, and poorer refactoring support if any if you rename and API.
While less important, Mockito is available for multiple languages. This means that you can use the same mocking syntax in your entire tech stack. Or you can more easily transfer you mocking skills to another language.
There is so much written about unit testing but I have hardly found any books/blogs about integration testing? Could you please suggest me something to read on this topic?
What tests to write when doing integration testing?
what makes a good integration test?
etc etc
Thanks
Anything written by Kent Beck, father of both JUnit and SUnit, is a great place to start (for unit tests / test writing in general). I'm assuming that you don't mean "continuous integration," which is a process-based build approach (very cool, when you get it working).
In my own experience, integration tests look very similar to regular unit tests, simply at a higher level. More mock objects. More state initialization.
I believe that integration tests are like onions. They have layers.
Some people prefer to "integrate" all of their components and test the "whole" product as an the "integration" test. You can certainly do this, but I prefer a more incremental approach. If you start low-level and then keep testing at higher composition layers, then you will achieve integration testing.
Maybe it is generally harder to find information on integration testing because it is much more specific to the actual application and its business use. Nevertheless, here's my take on it.
What applies to unit-tests also applies to integration tests: modules should have an easy way to mock their externals inputs (files, DB, time...), so that they can be tested together with the other unit-tests.
But what I've found extremely useful, at least for data-oriented applications, is to be able to create a "console" version of the application that takes input files that fully determine its state (no dependencies on databases, network resources...), and outputs the result as another file. One can then maintain pairs of inputs / expected results files, and test for regressions as part of nightly builds, for example. Having this console version allows for easier scripting, and makes debugging incredibly easier as one can rely on a very stable environment, where it is easy to reproduce bugs and to run the debugger.
J.B. Rainsberger has written about them. Here's a link to an InfoQ article with more info.
http://www.infoq.com/news/2009/04/jbrains-integration-test-scam
Do you use the debugger of the language that you work in to step through code to understand what the code is doing, or do you find it easy to look at code written by someone else to figure out what is going on? I am talking about code written in C#, but it could be any language.
I use the unit tests for this.
Yes, but generally only to investigate bugs that prove resistant to other methods.
I write embedded software, so running a debugger normally involves having to physically plug a debug module into the PCB under test, add/remove links, solder on a debug socket (if not already present), etc - hence why I try to avoid it if possible. Also, some older debugger hardware/software can be a bit flaky.
I will for particularly complex sections of code, but I hope that generally my fellow developers would have written code that is clear enough to follow without it.
Depending on who wrote the code, even a debugger doesn't help to understand how it works: I have a co-worker who prides himself on being able to get as much as possible done in every single line of code. This can lead to code that is often hard to read, let alone understand what it does in the long run.
Personally I always hope to find code as readable as the code I try to write.
I will mostly use debugger to setup breakpoints on exceptions.
That way I can execute any test or unit test I wrote, and still be able to be right where the code fails if any exception should occur.
I won't say I used all the time, but I do use it fairly often. The domain I work in is automation and controls. You often need the debugger to see the various internal states of the system. It is usually difficult to impossible to determine these simply from looking at code.
Yes, but only as a last resort when there's no unit test coverage and the code is particularly hard to follow. Using the debugger to step through code is a time consuming process and one I don't find too fun. I tend to find myself using this technique a lot when trying to follow VBA code.
Are there any unit testing solutions for Flex? or actionscript 3?
If so, what are their features? Any UI testing abilities? Functional testing? Any pointers, examples, libraries or tools that you can share?
FlexUnit is pretty awesome - http://opensource.adobe.com/wiki/display/flexunit/FlexUnit
Also ASUnit - http://asunit.org
They are both pretty similiar and both haven taken quite a bit from frameworks like JUnit.
FlexMonkey (http://code.google.com/p/flexmonkey/) although I haven't used it myself seems to do UI unit testing.
I just found fluint, and it was a great unit testing library, better than both Flexunit and ASUnit imho. It handles asynchronous testing really nice.
I can confirm that FlexMonkey indeed does UI unit testing. It provides record/playback of UI interactions and generates FlexUnit test cases.
Check it out at http://flexmonkey.googlecode.com
I would recommend FlexUnit, too... and you also have a look at Visual FlexUnit.
A few days before I found the RIATest-Tool, but I haven't tried it yet.
I'd recommend fluint simply due to it having a more active developer base (and it's improved support of testing asynchronous code). Also, if you are after mocking/stubs there is asmock (a dynamic mocking framework) and mock-as3 (a static mocking framework).
For asynchronous unit testing dpUint is pretty useful. However FlexUnit is the way to go, if you wish to integrate unit testing with a Maven build. Asynchronous testing (e.g. Cairngorm events) can also be done with FlexUnit, but is not as elegant as with dpUint.
Try mockito for flex http://bitbucket.org/loomis/mockito-flex