Archive

Archive for the ‘Architecture’ Category

iFramework: Updates

Last week I have made released a framework iFramework with a coupe of features. Here is another release that adds a few more features to the it. You can find the details

Exception Handling

This simple yet powerful implementation provides some of the most desirable features in any Exception Handling framework:

  • Unchecked Exceptions for Business and System errors
  • Message Externalization
  • Message Localization
  • Configurable Message Data Sources

Message Readers

This package provides factory to fetch various types of Message Readers. The current implementation only supports Resource Bundle based message stores, but it can be easily extended to other data stores.

Concurrent Processing

This package provides base classes that allow you to run your functions in a producer and consumer fashion. By using this framework you have to worry about writing your business logic for a Producer and a Consumer and not about multi-threading and how these two entities interact. This framework currently has only one implementation of a Broker i.e AsyncQueueBroker but more will be added in coming months.

Related articles

Concurrency Patterns: Producer and Consumer

22 August, 2011 1 comment

In enterprise world, where performance holds the key to everything; the Concurrency patterns bring to table a very interesting and effective solution. One specific pattern Producer and Consumer allow us to write programs with high throughput and get the job done much quickly. This pattern provides us a solution for a common problem where we have to migrate data form System 1 to System 2 and in the process we need to do three tasks: Load data from Database based on groups, Process and Update the records back

You can read the complete post here on Scratchpad101.com (http://scratchpad101.com/2011/08/22/concurrency-pattern-producer-consumer/)

TestNG or JUnit

7 August, 2011 7 comments

For many years now, I have always found myself going back to TestNG whenever it comes to doing Unit Testing with Java Code. Everytime, I picked up TestNG, people have asked me why do I go over to TestNG especially with JUnit is provided by the default development environment like Eclipse or Maven. Continuing the same battle, yesterday I started to look into Spring’s testing support. It is also built on top of JUnit. However, in a few minutes of using the same, I was searching for a feature in JUnit that I have always found missing. TestNG provides Parameterized Testing using DataProviders. Given that I was once again asking myself a familiar question – TestNG or JUnit, I decided to document this so that next time I am sure which one and why.

Essentially the same

If you are just going to do some basic Unit Testing, both the frameworks are basically the same. Both the frameworks allow you to test the code in a quick and effective manner. They have had tool support in Eclipse and other IDE. They have also had support in the build frameworks like Ant and Maven. For starters JUnit has always been the choice because it was the first framework for Unit Testing and has always been available. Many people I talk about have not heard about TestNG till we talk about it.

Flexibility

Let us look at a very simple test case for each of the two.

package com.kapil.itrader;
import java.util.Arrays;
import java.util.List;
import junit.framework.Assert;
import org.junit.BeforeClass;
import org.junit.Test;

public class FibonacciTest
{
    private Integer input;
    private Integer expected;

    @BeforeClass
    public static void beforeClass()
    {
        // do some initialization
    }

    @Test
    public void FibonacciTest()
    {
        System.out.println("Input: " + input + ". Expected: " + expected);
        Assert.assertEquals(expected, Fibonacci.compute(input));
        assertEquals(expected, Fibonacci.compute(input));
    }
}

Well, this is example showcases I am using a version 4.x+ and am making use of annotations. Priori to release 4.0; JUnit did not support annotations and that was a major advantage that TestNG had over its competitor; but JUnit had quickly adapted. You can notice that JUnit also supports static imports and we can do away with more cumbersome code as in previous versions.

package com.kapil.framework.core;
import junit.framework.Assert;
import org.springframework.context.support.ClassPathXmlApplicationContext;
import org.testng.annotations.BeforeSuite;
import org.testng.annotations.Test;

public class BaseTestCase
{
    protected static final ClassPathXmlApplicationContext context;

    static
    {
        context = new ClassPathXmlApplicationContext("rootTestContext.xml");
        context.registerShutdownHook();
    }

    @BeforeSuite
    private void beforeSetup()
    {
       // Do initialization
    }

    @Test
    public void testTrue()
    {
        Assert.assertTrue(false);
    }
}

A first look at the two code, would infer that both are pretty much the same. However, for those who have done enough unit testing, will agree with me that TestNG allows for more flexibility. JUnit requires me to declare my initialization method as static; and consequently anything that I will write in that method has to be static too. JUnit also requires me to have my initialization method as public; but TestNG does not. I can use best practices from OOP in my testing classes as well. TestNG also allows me to declare Test Suite, Groups, Methods and use annotations like @BeforeSuite, @BeforeMethod, @BeforeGroups in addition to @BeforeClass. This is very helpful when it comes to writing any level of integration testing or unit test cases that need to access common data sets.

Test Isolations and Dependency Testing

Junit is very effective when it comes to testing in isolation. It essentially means that there is you can not control the order of execution of tests. And, hence if you have two tests that you want to run in a specific order because of any kind of dependency, you can not do that using JUnit. However, TestNG allows you to do this very effectively. In Junit you can make workaround this problem, but it is not neat and that easy.

Parameter based Testing

A very powerful feature that TestNG offers is “Parameterized Testing”. JUnit has added some support for this in 4.5+ versions, but it is not as effective as TestNG. You may have worked with FIT you would know what I am talking about. However, the support added in JUnit is very basic and not that effective. I have modified my previous test case to include parameterized testing.

package com.kapil.itrader;

import static org.junit.Assert.assertEquals;

import java.util.Arrays;
import java.util.List;

import junit.framework.Assert;

import org.junit.BeforeClass;
import org.junit.Test;
import org.junit.runner.RunWith;
import org.junit.runners.Parameterized;
import org.junit.runners.Parameterized.Parameters;

@RunWith(Parameterized.class)
public class FibonacciTest
{
    private Integer input;
    private Integer expected;

    @Parameters
    public static List data()
    {
        return Arrays.asList(new Integer[][] { { 0, 0 }, { 1, 1 }, { 2, 1 }, { 3, 2 }, { 4, 3 }, { 5, 5 }, { 6, 8 } });
    }

    @BeforeClass
    public static void beforeClass()
    {
        System.out.println("Before");
    }

    public FibonacciTest(Integer input, Integer expected)
    {
        this.input = input;
        this.expected = expected;
    }

    @Test
    public void FibonacciTest()
    {
        System.out.println("Input: " + input + ". Expected: " + expected);
        Assert.assertEquals(expected, Fibonacci.compute(input));
        assertEquals(expected, Fibonacci.compute(input));
    }

}

You will notice that I have used @RunWith annotation to allow my test case to be parameterized. In this case, the inline method – data() which has been annotated with @Parameters will be used to provide data to the class. However, the biggest issue is that the data is passed to class constructor. This allows me to code only logically bound test cases in this class. And, I will end up having multiple test cases for one service because all the various methods in the Service wil require different data sets. The good thing is that there are various open source frameworks which have extended this approach and added their own “RunWith” implementations to allow integration with external entities like CSV, HTML or Excel files.

TestNG provides this support out of the box. Not support for reading from CSV or external files, but from Data Providers.

package com.kapil.itrader.core.managers.admin;

import org.testng.Assert;
import org.testng.annotations.Test;

import com.uhc.simple.common.BaseTestCase;
import com.uhc.simple.core.admin.manager.ILookupManager;
import com.uhc.simple.core.admin.service.ILookupService;
import com.uhc.simple.dataprovider.admin.LookupValueDataProvider;
import com.uhc.simple.dto.admin.LookupValueRequest;
import com.uhc.simple.dto.admin.LookupValueResponse;

/**
 * Test cases to test {@link ILookupService}.
 */
public class LookupServiceTests extends BaseTestCase
{

    @Test(dataProvider = "LookupValueProvider", dataProviderClass = LookupValueDataProvider.class)
    public void testGetAllLookupValues(String row, LookupValueRequest request, LookupValueResponse expectedResponse)
    {
        ILookupManager manager = super.getLookupManager();
        LookupValueResponse actualResponse = manager.getLookupValues(request);
        Assert.assertEquals(actualResponse.getStatus(), expectedResponse.getStatus());
    }
}

The code snippet above showcases that I have used dataProvider as a value to the annotations and then I have provided a class which is responsible for creating the data that is supplied to the method at the time of invocation. Using this mechanism, I can easily write test cases and its data providers in a de-coupled fashion and use it very effectively.

Why I choose TestNG

For me the Parameterized Testing is the biggest reason why I choose TestNG over Junit. However, everything that I have listed above is the reason why I always want to spend a few minutes in setting up TestNG in a new Eclipse setup or maven project. TestNG is very useful when it comes to running big test suites. For a small project or a training exercise JUnit is fine; because anyone can start with it very quickly; but not for projects where we need 1000s of test cases and in most of those test cases you will have various scenarios to cover.

http://kapilvirenahuja.com/tech/2011/08/07/testng-or-junit/

NTLM Authentication in Java

4 August, 2011 1 comment

In one of my previous lives, I used to work in Microsoft and there this word – NTLM (NT Lan Manager) was something that came to us whenever we used to work on applications. Microsoft OS have always provided us with an inbuilt security systems that can be effectively used to offer authentication (and even authorization to web applications).

Many years back, I moved over into Java world and when I was asked to carry out my very first security implementation, I realized that there was no easy way to do this and many clients would actually want us to use LDAP for authentication and authorization. For many years, I continued to use that. And, then one day in a discussion with a client, we were asked to offer SSO implementation and client did not have an existing setup like SiteMinder. I started to think about if we can go about using NTLM based authentication. The reason that was possible was because the application we were asked to build was to be used within the organization itself and all the people were required to login into a domain.

After some research, I was able to find out a way we could do this. We did a POC and showed it to the client and they were happy about it. What we did has been explained below:

  • Wrote a Servlet which was the first one to be loaded (like Authentication Interceptor). This servlet was responsible for reading the header attributes and identify the user’s Domain and NTID
  • Once we had the details; we sent a request to our Database to see if that user is registered under the same domain/NTID
  • If the user was found in our user-database we allowed him to pass through
  • And then roles and authorization for user was loaded

Basically, we bypassed the “Login Screen” where the user was entering the password and used Domain information. Please note that it was possible for us because the Client guaranteed that there was this domain always and all users had unique NTIDs. Also, that it was their responsibility to shield the application from any external entry points where someone may impersonate the Domain/ID.

If you are interested, you can refer to the code below:

<%@ page import="sun.misc.BASE64Encoder" %>
<%
String auth = request.getHeader("Authorization");
String s = "";

//no auth, request NTLM
if (auth == null)
{
        response.setStatus(response.SC_UNAUTHORIZED);
        response.setHeader("WWW-Authenticate", "NTLM");
        return;
}

//check what client sent
if (auth.startsWith("NTLM "))
{
        byte[] msg =
           new sun.misc.BASE64Decoder().decodeBuffer(auth.substring(5));
        int off = 0, length, offset;

        if (msg[8] == 1) {
            off = 18;

            byte z = 0;
            byte[] msg1 =
                {(byte)'N', (byte)'T', (byte)'L', (byte)'M', (byte)'S',(byte)'S', (byte)'P',
                z,(byte)2, z, z, z, z, z, z, z,
                (byte)40, z, z, z, (byte)1, (byte)130, z, z,
                z, (byte)2, (byte)2, (byte)2, z, z, z, z, //
                z, z, z, z, z, z, z, z};
            // send ntlm type2 msg

            response.setStatus(response.SC_UNAUTHORIZED);
            response.setHeader("WWW-Authenticate", "NTLM "
               + new sun.misc.BASE64Encoder().encodeBuffer(msg1).trim());

               return;
        }
        else if (msg[8] == 3) {
                off = 30;
                length = msg[off+17]*256 + msg[off+16];
                offset = msg[off+19]*256 + msg[off+8];
                s = new String(msg, offset, length);
                // print computer name // out.println(s + " ");
        }
        else
        return;

        length = msg[off+1]*256 + msg[off];
        offset = msg[off+3]*256 + msg[off+2];
        s = new String(msg, offset, length);
        //domain//out.println(s + " ");
        length = msg[off+9]*256 + msg[off+8];
        offset = msg[off+11]*256 + msg[off+10];

        s = new String(msg, offset, length);
        out.println("Hello  "); out.println(s + "");
}
%>

Cairngorm 3

I chanced upon this yesterday (http://sourceforge.net/adobe/cairngorm/home/) and was impressed with what they are trying to do. Building upon Parsley looking to do a lot of injection and also support modules that they have been criticized for in the past.

Looks like Adobe Cairngorm team finally got it right.

Noah: Development Environment

Some time back I posted about various development tools that I would like to have in my

Development Environment ~ Eclipse

Development Environment ~ Eclipse

development environment. Well back then, I was unable to get that list in place; but here I have started doing it for Noah. To kick it off, I have attached the tools that I am going to use in the development environment. This is not an exhaustive list, and I may add more things to it as I go about development.

The document detailing the Development Environment can be located here: TS_Development_Environment

Mobile Web – In a different way

This presentation talks about how mobile web should be thought about and does talks about some numbers too. I like three things about the presentation:

 

1. The creativity with whcih it has been built and;

2. Talks about the core of the problem and;

3. Touches upon how we can go about fixing it.

Who the hell needs Quality?

10 March, 2011 2 comments

I Do; you do; our customers do; Period

Well we all know the answer, but is it really what we believe in? The more important question is how do we choose to deliver quality when we can not measure it?

A few months back, I was sitting in a meeting where the conversation went something like

Business Person: So we need 24000 hours to deliver the scope of the release?

IT Person: Yes. But this does not include the hours needed to fix defects that we will have in the application at the end of development lifecycle.

Business Person: So how many defects we had in last release – I assume about 700?

IT Person: Yeah.

Business Person: So I can expect 2000 in this release? How much time do you need to fix one defect?

IT Person: About 16 hours per defect

I will let you do the math, but what made me fell out of my chair was the fact that everyone in the room was accepting the fact that even before we were developing the application we would have 66% of the time spent in fixing defects. Not even once did anyone asked, how can we ensure that we do not have so many defects in the application. Now even once did anyone asked if we already have Unit testing how come we still have these many number of defects.

Well, this is not the first time I heard this conversation and I am sure not the last time. But, I wonder how do people reach Architects, Project Managers, Program Managers and Directors IT if they have these discussions.

I did not say anything in the meeting, because I was supposed to sit there and listen which is another sad story. I could not even say anything to my IT team once the meeting was over; I was just not supposed to. Maybe, if someone who was in that meeting reads this and can co-relate I would be in a big shit of trouble; but I am going to risk it – do not know why.

I am someone who can not start writing a piece of code without having a unit test before it (Test Driven Development). But, then the projects I have been working lately do not even automated unit testing let along TDD. Their unit testing is done because they have to compliant with the Quality Process and at times it is done with a set of people who never coded it. The unit testing team works like a QA team but is withing the realms of the development team itself. And then there are times when Unit testing happens in parallel to System Testing.

This is a rant, where I hope I can pass a message around importance of testing.

 

Dilbert - Quality

Dilbert - Quality

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Related Articles

Development Kit – your wishlist

11 January, 2011 1 comment

Today after a while I decided to get back to development and started to setup my Laptop with variety of development tools and my fetch my projects from hard drives. As I sit down to get started once again, I am thinking of what all should I get to get back to development. Also, this time I am not making something to sell or showcase but for something that I am going to now do for a hobby (I already have many project in office to take care off). And this time I want to do it like it is my baby. I will think over in next few days on what I have to build, but while I do it, I still need to decide on what all software I need to make that happen. I have been a Java guy for a long time and hence I am going to compile a list frameworks / software on the same platform.

What would you like to add?

Performance Unpredictability

I was hearing a talk from Joshua Bloch on Performance Anxiety and my key observations from the discussion was

  1. It has become impossible to estimate performance
  2. Performance is becoming more abstract
  3. Measure and use statistics with measures

Joshua talks about various aspects of the current systems and how these systems today have lead to a situation where we can not predict or estimate performance of a section of code. And is simply because we have so many layers of code, libraries, patterns, app servers and JVM and what not. The same set of code can have varied performance on a different machine just because how a JVM is going to interpret the code.

He also speaks very clearly on the current known facts and how can they simply be myths – profilers, app servers. There are studies and papers he mentions that speak about this area of uncertainty.

He sumarizes

Our results are disturbing because they indicate that profiler incorrectness is pervasive—occurring in most of our seven benchmarks and in two production JVM—-and significant—all four of the state-of-the-art profilers produce incorrect profiles. Incorrect profiles can easily cause a performance analyst to spend time optimizing cold methods that will have minimal effect on performance. We show that a proof-of-concept profiler that does not use yield points for sampling does not suffer from the above problems.

My Perspective

I chose to blog about this, is because for many years now, I have  been working on making applications performant in many ways – Databases, Application layers, Web – client and servers. In my experience, I can not more agree with Joshua and agree that many times, I have been baffled myself where performance models that I have used to measure performance in a QA or a staging environment came back to be different in production of the various constants I had with the hardware and many times, I had to go back to Production and see what is happening in the real world – One of the biggest factors that I simply could not replicate was the “user base” of the systems in any of the previous systems. I just could not ever stop measuring the performance of the systems and analyze the data only to find myself tuning certain areas of the application.

I will strongly recommend you all to go through his talk

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.