DOCSLIB.ORG

Testing Microservices with Mountebank MEAP

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Testing Microservices with Mountebank MEAP MEAP Edition Manning Early Access Program Testing Microservices with Mountebank Version 11 Copyright 2018 Manning Publications For more information on this and other Manning titles go to www.manning.com ©Manning Publications Co. We welcome reader comments about anything in the manuscript - other than typos and other simple mistakes. These will be cleaned up during production of the book by copyeditors and proofreaders. https://forums.manning.com/forums/testing-microservices-with-mountebank welcome And thank you for purchasing the MEAP for Testing Microservices with Mountebank. The increasingly distributed world of microservices has challenged traditional testing approaches. Mountebank is what’s known as a service virtualization tool – essentially stubbing over the wire – and is tailor made to help you with your microservices testing woes. The good news is that the tool is cross-platform and, because it uses an HTTP API, language-agnostic. It will be helpful to know some JavaScript to work through some of the examples, but we’ll keep the focus on the tool itself and how it enables a broader test strategy. More importantly, experience in automating tests will help you get the most out of the book. Mountebank is about making test automation as easy as possible. The book starts by building a foundation of fundamentals, starting with a recap on microservices and how they require a different testing approach. The second section deep dives into using mountebank, including using record and playback functionality to create realistic test scenarios and post-processing responses. We’ll also show more complex scenarios – those requiring programming mountebank itself or stubbing binary TCP protocols for integration – near the end of the section. I promise you no silver bullets. Mountebank has a place, and an important place, in a microservices testing strategy, but I make no claims of it being a total solution. After we get over some fundamentals of using service virtualization to write automated tests, we’ll get into how to construct an overall Continuous Delivery testing pipeline for microservices that ensures release independences between services. We’ll also look at how to use service virtualization to support a thoughtful performance test strategy that doesn’t require an end-to-end environment. I’m very thankful that you’re here. Your feedback throughout this book is essential to making Testing Microservices with Mountebank the worldwide best-seller we both know it can be. Don’t hesitate to send any questions, concerns, or comments to the Author Forum. I look forward to hearing from you! — Brandon Byars ©Manning Publications Co. We welcome reader comments about anything in the manuscript - other than typos and other simple mistakes. These will be cleaned up during production of the book by copyeditors and proofreaders. https://forums.manning.com/forums/testing-microservices-with-mountebank brief contents Preface Acknowledgments About this book About the author PART 1: FIRST STEPS 1 Testing Microservices 2 Taking Mountebank for a Test Drive PART 2: USING MOUNTEBANK 3 Testing Using Canned Responses 4 Using Predicates to Send Different Responses 5 Adding record/replay behavior 6 Programming mountebank 7 Adding behaviors 8 Protocols PART 3: CLOSING THE LOOP 9 Mountebank and Continuous Delivery 10 Putting mountebank in a continuous delivery pipeline ©Manning Publications Co. We welcome reader comments about anything in the manuscript - other than typos and other simple mistakes. These will be cleaned up during production of the book by copyeditors and proofreaders. https://forums.manning.com/forums/testing-microservices-with-mountebank preface Pete Hodgson used to joke that building your own mocking framework was a rite of passage for ThoughtWorks developers. Those days are past, not because ThoughtWorks doesn’t care about testing anymore (we do, very much), but because the tooling around testing is a lot better, and because there are more interesting problems nowadays to focus on. But in the winter of 2014, I had a testing problem, and it turns out, not being able to test prevents you from focusing on those more interesting problems. We had adopted a microservices architecture, but were limited by some of the legacy service code we were strangling out. The idea of service virtualization — using tests to mock out downstream network dependencies — was not new to us, even if the term wasn’t common in the open source world. It seemed like every time a new developer joined the team, they recommended using VCR (a ruby tool) or WireMock (a Java one) to solve the problem. Those are great tools, and they’re in great company. By that time, ThoughtWorkers had contributed a couple more quality tools to the mix (stubby4j and MOCO), and tools like Hoverfly would be coming soon. You would not be wrong to pick any of them if you need to virtualize HTTP services. Unfortunately, our downstream service wasn’t HTTP. The fact that new team members kepts suggesting the same type of tooling provided good evidence that the approach worked. The fact that, without such tooling, we were unable to gain the confidence we needed in our tests provided the need for mountebank. Over that winter break, buoyed by red wine and Jon Stewart jokes, I wrote mountebank. This book is about mountebank, but it’s also about testing and about continuous delivery and about microservices and architecture. You may be able to do your job without mountebank, but if you run into trouble, service virtualization may just be able to help you focus on the more interesting problems. ©Manning Publications Co. We welcome reader comments about anything in the manuscript - other than typos and other simple mistakes. These will be cleaned up during production of the book by copyeditors and proofreaders. https://forums.manning.com/forums/testing-microservices-with-mountebank acknowledgments The advantage of working for a company like ThoughtWorks is that a lot of people I know have written technical books. The disadvantage is that every single one of them told me writing a book is, like, really hard (thanks Martin Fowler, Neal Ford, Mike Mason). Fortunately, Pete Hodgson wasn’t one of them. He has, however, written several articles, including one on testing JavaScript on Martin Fowler’s bliki. I didn’t really understand it the first 10 times I read it, and, not being a JavaScript developer myself, tried to implement a synchronous promise library based on a naive interpretation of promises. A few weeks later, when I had untangled my frontal cortex from my corpus callosum before realizing what a Bad Idea trying to write my own promise library was, I asked Pete for help. He provided the first contribution to mountebank, showing me how to actually test JavaScript. I felt that was a good thing to know, since I was writing a testing tool. Thanks, Pete. Paul Hammant also never bothered to tell me how hard writing a book is. Unfortunately, he also never bothered to tell me how hard managing a popular open source project is. A long time open sorceror himself (he kicked off Selenium, one of the early inversion of control frameworks, and a host of other initiatives), he likely assumed everyone suffered from the same desire to get off work every night to code and blog and manage a community like he does. Nonetheless, Paul has been both an incredibly helpful promoter of mountebank and an incredibly helpful mentor, even if I don’t always do a good job of listening to him. Of course, none of this would have been possible without the support of that first team, named SilverHawks after some cartoon that, despite being age appropriate for me, I never watched. I owe my thanks to Shyam Chary, Bear Claw, Gonzo, Andrew Hadley, Sarah Hutchins, Nagesh Kumar, Stan Guillory, and many others. The mountebank community has grown from those humble beginnings, and I owe a debt of gratitude to all the many folks who had dedicated their free time to improving the product. I was in Oklahoma City when Manning called to suggest writing a book. It was, like, really hard. Elesha Hyde, my development editor was amazing, even when I’d go silent for weeks at a time because work and life and kids ©Manning Publications Co. We welcome reader comments about anything in the manuscript - other than typos and other simple mistakes. These will be cleaned up during production of the book by copyeditors and proofreaders. https://forums.manning.com/forums/testing-microservices-with-mountebank didn’t wait. I wrote this book in Oklahoma, Dallas, Toronto, Vancouver, San Francisco, San Antonio, Houston, Austin, Sao Paolo, and in Playa del Carmen. That’s right, I wrote parts of this book while drinking mojitos on the beach (and chapter 4 is better off for it). Which brings me to Mona. You let me write on weekends and on vacations. You let me write at family events and you let me write when your damn Patriots were playing in another damn Super Bowl (or whatever they call that last game, I don’t follow baseball that much anymore). You let me write at the spa and at the pool while you kept our kids from drowning. Thank you. ©Manning Publications Co. We welcome reader comments about anything in the manuscript - other than typos and other simple mistakes. These will be cleaned up during production of the book by copyeditors and proofreaders. https://forums.manning.com/forums/testing-microservices-with-mountebank about this book I wrote Testing Microservices with Mountebank to show how service virtualization helps you test microservices, and how mountebank is a powerful service virtualization tool. That necessarily requires building a deep familiarity with mountebank — the middle section of this book is dedicated to the subject — but many of the lessons apply with any service virtualization tool.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Eliminate Software Development and Testing Constraints with Service Virtualization 2 | WHITE PAPER: KEY CAPABILITIES of a SERVICE VIRTUALIZATION SOLUTION Ca.Com
    WHITE PAPER | NOVEMBER 2014 Eliminate Software Development and Testing Constraints with Service Virtualization 2 | WHITE PAPER: KEY CAPABILITIES OF A SERVICE VIRTUALIZATION SOLUTION ca.com Table of Contents Executive Summary 3 Section 1: Creating a “Live-Like” Environment 4 Simulating Dependent Systems in Dev and Test Environments Section 2: Enabling Parallel Development and Testing 5 Dev and Test Teams Working Simultaneously Section 3: Handling Test Data for Out-of-Scope Dependencies 6 Missing Downstream Data is No Longer a Problem Section 4: Supporting Heterogeneous Technology and Platforms 8 Creating a Truly Complete Environment Section 5: Conclusion 10 Taking the Right First Steps 3 | WHITE PAPER: KEY CAPABILITIES OF A SERVICE VIRTUALIZATION SOLUTION ca.com Executive Summary Challenge The growing complexity of applications, along with globally-dispersed organizations, means teams face a barrage of bottlenecks as they strive to deliver. Examples of bottlenecks—or constraints—include access to mainframe or ERP test environments, lack of test data, access to third-party systems, and budget limitations. Often, constraints are created parallel development teams seeking access to the same environments. Often, teams try to either copy a complete environment in a test lab, or “mock up” responsive systems by coding their own versions for test purposes. This can become a costly and time-consuming endeavor. Opportunity In essence, Service Virtualization (SV) is the productization of the practice of “mocking and stubbing” dev and test environments, with enough realism and context to push development forward faster, while shifting testing left in the lifecycle so integration and release processes can happen faster, with higher quality and less risk.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Service Virtualization IBM Middleware User Community Ask the Experts Series
    An Introduction to Service Virtualization IBM Middleware User Community Ask the Experts Series Matt Tarnawsky Offering Manager, API Testing & Service Virtualization © 2016 IBM Corporation Agenda What is service virtualization? How can I make use of service virtualization? How do I create virtual services? Tools and Integrations © 2016 IBM Corporation Page 2 What is Service Virtualization? Presentation tier SOA/BPM B2B Database ESB Mainframe © 2016 IBM Corporation Page 3 What is Service Virtualization? Presentation tier SOA/BPM B2B Virtual Services Database ESB Mainframe © 2016 IBM Corporation Page 4 Shift Left Automated Integration Testing C o Traditional Service Virtualization l UI Testing = Start testing earlier l a Test Automation b o UNIT SERVICE UI = Test repeatedly and r continuously a Deployment Automation t Exploratory Testing i = Provision and o orchestrate the process n Service Virtualization © 2016 IBM Corporation Page 6 Multi-Speed IT Big Big Bang! Bang! Presentation layer Integrate Integrate Middleware component 1 week 1 week Mainframe component typically 6 Weeks typically 6 Weeks © 2016 IBM Corporation Page 7 7 Actual Service/App Virtual Service/App © 2016 IBM Corporation Page 8 – Isolating parts of the system Other uses such as UI or business processes – Creating new test scenarios – Performance testing – Shielding production systems from test calls © 2016 IBM Corporation Page 9 Rational Test Virtualization Server Presentation Layer – Examine integration protocols and messages to verify end-to-end communication – Reuse integration
    [Show full text]
  • Service Virtualization Data Sheet
    Data Sheet Application Delivery Management Service Virtualization Easily eliminate the development and testing “wait time” that slows application delivery by enabling teams to quickly create realistic simulations of APIs and Virtual Services. Now, teams can focus on service quality rather than resource constraints. Key Features ■ One solution for unit, functional and performance testing—built-in data and performance modelling capabilities; pre-built integrations to ALM, UFT and LoadRunner family of products ■ Cross-vertical usage—proven in multiple industry sectors including financial services, telecom, utilities, insurance manufacturing and more ■ Data-oriented simulation—broad built-in enterprise protocols coverage and modelling techniques independent of customers technical background and skills ■ Large-scale load testing—build for scale and load testing of realistic performance simulation scenarios without impacting production or 3rd party systems Product Highlights services are not available, when data access Today’s composite app initiatives often cre- is restricted, when data is difficult to attain, or ■ Dev focused API simulation—new simulation technology with innovative approach to solving when the services are not suitable for the par- ate a difficult dilemma for development and advanced simulation use cases in testing testing teams: meet the project deadline OR ticular test. of enterprise applications spanning across deliver a high-quality service. The core issue: Web, Mobile and Internet of Things growing interdependency among functional Major impediments addressed by Service ■ Flexible infrastructure—deployment of components leads to reliance on resources Vir tu alization: multiple simulation nodes depending on from third-party vendors, which leads to wait ■ Non-availability of production and performance or test environments needs with time and extra cycles.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolving from Automated to Continuous Testing for Devops
    Issue 2 Evolving from Automated to Continuous Testing for DevOps As agile development practices mature and There are many nuances associated with the 1 DevOps principles begin to infiltrate our transformation from automated testing to Evolving from Automated to corporate cultures, organizations realize the Continuous Testing. In this introduction, we’ll Continuous Testing for DevOps distinct opportunity to accelerate software focus on three key distinctions: delivery. However, when you speed up 2 Research from Gartner: any process, immature practice areas and • Aligning “test” with business risk Market Guide for API Testing and roadblocks become much more pronounced. Service Virtualization It’s the difference between driving over a • Ubiquitous access to complete test speed bump at 5 MPH versus 50 MPH … environments 8 at 50 MPH, that speed bump is going to be Top 5 Continuous Testing quite jarring. • Extreme test automation at the API/ Questions from Gartner message layer Conferences Accelerating any business process will expose systemic constraints that shackle Aligning Test and Business Risk 9 the entire organization to its slowest moving The most fundamental shift required in Parasoft Continuous Testing component. In the case of the accelerated Accelerates Testing and moving from automated to continuous is SDLC, testing has become the most significant Improves Quality aligning “test” with business risk. Especially barrier to taking full advantage of iterative with DevOps and Continuous Delivery, 11 approaches to software development. releasing with both speed and confidence About Parasoft For organizations to leverage these requires having immediate feedback on the transformative development strategies, they business risks associated with a software must shift from test automation to Continuous release candidate.
    [Show full text]
  • The Next Generation of Test Environment Management
    Service Virtualization: The Next Generation of Test Environment Management Today's complex, interdependent systems wreak havoc on parallel development and functional/performance testing efforts—significantly impacting productivity, quality, and project timelines. As systems become more complex and interdependent, development and quality efforts are further complicated by constraints that limit developer and tester access to realistic test environments. These constraints often include: Missing/unstable components Evolving development environments Inaccessible 3rd party/partner systems and services Systems that are too complex for test labs (mainframes or large ERPs) Internal and external resources with multiple "owners" Although hardware and OS virtualization technology has provided some relief in terms of reduced infrastructure costs and increased access, significant gaps still exist for software development and testing. It is not feasible to leverage hardware or OS virtualization for many large systems such as mainframes and ERPs. And more pointedly, configuring and maintaining the environment and data needed to support development and test efforts still requires considerable time and resources. As a result, keeping complex staged environment in synch with today's constantly-evolving Agile projects is a time-consuming, never-ending task. This paper introduces Service Virtualization: a new way to provide developers and testers the freedom to exercise their applications in incomplete, constantly evolving, and/or difficult-to-access
    [Show full text]
  • CA LISA® Service Virtualization
    DATA SHEET CA LISA® Service Virtualization At a Glance Applications are essential to business today, yet time-to-market, development cost, and application quality remain significant challenges. The complexity and constraints inherent to composite application development continue to disrupt application development efforts despite ever-increasing investment and focus. The CA LISA® product suite simulates constrained or unavailable systems and networks conventional virtualization cannot touch. The CA LISA solutions are designed to allow customers to more effectively develop in parallel, require less infrastructure for software development, and find defects earlier in the application development process. This means applications delivered to market faster, lower costs for application development systems and environments, and higher quality applications for end users. Key Benefits /Results Business Challenges Most new enterprise applications are built in modern, distributed environments, supported The CA LISA suite delivers a proven solution by multiple service teams and delivery partners. This makes development and testing to the problems of system dependency, cost extremely complex and expensive. Key challenges include: and quality constraints when developing complex, customer-facing applications. Unavailable/Inaccessible. Systems become constrained due to schedules, security Significant measured results from recent restrictions, contention between teams, or because they are still under development. customers include: Poor performing. Downstream systems and mockups may not provide the functional • Fortune 100 Global Bank. Avoided $30M in infrastructure and performance lab behavior or performance response needed, network connections in the test lab do not configuration costs in Year one by replacing reflect production network conditions, and end user performance suffers. manually coded “stubs” and responders with Hardware-based virtualization doesn’t work.
    [Show full text]
  • Service Virtualization, Performance Testing, and Devops at Comcast
    CASE STUDY Service Virtualization, Performance Testing, and DevOps at Comcast By Frank Jennings, Director TQM Performance Testing at Comcast Case Study Service Virtualization, Performance Testing, and DevOps at Comcast OVERVIEW Before service virtualization, Comcast's Performance Testing team often ran into scheduling conflicts around sharing the test infrastructure. Sometimes downstream systems were not available. Other times, test engineers would try to run tests at the same time, which could affect the test results. This led to variability between tests, which made it challenging to isolate particular problems. Learn about the results Comcast achieved after successfully implementing service virtualization—and why service virtualization is a key component of our DevOps initiative. 98 65 60 INTERFA ANNUAL REDU INVOLVED REDUCTION AGING in tests that are of time spent creating environment now virtualized. & maintaining test data. downtime. 2 Case Study Service Virtualization, Performance Testing, and DevOps at Comcast THE CHALLENGES My team at Comcast executes performance testing across a number of verticals in the company—from business services, to our enterprise services platform, to customer-facing UIs, to the backend systems that perform the provisioning and activation of the devices for the subscribers on the Comcast network. While our testing targets (AUTs) typically have staged environments that accurately represent the performance of the production systems, the staging systems for the AUT’s dependencies do not. Complicating the matter further was the fact that these environments were difficult to access. When we did gain access, we would sometimes bring down the lower environments (the QA or integration test environments) because they weren't adequately scaled and just could not handle the load.
    [Show full text]
  • Service Virtualization in Mainframe Environments: Removing Constraints to Speed Development with Higher Quality and Lower Cost
    EXECUTIVE BRIEF | SEPTEMBER 2014 Service Virtualization in Mainframe Environments: Removing Constraints to Speed Development with Higher Quality and Lower Cost Executive summary Mainframe systems form the IT backbone for many organizations, providing back-end transaction processing, databases and reporting functionality. Although they are often thought of as legacy systems, this misleading characterization discounts the fact that these systems often hold critical business logic and still receive heavy investment. Organizations that develop and test applications in mainframe environments have struggled to keep up with users’ increasing demands for innovative, new functionality. For one, mainframe development can require decades’ worth of legacy expertise, which is in danger of disappearing as a generation of workers approach retirement. In addi- tion, modern, client-facing applications driven by the mainframe are being accessed by growing numbers of users via smartphones, tablets and other devices – stressing mainframes in unforeseen ways. Finally, there is the significant cost of sourcing the additional MIPS needed to support new development and test requirements within the mainframe – not to mention the time and resources required to install these complex systems. Because of these factors, new challenges have arisen within mainframe development and test operations, such as unavailable systems, inability to accurately model perfor- mance and complex test data requirements. However, by employing service virtualiza- tion to model the core business logic in mainframe platforms and their integrations with other in-house and third-party systems, teams can free themselves of these constraints, leading to faster build and test cycles, higher quality applications and lower costs. By employing service virtualization to model the core business logic in mainframe platforms and their integrations with other in-house and third-party systems, teams can free themselves of constraints, leading to faster build and test cycles, higher quality applications and lower costs.
    [Show full text]
  • Fitch Delivers High Code Coverage & Quality for Microservices Applications
    CASE STUDY Fitch Delivers High Code Coverage & Quality for Microservices Applications Case Study Fitch Delivers High Code Coverage & Quality for Microservices Applications OVERVIEW Fitch Solutions is a world-leading provider of credit intelligence and the primary distributor of Fitch Ratings content. Today, 90% of the world's leading financial institutions, multinational companies, governmental bodies, and consulting firms based in more than 118 countries depend on Fitch content to inform their business decisions. They are a global leader in financial information services with operations in more than 30 countries. Fitch Solutions follows a microservice architecture with over 200 microservices. The majority of those microservices are based on Java Spring Boot, while some use Vue.js and C++. The Fitch Solutions team responsible for these services includes more than 50 developers spread out across the world. CODE COVERAGE DOWNTIME YOY PRODUCTIVITY 90% 0 days +12% 2 Case Study Fitch Delivers High Code Coverage & Quality for Microservices Applications THE CHALLENGES Fitch had three main problems to solve: » Unplanned downtime » Lack of feedback for developers » Rigid two week release cycles UNPLANNED DOWNTIME In 2019, Fitch had 18 incidents that caused their website to go down due to breakages in the production environment. These unplanned outages were related to either their own APIs or other products that they host. Eighteen incidents averaged to more than once a month. That's bad news for the service level agreements (SLA) and their clients. LACK OF FEEDBACK FOR DEVELOPERS The software development team at Fitch Solutions is fluid. Developers move from project to project so it's common for them to work on and become responsible for microservices unknown to them.
    [Show full text]
  • Acceptance Testing Obusiness Continuity Assurance
    Whitepaper operational acceptance testing OBusiness continuity assurance Trusted partner for your Digital Journey Summary Operational Acceptance Testing (OAT) Acceptance Testing Irrespective of the delivery model em- is the penultimate phase of Acceptance Formal testing with respect to user needs, ployed for the project (waterfall, agile, Table of contents Table of figures Testing in a Software Testing Life cycle requirements, and business processes con- devops), 3 aspects need to be addressed: and is the last defence line between a ducted to determine whether or not a system software development project and de- satisfies the acceptance criteria and to enable 1. Conformance of the asset built with 03 01 ployment of software on production. the user, customers or other authorized entity to the requirements and specifications FFor decedes, Operational Acceptance has determine whether or not to accept the system. 2. Operate and support the asset Summary Main Activities and Operational been undermined and misunderstood. Where once deployed to production User Acceptance has been written about Operational Acceptance Testing 3. Ensure adherence with Business KPI, Acceptance Testing stakeholders and hailed as a “final phase in testing before Operational testing in the acceptance IT SLA and business continuity. production”. User Acceptance is but one side of test phase, typically performed in a (sim- 04 the coin, Operational Acceptance is the other. ulated) operational environment by op- To address these questions, the project Introduction 02 erations and/or systems administration team needs to perform the Operational The International Software Testing staff focusing on operational aspects, aspects of acceptance testing and eval- Quality attribute evaluation Qualifications Board (ISTQB) defines E.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Service Virtualization Implementation, Practices, and Trends for On-Demand Test Environments
    Service Virtualization Implementation, Practices, and Trends for On-Demand Test Environments Bas Dijkstra Beijing Boston Farnham Sebastopol Tokyo Service Virtualization by Bas Dijkstra Copyright © 2017 O’Reilly Media Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Published by O’Reilly Media, Inc., 1005 Gravenstein Highway North, Sebastopol, CA 95472. O’Reilly books may be purchased for educational, business, or sales promotional use. Online editions are also available for most titles (http://safaribooksonline.com). For more information, contact our corporate/institutional sales department: 800-998-9938 or [email protected]. Editors: Brian Anderson and Interior Designer: David Futato Virginia Wilson Cover Designer: Randy Comer Production Editor: Colleen Lobner Illustrator: Rebecca Demarest Copyeditor: Octal Publishing, Inc. October 2016: First Edition Revision History for the First Edition 2016-10-12: First Release The O’Reilly logo is a registered trademark of O’Reilly Media, Inc. Service Virtualiza‐ tion, the cover image, and related trade dress are trademarks of O’Reilly Media, Inc. While the publisher and the author have used good faith efforts to ensure that the information and instructions contained in this work are accurate, the publisher and the author disclaim all responsibility for errors or omissions, including without limi‐ tation responsibility for damages resulting from the use of or reliance on this work. Use of the information and instructions contained in this work is at your own risk. If any code samples or other technology this work contains or describes is subject to open source licenses or the intellectual property rights of others, it is your responsi‐ bility to ensure that your use thereof complies with such licenses and/or rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Devtest: Driving Continuous Testing with Service Virtualization
    EBOOK The Who, What, How, When, Where and Why of DevTest Driving continuous testing with virtual services Enabling DevTest Automated, continuous testing speeds up the application delivery pipeline. The DevTest framework from CA Technologies provides By leveraging test automation and virtual services solutions that focus on shortening the development to simulate unavailable systems across the software Elements that differentiate CA and testing cycles to increase speed to market, improve development lifecycle (SDLC), developers, testers, testing with virtual services: quality, reduce infrastructure spend, and mitigate risk. integration, and performance teams can work in Components of the DevTest environment, CA Application parallel, taking advantage of increased collaborative • Parallel development and testing in a Test invokes and verifies functionality at every layer of opportunities in a DevOps-enabled IT environment. DevOps environment the application, and CA Service Virtualization simulates This productive testing environment helps build strong, • Shift left to test early and test more in the unavailable systems by emulating their dynamic empowered development and testing teams. software lifecycle behavior, data, and performance. These solutions help • Widest multi-protocol support available create an excuse-free testing environment that uses Automated DevTest with virtual services facilitates virtual services to speed up the testing of applications exploratory testing by enabling testers to create more • Simulation of observed behaviors, stateful while increasing quality. on-demand test scenarios and conditions without transactions, and performance scenarios extensive environmental and data provisioning. • Realistic ways to emulate application testing Overcoming Testing Challenges A major challenge for development and QA teams is • Ease of administration the inability to quickly and efficiently test components they are working on.
    [Show full text]