Anyway with Locust Web UI to specify tasks with a certain tag to run?
So right now we are limited with load tests in certain environments, and ramping up the services under load just doesn't produce the same results as in production. Short term we would like to tag certain tests and run those under isolation to get the same results as in production until we have the infrastructure in place in all environments. I know you can run tasks with a certain tag through the CLI but is there anyway to do this through the Web UI? Can you customize the Web UI to do this, which may be the better question?
Locust has no native way of choosing tasks to run in the web UI. There is an open request for that feature but nobody has submitted a PR for it yet.
You can, however, extend the web UI to do whatever you want. You can either add routes like this:
from locust import events
#events.init.add_listener
def on_locust_init(web_ui, **kw):
#web_ui.app.route("/added_page")
def my_added_page():
return "Another page"
Or you can use Flask Blueprints and templates and create whatever functionality to the UI that you want.
Related
I'm in the process of designing a cloud deployed website for a new solution my company is looking to provide. I have been attempting to answer a few questions and haven't had any luck, so when in rome.
First, I don't want the website to be stuck to any one particular framework. I know there is no way to completely future proof a website, but I would rather not put all of our eggs in one basket.
Secondly, I want to have a separation between the front and back end entirely. I have a list of reasons why I'm looking to do this, don't necessarily want to get into the conversation of what they are. Server Side rendering for the most part is out of the question.
So where does that leave me?
My initial thoughts on the design are to have a REST API that can be accessed for any API calls (this may be turned to GraphQL in the future).
The design decisions that I'm mostly wresting with are for the front end. The website will be a dashboard type system, where tenants can log in and see screens for them.
I was thinking that I would have a sort of shell, that hooks on to the index.html. This would have it's own routing, that would render micro-applications that are completely separate from the shell logic.
So for example, if I load index.html, path being "/"
It has some routes that it's responsible for, lets say
"/todos"
"/account"
If I accessed the /todos route, my shell application would then render that micro app. This application would be completely separate from the shell, except some data that might be loaded via the window. Once this application is rendered via the shell application.
So my todos route, for example, could be a redux application that's independent. It could have it's own routing, etc.
Is this is a common architecture? Are there any examples of this? Is there a better way of going about this?
Thanks for any insight!
Sounds like your well and truly over engineering this beast.
You may take on such an architecture for a HUGE build with many dev teams all working separately. Small agile team, the above would create so much overhead in boilerplate and brain ache in context switching between each "app"
Micro-service architecture is seriously great. Just don't break it up too small, read your use case well and break your services up accordingly.
For example: we are a team of 3. We have a pretty large-ish app devised into:
Php API
Backend management interface (redux)
Frontend website (html, react, php)
Search service (elastic search)
Cache (redis)
Data store (mysql)
All on running in multiple docker containers across multiple hosts. Pull down the backend.. Fine the frontend website is still up and running!
I am trying to determine whether I am able to inject test case information at run time and leverage the SOAPUI tool. I understand that I can create test cases on the GUI but is this my only option?
Background info if interested: Currently I am working on creating an automation framework at my company. We currently have web page testing and soon to be added SOAP testing. As many of these tests (at one point in the future as I am told my the architect) could be run from both a web page and soap I think it's best to store the test cases in some format (Json, YAML, etc.) to document all the test cases and then inject them into test steps at run time.
However my company enjoys working with SOAPUI. I've used the tool and created test cases, assertions, et al on the GUI (of course) but I cannot find any documentation which suggests that instead of defining the test cases in this way I could inject the test information at run time (similar to what you can do with the wsdl2java apache tool). Can this be done with testrunner? This way I can reuse the test cases. Is this possible? Does this even make sense? I just want to attempt to incorporate a tool I've been asked to use.
Any thoughts are greatly appreciated!
Here is an example of what data may look like:
Partner : [
Organization : [
Company Name:
Company URL:
]
Contact Information : [
Name:
Address:
]
] (sorry i can't get the indents to work properly...)
As I stated below in a comment, I know on the SoapUI GUI I can create a test suite, test case and add test steps. But I want to store the test step information in a different place so I can use the test steps for different kinds of tests.
Your question is way too broad for me to even attempt a complete answer.
SoapUI GUI you use to create the tests. Your data can be stored, and read by SoapUI, in Excel, database, flat file, generated dynamically, whatever you want. You can run everything using the testrunner from command line, or using the Maven plugin from Jenkins.
Seriously, spend some time with the documentation.
I am trying to use celery to create a task management system, where the tasks are written in phantomjs. Basically the task is to crawl a URL and return a JSON object (that I'll want to use once the task is complete). There will be a list of URLs which will each have it's own crawl task.
I looked at this http://docs.celeryproject.org/en/latest/userguide/remote-tasks.html#calling-webhook-tasks to implement tasks in another language. However celery does not provide very good documentation at all on how the external webhook script should be written, what dependencies are required, and how it is run.
Should the task simply be stored on a server, which I will call with the HTTPCallback? How is it run in the PhantomJS framework. How are results from here stored or returned and how do I keep track of it? I have read a lot of docs and I still cannot find the exact interface or API for the other side of the webhook API.
I realize my question may not be too clear, so let me know, otherwise some good examples of this HTTPCallback API workflow would be helpful for a basic understanding, and how the webhook script in a different language is structured.
Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Thanks a lot!
I am planning a Catalyst application, that will be deployed over a number of servers. It will be used internally by support staff to control aspects of an operational system that runs on those servers.
The application will run much in the same way on each server, save for a limited amount of site specific behaviours. Some actions will only apply to some servers, and some actions will behave differently on other servers.
Are there any recognized design patterns/practices that enable site-specific customization of a Catalyst application?
I am currently thinking of deploying a site configuration file alongside the application, that will be used to determine what actions to enable, and set parameters that control other action's behaviour. Ideally this customization would happen when the application is loaded by mod_perl (Apache2) - but I am not sure if that would even be possible.
Any suggestions welcome!
Catalyst::Plugin::ConfigLoader has code to help you with site-specific configuration in the form of the MYAPP_CONFIG_LOCAL_SUFFIX environment variable. Since Controllers are Components and config is available at setup_components time, you can do whatever foolery you want with action registration when your controller is compiled. There's not much pre-rolled for it, because everyone's requirements are so different, but it's not exceptionally hard, and there's advice to be found on the mailing list.
You can set templates, or have conditional behaviour in the controllers based on the value of $c->req->host.
I always use the unique combination of $HOSTNAME and $USER to define the specific configuration file to be loaded, e.g.
conf => "my_app_${hostname}_${user}.conf"
I've just inherited a CF app from a customer who uses a shared CF hosting provider. I'd like to introduce better processes including the ability to stage app changes that I make for their review. (In the past, they would upload changes and cross their fingers.)
Their app lives in a folder under the webroot. Let's call it "/app". I'd like to create a sibling directory named "/appstaging" where I would publish the latest code. The obstacle is that the hosting provider lets you set paths for custom tags and mappings but not per CF app. The existing settings all point into the /app directory so if I need to make changes to tags, CFCs, etc., I can't test these without affecting the live app. What I want is CF to let me set per-app tag paths and mappings. From what I've read, CF8 lets me do this but the customer is using CF7 (I'm pushing for them to upgrade asap). In the meantime, is there anyway to workaround this or does a smooth way of staging changes have to wait?
(I am currently experimenting with ways to detect which app I am based on using GetCurrentTemplatePath() in application.cfm. The idea is that any code that refers to other files using mappings would use a different mapping. I haven't done enough work there though to know if this will all work out.)
Any ideas or input are welcome. I should point out that the app and its dev env is not very "modern." There are no frameworks involved and no things like ant used for build/deployment. The customer's budget is extremely limited so I'm not looking to convert the app whole-sale but I do need to find cheap ways to get some process in there to keep things sane.
This is a serious, but wacky, suggestion: use a second hosted account.
Write up a cost-benefit analysis of having live and staging servers, and compare that to the cost of a second hosted account. The second account doesn't need massive data allowances, etc, and ought not cost as much as the live account.
Additionally, calcuate the cost of revising the code base to allow live and staging on the one account and compare that to the cost of a second hosting account.
Remember that you wont need the second account once your real upgrade is complete.
I expect you'll need to do something like defining the custom tag paths in a config file that gets loaded into the application scope. But that'll require some serious code refitting.