We've talked previously about the Windows Azure command-line tools, and have used them in a few posts such as Brian's Migrating Drupal to a Windows Azure VM. While the tools are generally useful for tons of stuff, one of the things that's been painful to do with the command-line is export the settings for a VM, and then recreate the VM from those settings. You might be wondering why you'd want to export a VM and then recreate it. For me, cost is the first thing that comes to mind. It costs more to keep a VM running than it does to just keep the disk in storage. So if I had something in a VM that I'm only using a few hours a day, I'd delete the VM when I'm not using it and recreate it when I need it again. Another potential reason is that you want to create a copy of the disk so that you can create a duplicate virtual machine. The export process used to be pretty arcane stuff; using the azure vm show command with a --json parameter and piping the output to file. Then hacking the .json file to fix it up so it could be used with the azure vm create-from command. It was bad. It was so bad, the developers added a new export command to create the .json file for you. Here's the basic process: Create a VM VM creation has been covered multiple ways already; you're either going to use the portal or command line tools, and you're either going to select an image from the library or upload a VHD. In my case, I used the following command: azure vm create larryubuntu CANONICAL__Canonical-Ubuntu-12-04-amd64-server-20120528.1.3-en-us-30GB.vhd larry NotaRe This command creates a new VM in the East US data center, enables SSH on port 22 and then stores a disk image for this VM in a blob. You can see the new disk image in blob storage by running: azure vm disk list The results should return something like: info: Executing command vm disk list + Fetching disk images data: Name OS data: ---------------------------------------- ------- data: larryubuntu-larryubuntu-0-20121019170709 Linux info: vm disk list command OK That's the actual disk image that is mounted by the VM. Export and Delete the VM Alright, I've done my work and it's the weekend. I need to export the VM settings so I can recreate it on Monday, then delete the VM so I won't get charged for the next 48 hours of not working. To export the settings for the VM, I use the following command: azure vm export larryubuntu c:\stuff\vminfo.json This tells Windows Azure to find the VM named larryubuntu and export its settings to c:\stuff\vminfo.json. The .json file will contain something like this: { "RoleName":"larryubuntu", "RoleType":"PersistentVMRole", "ConfigurationSets": [ { "ConfigurationSetType":"NetworkConfiguration", "InputEndpoints": [ { "LocalPort":"22", "Name":"ssh", "Port":"22", "Protocol":"tcp", "Vip":"168.62.177.227" } ], "SubnetNames":[] } ], "DataVirtualHardDisks":[], "OSVirtualHardDisk": { "HostCaching":"ReadWrite", "DiskName":"larryubuntu-larryubuntu-0-20121024155441", "OS":"Linux" }, "RoleSize":"Small" } If you're like me, you'll immediately start thinking "Hrmmm, I wonder if I can mess around with things like RoleSize." And yes, you can. If you wanted to bump this up to medium, you'd just change that parameter to medium. If you want to play around more with the various settings, it looks like the schema is maintained at https://github.com/WindowsAzure/azure-sdk-for-node/blob/master/lib/services/serviceManagement/models/roleschema.json. Once I've got the file, I can safely delete the VM by using the following command. azure vm delete larryubuntu It spins a bit and then no more VM. Recreate the VM Ugh, Monday. Time to go back to work, and I need my VM back up and running. So I run the following command: azure vm create-from larryubuntu c:\stuff\vminfo.json --location "East US" It takes only a minute or two to spin up the VM and it's ready for work. That's it - fast, simple, and far easier than the old process of generating the .json settings file. Note that I haven't played around much with the various settings described in the schema for the json file that I linked above. If you find anything useful or interesting that can be accomplished by hacking around with the .json, leave a comment about it.

A short blog about a topic I was discussing last week with a customer: testing SOAP Web Services. If you follow my blog you would know by now that I’m not a fan of unit testing in MOCK environments. Not because I don’t like it or I have religious believes that don’t allow me to use JUnit and Mockito. It’s just because with the work I do (mostly Java EE using application servers) my code runs in a managed environment (i.e. containers) and when I start mocking all the container’s services, it becomes cumbersome and useless. Few months ago I wrote a post about integration testing with Arquillian. But you don’t always need Arquillian to test inside a container because today, most of the containers are light and run in-memory. Think of an in-memory database. An in-memory web container. An in-memory EJB container. So first, let’s write a SOAP Web Service. I’m using the one I use on my book : a SOAP Web Service that validates a credit card. If you look at the code, there is nothing special about it (the credit card validation algorithm is a dummy one: even numbers are valid, odd are invalid). Let’s start with the interface: import javax.jws.WebService; @WebService public interface Validator { public boolean validate(CreditCard creditCard); } Then the SOAP Web Service implementation: @WebService(endpointInterface = "org.agoncal.book.javaee7.chapter21.Validator") public class CardValidator implements Validator { public boolean validate(CreditCard creditCard) { Character lastDigit = creditCard.getNumber().charAt(creditCard.getNumber().length() - 1); return Integer.parseInt(lastDigit.toString()) % 2 != 0; } } In this unit test I instantiate the CardValidator class and invoke the validate method. This is acceptable, but what if your SOAP Web Serivce uses Handlers ? What if it overrides mapping with the webservice.xml deployment descriptor ? Uses the WebServiceContext ? In short, what if your SOAP Web Service uses containers’ services ? Unit testing becomes useless. So let’s test your SOAP Web Service inside the container and write an the integration test. For that we can use an in-memory web container. And I’m not just talking about a GlassFish, JBoss or Tomcat, but something as simple as the web container that come with the SUN’s JDK. Sun’s implementation of Java SE 6 includes a light-weight HTTP server API and implementation : com.sun.net.httpserver. Note that this default HTTP server is in a com.sun package. So this might not be portable depending on the version of your JDK. Instead of using the default HTTP server it is also possible to plug other implementations as long as they provide a Service Provider Implementation (SPI) for example Jetty’s J2se6HttpServerSPI. So this is how an integration test using an in memory web container can look like: public class CardValidatorIT { @Test public void shouldCheckCreditCardValidity() throws MalformedURLException { // Publishes the SOAP Web Service Endpoint endpoint = Endpoint.publish("http://localhost:8080/cardValidator", new CardValidator()); assertTrue(endpoint.isPublished()); assertEquals("http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap/http", endpoint.getBinding().getBindingID()); // Data to access the web service URL wsdlDocumentLocation = new URL("http://localhost:8080/cardValidator?wsdl"); String namespaceURI = "http://chapter21.javaee7.book.agoncal.org/"; String servicePart = "CardValidatorService"; String portName = "CardValidatorPort"; QName serviceQN = new QName(namespaceURI, servicePart); QName portQN = new QName(namespaceURI, portName); // Creates a service instance Service service = Service.create(wsdlDocumentLocation, serviceQN); Validator cardValidator = service.getPort(portQN, Validator.class); // Invokes the web service CreditCard creditCard = new CreditCard("12341234", "10/10", 1234, "VISA"); assertFalse("Credit card should be valid", cardValidator.validate(creditCard)); creditCard.setNumber("12341233"); assertTrue("Credit card should not be valid", cardValidator.validate(creditCard)); // Unpublishes the SOAP Web Service endpoint.stop(); assertFalse(endpoint.isPublished()); } } The Endpoint.publish() method uses by default the light-weight HTTP server implementation that is included in Sun’s Java SE 6. It publishes the SOAP Web Service and starts listening on URL http://localhost:8080/cardValidator. You can even go to http://localhost:8080/cardValidator?wsdl to see the generated WSDL. The integration test looks for the WSDL document, creates a service using the WSDL information, gets the port to the SOAP Web Service and then invokes the validate method. The method Endpoint.stop() stops the publishin of the service and shutsdown the in-memory web server. Again, you should be careful as this integration test uses the default HTTP server which is in a com.sun package and therefore not portable.

As the previous post mentioned, Spock is a powerful DSL built on Groovy ideal for TDD and BDD testing and this post will describe how easy it is to use Spock to test Spring classes, in this case the CustomerService class from the post Using Spring Data to access MongoDB. It will also cover using Spock for mocking. Spock relies heavily on the Spring's TestContext framework and does this via the @ContextConfiguration annotation. This allows the test specification class to load an application context from one or more locations. This will then allow the test specification to access beans either via the annotation @Autowired or @Resource. The test below shows how an injected CusotmerService instance can be tested using Spock and the Spring TestContext: (This is a slightly contrived example as to properly unit test the CustomerService class as you would create a CustomerService class in the test as opposed to one created and injected by Spring.) package com.city81.mongodb.springdata.dao import org.springframework.beans.factory.annotation.Autowired import org.springframework.test.context.ContextConfiguration import spock.lang.* import com.city81.mongodb.springdata.entity.Account import com.city81.mongodb.springdata.entity.Address import com.city81.mongodb.springdata.entity.Customer @ContextConfiguration(locations = "classpath:spring/applicationContext.xml") class CustomerServiceTest extends Specification { @Autowired CustomerService customerService def setup() { customerService.dropCustomerCollection() } def "insert customer"() { setup: // setup test class args Address address = new Address() address.setNumber("81") address.setStreet("Mongo Street") address.setTown("City") address.setPostcode("CT81 1DB") Account account = new Account() account.setAccountName("Personal Account") List accounts = new ArrayList() accounts.add(account) Customer customer = new Customer() customer.setAddress(address) customer.setName("Mr Bank Customer") customer.setAccounts(accounts) when: customerService.insertCustomer(customer) then: def customers = customerService.findAllCustomers() customers.size == 1 customers.get(0).name == "Mr Bank Customer" customers.get(0).address.street == "Mongo Street" } } The problem though with the above test is that MongoDB needs to be up and running so to remove this dependency we can Mock out the interaction the database. Spock's mocking framework provides many of the features you'd find in similar frameworks like Mockito. The enhanced CustomerServiceTest mocks the CustomerRepository and sets the mocked object on the CustomerService. package com.city81.mongodb.springdata.dao import org.springframework.beans.factory.annotation.Autowired import org.springframework.test.context.ContextConfiguration import spock.lang.* import com.city81.mongodb.springdata.entity.Account import com.city81.mongodb.springdata.entity.Address import com.city81.mongodb.springdata.entity.Customer @ContextConfiguration(locations = "classpath:spring/applicationContext.xml") class CustomerServiceTest extends Specification { @Autowired CustomerService customerService CustomerRepository customerRepository = Mock() def setup() { customerService.customerRepository = customerRepository customerService.dropCustomerCollection() } def "insert customer"() { setup: // setup test class args Address address = new Address() address.setNumber("81") address.setStreet("Mongo Street") address.setTown("City") address.setPostcode("CT81 1DB") Account account = new Account() account.setAccountName("Personal Account") List accounts = new ArrayList() accounts.add(account) Customer customer = new Customer() customer.setAddress(address) customer.setName("Mr Bank Customer") customer.setAccounts(accounts) when: customerService.insertCustomer(customer) then: 1 * customerRepository.save(customer) } def "find all customers"() { setup: // setup test class args Address address = new Address() address.setStreet("Mongo Street") Customer customer = new Customer() customer.setAddress(address) customer.setName("Mr Bank Customer") // setup mocking def mockCustomers = [] mockCustomers << customer customerRepository.findAll() >> mockCustomers when: def customers = customerService.findAllCustomers() then: customers.size() == 1 customers.get(0).name == "Mr Bank Customer" } } The CustomerRepository is by way of name and type although it could be inferred by just the name eg def customerRepository = Mock(CustomerRepository) The injected customerRepository is overwritten by the mocked instance and then in the test setup, functionality can be mocked. In the then block of the insert customer feature, the number of interactions with the save method of customerRepository is tested and in the find all customers feature, the return list of customers from the findAll call is a mocked List,as opposed to one retrieved from the database. More detail on Spock's mocking capabilities can be found on the project's home page.

For the past few months, I’ve been coaching a “Microsoft Student Partner” (who has a great blog on Kinect for Windows by the way!) on Windows Azure. One of the questions he recently had was around PartitionKey and RowKey in Windows Azure Table Storage. What are these for? Do I have to specify them manually? Let’s explain… Windows Azure storage partitions All Windows Azure storage abstractions (Blob, Table, Queue) are built upon the same stack (whitepaper here). While there’s much more to tell about it, the reason why it scales is because of its partitioning logic. Whenever you store something on Windows Azure storage, it is located on some partition in the system. Partitions are used for scale out in the system. Imagine that there’s only 3 physical machines that are used for storing data in Windows Azure storage: Based on the size and load of a partition, partitions are fanned out across these machines. Whenever a partition gets a high load or grows in size, the Windows Azure storage management can kick in and move a partition to another machine: By doing this, Windows Azure can ensure a high throughput as well as its storage guarantees. If a partition gets busy, it’s moved to a server which can support the higher load. If it gets large, it’s moved to a location where there’s enough disk space available. Partitions are different for every storage mechanism: In blob storage, each blob is in a separate partition. This means that every blob can get the maximal throughput guaranteed by the system. In queues, every queue is a separate partition. In tables, it’s different: you decide how data is co-located in the system. PartitionKey in Table Storage In Table Storage, you have to decide on the PartitionKey yourself. In essence, you are responsible for the throughput you’ll get on your system. If you put every entity in the same partition (by using the same partition key), you’ll be limited to the size of the storage machines for the amount of storage you can use. Plus, you’ll be constraining the maximal throughput as there’s lots of entities in the same partition. Should you set the PartitionKey to the same value for every entity stored? No. You’ll end up with scaling issues at some point. Should you set the PartitionKey to a unique value for every entity stored? No. You can do this and every entity stored will end up in its own partition, but you’ll find that querying your data becomes more difficult. And that’s where our next concept kicks in… RowKey in Table Storage A RowKey in Table Storage is a very simple thing: it’s your “primary key” within a partition. PartitionKey + RowKey form the composite unique identifier for an entity. Within one PartitionKey, you can only have unique RowKeys. If you use multiple partitions, the same RowKey can be reused in every partition. So in essence, a RowKey is just the identifier of an entity within a partition. PartitionKey and RowKey and performance Before building your code, it’s a good idea to think about both properties. Don’t just assign them a guid or a random string as it does matter for performance. The fastest way of querying? Specifying both PartitionKey and RowKey. By doing this, table storage will immediately know which partition to query and can simply do an ID lookup on RowKey within that partition. Less fast but still fast enough will be querying by specifying PartitionKey: table storage will know which partition to query. Less fast: querying on only RowKey. Doing this will give table storage no pointer on which partition to search in, resulting in a query that possibly spans multiple partitions, possibly multiple storage nodes as well. Wihtin a partition, searching on RowKey is still pretty fast as it’s a unique index. Slow: searching on other properties (again, spans multiple partitions and properties). Note that Windows Azure storage may decide to group partitions in so-called "Range partitions" - see http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windowsazure/hh508997.aspx. In order to improve query performance, think about your PartitionKey and RowKey upfront, as they are the fast way into your datasets. Deciding on PartitionKey and RowKey Here’s an exercise: say you want to store customers, orders and orderlines. What will you choose as the PartitionKey (PK) / RowKey (RK)? Let’s use three tables: Customer, Order and Orderline. An ideal setup may be this one, depending on how you want to query everything: Customer (PK: sales region, RK: customer id) – it enables fast searches on region and on customer id Order (PK: customer id, RK; order id) – it allows me to quickly fetch all orders for a specific customer (as they are colocated in one partition), it still allows fast querying on a specific order id as well) Orderline (PK: order id, RK: order line id) – allows fast querying on both order id as well as order line id. Of course, depending on the system you are building, the following may be a better setup: Customer (PK: customer id, RK: display name) – it enables fast searches on customer id and display name Order (PK: customer id, RK; order id) – it allows me to quickly fetch all orders for a specific customer (as they are colocated in one partition), it still allows fast querying on a specific order id as well) Orderline (PK: order id, RK: item id) – allows fast querying on both order id as well as the item bought, of course given that one order can only contain one order line for a specific item (PK + RK should be unique) You see? Choose them wisely, depending on your queries. And maybe an important sidenote: don’t be afraid of denormalizing your data and storing data twice in a different format, supporting more query variations. There’s one additional “index” That’s right! People have been asking Microsoft for a secondary index. And it’s already there… The table name itself! Take our customer – order – orderline sample again… Having a Customer table containing all customers may be interesting to search within that data. But having an Orders table containing every order for every customer may not be the ideal solution. Maybe you want to create an order table per customer? Doing that, you can easily query the order id (it’s the table name) and within the order table, you can have more detail in PK and RK. And there's one more: your account name. Split data over multiple storage accounts and you have yet another "partition". Conclusion In conclusion? Choose PartitionKey and RowKey wisely. The more meaningful to your application or business domain, the faster querying will be and the more efficient table storage will work in the long run.

recently in our project we reported a strange bug. in one report where we display historical data provided by hibernate envers , users encountered duplicated records in the dropdown used for filtering. we tried to find the source of this bug, but after spending a few hours looking at the code responsible for this functionality we had to give up and ask for a dump from production database to check what actually is stored in one table. and when we got it and started investigating, it turned out that there is a bug in hibernate envers 3.6 that is a cause of our problems. but luckily after some investigation and invaluable help from adam warski (author of envers) we were able to fix this issue. bug itself let’s consider following scenario: a transaction is started. we insert some audited entities during it and then it is rolled back. the same entitymanager is reused to start another transaction second transaction is committed but when we check audit tables for entities that were created and then rolled back in step one, we will notice that they are still there and were not rolled back as we expected. we were able to reproduce it in a failing test in our project, so the next step was to prepare failing test in envers so we could verify if our fix is working. failing test the simplest test cases already present in envers are located in simple.java class and they look quite straightforward: public class simple extends abstractentitytest { private integer id1; public void configure(ejb3configuration cfg) { cfg.addannotatedclass(inttestentity.class); } @test public void initdata() { entitymanager em = getentitymanager(); em.gettransaction().begin(); inttestentity ite = new inttestentity(10); em.persist(ite); id1 = ite.getid(); em.gettransaction().commit(); em.gettransaction().begin(); ite = em.find(inttestentity.class, id1); ite.setnumber(20); em.gettransaction().commit(); } @test(dependsonmethods = "initdata") public void testrevisionscounts() { assert arrays.aslist(1, 2).equals(getauditreader().getrevisions(inttestentity.class, id1)); } @test(dependsonmethods = "initdata") public void testhistoryofid1() { inttestentity ver1 = new inttestentity(10, id1); inttestentity ver2 = new inttestentity(20, id1); assert getauditreader().find(inttestentity.class, id1, 1).equals(ver1); assert getauditreader().find(inttestentity.class, id1, 2).equals(ver2); } } so preparing my failing test executing scenario described above wasn’t a rocket science: /** * @author tomasz dziurko (tdziurko at gmail dot com) */ public class transactionrollbackbehaviour extends abstractentitytest { public void configure(ejb3configuration cfg) { cfg.addannotatedclass(inttestentity.class); } @test public void testauditrecordsrollback() { // given entitymanager em = getentitymanager(); em.gettransaction().begin(); inttestentity itetorollback = new inttestentity(30); em.persist(itetorollback); integer rollbackediteid = itetorollback.getid(); em.gettransaction().rollback(); // when em.gettransaction().begin(); inttestentity ite2 = new inttestentity(50); em.persist(ite2); integer ite2id = ite2.getid(); em.gettransaction().commit(); // then list revisionsforsavedclass = getauditreader().getrevisions(inttestentity.class, ite2id); assertequals(revisionsforsavedclass.size(), 1, "there should be one revision for inserted entity"); list revisionsforrolledbackclass = getauditreader().getrevisions(inttestentity.class, rollbackediteid); assertequals(revisionsforrolledbackclass.size(), 0, "there should be no revisions for insert that was rolled back"); } } now i could verify that tests are failing on the forked 3.6 branch and check if the fix that we had is making this test green. the fix after writing a failing test in our project, i placed several breakpoints in envers code to understand better what is wrong there. but imagine being thrown in a project developed for a few years by many programmers smarter than you. i felt overwhelmed and had no idea where the fix should be applied and what exactly is not working as expected. luckily in my company we have adam warski on board. he is the initial author of envers and actually he pointed us the solution. the fix itself contains only one check that registers audit processes that will be executed on transaction completion only when such processes iare still in the map for the given transaction. it sounds complicated, but if you look at the class auditprocessmanager in this commit it should be more clear what is happening there. official path besides locating a problem and fixing it, there are some more official steps that must be performed to have fix included in envers. step 1. create jira issue with bug - https://hibernate.onjira.com/browse/hhh-7682 step 2: create local branch envers-bugfix-hhh-7682 of forked hibernate 3.6 step 3: commit and push failing test and fix to your local and remote repository on github step 4: create pull request - https://github.com/hibernate/hibernate-orm/pull/393 step 5: wait for merge and that’s all. now fix is merged into main repository and we have one bug less in the world of open source

It's awesome that JUnit is recognizing the usefulness of Hamcrest, because I use these two a lot. However, I find JUnit packaging of their dependencies odd, and can cause class loading problem if you are not careful. Let's take a closer look. If you look at junit:junit:4.10 from Maven Central, you will see that it has this dependencies graph: +- junit:junit:jar:4.10:test | - org.hamcrest:hamcrest-core:jar:1.1:test This is great, except that inside the junit-4.10.jar, you will also find the hamcrest-core-1.1.jar content are embedded! But why??? I suppose it's a convenient for folks who use Ant, so that they save one jar to package in their lib folder, but it's not very Maven friendly. And you also expect classloading trouble if you want to upgrade Hamcrest or use extra Hamcrest modules. Now if you use Hamcrest long enough, you know that most of their goodies are in the second module named hamcrest-library, but this JUnit didn't package in. JUnit however chose to include some JUnit+Hamcrest extension of their own. Now including duplicated classes in jar are very trouble maker, so JUnit has a separated module junit-dep that doesn't include Hamcrest core package and help you avoid this issue. So if you are using Maven project, you should use this instead. junit junit-dep 4.10 test org.hamcrest hamcrest-core org.hamcrest hamcrest-library 1.2.1 test See how I have to exclude hamcrest from junit. This is needed if you want hamcrest-library that has higher version than the one JUnit comes with, which is 1.1. Interesting enough, Maven's dependencies in pom is order sensitive when it comes to auto resolving conflicting versions dependencies. Actually it would just pick the first one found and ignore the rest. So you can shorten above without exclusion if, only if, you place the Hamcrest bofore JUnit like this: org.hamcrest hamcrest-library 1.2.1 test junit junit-dep 4.10 test This should make Maven use the following dependencies: +- org.hamcrest:hamcrest-library:jar:1.2.1:test | \- org.hamcrest:hamcrest-core:jar:1.2.1:test +- junit:junit-dep:jar:4.10:test However I think using the exclusion tag would probably give you more stable build and not rely on Maven implicit ordering rule. And it avoid easy mistake for Maven beginer users. However I wish JUnit would do a better job at packaging and remove duplicated classes in jar. I personally think it's more productive for JUnit to also include hamcrest-libray instead of just the hamcrest-core jar. What do you think?

How to allow instance methods to run as JUnit BeforeClass behavior.

JUnit 4.4 added a new assertion mechanism with the method assertThat(). Have a look and consider using it in place of assertEquals(). assertThat(result, is(42)); assertThat(output, containsString("foo"));

Curator's note: This article originally appeared at WindowsAzure.com. To use this feature and other new Windows Azure capabilities, sign up for the free preview. Just as you can quickly create and deploy a web application created from the gallery, you can also deploy a website created on a workstation with traditional developer tools from Microsoft or other companies. Table of Contents Deployment Options How to: Create a Website Using the Management Portal How to: Create a Website from the Gallery How to: Delete a Website Next Steps Deployment Options Windows Azure supports deploying websites from remote computers using WebDeploy, FTP, GIT or TFS. Many development tools provide integrated support for publication using one or more of these methods and may only require that you provide the necessary credentials, site URL and hostname or URL for your chosen deployment method. Credentials and deployment URLs for all enabled deployment methods are stored in the website's publish profile, a file which can be downloaded in the Windows Azure (Preview) Management Portal from the Quick Start page or the quick glance section of the Dashboard page. If you prefer to deploy your website with a separate client application, high quality open source GIT and FTP clients are available for download on the Internet for this purpose. How to: Create a Website Using the Management Portal Follow these steps to create a website in Windows Azure. Login to the Windows Azure (Preview) Management Portal. Click the Create New icon on the bottom left of the Management Portal. Click the Web Site icon, click the Quick Create icon, enter a value for URL and then click the check mark next to create web site on the bottom right corner of the page. When the website has been created you will see the text Creation of Web Site '[SITENAME]' Completed. Click the name of the website displayed in the list of websites to open the website's Quick Start management page. On the Quick Start page you are provided with options to set up TFS or GIT publishing if you would like to deploy your finished website to Windows Azure using these methods. FTP publishing is set up by default for websites and the FTP Host name is displayed under FTP Hostname on the Quick Start and Dashboard pages. Before publishing with FTP or GIT choose the option to Reset deployment credentials on the Dashboard page. Then specify the new credentials (username and password) to authenticate against the FTP Host or the Git Repository when deploying content to the website. The Configure management page exposes several configurable application settings in the following sections: Framework: Set the version of .NET framework or PHP required by your web application. Diagnostics: Set logging options for gathering diagnostic information for your website in this section. App Settings: Specify name/value pairs that will be loaded by your web application on start up. For .NET sites, these settings will be injected into your .NET configuration AppSettings at runtime, overriding existing settings. For PHP and Node sites these settings will be available as environment variables at runtime. Connection Strings: View connection strings for linked resources. For .NET sites, these connection strings will be injected into your .NET configuration connectionStrings settings at runtime, overriding existing entries where the key equals the linked database name. For PHP and Node sites these settings will be available as environment variables at runtime. Default Documents: Add your web application's default document to this list if it is not already in the list. If your web application contains more than one of the files in the list then make sure your website's default document appears at the top of the list. How to: Create a Website from the Gallery The gallery makes available a wide range of popular web applications developed by Microsoft, third party companies, and open source software initiatives. Web applications created from the gallery do not require installation of any software other than the browser used to connect to the Windows Azure Management Portal. In this tutorial, you'll learn: How to create a new site through the gallery. How to deploy the site through the Windows Azure Portal. You'll build a Word press blog that uses a default template. The following illustration shows the completed application: Note To complete this tutorial, you need a Windows Azure account that has the Windows Azure Web Sites feature enabled. You can create a free trial account and enable preview features in just a couple of minutes. For details, see Create a Windows Azure account and enable preview features. Create a web site in the portal Login to the Windows Azure Management Portal. Click the New icon on the bottom left of the dashboard. Click the Web Site icon, and click From Gallery. Locate and click the WordPress icon in list, and then click Next. On the Configure Your App page, enter or select values for all fields: Enter a URL name of your choice Leave Create a new MySQL database selected in the Database field Select the region closest to you Then click Next. On the Create New Database page, you can specify a name for your new MySQL database or use the default name. Select the region closest to you as the hosting location. Select the box at the bottom of the screen to agree to ClearDB's usage terms for your hosted MySQL database. Then click the check to complete the site creation. After you click Complete Windows Azure will initiate build and deploy operations. While the web site is being built and deployed the status of these operations is displayed at the bottom of the Web Sites page. After all operations are performed, A final status message when the site has been successfully deployed. Launch and manage your WordPress site Click on your new site from the Web Sites page to open the dashboard for the site. On the Dashboard management page, scroll down and click the link on the left under Site Url to open the site’s welcome page. Enter appropriate configuration information required by WordPress and click Install WordPress to finalize configuration and open the web site’s login page. Login to the new WordPress web site by entering the username and password that you specified on the Welcome page. You'll have a new WordPress site that looks similar to the site below. How to: Delete a Website Websites are deleted using the Delete icon in the Windows Azure Management Portal. The Delete icon is available in the Windows Azure Portal when you click Web Sites to list all of your websites and at the bottom of each of the website management pages. Next Steps For more information about Websites, see the following: Walkthrough: Troubleshooting a Website on Windows Azure

Exception Testing Why test exception flows? Just like with all of your code, test coverage writes a contract between your code and the business functionality that the code is supposed to produce leaving you with a living documentation of the code along with the added ability to stress the functionality early and often. I won't go into the many benefits of testing instead I will focus on just Exception Testing. There are many ways to test an exception flow thrown from a piece of code. Lets say that you have a guarded method that requires an argument to be not null. How would you test that condition? How do you keep JUnit from reporting a failure when the exception is thrown? This blog covers a few different methods culminating with JUnit's ExpectedException implemented with JUnit's @Rule functionality. The "old" way In a not so distant past the process to test an exception required a dense amount of boilerplate code in which you would start a try/catch block, report a failure if your code did not produce the expected behavior and then catch the exception looking for the specific type. Here is an example: public class MyObjTest { @Test public void getNameWithNullValue() { try { MyObj obj = new MyObj(); myObj.setName(null); fail("This should have thrown an exception"); } catch (IllegalArgumentException e) { assertThat(e.getMessage().equals("Name must not be null")); } } } As you can see from this old example, many of the lines in the test case are just to support the lack of functionality present to specifically test exception handling. One good point to make for the try/catch method is the ability to test the specific message and any custom fields on the expected exception. We will explore this a bit further down with JUnit's ExpectedException and @Rule annotation. JUnit adds expected exceptions JUnit responded back to the users need for exception handling by adding a @Test annotation field "expected". The intention is that the entire test case will pass if the type of exception thrown matched the exception class present in the annotation. public class MyObjTest { @Test(expected = IllegalArgumentException.class) public void getNameWithNullValue() { MyObj obj = new MyObj(); myObj.setName(null); } } As you can see from the newer example, there is quite a bit less boiler plate code and the test is very concise, however, there are a few flaws. The main flaw is that the test condition is too broad. Suppose you have two variables in a signature and both cannot be null, then how do you know which variable the IllegalArgumentException was thrown for? What happens when you have extended a Throwable and need to check for the presence of a field? Keep these in mind as you read further, solutions will follow. JUnit @Rule and ExpectedException If you look at the previous example you might see that you are expecting an IllegalArgumentException to be thrown, but what if you have a custom exception? What if you want to make sure that the message contains a specific error code or message? This is where JUnit really excelled by providing a JUnit @Rule object specifically tailored to exception testing. If you are unfamiliar with JUnit @Rule, read the docs here. ExpectedException JUnit provides a JUnit class ExpectedException intended to be used as a @Rule. The ExpectedException allows for your test to declare that an exception is expected and gives you some basic built in functionality to clearly express the expected behavior. Unlike the @Test(expected) annotation feature, ExpectedException class allows you to test for specific error messages and custom fields via the Hamcrest matchers library. An example of JUnit's ExpectedException import org.junit.rules.ExpectedException; public class MyObjTest { @Rule public ExpectedException thrown = ExpectedException.none(); @Test public void getNameWithNullValue() { thrown.expect(IllegalArgumentException.class); thrown.expectMessage("Name must not be null"); MyObj obj = new MyObj(); obj.setName(null); } } As I eluded to above, the framework allows you to test for specific messages ensuring that the exception being thrown is the case that the test is specifically looking for. This is very helpful when the nullability of multiple arguments is in question. Custom Fields Arguably the most useful feature of the ExpectedException framework is the ability to use Hamcrest matchers to test your custom/extended exceptions. For example, you have a custom/extended exception that is to be thrown in a method and inside the exception has an "errorCode". How do you test that functionality without introducing the boiler plate code from the try/catch block listed above? How about a custom Matcher! This code is available at: https://github.com/mike-ensor/custom-exception-testing Solution: First the test case import org.junit.rules.ExpectedException; public class MyObjTest { @Rule public ExpectedException thrown = ExpectedException.none(); @Test public void someMethodThatThrowsCustomException() { thrown.expect(CustomException.class); thrown.expect(CustomMatcher.hasCode("110501")); MyObj obj = new MyObj(); obj.methodThatThrowsCustomException(); } } Solution: Custom matcher import com.thepixlounge.exceptions.CustomException; import org.hamcrest.Description; import org.hamcrest.TypeSafeMatcher; public class CustomMatcher extends TypeSafeMatcher { public static BusinessMatcher hasCode(String item) { return new BusinessMatcher(item); } private String foundErrorCode; private final String expectedErrorCode; private CustomMatcher(String expectedErrorCode) { this.expectedErrorCode = expectedErrorCode; } @Override protected boolean matchesSafely(final CustomException exception) { foundErrorCode = exception.getErrorCode(); return foundErrorCode.equalsIgnoreCase(expectedErrorCode); } @Override public void describeTo(Description description) { description.appendValue(foundErrorCode) .appendText(" was not found instead of ") .appendValue(expectedErrorCode); } } NOTE: Please visit https://github.com/mike-ensor/custom-exception-testing to get a copy of a working Hamcrest Matcher, JUnit @Rule and ExpectedException. And there you have it, a quick overview of different ways to test Exceptions thrown by your code along with the ability to test for specific messages and fields from within custom exception classes. Please be specific with your test cases and try to target the exact case you have setup for your test, remember, tests can save you from introducing side-effect bugs!

A couple of times recently I’ve needed to set up a .Net application to use Registration-Free COM, and each time I’ve had to hunt around to recall the details. Furthermore, just this week I needed to write some unit tests that involve instantiating these un-registered COM objects, and that wasn’t straightforward. So, as much for the benefit of my future self as for you, my loyal reader, I’m going to summarise my know-how in quick blog post before it becomes used-to-know-how. What is Registration-Free COM? If you’re still reading, I’ll assume you know all about COM, Microsoft’s ancient technology for enabling components written in different languages to talk to each other (I wrote a little about it here, with some links to introductory articles). You are probably also aware of DLL Hell. That isn’t a place where bad executables are sent when they are terminated. Rather, it was a pain inflicted on developers by the necessity of registering COM components (and other DLLs) in a central place in the OS. Since all components were dumped into the same pool, one application could cause all kinds of hell for others by registering different versions of shared DLLs. The OS doesn’t police this pool, and it certainly doesn’t enforce compatibility, so much unexpected weird and wonderful behaviour was the result. Starting with Windows XP, it has been possible to more-or-less escape this hell by not registering components in a central location, and instead using Registration-Free COM. This makes it much easier to deploy applications, because you can just copy a bunch of files – RegSvr32 is not involved, and there are no Registry keys to be written. You can be confident that your application will have no impact on others once installed. It is all done using manifests. Individual Manifest Files For each dll, or ocx file (or ax files in my case – I’m working with DirectShow filters) containing COM components you need to create a manifest. Suppose your dll is called MyCOMComponent.dll. Your manifest file should be called MyCOMComponent.sxs.manifest, and it should contain the following: Obviously you need to make sure that the clsid inside comClass is correct for your component. If you have more than one COM object in your dll you can add multiple comClass elements. For those not wanting to generate these manifests by hand, a StackOverflow answer lists some tools that might help. About Deployment When you deploy your application you should deploy both the dll/ocx/ax file and its manifest into the same directory as your .Net exe/dlls. When developing in Visual Studio, I customise the build process to make sure all these dlls get copied into the correct place for running and debugging the application. I stole the technique for doing this from the way ASP.Net MVC applications manage their dlls. Put all the dlls and manifests into a folder called _bin_deployableAssemblies alongside the rest of your source code. Then modify your csproj file and add the following Target at the end of it: To make sure that target is called when you build, update the AfterBuild target (uncomment it first if you’re not currently using it): The Application Manifest Now you need to make sure your application declares its dependencies. First add an app.manifest file to your project, if you haven’t already got one. To do this in Visual Studio, right click the project, select Add –> New Item … and then choose Application Manifest File. Having added the manifest, you need to ensure it is compiled into your executable. You do this by right-clicking the project, choosing Properties, then going to the Application tab. In the resources section you’ll see a Manifest textbox: make sure your app.manifest file is selected. Now you need to add a section to the app.manifest file for each dependency. By default your app.manifest file will probably already have a dependency for the Windows Common Controls. After that (so, nested directly inside the root element) you should add the following for each of the manifest files you created earlier: Notice that we drop the “.manifest” off the end of the manifest file name when we refer to it here. The other important thing is that the version number here and the one in the manifest file should exactly match, though I don’t think there’s any reason to change it from 1.0.0.0. Disabling the Visual Studio Hosting Process There’s just one more thing to do before you try running your application, and that is to turn off the Visual Studio hosting process. The hosting process apparently helps improve debugging performance, amongst other things (though I’ve not noticed greatly decreased performance with it disabled). The problem is that, when enabled, application executables are not loaded directly- rather, they are loaded by an intermediary executable with a name ending .vshost.exe. The upshot is that the manifest embedded in your exe is ignored, and COM components are not loaded. Disabling the hosting process is simple: go to the Debug tab of your project’s Properties and uncheck “Enable the Visual Studio hosting process” With everything set up, you’ll want to try running your application. If you got everything right first time, everything will go smoothly. If not you might see an error like this: If you do, check Windows’ Application event log for errors coming from SideBySide. These are usually pretty helpful in telling you which part of your configuration has a problem. Summary To re-cap briefly, here are the steps to enabling Registration-Free COM for you application: Create a manifest file for each COM dll Make sure both COM dlls and manifest files are deployed alongside your main executable Add a manifest file to your executable which references each individual manifest file Make sure you turn off the Visual Studio hosting process before debugging Unit Testing and Registration-Free COM And now, as promised, a word about running Unit Tests when Registration-Free COM is involved. If you have a Unit Test which tries to create a Registration-Free COM object you’ll probably get an exception like Retrieving the COM class factory for component with CLSID {1C123B56-3774-4EE4-A482-512B3AB7CABB} failed due to the following error: 80040154 Class not registered (Exception from HRESULT: 0x80040154 (REGDB_E_CLASSNOTREG)). If you don’t get this error, it’s probably because the component is still registered centrally on your machine. Running regsvr32 /u [Path_to_your_dll] will unregister it. Why do Unit Tests fail, when the application works? It is for the same reason that the Visual Studio hosting process breaks Registration-Free COM: your unit tests are actually being run in a different process (for example, the Resharper.TaskRunner), and the manifest file which you so carefully crafted for your exe is being ignored. Only the manifest on the entry executable is taken into account, and since that’s a generic unit test runner it says nothing about your COM dependencies. But there’s a workaround. Win32 has some APIs –the Activation Context APIs- which allow you to manually load up a manifest for each thread which needs to create COM components. Spike McLarty has written some code to make these easy to use from .Net, and I’ll show you a technique to incorporate this into your code so that it works correctly whether called from unit tests or not. Here’s Spike’s code, with a few minor modifications of my own: /// /// Code from http://www.atalasoft.com/blogs/spikemclarty/february-2012/dynamically-testing-an-activex-control-from-c-and /// class ActivationContext { static public void UsingManifestDo(string manifest, Action action) { UnsafeNativeMethods.ACTCTX context = new UnsafeNativeMethods.ACTCTX(); context.cbSize = Marshal.SizeOf(typeof(UnsafeNativeMethods.ACTCTX)); if (context.cbSize != 0x20) { throw new Exception("ACTCTX.cbSize is wrong"); } context.lpSource = manifest; IntPtr hActCtx = UnsafeNativeMethods.CreateActCtx(ref context); if (hActCtx == (IntPtr)(-1)) { throw new Win32Exception(Marshal.GetLastWin32Error()); } try // with valid hActCtx { IntPtr cookie = IntPtr.Zero; if (!UnsafeNativeMethods.ActivateActCtx(hActCtx, out cookie)) { throw new Win32Exception(Marshal.GetLastWin32Error()); } try // with activated context { action(); } finally { UnsafeNativeMethods.DeactivateActCtx(0, cookie); } } finally { UnsafeNativeMethods.ReleaseActCtx(hActCtx); } } [SuppressUnmanagedCodeSecurity] internal static class UnsafeNativeMethods { // Activation Context API Functions [DllImport("Kernel32.dll", SetLastError = true, EntryPoint = "CreateActCtxW")] internal extern static IntPtr CreateActCtx(ref ACTCTX actctx); [DllImport("Kernel32.dll", SetLastError = true)] [return: MarshalAs(UnmanagedType.Bool)] internal static extern bool ActivateActCtx(IntPtr hActCtx, out IntPtr lpCookie); [DllImport("kernel32.dll", SetLastError = true)] [return: MarshalAs(UnmanagedType.Bool)] internal static extern bool DeactivateActCtx(int dwFlags, IntPtr lpCookie); [DllImport("Kernel32.dll", SetLastError = true)] internal static extern void ReleaseActCtx(IntPtr hActCtx); // Activation context structure [StructLayout(LayoutKind.Sequential, Pack = 4, CharSet = CharSet.Unicode)] internal struct ACTCTX { public Int32 cbSize; public UInt32 dwFlags; public string lpSource; public UInt16 wProcessorArchitecture; public UInt16 wLangId; public string lpAssemblyDirectory; public string lpResourceName; public string lpApplicationName; public IntPtr hModule; } } } The method UsingManifestDo allows you to run any code of your choosing with an Activation Context loaded from a manifest file. Clearly we only need to invoke this when our code is being called from a Unit Test. But how do we structure code elegantly so that it uses the activation context when necessary, but not otherwise? Here’s my solution: public static class COMFactory { private static Func, object> _creationWrapper = function => function(); public static T CreateComObject() where T:new() { var instance = (T)_creationWrapper(() => new T()); return instance; } public static object CreateComObject(Guid guid) { Type type = Type.GetTypeFromCLSID(guid); var instance = _creationWrapper(() => Activator.CreateInstance(type)); return instance; } public static void UseManifestForCreation(string manifest) { _creationWrapper = function => { object result = null; ActivationContext.UsingManifestDo(manifest, () => result = function()); return result; }; } } Whenever I need to create a COM Object in my production code, I do it by calling COMFactory.CreateCOMObject. By default this will create the COM objects directly, relying on the manifest which is embedded in the executable. But in my Test project, before running any tests I call COMFactory.UseManifestForCreation and pass in the path to the manifest file. This ensures that the manifest gets loaded up before we try to create any COM objects in the tests. To avoid duplicating the manifest file, I share the same file between my Test project and main executable project. You can do this right clicking your test project, choosing Add->Existing Item… then app.manifest in your main project. Finally, click the down arrow on the Add split button, and choose Add as Link. If you’ve got any tips to share on using Registration-Free COM, whether in Unit Tests or just in applications, please do leave a comment.

People tell me A and B, They tell me how I have to see, Things that I have seen already clear, So they push me then from side to side (I Want Out - Helloween) Developing an application that uses RESTful web API may imply developing server and client side. Writing integration tests for the server side can be as easy as using Arquillian to start up server and REST-assured to test that the services works as expected. The problem is how to test the client side. In this post, we are going to see how to test the client side apart from using mocks. As a brief description, to test the client side, what we need is a local server which can return recorded JSON responses. The rest-client-driver is a library which simulates a RESTful service. You can set expectations on the HTTP requests you want to receive during a test. So it is exactly what we need for our java client side. Note that this project is really helpful to write tests when we are developing RESTful web clients for connecting to services developed by third parties like Flickr Rest API, Jira Rest API, Github ... First thing to do is adding rest-client-driver dependency: com.github.rest-driver rest-client-driver 1.1.27 test Next step we are going to create a very simple Jersey application which simply invokes a get method to required URI. public class GithubClient { private static final int HTTP_STATUS_CODE_OK = 200; private String githubBaseUri; public GithubClient(String githubBaseUri) { this.githubBaseUri = githubBaseUri; } public String invokeGetMethod(String resourceName) { Client client = Client.create(); WebResource webResource = client.resource(githubBaseUri+resourceName); ClientResponse response = webResource.type("application/json") .accept("application/json").get(ClientResponse.class); int statusCode = response.getStatus(); if(statusCode != HTTP_STATUS_CODE_OK) { throw new IllegalStateException("Error code "+statusCode); } return response.getEntity(String.class); } } And now we want to test that invokeGetMethod really gets the required resource. Let's suppose that this method in production code will be responsible of getting all issues name from a project registered on github. Now we can start to write the test: @Rule public ClientDriverRule driver = new ClientDriverRule(); @Test public void issues_from_project_should_be_retrieved() { driver.addExpectation( onRequestTo("/repos/lordofthejars/nosqlunit/issues"). withMethod(Method.GET), giveResponse(GET_RESPONSE)); GithubClient githubClient = new GithubClient(driver.getBaseUrl()); String issues = githubClient.invokeGetMethod("/repos/lordofthejars/nosqlunit/issues"); assertThat(issues, is(GET_RESPONSE)); } We use ClientDriverRule @Rule annotation to add the client-driver to a test. And then using methods provided by RestClientDriver class, expectations are recorded. See how we are setting the base URL using driver.getBaseUrl() With rest-client-driver we can also record http status response using giveEmptyResponse method: @Test(expected=IllegalStateException.class) public void http_errors_should_throw_an_exception() { driver.addExpectation( onRequestTo("/repos/lordofthejars/nosqlunit/issues") .withMethod(Method.GET), giveEmptyResponse().withStatus(401)); GithubClient githubClient = new GithubClient(driver.getBaseUrl()); githubClient.invokeGetMethod("/repos/lordofthejars/nosqlunit/issues"); } And obviously we can record a put action: Note that in this example, we are setting that our request should contain given message body to response a 204 status code. This is a very simple example, but keep in mind that also works with libraries like gson or jackson. Also rest-driver project comes with a module that can be used to assert server responses (like REST-assured project) but this topic will be addressed into another post. I wish you have found this post useful. We keep learning, Alex.

when writing testable code, your first port of call is often to abstract any dependencies and make them easy to mock. this is the same for any of your codebase that talks to ftp servers. testing the way your code behaves under real world conditions makes integration tests important regardless of abstraction, though. here’s a simple trick to test ftp code in the wild. a recent project of mine has involved writing code that talks to ftp servers with the goal of adding additional continuous integration automation to a project. although all of my main methods are easily abstracted and injectable, my project still needs to actually talk to ftp servers at the end of the day, and i need to test that these very methods do the right thing when they are met with different conditions; be they bad credentials, lack of read/write permissions etc. the challenge integration tests can be brittle at the best of times, so ensuring that they are repeatable and can be setup and torn down can often be almost as much of a challenge as writing your actual code itself. an ftp server is usually a static service that is installed on a server. you might think that running one and ensuring it stays up and doesn’t get hacked just so that all your integration tests work is a necessary evil, but there is an easier way. run local. run often. i was running an ftp server on my build server just so that it was “always around” for my tests until i stumbled across an interesting project over on github to do just this . the approach i'm about to show you doesn’t need you to go to the effort of running a dedicated server at all. all you need to do is add a single executable to your unit test project and wrap your unit test in a using statement. the ftp server executable is a single file ftp server called ftpdmin which offers a read/write ftp server that can be fired up from the command line with a minimum feature set and only a few command line parameters to make it all tick. by implementing idisposable the helper class that wraps around this command line exe allows you to take advantage of the using() pattern to take care of your executable’s lifetime and have it die when your code is done testing. steps to make it happen download ftpdmin from here . add the exe to the root of your test project (you can put this anywhere, but you’ll have to update the helper class below). now add the exe to your project (i.e “view all items” in your test project’s solution explorer, and add the exe). set the exe to “copy always” in it’s solution properties. add the following code to a helper class in your test project: public class ftptestserver: idisposable { private readonly process ftpprocess; public ftptestserver(string rootdirectory, int port = 21, bool allowuploads = true) { var psinfo = new processstartinfo { filename = appdomain.currentdomain.basedirectory + "\\ftpdmin.exe", arguments = string.format("-p {0} -ha 127.0.0.1 \"{1}\" {2}", port, rootdirectory, allowuploads ? string.empty : "-g"), windowstyle = processwindowstyle.hidden }; ftpprocess = process.start(psinfo); } public void dispose() { if (ftpprocess.hasexited) return; ftpprocess.kill(); ftpprocess.waitforexit(); } } now you can enjoy being able to write really clean integration testing code that starts and ftp server every time you run your tests and then tear it down when your test is done. an example integration test showing connecting to “127.0.0.1”: [testmethod] public void ftpcode_upload_canconnect() { try { // fire up a new ftp server instance using (new ftptestserver(rootdirectory: "./")) { // code that talks to an ftp server on 127.0.0.1 } } catch (webexception e) { assert.fail("failed to connect to our ftp server"); } } how awesome is that? the power of using ftpdmin is that it can be told to deny write permissions to simulate bad user permissions as well: [testmethod] public void ftpcode_upload_throwswebexception() { try { // fire up a new ftp server instance using (new ftptestserver(rootdirectory: "./", allowuploads: false)) { // code that talks to an ftp server on 127.0.0.1 } } catch (webexception e) { assert.fail("our code failed to upload a file because of invalid permissions"); } } all in all, the above has been a complete lifesaver when it comes to making my integration test projects portable – if a new developer joins my project, they instantly get access to my ftp test harness just by pulling down my project’s source code.

Everyone is thinking why in the world would anyone pick static, when you can be dynamic? Usually the thought process is, "what language am I most proficient in, that can do the job." Totally not a bad way to go about it. Now does this choice affect anything else? Testing? Speed of development? Robustness? Dynamic vs. Static Dynamic languages are languages that don’t necessarily need variables to be declared before they are used. Examples of dynamic languages are Python, Ruby, and PHP. So in dynamic languages the following is possible: num = 10 We have successfully assigned a value to variable without declaring it before hand. Simple enough, try doing this in Java (you can’t). This can *increase* development speed, without having to write boilerplate code. This can somewhat be a double edge sword, since dynamic languages types are checked during runtime, there is no way to tell if there is a bug in code until it is run. I know you can test, but you can’t test for everything. You can’t test for everything. Here is an example albeit trivial. def get_first_problem(problems): for problem in problems: problam = problem + 1 return problam Now if you are raging to some serious dubstep, its easy enough to miss that small typo, you go screw it and do it live, and deploy to production. Python will simply create the new variable and not a single thing will be said. Only you can stop bugs in production! Static languages are languages that variables need to be declared before use and type checking is done at compile time. Examples of static languages include Java, C, and C++. So in static languages the following is enforced static int awesomeNumber; awesomeNumber = 10; Many argue this increases robustness as well as decrease chances of Runtime Errors. Since the compiler will catch those horrible horrible mistakes you made throughout your code. Your methods contracts are tighter, downside to this is crap ton of boilerplate code. Weak and Strong Typing can be often be confused with dynamic and static languages. Weak typed languages can lead to philosophical questions like what does the number 2 added to the word ‘two’ give you? Things like this are possible with a weak typed language. a = 2 b = "2" concatenate(a, b) // Returns "22" add(a, b) // Returns 4 Traditionally languages may place restriction on what transaction may occur for example in a strong typed language adding a string and integer will result in a type error as shown below. >>> a = 10 >>> b = 'ten' >>> a + b Traceback (most recent call last): File "", line 1, in TypeError: unsupported operand type(s) for +: 'int' and 'str' >>> Conclusion Regardless of where you land on this discussion, claiming one is better than the other would lead to flame war, but there are places where each is strong. Dynamic languages are good for fast quick development cycles and prototyping, while static languages are better suited to longer development cycles where trivial bugs could be extremely costly (telecommunication systems, air traffic control). For example if some giant company called Moo Corp. spent millions of dollars on QA and Testing and a bug somehow gets into the field, to fix it would mean another round of testing. When sitting in that chair the choice is clear static languages FTW, its a hard job but someone has to milk the cows. Test, test, and test. Just a little food for thought, for when you are starting your next project. You never know what limitations you maybe placing on yourself and your team. What do you do consider when selecting a programming language for a project?

the test was run locally (no network involved ) on a lenovo w520 laptop with 8 cores & 8 gb ram with an ssd card. the storage engine we used was esent, safe transactions. default ravendb configuration, running in console, with logging disabled. we took the most obvious approach both in the code we wrote and the test approach. i am pretty sure that i’ll get a lot of helpful suggestions about the load testing. the code is available here, and you are more than welcome to take it for a spin and get your own results. what is important for me to note is that we have done exactly zero performance tuning . that is relevant to both the index we use, to the code that we wrote, everything. i just wrote things down, and didn’t worry about performance, even though this code is going to go through a load test. why don’t i worry about it? because ravendb is setup to do the right thing. it will self optimize itself without you need to take care of that. with that said, here are the test results: you can see that the red line is the number of users we have, and we have this worrying green line that seems to go crazy… except that this is actually the number of page served. the part that we care about is actually the avg. page time, and that is the blue line. this line , however, is basically flat no matter the load. here are the test results in details load test summary test run information load test name loadtest1 description start time 04/09/12 14:16:38 end time 04/09/12 14:21:38 warm-up duration 00:00:20 duration 00:05:00 controller local run number of agents 1 run settings used run settings1 overall results max user load 300 tests/sec 20.0 tests failed 0 avg. test time (sec) 12.5 transactions/sec 0 avg. transaction time (sec) 0 pages/sec 77.1 avg. page time (sec) 0.0062 requests/sec 77.1 requests failed 0 requests cached percentage 0 avg. response time (sec) 0.0062 avg. content length (bytes) 3,042 key statistic: top 5 slowest pages url (link to more details) 95% page time (sec) 0.018 0.018 0.014 0.014 0.014 key statistic: top 5 slowest tests name 95% test time (sec) browsing 19.3 browseandsearch 17.6 10.6 6 test results name scenario total tests failed tests (% of total) avg. test time (sec) browsing load 1,533 0 (0) 16.0 browseandsearch load 1,685 0 (0) 15.0 load 2,770 0 (0) 9.00 6 page results url (link to more details) scenario test avg. page time (sec) count load browsing 0.0072 1,629 load browseandsearch 0.0071 1,783 load browseandsearch 0.0064 3,443 load searching 0.0064 2,798 load browsing 0.0063 1,617 load browsing 0.0063 1,580 load browseandsearch 0.0063 1,760 load searching 0.0055 2,810 load searching 0.0055 2,839 load searching 0.0054 2,866 6 transaction results name scenario test response time (sec) elapsed time (sec) count 6 system under test resources machine name % processor time available memory at test completion (mb) 6 controller and agents resources machine name % processor time available memory at test completion (mb) 13.0 1,356 6 errors type subtype count last message you can dig in and look at the data, it is quite interesting. under the load of 300 users, the average page response time was… 0.0062 seconds. and ravendb was using just 13% of the cpu, and that include running the agents running the tests. after seeing how well ravendb does in perf testing, i decided to take it up a notch. starting from 10 users, with a step duration of 1 sec, add 50 users for each step, all the way to 3,000. start with a warm up period of 20 seconds, then run the test for 10 minutes. let us see what happens, okay? just to be clear, this is a ravendb application running with three thousands concurrent users , on an off the shelve laptop while i was busy doing other stuff. one word of warning before hand, because i run everything on a single machine, just running so many users on the machine significantly slowed down how ravendb is reacting. basically, the code for managing the perf test took so many resources that ravendb had to fight to get some to actually answer the queries. scared yet, because here are the results in graph form. now you can actually see that we have some fluctuations in the graphs, the number of users grows and grows until we get to 3,000 and we have 0.37 seconds response times. again, i remind you, we have done zero optimizations and this is idiomatic ravendb code. and we were able to serve requests at a frankly pretty amazing rate of speed. and here are they in their full details: load test summary test run information load test name loadtest1 description start time 04/09/12 15:28:48 end time 04/09/12 15:38:48 warm-up duration 00:00:20 duration 00:10:00 controller local run number of agents 1 run settings used load overall results max user load 3,000 tests/sec 196 tests failed 0 avg. test time (sec) 14.3 transactions/sec 0 avg. transaction time (sec) 0 pages/sec 741 avg. page time (sec) 0.37 requests/sec 741 requests failed 0 requests cached percentage 0 avg. response time (sec) 0.37 avg. content length (bytes) 3,080 key statistic: top 5 slowest pages url (link to more details) 95% page time (sec) 0.83 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.81 key statistic: top 5 slowest tests name 95% test time (sec) browsing 20.8 browseandsearch 19.8 12.9 6 test results name scenario total tests failed tests (% of total) avg. test time (sec) browsing load 31,843 0 (0) 17.4 browseandsearch load 33,989 0 (0) 16.8 load 51,650 0 (0) 10.8 6 page results url (link to more details) scenario test avg. page time (sec) count load browsing 0.40 32,338 load searching 0.39 52,597 load browsing 0.39 32,627 load browseandsearch 0.39 68,576 load browsing 0.38 32,803 load searching 0.38 52,283 load browseandsearch 0.37 34,766 load browseandsearch 0.36 34,982 load searching 0.35 51,991 load searching 0.33 51,846 6 transaction results name scenario test response time (sec) elapsed time (sec) count 6 system under test resources machine name % processor time available memory at test completion (mb) 6 controller and agents resources machine name % processor time available memory at test completion (mb) 85.4 1,203 6 errors type subtype count last message note that the reason fro the high cpu usage is that the tests and ravendb were running on the same machine. the code for the entire series can be found here: https://github.com/ayende/nuget.perf no, i’ll not do a similar sql version, if you want to, i would be very interested in seeing one, but that isn’t something that i intend to do. yes, it is a simple and trivial implementation, but that was pretty much the whole point. being able to get to that scale without actually doing anything special is what we strive for in ravendb.

Why create a mechanism to expect a test failure? There comes a time when one would want and expect a JUnit @Test case fail. Though this is pretty rare, it happens. I had the need to detect when a JUnit Test fails and then, if expected, to pass instead of fail. The specific case was that I was testing a piece of code that could throw an Assert error inside of a call of the object. The code was written to be an enhancement to the popular new Fest Assertions framework, so in order to test the functionality, one would expect test cases to fail on purpose. A Solution One possible solution is to utilize the functionality provided by a JUnit @Rule in conjunction with a custom marker in the form of an annotation. . Why use a @Rule? @Rule objects provide an AOP-like interface to a test class and each test cases. Rules are reset prior to each test case being run and they expose the workings of the test case in the style of an @Around AspectJ advice would. Required code elements @Rule object to check the status of each @Test case @ExpectedFailure custom marker annotation Test cases proving code works! Optional specific exception to be thrown if annotated test case does not fail NOTE: working code is available on my github page and will soon be in Maven Central. Feel free to Fork the project and submit a pull request Example Usage In this example, the "exception" object is a Fest assertion enhanced ExpectedException (look for my next post to expose this functionality). The expected exception will make assertions and in order to test those, the test case must be marked as @ExpectedFailure public class ExceptionAssertTest { @Rule public ExpectedException exception = ExpectedException.none(); @Rule public ExpectedTestFailureWatcher watcher = ExpectedTestFailureWatcher.instance(); @Test @ExpectedFailure("The matcher should fail becasue exception is not a SimpleException") public void assertSimpleExceptionAssert_exceptionIsOfType() { // expected exception will be of type "SimpleException" exception.instanceOf(SimpleException.class); // throw something other than SimpleException...expect failure throw new RuntimeException("this is an exception"); } } Implementation of Solution Reminder, the latest code is available on my github page. @Rule code (ExpectedTestFailureWatcher.java) import org.junit.rules.TestRule; import org.junit.runner.Description; import org.junit.runners.model.Statement; // YEAH Guava!! import static com.google.common.base.Strings.isNullOrEmpty; public class ExpectedTestFailureWatcher implements TestRule { /** * Static factory to an instance of this watcher * * @return New instance of this watcher */ public static ExpectedTestFailureWatcher instance() { return new ExpectedTestFailureWatcher(); } @Override public Statement apply(final Statement base, final Description description) { return new Statement() { @Override public void evaluate() throws Throwable { boolean expectedToFail = description.getAnnotation(ExpectedFailure.class) != null; boolean failed = false; try { // allow test case to execute base.evaluate(); } catch (Throwable exception) { failed = true; if (!expectedToFail) { throw exception; // did not expect to fail and failed...fail } } // placed outside of catch if (expectedToFail && !failed) { throw new ExpectedTestFailureException(getUnFulfilledFailedMessage(description)); } } /** * Extracts detailed message about why test failed * @param description * @return */ private String getUnFulfilledFailedMessage(Description description) { String reason = null; if (description.getAnnotation(ExpectedFailure.class) != null) { reason = description.getAnnotation(ExpectedFailure.class).reason(); } if (isNullOrEmpty(reason)) { reason = "Should have failed but didn't"; } return reason; } }; } } @ExpectedFailure custom annotation (ExpectedFailure.java) import java.lang.annotation.*; /** * Initially this is just a marker annotation to be used by a JUnit4 Test case in conjunction * with ExpectedTestFailure @Rule to indicate that a test is supposed to be failing */ @Documented @Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME) @Target(value = ElementType.METHOD) public @interface ExpectedFailure { // TODO: enhance by adding specific information about what type of failure expected //Class assertType() default Throwable.class; /** * Text based reason for marking test as ExpectedFailure * @return String */ String reason() default ""; } Custom Exception (Optional, you can easily just throw RuntimeException or existing custom exception) public class ExpectedTestFailureException extends Throwable { public ExpectedTestFailureException(String message) { super(message); } } Can't one exploit the ability to mark a failure as expected? With great power comes great responsibility, it is advised that you do not mark a test as being @ExpectedFailure if you do not understand exactly why the test if failing. It is recommended that this testing method be implemented with care. DO NOT use the @ExpectedFailure annotation as an alternative to @Ignore Possible future enhancements could include ways to specify the specific assertion or the specific message asserted during the test case execution. Known issues In this current state, the @ExpectedFailure annotation can cover up additional assertions and until the future enhancements have been put into place, it is advised to use this methodology wisely.

Fixing a problem usually starts with reproducing it – what Steve McConnell calls “stabilizing the error.” Technically speaking, you can’t be sure you are fixing the problem unless you can run through the same steps, see the problem happen yourself, fix it, and then run through the same steps and make sure that the problem went away. If you can’t reproduce it, then you are only guessing at what’s wrong, and that means you are only guessing that your fix is going to work. But let’s face it – it’s not always practical or even possible to reproduce a problem. Lots of bug reports don’t include enough information for you to understand what the hell the problem actually was, never mind what was going on when the problem occurred – especially bug reports from the field. Rahul Premraj and Thomas Zimmermann found in The Art of Collecting Bug Reports (from the book Making Software), that the two most important factors in determining whether a bug report will get fixed or not are: Is the description well-written, can the programmer understand what was wrong or why the customer thought something was wrong? Does it include steps to reproduce the problem, even basic information about what they were doing when the problem happened? It’s not a lot to ask – from a good tester at least. But you can’t reasonably expect this from customers. There are other cases where you have enough information, but don’t have the tools or expertise to reproduce a problem – for example, when a pen tester has found a security bug using specialist tools that you don’t have or don’t understand how to use. Sometimes you can fix a problem without being able to see it happen in front of you, come up with a theory on your own, trusting your gut – especially if this is code that you recently worked on. But reproducing the problem first gives you the confidence that you aren’t wasting your time and that you actually fixed the right issue. Trying to reproduce the problem should almost always be your first step. What’s involved in reproducing a bug? What you want to do is to find, as quickly as possible, a simple test that consistently shows the problem, so that you can then run a set of experiments, trace through the code, isolate what’s wrong, and prove that it went away after you fixed the code. The best explanation that I’ve found of how to reproduce a bug is in Debug It! where Paul Butcher patiently explains the pre-conditions (identifying the differences between your test environment and the customer’s environment, and trying to control as many of them as possible), and then how to walk backwards from the error to recreate the conditions required to make the problem happen again. Butcher is confident that if you take a methodical approach, you will (almost) always be able to reproduce the problem successfully. In Why Programs Fail: A guide to Systematic Debugging, Andreas Zeller, a German Comp Sci professor, explains that it’s not enough just to make the problem happen again. Your goal is to come up with the simplest set of circumstances that will trigger the problem – the smallest set of data and dependencies, the simplest and most efficient test(s) with the fewest variables, the shortest path to making the problem happen. You need to understand what is not relevant to the problem, what’s just noise that adds to the cost and time of debugging and testing – and get rid of it. You do this using binary techniques to slice up the input data set, narrowing in on the data and other variables that you actually need, repeating this until the problem starts to become clear. Code Complete’s chapter on Debugging is another good guide on how to reproduce a problem following a set of iterative steps, and how to narrow in on the simplest and most useful set of test conditions required to make the problem happen; as well as common places to look for bugs: checking for code that has been changed recently, code that has a history of other bugs, code that is difficult to understand (if you find it hard to understand, there’s a good chance that the programmers who worked on it before you did too). Replay Tools One of the most efficient ways to reproduce a problem, especially in server code, is by automatically replaying the events that led up to the problem. To do this you’ll need to capture a time-sequenced record of what happened, usually from an audit log, and a driver to read and play the events against the system. And for this to work properly, the behavior of the system needs to be deterministic – given the same set of inputs in the same sequence, the same results will occur each time. Otherwise you’ll have to replay the logs over and over and hope for the right set of circumstances to occur again. On one system that I worked on, the back-end engine was a deterministic state machine designed specifically to support replay. All of the data and events, including configuration and control data and timer events, were recorded in an inbound event log that we could replay. There were no random factors or unpredictable external events – the behavior of the system could always be recreated exactly by replaying the log, making it easy to reproduce bugs from the field. It was a beautiful thing, but most code isn’t designed to support replay in this way. Recent research in virtual machine technology has led to the development of replay tools to snapshot and replay events in a virtual machine. VMWare Workstation, for example, included a cool replay debugging facility for C/C++ programmers which was “guaranteed to have instruction-by-instruction identical behavior each time.” Unfortunately, this was an expensive thing to make work, and it was dropped in version 8, at the end of last year. Replay Solutions provides replay for Java programs, creating a virtual machine to record the complete stream of events (including database I/O, network I/O, system calls, interrupts) as the application is running, and then later letting you simulate and replay the same events against a copy of the running system, so that you can debug the application and observe its behavior. They also offer similar application record and replay technology for mobile HTML5 and JavaScript applications. This is exciting stuff, especially for complex systems where it is difficult to setup and reproduce problems in different environments. Fuzzing and Randomness If the problem is non-deterministic, or you can't come up with the right set of inputs, one approach to try is to simulate random data inputs and watch to see what happens - hoping to happen on a set of input variables that will trigger the problem. This is called fuzzing. Fuzzing is a brute force testing technique that is used to uncover data validation weaknesses that can cause reliability and security problems. It's effective at finding bugs, but it’s a terribly inefficient way to reproduce a specific problem. First you need to setup something to fuzz the inputs (this is easy if a program is reading from a file, or a web form – there are fuzzing tools to help with this – but a hassle if you need to write your own smart protocol fuzzer to test against internal APIs). Then you need time to run through all of the tests (with mutation fuzzing, you may need to run tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of tests to get enough interesting combinations) and more time to sift through and review all of the test results and understand any problems that are found. Through fuzzing you will get new information about the system to help you identity problem areas in the code, and maybe find new bugs, but you may not end up any closer to fixing the problem that you started on. Reproducing problems, especially when you are working from a bad bug report (“the system was running fine all day, then it crashed… the error said something about a null pointer I think?”) can be a serious time sink. But what if you can’t reproduce the problem at all? Let’s look at that next…

Test-Driven Development is a code-level practice, based on running automated tests that are written before the production code they exercise. But practices can be applied only in the context where they were developed: when some premises are not present is difficult to apply TDD as-is. Automated specification For example, consider the premise of assertion automation: it is possible to write a (hopefully) small algorithm that is able to check the result of running production code and return true or false. In the case the problem is: Draw an antialiased circle on this blank canvas. -- Carlo Pescio it is not immediately clear how to define automated tests for this behavior. We could check that some pixels are still blank inside or outside the circle, or that there is a bound number of pixels of black color; or even that they are contiguous. An opinion I've heard (that I try not to misrepresent) is that we only need to write some looser tests in these cases, checking only a few pixels of the circle. This process will give us a little feedback on the API of our Canvas or Circle object, but not much on the algorithm we are implementing inside it. Are we going in the right direction? Have new test cases correctly been satisfied without a large intervention on the existing code? Are we painting some unrelated pixels due to an hidden bug? What I argument here is instead that we should change the nature of the feedback mechanism. Speaking in control theory terms, change the block that acquires the output and influences the input to our design process. Develop in the browser When I was developing a Couchapp, a kind of web application served directly from a CouchDB database, I was appaled by the difficulty of testing it. While the production code was composed of ~100 lines, it was a complex mix of technologies: HTML and CSS code, client-side JavaScript for managing user events and some server-side JavaScript for the "queries" (actually the server-side only consists of the database in Couchapps.) Some of this logic could be tested in automation, like the result of queries over views. Yet much of it was related to a user interface, and as such requiring a large time investment to automate. Instead of waking up my Selenium server and start to manipulate a browser with code, I noticed that this UI was almost read-only; there were a few cases where a new document would have to be inserted, but a manual test of them was short and did not even required to reload the page. The whole application state was observable. Summing it up, I performed a frequent manual test that took a few seconds instead of trying to define complex and brittle automation logic for testing the UI. Now that I've been introduced to a simple qualitative ROI model by Carlo Pescio's article, I would do the same for every context where: a large time investment is needed for automating tests. it is possible to perform manual tests quickly. as the only logic conclusion. A word of caution TDD has many benefits (including catching regressions early) so I'm not prepared to give it up just because it is difficult to test. These are technical scenarios where I have successfully followed TDD by the book: multithreaded and multiprocess code applications distributed over multiple machines computer vision (object recognition and tracking) image manipulation code (via comparison testing) development of browser bindings for Selenium And even in the case the big picture is not easy to test-first (like in the case of image manipulation), we can benefit from TDD the pieces of the solution. For example, in the computer vision case I wasn't able to write a test beforehand for tracking a car inside a movie. But I was able to TDD the objects that the algorithmic solution to the problem called for: Patch, Area, Cluster, Movement, and so on. End-to-end TDD is not always cheap but unit level TDD can often be, if it considers testability as a relevant property (while regression testing even at the end-to-end level is always possible, in the worst case with record and replay.) End-to-end specifications If we can't define automated assertions for our "big picture" problem, it doesn't mean that we cannot apply the TDD approach, by substituting a manual step. Going back to the circle problem, I would define manual test cases on an inspection page seen by a human. I've seen this done with layouts and multiple browsers to catch CSS rendering bugs, for example: It would be very difficult to check these screenshots automatically, as each browser renders pages a bit differently from the others. The iterative process becomes: Define a cheap manual test, automating the arrange and act phases but not the assertion. Write only the code necessary to make it pass. Refactor. As long as the number of tests does not increase without limit and the manual check can be performed quickly, this approach does not slow you down with respect to TDD by-the-book. You'll have to take care of regression with other means; but at least you define a set of manual test cases. Feedback! TDD is an instrument of feedback: if feedback cannot be gathered in an automated way, we have to resort to manual checking of the specifications. Here are other examples of manual tools for generating feedback: Read-Eval-Print Loops: you can experimenting with existing classes and functions, and easily repeat steps thanks to history. the browser refresh button: the fastest way to transform a PSD into an HTML and CSS template. MongoDB console for learning the database API; other kinds of consoles like Firebug and Chrome's, or Clojure's.

At the end of July 2012, Groovy 2.0 was released with support for static type checking and some performance improvements through the use of JDK7 invokedynamic and type inference as a result of type information now available through static typing. I was interested in seeing some estimate as to how significant the performance improvements in Groovy 2.0 have turned out and how Groovy 2.0 would now compare to Java in terms of performance. In case the performance gap had become minor, or at least acceptable, in the meantime, it would certainly be time to take a serious look at Groovy. Groovy has been ready for production for a long time. So, let's see whether it can compare with Java in terms of performance. The only performance measurement I could find on the Internet was this little benchmark measurment on jlabgroovy. The measurement only consists of calculating Fibonacci numbers with and without the @CompileStatic annotation. That's it; i.e., it's certainly not very meaningful in striving to get an overall impression. I was only interested in obtaining some rough estimate of how Groovy compares to Java as far as performance is concerned. Java performance measurement included Alas, no measurement was included in this little benchmark as to how much time Java takes to calculate Fibonacci numbers. So I "ported" the Groovy code to Java (here it is) and repeated the measurements. All measurements were done on an Intel Core2 Duo CPU E8400 3.00 GHz using JDK7u6 running on Windows 7 with Service Pack 1. I used Eclipse Juno with the Groovy plugin using the Groovy compiler version 2.0.0.xx-20120703-1400-e42-RELEASE. These are the figures I obtained without having a warm-up phase: Groovy 2.0 without @CompileStatic Groovy/Java performance factor Groovy 2.0 with @CompileStatic Groovy/Java performance factor Kotlin 0.1.2580 Java static ternary 4352ms 4.7 926ms 1.0 1005ms 924ms static if 4267ms 4.7 911ms 0.9 1828ms 917ms instance ternary 4577ms 2.7 1681ms 1.8 994ms 917ms instance if 4592ms 2.9 1604ms 1.7 1611ms 969ms I also did measurements with a warm-up phase of various length with the conclusion that there is no benefit for either language with or without the @CompileStatic. Since the Fibonacci algorithm is that recursive the warm-up phase seems to be "included" for any Fibonacci number that is not very small. We can see that the performance improvements due to static typing have made quite a difference. This little comparison does little justice, though. To me, the impression that static typing in Groovy has had in conjunction with type inference has led to significant performance improvements—and in the same way it has led to Groovy++ becoming very strong. With the @CompileStatic, the performance of Groovy is about 1-2 times slower than Java, and without Groovy, it's about 3-5 times slower. Unhappily, the measurements of "instance ternary" and "instance if" are the slowest. Unless we want to create masterpieces in programming with static functions, the measurements for "static ternary" and "static if" are not that relevant for most of the code with the ambition to be object-oriented (based on instances). Conclusion When Groovy was about 10-20 times slower than Java (see benchmark table almost at the end of this article) it is questionable whether the @CompileStatic was used or not. This means to me that Groovy is ready for applications where performance has to be somewhat comparable to Java. Earlier, Groovy (or Ruby, Closure, etc.) could only serve as a plus on your CV because of the performance impediment (at least here in Europe). New JVM kid on the block: Kotlin I added the figures for Kotlin as well (here is the code). Kotlin is a relatively new statically typed JVM-based Java-compatible programming language. Kotlin is more concise than Java by supporting variable type inferences, higher-order functions (closures), extension functions, mixins and first-class delegation, etc. Contrary to Groovy, it is more geared towards Scala, but also integrates well with Java. Kotlin is still under development and has yet to be officially released. So the figures have to be taken with caution as the guys at JetBrains are still working on the code optimization. Ideally, Kotlin should be as fast as Java. The measurements were done with the current "official" release 0.1.2580. And what about future performance improvements? At the time when JDK1.3 was the most recent JDK, I still earned my pay with Smalltalk development. At that time the performance of VisualWorks Smalltalk (now Cincom Smalltalk) and IBM VA for Smalltalk (now owned by Instantiations) was very good comparable to Java. And Smalltalk is a dynamically typed language, like pre-Goovy 2.0 and Ruby, where the compiler cannot make use of type inference to do optimizations. Because of this, it always appeared strange to me that Groovy, Ruby and other JVM-based dynamic languages had such a big performance penalty compared to Java when Smalltalk had not. From that point of view I think there's still room for Groovy performance improvements beyond @CompileStatic.

The more I use dependency injection (DI) in my code, the more it alters the way I see both my design and implementation. Injection is so convenient and powerful that you end up wanting to make sure you use it as often as you can. And as it turns out, you can use it in many, many places. Let’s cover briefly the most obvious scenarios where DI, and more specifically, Guice, are a good fit: objects created either at class loading time or very early in your application. These two aspects are covered by either direct injection or by providers, which allow you to start building some of your object graph before you can inject more objects. I won’t go too much in details about these two use cases since they are explained in pretty much any Guice tutorial you can find on the net. Once the injector has created your graph of objects, you are pretty much back to normal and instantiating your “runtime objects” (the objects you create during the life time of your application) the normal way, most likely with “new” or factories. However, you will quickly start noticing that you need some runtime information to create these objects, other parts of them could be injected. Let’s take the following example: we have a GeoService interface that provides various geolocation functions, such as telling you if two addresses are close to each other: public interface GeoService { /** * @return true if the two addresses are within @param{miles} * miles of each other. */ boolean isNear(Address address1, Address address2, int miles); } Then you have a Person class which uses this service and also needs a name and an address to be instantiated: public class Person { // Fields omitted public Person(String name, Address address, GeoService gs) { this.name = name; this.address = address; this.geoService = gs; } public boolean livesNear(Person otherPerson) { return geoService.isNear(address, otherPerson.getAddress(), 2 /* miles */); } } Something odd should jump at you right away with this class: while name and address are part of the identity of a Person object, the presence of the GeoService instance in it feels wrong. The service is a singleton that is created on start up, so a perfect candidate to be injected, but how can I achieve the creation of a Person object when some of its information is supplied by Guice and the other part by myself? Guice gives you a very elegant and flexible way to implement this scenario with “assisted injection”. The first step is to define a factory for our objects that represents exactly how we want to create them: public interface PersonFactory { Person create(String name, Address address); } Since only name and address participate in the identity of our Person objects, these are the only parameters we need to construct our objects. The other parameters should be supplied by Guice so we modify our Person constructor to let Guice know: @Inject public Person(@Assisted String name, @Assisted Address address, GeoService geoService) { this.name = name; this.address = address; this.geoService = geoService; } In this code, I have added an @Inject annotation on the constructor and an @Assisted annotation on each parameter that I will be providing. Guice will take care of injecting the rest. Finally, we connect the factory to its objects when creating the module: Module module1 = new FactoryModuleBuilder() .build(PersonFactory.class); The important part here is to realize that we will never instantiate PersonFactory: Guice will. From now on, all we need to do whenever we want to instantiate a Person object is to ask Guice to hand us a factory: @Inject private PersonFactory personFactory; // ... Person p = personFactory.create("Bob", new Address("1 Ocean st")); If you want to find out more, take a look at the main documentation for assisted injection, which explains how to support overloaded constructors and also how to create different kinds of objects within the same factory. Wrapping up Let’s take a look at what we did. First, we started with a suspicious looking constructor: public Person(String name, Address address, GeoService s) { This constructor is suspicious because it accepts parameters that do not participate in the identity of the object (you won’t use the GeoService parameter when calculating the hash code of a Person object). Instead, we replaced this constructor with a factory that only accepts identity fields: public interface PersonFactory { Person create(String name, Address address); } and we let Guice’s assisted injection take care of creating a fully formed object for us. This observation leads us to the Identity Constructor rule: If a constructor accepts parameters that are not used to define the identity of the objects, consider injecting these parameters. Once you start looking at your objects with this rule in mind, you will be surprised to find out how many of them can benefit from assisted injection.