Iam new to gatling and scala.
I was trying to validate regex in galting-scala.
My scenario.
from the response capture (regex) X values, If available then execute step-ABC
If X value of component not found, ignore step_ABC
Your example uses .exists, which asserts that the regex must be matched and returns a boolean, not the value of the match. So the "logoId" session variable will always get set, but won't have any data useful for making a subsequent request. Additionally, since the logo is optional in your case, you don't want the scenario failing if it isn't there.
Optional checks and the gatling EL support your use-case.
.exec(
http("get merchant")
.get("some url")
.check(
regex(""""logoId":(.+?),""").optional.saveAs("logoId")
)
.doIf("${logoId.exists()}") {
exec(...)
}
Related
I would like to use Conditions to dispatch the conversation through different Routes depending on the intent entity that appeared in the last user's message:
But it only enables me to use the condition $intent.params.entityX != null; when I try to extract the exact value of that entity like: $intent.params.entityX = "some_value" it does not match. I have also try $intent.params.entityX.original and $intent.params.entityX.resolved. It seems that the intent param values can apparently only be read in the Route response.
If what you're looking for is to evaluate a parameter that may have been filled through entity detection, you may wanna check in session rather than the intent:
$session.params.entityX
I want to fetch information by call an API with an unique param doc,pollerName. But I don't know why the pollerName() didn't accept param like "${id}",I was trying pollerName(Random.nextInt(999)),but the Random result always the same, so is there any other solutions?
.foreach("${idList}","id"){
polling.pollerName("${id}").exec(some exec)
}
looking at the implementation of pollerName (in gatling 3.1), it takes a String and not an Expression[String] which would enable the use of values from the gatling session.
So I don't think gatling supports what you want
I am a novice with vertx so maybe I am doing something wrong. I am trying to implement the following routes:
router.get("/api/users/").handler(this::getUsers);
router.route("/api/users/:username*").handler(this::checkUsername);
router.get("/api/users/:username/").handler(this::getUser);
router.put("/api/users/:username/").handler(this::addUser);
router.get("/api/users/:username/assignments/").handler(this::getAssignments);
router.post("/api/users/:username/assignments/").handler(this::addAssignment);
router.route("/api/users/:username/assignments/:assignmentId/").handler(this::checkAssignmentId);
router.get("/api/users/:username/assignments/:assignmentId/").handler(this::getAssignment);
Is this the correct way to avoid duplicating this logic in all handlers?
I am trying to chain handlers, where the checkUsername handler reads the username parameter from the path, tries to find a corresponding user, and puts that user in the context. If no user is found, a statuscode 400 is returned. Otherwise the next handler is called. I would like to apply the same principle to the assignmentId parameter.
While trying to implement this, I believe I found a problem with the path, more specifically the trailing slash and star. The documentation states that trailing slashes are ignored. This is not the behavior when there is a parameter in the path. In that case the trailing slash matters. If the path definition contains one and the request does not, vertx returns a 404. It does not make a difference whether or not the parameter is at the end of the path or in the middle.
The same goes for paths ending with a star. This functionality does not work when the path contains a parameter.
You can use a regular expression to avoid duplication of the checkUsername validation check. What I would do is I would have a method like this to check if the username is valid:
private void checkUsername(RoutingContext routingContext){
//The "param0" is the capture group of the regular expression. See the routing config below.
if (isValidUsername(routingContext.request().getParam("param0"))){
routingContext.next();
} else {
routingContext
.response()
.setStatusCode(400)
.end();
}
}
To check the assignment ID I would do something similar:
private void checkAssignmentId(RoutingContext routingContext){
if (isValidAssignmentId(routingContext.request().getParam("assignmentId"))){
routingContext.next();
} else {
routingContext
.response()
.setStatusCode(400)
.end();
}
}
Try to avoid trailing slashes in your paths. I would change the routing handler assignments to be something like this:
router.get("/api/users").handler(this::getUsers);
//By the way, you really want to be using a POST request when adding users just to stick to the principles of REST.
//When you are sending a POST request there is no need to put the username in the URI. You can have it in the request body.
//Please ensure you validate this username using the same validation helper used in your other validations.
router.post("/api/users").handler(this::addUser);
//Use regular expression to match all "/api/users/:username*" URIs
router.routeWithRegex("\\/api\\/users\\/([^\\/]+)").handler(this::checkUsername);
router.get("/api/users/:username").handler(this::getUser);
router.get("/api/users/:username/assignments").handler(this::getAssignments);
router.post("/api/users/:username/assignments").handler(this::addAssignment);
router.route("/api/users/:username/assignments/:assignmentId").handler(this::checkAssignmentId);
router.get("/api/users/:username/assignments/:assignmentId").handler(this::getAssignment);
A Gatling scenario with an exec chain. After a request, returned data is saved. Later it's processed and depending on the processing result, it should either fail or pass the test.
This seems like the simplest possible scenario, yet I can't find any reliable info how to fail a test from within an exec block. assert breaks the scenario and seemingly Gatling (as in: the exception throw doesn't just fail the test).
Example:
// The scenario consists of a single test with two exec creating the execChain
val scn = scenario("MyAwesomeScenario").exec(reportableTest(
// Send the request
exec(http("127.0.0.1/Request").get(requestUrl).check(status.is(200)).check(bodyString.saveAs("MyData")
// Process the data
.exec(session => {
assert(processData(session.attributes("MyData")) == true, "Invalid data");
})
))
Above the scenario somewhere along the line "guardian failed, shutting down system".
Now this seems a useful, often-used thing to do - I'm possibly missing something simple. How to do it?
You have to abide by Gatling APIs.
With checks, you don't "fail" the test, but the request. If you're looking for failing the whole test, you should have a look at the Assertions API and the Jenkins plugin.
You can only perform a Check at the request site, not later. One of the very good reasons is that if you store the bodyString in the Sessions like you're doing, you'll end using a lot of memory and maybe crashing (still referenced, so not garbage collectable). You have to perform your processData in the check, typically in the transform optional step.
were you looking for something like
.exec(http("getRequest")
.get("/request/123")
.headers(headers)
.check(status.is(200))
.check(jsonPath("$.request_id").is("123")))
Since the edit queue is already full.
This is already resolved in the new version of Gatling. Release 3.4.0
They added
exitHereIf
exitHereIf("${myBoolean}")
exitHereIf(session => true)
Make the user exit the scenario from this point if the condition holds. Condition parameter is an Expression[Boolean].
I implemented something using exitHereIfFailed that sounds like exactly what you were trying to accomplish. I normally use this after a virtual user attempts to sign in.
exitHereIfFailed is used this way
val scn = scenario("MyAwesomeScenario")
.exec(http("Get data from endpoint 1")
.get(request1Url)
.check(status.is(200))
.check(bodyString.saveAs("MyData"))
.check(processData(session.attributes("MyData")).is(true)))
.exitHereIfFailed // If we weren't able to get the data, don't continue
.exec(http("Send the data to endpoint 2")
.post(request2Url)
.body(StringBody("${MyData}"))
This scenario will abort gracefully at exitHereIfFailed if any of the checks prior to exitHereIfFailed have failed.
My web application will be triggered from an external system. It will call one request path of my app, but uses different query parameters for different kinds of requests.
One of the parameters is the "action" that defines what is to be done. The rest of the params depend on the "action".
So I can get request params like these:
action=sayHello&user=Joe
action=newUser&name=Joe&address=xxx
action=resetPassword
...
I would like to be able to encode it similarly in the routes file for play so it does the query param based routing and as much of the validation of other parameters as possible.
What I have instead is one routing for all of these possibilities with plenty of optional parameters. The action processing it starts with a big pattern match to do dispatch and parameter validation.
Googling and checking SO just popped up plenty of samples where the params are encoded in the request path somehow, so multiple paths are routed to the same action, but I would like the opposite: one path routed to different actions.
One of my colleagues said we could have one "dispatcher" action that would just redirect based on the "action" parameter. It would be a bit more structured then the current solution, but it would not eliminate the long list of optional parameters which should be selectively passed to the next action, so I hope one knows an even better solution :-)
BTW the external system that calls my app is developed by another company and I have no influence on this design, so it's not an option to change the way how my app is triggered.
The single dispatcher action is probably the way to go, and you don't need to specify all of your optional parameters in the route. If action is always there then that's the only one you really need.
GET /someRoute controller.dispatcher(action: String)
Then in your action method you can access request.queryString to get any of the other optional parameters.
Note: I am NOT experienced Scala developer, so maybe presented snippets can be optimized... What's important for you they are valid and working.
So...
You don't need to declare every optional param in the routes file. It is great shortcut for type param's validation and best choice would be convince 'other company' to use API prepared by you... Anyway if you haven't such possibility you can also handle their requests as required.
In general: the dispatcher approach seems to be right in this place, fortunately you don't need to declare all optional params in the routes and pass it between actions/methods as they can be fetched directly from request. In PHP it can be compared to $_GET['action'] and in Java version of Play 2 controller - DynamicForm class - form().bindFromRequest.get("action").
Let's say that you have a route:
GET /dispatcher controllers.Application.dispatcher
In that case your dispatcher action (and additional methods) can look like:
def dispatcher = Action { implicit request =>
request.queryString.get("action").flatMap(_.headOption).getOrElse("invalid") match {
case "sayHello" => sayHelloMethod
case "newUser" => newUserMethod
case _ => BadRequest("Action not allowed!")
}
}
// http://localhost:9000/dispatcher?action=sayHello&name=John
def sayHelloMethod(implicit request: RequestHeader) = {
val name = request.queryString.get("name").flatMap(_.headOption).getOrElse("")
Ok("Hello " + name )
}
// http://localhost:9000/dispatcher?action=newUser&name=John+Doe&address=john#doe.com
def newUserMethod(implicit request: RequestHeader) = {
val name = request.queryString.get("name").flatMap(_.headOption).getOrElse("")
val address = request.queryString.get("address").flatMap(_.headOption).getOrElse("")
Ok("We are creating new user " + name + " with address " + address)
}
Of course you will need to validate incoming types and values 'manually', especially when actions will be operating on the DataBase, anyway biggest part of your problem you have resolved now.