Search Results

Search found 10342 results on 414 pages for 'biztalk testing'.

Page 14/414 | < Previous Page | 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21  | Next Page >

  • SQL University: What and why of database testing

    - by Mladen Prajdic
    This is a post for a great idea called SQL University started by Jorge Segarra also famously known as SqlChicken on Twitter. It’s a collection of blog posts on different database related topics contributed by several smart people all over the world. So this week is mine and we’ll be talking about database testing and refactoring. In 3 posts we’ll cover: SQLU part 1 - What and why of database testing SQLU part 2 - What and why of database refactoring SQLU part 2 – Tools of the trade With that out of the way let us sharpen our pencils and get going. Why test a database The sad state of the industry today is that there is very little emphasis on testing in general. Test driven development is still a small niche of the programming world while refactoring is even smaller. The cause of this is the inability of developers to convince themselves and their managers that writing tests is beneficial. At the moment they are mostly viewed as waste of time. This is because the average person (let’s not fool ourselves, we’re all average) is unable to think about lower future costs in relation to little more current work. It’s orders of magnitude easier to know about the current costs in relation to current amount of work. That’s why programmers convince themselves testing is a waste of time. However we have to ask ourselves what tests are really about? Maybe finding bugs? No, not really. If we introduce bugs, we’re likely to write test around those bugs too. But yes we can find some bugs with tests. The main point of tests is to have reproducible repeatability in our systems. By having a code base largely covered by tests we can know with better certainty what a small code change can break in other parts of the system. By having repeatability we can make code changes with confidence, since we know we’ll see what breaks in other tests. And here comes the inability to estimate future costs. By spending just a few more hours writing those tests we’d know instantly what broke where. Imagine we fix a reported bug. We check-in the code, deploy it and the users are happy. Until we get a call 2 weeks later about a certain monthly process has stopped working. What we don’t know is that this process was developed by a long gone coworker and for some reason it relied on that same bug we’ve happily fixed. There’s no way we could’ve known that. We say OK and go in and fix the monthly process. But what we have no clue about is that there’s this ETL job that relied on data from that monthly process. Now that we’ve fixed the process it’s giving unexpected (yet correct since we fixed it) data to the ETL job. So we have to fix that too. But there’s this part of the app we coded that relies on data from that exact ETL job. And just like that we enter the “Loop of maintenance horror”. With the loop eventually comes blame. Here’s a nice tip for all developers and DBAs out there: If you make a mistake man up and admit to it. All of the above is valid for any kind of software development. Keeping this in mind the database is nothing other than just a part of the application. But a big part! One reason why testing a database is even more important than testing an application is that one database is usually accessed from multiple applications and processes. This makes it the central and vital part of the enterprise software infrastructure. Knowing all this can we really afford not to have tests? What to test in a database Now that we’ve decided we’ll dive into this testing thing we have to ask ourselves what needs to be tested? The short answer is: everything. The long answer is: read on! There are 2 main ways of doing tests: Black box and White box testing. Black box testing means we have no idea how the system internals are built and we only have access to it’s inputs and outputs. With it we test that the internal changes to the system haven’t caused the input/output behavior of the system to change. The most important thing to test here are the edge conditions. It’s where most programs break. Having good edge condition tests we can be more confident that the systems changes won’t break. White box testing has the full knowledge of the system internals. With it we test the internal system changes, different states of the application, etc… White and Black box tests should be complementary to each other as they are very much interconnected. Testing database routines includes testing stored procedures, views, user defined functions and anything you use to access the data with. Database routines are your input/output interface to the database system. They count as black box testing. We test then for 2 things: Data and schema. When testing schema we only care about the columns and the data types they’re returning. After all the schema is the contract to the out side systems. If it changes we usually have to change the applications accessing it. One helpful T-SQL command when doing schema tests is SET FMTONLY ON. It tells the SQL Server to return only empty results sets. This speeds up tests because it doesn’t return any data to the client. After we’ve validated the schema we have to test the returned data. There no other way to do this but to have expected data known before the tests executes and comparing that data to the database routine output. Testing Authentication and Authorization helps us validate who has access to the SQL Server box (Authentication) and who has access to certain database objects (Authorization). For desktop applications and windows authentication this works well. But the biggest problem here are web apps. They usually connect to the database as a single user. Please ensure that that user is not SA or an account with admin privileges. That is just bad. Load testing ensures us that our database can handle peak loads. One often overlooked tool for load testing is Microsoft’s OSTRESS tool. It’s part of RML utilities (x86, x64) for SQL Server and can help determine if our database server can handle loads like 100 simultaneous users each doing 10 requests per second. SQL Profiler can also help us here by looking at why certain queries are slow and what to do to fix them.   One particular problem to think about is how to begin testing existing databases. First thing we have to do is to get to know those databases. We can’t test something when we don’t know how it works. To do this we have to talk to the users of the applications accessing the database, run SQL Profiler to see what queries are being run, use existing documentation to decipher all the object relationships, etc… The way to approach this is to choose one part of the database (say a logical grouping of tables that go together) and filter our traces accordingly. Once we’ve done that we move on to the next grouping and so on until we’ve covered the whole database. Then we move on to the next one. Database Testing is a topic that we can spent many hours discussing but let this be a nice intro to the world of database testing. See you in the next post.

    Read the article

  • BizTalk/MQ - DCOM was unable to communicate with the computer xxx using any of the configured protocols

    - by NealWalters
    I've read the other questions on this same error, but don't see a close match to this scenario. We got 18 of these last night between 12:17:13 and 12:39:37 on Win 2008/R2. It caused us to lose connectivity between BizTalk 2010 and WebSphere MQ machine. All our BizTalk machines (Prod, QA, Train, etc...) got the messages at the roughly same time and in the same quantity (about 18 of them). Computer xxx is the WebSphere MQ machine. What could cause this in the middle of the night? The servers are configured and running in Prod for a couple of years. There is no Win Firewall running, and servers are practically on the same rack. Could a run-away or 100% utilized CPU on the WebSphere MQ cause this issue? What else could cause it? BizTalk did NOT auto-recover from this situation. The above was followed by thousands of this message in the BizTalk event logs: The adapter "MQSeries" raised an error message. Details "Error encountered on Queue.Get Queue name = MyQManager/MyQueueName Reason code = 2354.". We restated BizTalk host instances, and it did not come back right away. It seemed we had to stop host instances for about two minutes, then start them.

    Read the article

  • Regression testing for firewall changes

    - by James C
    We have a number of firewalls in place around our organisation and in some cases packets can pass through four levels of firewall limiting the flow TCP traffic. A concept that I'm used to from software testing is regression testing, allowing you to run a test suite against a changed application to verify that the new changes haven't affected any old features. Does anyone have any experience or an offer any solutions to being able to perform the same type of thing with firewall changes and network testing? The problem becomes a lot more complicated because you'd ideally want to be originating (and testing receipt) of packets across many machines.

    Read the article

  • Verfication vs validation again, does testing belong to verification? If so, which?

    - by user970696
    I have asked before and created a lot of controversy so I tried to collect some data and ask similar question again. E.g. V&V where all testing is only validation: http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/4-5-2005-68117.asp According to ISO 12207, testing is done in validation: •Prepare Test Requirements,Cases and Specifications •Conduct the Tests In verification, it mentiones. The code implements proper event sequence, consistent interfaces, correct data and control flow, completeness, appropriate allocation timing and sizing budgets, and error definition, isolation, and recovery. and The software components and units of each software item have been completely and correctly integrated into the software item Not sure how to verify without testing but it is not there as a technique. From IEEE: Verification: The process of evaluating software to determine whether the products of a given development phase satisfy the conditions imposed at the start of that phase. [IEEE-STD-610]. Validation: The process of evaluating software during or at the end of the development process to determine whether it satisfies specified requirements. [IEEE-STD-610] At the end of development phase? That would mean UAT.. So the question is, what testing (unit, integration, system, uat) will be considered verification or validation? I do not understand why some say dynamic verification is testing, while others that only validation. An example: I am testing an application. System requirements say there are two fields with max. lenght of 64 characters and Save button. Use case say: User will fill in first and last name and save. When checking the fields and Save button presence, I would say its verification. When I follow the use case, its validation. So its both together, done on the system as a whole.

    Read the article

  • How to verify the code that could take a substantial time to compile? [on hold]

    - by user18404
    As a follow up to my prev question: What is the best aproach for coding in a slow compilation environment To recap: I am stuck with a large software system with which a TDD ideology of "test often" does not work. And to make it even worse the features like pre-compiled headers/multi-threaded compilation/incremental linking, etc is not available to me - hence I think that the best way out would be to add the extensive logging into the system and to start "coding in large chunks", which I understand as code for a two-three hours first (as opposed to 15-20 mins in TDD) - thoroughly eyeball the code for a 15 minutes and only after all that do the compilation and run the tests. As I have been doing TDD for a quite a while, my code eyeballing / code verification skills got rusty (you don't really need this that much if you can quickly verify what you've done in 5 seconds by running a test or two) - so I am after a recommendations on how to learn these source code verification/error spotting skills again. I know I was able to do that easily some 5-10 years ago when I din't have much support from the compiler/unit testing tools I had until recently, thus there should be a way to get back to the basics.

    Read the article

  • How can I test linkable/executable files that require re-hosting or retargeting?

    - by hagubear
    Due to data protection, I cannot discuss fine details of the work itself so apologies PROBLEM CASE Sometimes my software projects require merging/integration with third party (customer or other suppliers) software. these software are often in linkable executables or object code (requires that my source code is retargeted and linked with it). When I get the executables or object code, I cannot validate its operation fully without integrating it with my system. My initial idea is that executables are not meant to be unit tested, they are meant to be linkable with other system, but what is the guarantee that post-linkage and integration behaviour will be okay? There is also no sufficient documentation available (from the customer) to indicate how to go about integrating the executables or object files. I know this is philosophical question, but apparently not enough research could be found at this moment to conclude to a solution. I was hoping that people could help me go to the right direction by suggesting approaches. To start, I have found out that Avionics OEM software is often rehosted and retargeted by third parties e.g. simulator makers. I wonder how they test them. Surely, the source code will not be supplied due to IPR rgulations. UPDATE I have received reasonable and very useful suggestions regarding this area. My current struggle has shifted into testing 3rd party OBJECT code that needs to be linked with my own source code (retargeted) on my host machine. How can I even test object code? Surely, I need to link them first to even think about doing anything. Is it the post-link behaviour that needs to be determined and scripted (using perl,Tcl, etc.) so that inputs and outputs could be verified? No clue!! :( thanks,

    Read the article

  • Extending timeout and message size in WCF service generated by Biztalk 2006 R2

    - by Sergej Andrejev
    Hi, I'm generating WCF service using Biztalk. The code I get is this: <system.serviceModel> <behaviors> <serviceBehaviors> <behavior name="ServiceBehaviorConfiguration"> <serviceDebug httpHelpPageEnabled="true" httpsHelpPageEnabled="false" includeExceptionDetailInFaults="false" /> <serviceMetadata httpGetEnabled="true" httpsGetEnabled="false" externalMetadataLocation="" /> </behavior> </serviceBehaviors> </behaviors> <services> <!-- Note: the service name must match the configuration name for the service implementation. --> <service name="Microsoft.BizTalk.Adapter.Wcf.Runtime.BizTalkServiceInstance" behaviorConfiguration="ServiceBehaviorConfiguration"> <endpoint name="HttpMexEndpoint" address="mex" binding="mexHttpBinding" bindingConfiguration="" contract="IMetadataExchange" /> <!--<endpoint name="HttpsMexEndpoint" address="mex" binding="mexHttpsBinding" bindingConfiguration="" contract="IMetadataExchange" />--> </service> </services> </system.serviceModel> Maybe it's not the most beautifull configuration, but it works. The problem is I don't know how to modify timeouts and message max size, because it has only mex endpoint. I'm surprised how this works at all with just mex endpoint. So two questions are: Why does this works at all? What should I add to extend timeouts and message size?

    Read the article

  • BizTalk server problem

    - by WtFudgE
    Hi, we have a biztalk server (a virtual one (1!)...) at our company, and an sql server where the data is being kept. Now we have a lot of data traffic. I'm talking about hundred of thousands. So I'm actually not even sure if one server is pretty safe, but our company is not that easy to convince. Now recently we have a lot of problems. Allow me to situate in detail, so I'm not missing anything: Our server has 5 applications: One with 3 orchestrations, 12 send ports, 16 receive locations. One with 4 orchestrations, 32 send ports, 20 receive locations. One with 4 orchestrations, 24 send ports, 20 receive locations. One with 47 (yes 47) orchestrations, 37 send ports, 6 receive locations. One with common application with a couple of resources. Our problems have occured since we deployed the applications with the 47 orchestrations. A lot of these orchestrations use assign shapes which use c# code to do the mapping. This is because we use HL7 extensions and this is kind of special, so by using c# code & xpath it was a lot easier to do the mapping because a lot of these schema's look alike. The c# reads in XmlNodes received through xpath, and returns XmlNode which are then assigned again to biztalk messages. I'm not sure if this could be the cause, but I thought I'd mention it. The send and receive ports have a lot of different types: File, MQSeries, SQL, MLLP, FTP. Each of these types have a different host instances, to balance out the load. Our orchestrations use the BiztalkApplication host. On this server also a couple of scripts are running, mostly ftp upload scripts & also a zipper script, which zips files every half an hour in a daily zip and deletes the zip files after a month. We use this zipscript on our backup files (we backup a lot, backups are also on our server), we did this because the server had problems with sending files to a location where there were a lot (A LOT) of files, so after the files were reduced to zips it went better. Now the problems we are having recently are mainly two major problems: Our most important problem is the following. We kept a receive location with a lot of messages on a queue for testing. After we start this receive location which uses the 47 orchestrations, the running service instances start to sky rock. Ok, this is pretty normal. Let's say about 10000, and then we stop the receive location to see how biztalk handles these 10000 instances. Normally they would go down pretty fast, and it does sometimes, but after a while it starts to "throttle", meaning they just stop being processed and the service instances stay at the same number, for example in 30 seconds it goes down from 10000 to 4000 and then it stays at 4000 and it lowers very very very slowly, like 30 in 5minutes or something. So this means, that all the other service instances of the other applications are also stuck in here, and they are also not processed. We noticed that after restarting our host instances the instance number went down fast again. So we tried to selectively restart different host instances to locate the problem. We noticed that eventually restarting the file send/receive host instance would do the trick. So we thought file sends would be the problem. Concidering that we make a lot of backups. So we replaced the file type backups with mqseries backups. The same problem occured, and funny thing, restarting the file send/receive host still fixes the problem. No errors can be found in the event viewer either. A second problem we're having is. That sometimes at arround 6 am, all or a part of the host instances are being stopped. In the event viewer we noticed the following errors (these are more than one): The receive location "MdnBericht SQL" with URL "SQL://ZNACDBPEG/mdnd0001/" is shutting down. Details:"The error threshold has been exceeded. The receive location is shutting down.". The Messaging Engine failed to add a receive location "M2m Othello Export Start Bestand" with URL "\m2mservices\Othello_import$\DataFilter Start*.xml" to the adapter "FILE". Reason: "The FILE adapter cannot access the folder \m2mservices\Othello_import$\DataFilter Start. Verify this folder exists. Error: Logon failure: unknown user name or bad password. ". The FILE adapter cannot access the folder \m2mservices\Othello_import$\DataFilter Start. Verify this folder exists. Error: Logon failure: unknown user name or bad password. An attempt to connect to "BizTalkMsgBoxDb" SQL Server database on server "ZNACDBBTS" failed. Error: "Login failed for user ''. The user is not associated with a trusted SQL Server connection." It woould seem that there's a login failure at this time and that because of it other services are also experiencing problems, and eventually they are shut down. The thing is, our user is admin, and it's impossible that it's password is wrong "sometimes". We have concidering that the problem could be due to an infrastructure problem, but that's not really are department. I know it's a long post, but we're not sure anymore what to do. Would adding another server and balancing the load solve our problems? Is there a way to meassure our balance and know where to start splitting? What are normal numbers of load etc? I appreciate any answers because these issues are getting worse and we're also on a deadline. Thanks a lot for replies!

    Read the article

  • White-box testing in Javascript - how to deal with privacy?

    - by Max Shawabkeh
    I'm writing unit tests for a module in a small Javascript application. In order to keep the interface clean, some of the implementation details are closed over by an anonymous function (the usual JS pattern for privacy). However, while testing I need to access/mock/verify the private parts. Most of the tests I've written previously have been in Python, where there are no real private variables (members, identifiers, whatever you want to call them). One simply suggests privacy via a leading underscore for the users, and freely ignores it while testing the code. In statically typed OO languages I suppose one could make private members accessible to tests by converting them to be protected and subclassing the object to be tested. In Javascript, the latter doesn't apply, while the former seems like bad practice. I could always wall back to black box testing and simply check the final results. It's the simplest and cleanest approach, but unfortunately not really detailed enough for my needs. So, is there a standard way of keeping variables private while still retaining some backdoors for testing in Javascript?

    Read the article

  • BizTalk and IBM WebSphere MQ Errors

    - by Christopher House
    The project I'm currently working on is going to make heavy use of IBM WebShere MQ to send messages from BizTalk to the client's iSeries box.  I'd never previously worked with WebSphere MQ, so I didn't really have any idea what it would take to get this to work.  I was pleasantly surprised that it wasn't too difficult to configure a send port and pass messages through it to a queue.  Or so I thought... A couple of weeks ago, the client gave me the name of a host, queue manager and queue that I'd been using for my development.  Everything was going great, I was able to put messages onto the queue, I was happy, the client was happy.  Life was good.  Then the client tells me that the host I've been connecting to is actually a Solaris box and that in prod, we'll actually be sending to an iSeries.  We both agree that it would behoove us to start pointing my dev environment to their dev iSeries box in order to flush out any weirdness there might be.  As it turns out, it was a good thing we made the change.  As soon as I reconfigured my BRE policy that sets endpoint information to point to the iSeries queue, we started seeing failures in the event log.  An example from the event log: Event Type: Error Event Source: BizTalk Server 2009 Event Category: BizTalk Server 2009 Event ID: 5754 Date:  6/9/2010 Time:  10:16:41 AM User:  N/A Computer: WINDOWS2003 Description: A message sent to adapter "MQSC" on send port "<my dynamic sendport name>" with URI "mqsc://client/tcp/<hostname>(1414)/<queue manager name>/<queue name>" is suspended.  Error details: Failure encountered while attempting to open queue. queue = <queue name> queueManager = <queue manager name>, reasonCode = 6124  MessageId:  {76825C7C-611A-4A56-8A6F-35E1124BDB5C}  InstanceID: {BA389103-DF9B-493F-8C61-44574822AAD6} The key piece of information in the event entry is the reasonCode, 6124.  A quick Google search shows that reasonCode 6124 is the code for MQRC_NOT_CONNECTED.  According to IBM's docs, this means that you've tried to send a message without first opening a connection to the queue manager.  Obviously, in the context of BizTalk, this is an unexpected error, since this sort of thing should be managed entirely by the send adapter. Perusing IBM's documentation a bit more, I came across some info on how to turn on tracing for MQ.  With tracing enabled, I tried sending a message again, then went and reviewed the trace files.  The bulk of the information in the trace files didn't mean a thing to me, but at the end of one of the files, I did notice this: 00006257 15:40:20.327795   3500.4      RSESS:000009 ------{  reqReleaseConn 00006258 15:40:20.328714   3500.4      RSESS:000009 ------}  reqReleaseConn (rc=OK) 00006259 15:40:20.328727   3500.4      RSESS:000009 ------{  xcsClearTraceIdent 0000625A 15:40:20.328739   3500.4           :       ------}  xcsClearTraceIdent (rc=OK) 0000625B 15:40:20.328752   3500.4           :       -----}! trmzstMQCONNX (rc=MQRC_NOT_AUTHORIZED) 0000625C 15:40:20.328765   3500.4           :       ----}! MQCONNX (rc=MQRC_NOT_AUTHORIZED) 0000625D 15:40:20.328766   3500.4           :       ---}! ImqQueueManager::connect (rc=MQRC_NOT_AUTHORIZED) 0000625E 15:40:20.328767   3500.4           :       --}! ImqObject::open (rc=MQRC_NOT_CONNECTED) 0000625F 15:40:20.328768   3500.4           :       --{  ImqQueue::lock 00006260 15:40:20.328769   3500.4           :       --}! ImqQueue::lock (rc=Unknown(1)) 00006261 15:40:20.328769   3500.4           :       --{  ImqQueue::unlock 00006262 15:40:20.328769   3500.4           :       --}! ImqQueue::unlock (rc=Unknown(1)) It seemed like the MQRC_NOT_CONNECTED error was being caused by a security related issue (MQRC_NOT_AUTHORIZED).  I did notice something earlier in the log where it appeared that MQ was passing a field named UID with a value equal to the account name that my BizTalk service was running under.  I ended up creating a new local account on the BizTalk server that had the same name as a user which had access to the queue manager on the iSeries.  I then created a new host instance that ran under this new account, created a send handler for the MQSC adapter on this new host instance and reconfigured my orchestration to run on the new host instance.  After bouncing all my host instances, I was now able to send messages to the iSeries. It's still not clear to me why we were able to connect to the Solaris server.  I ended up contacting IBM's support and they did confirm that the process sending to MQ does in fact pass the identity to the queue manager it's connecting to.

    Read the article

  • BizTalk 2009 - Architecture Decisions

    - by StuartBrierley
    In the first step towards implementing a BizTalk 2009 environment, from development through to live, I put forward a proposal that detailed the options available, as well as the costs and benefits associated with these options, to allow an informed discusion to take place with the business drivers and budget holders of the project.  This ultimately lead to a decision being made to implement an initial BizTalk Server 2009 environment using the Standard Edition of the product. It is my hope that in the long term, as projects require it and allow, we will be looking to implement my ideal recommendation of a multi-server enterprise level environment, but given the differences in cost and the likely initial work load for the environment this was not something that I could fully recommend at this time.  However, it must be noted that this decision was made in full awareness of the limits of the standard edition, and the business drivers of this project were made fully aware of the risks associated with running without the failover capabilities of the enterprise edition. When considering the creation of this new BizTalk Server 2009 environment, I have also recommended the creation of the following pre-production environments:   Usage Environment Development Development of solutions; Unit testing against technical specifications; Initial load testing; Testing of deployment packages;  Visual Studio; BizTalk; SQL; Client PCs/Laptops; Server environment similar to Live implementation; Test Testing of Solutions against business and technical requirements;  BizTalk; SQL; Server environment similar to Live implementation; Pseudo-Live As Live environment to allow testing against Live implementation; Acts as back-up hardware in case of failure of Live environment; BizTalk; SQL; Server environment identical to Live implementation; The creation of these differing environments allows for the separation of the various stages of the development cycle.  The development environment is for use when actively developing a solution, it is a potentially volatile environment whose state at any given time can not be guaranteed.  It allows developers to carry out initial tests in an environment that is similar to the live environment and also provides an area for the testing of deployment packages prior to any release to the test environment. The test environment is intended to be a semi-volatile environment that is similar to the live environment.  It will change periodically through the development of a solution (or solutions) but should be otherwise stable.  It allows for the continued testing of a solution against requirements without the worry that the environment is being actively changed by any ongoing development.  This separation of development and test is crucial in ensuring the quality and control of the tested solution. The pseudo-live environment should be considered to be an almost static environment.  It should mimic the live environment and can act as back up hardware in the case of live failure.  This environment acts as an area to allow for “as live” testing, where the performance and behaviour of the live solutions can be replicated.  There should be relatively few changes to this environment, with software releases limited to “release candidate” level releases prior to going live. Whereas the pseudo-live environment should always mimic the live environment, to save on costs the development and test servers could be implemented on lower specification hardware.  Consideration can also be given to the use of a virtual server environment to further reduce hardware costs in the development and test environments, indeed this virtual approach can also be extended to pseudo-live and live assuming the underlying technology is in place. Although there is no requirement for the development and test server environments to be identical to live, the overriding architecture implemented should be the same as in live and an understanding must be gained of the performance differences to be expected across the different environments.

    Read the article

  • MS DPM 2007: Testing the Recovery for a Production Domain

    - by NewToDPM
    Hi everybody! MS DPM 2007 is a new technology in my company, and so am I to the product. We have a classic Microsoft domain with two DCs, Exchange 2007 and a couple Web/MS SQL servers. I have deployed DPM one month ago on the domain, and after fixing the various issues I got with the replicas inconsistence and adapting the schedule and retention range to the server storage pool size, I can say the backup system is working correctly (no errors) as of today. However, there is one problem: we did not attempt to restore from the backups yet, which is a big no-no of course. I'm not sure about the way I should handle this, my main concern being Exchange and the System State of the DCs. From my understanding, DPM can only protect AND restore data on a server which is part of the same domain as the backup server. If I restore the System State (containing Active Directory) and the Exchange Storage Groups on a testing server, I am afraid it would completely disturb the domain functioning (for example, having two primary DCs on the domain). I am thinking about building a second DPM server on a testing separate domain which would mirror the replicas and then restore it on testing servers from this new domain. Is it the right way to handle the data recovery testing? How did you do on your domain when you first deployed DPM? I'd be grateful for any link/documentation or advice. Thank you in advance for your help! EDIT: Two options seem possible so far: i. Create another DC/Exchange server in the alternate location; ii. Create a separate domain in the alternate location and setup a trust between this domain and the production one. The option i is certainly the best but implies setting up a secondary Exchange server, with a dedicated public IP address so that if Exchange #1 dies, we can still send emails with Exchange #2. I don't know how complex this can be and would need to discuss it with my colleagues. The option ii would only fit the testing purposes. My only question regarding this is: if my production and DPM servers are part of domain A, and there is a trust between domains A and B, can I restore a domain A content to any domain B server?

    Read the article

  • Command or tool to display list of connections to a Windows file share

    - by BizTalkMama
    Is there a Windows command or tool that can tell me what users or computers are connected to a Windows fileshare? Here's why I'm looking for this: I've run into issues in the past where our deployment team has deployed BizTalk applications to one of our environments using the wrong bindings, leaving us with two receive locations pointing to the same file share (i.e. both dev and test servers point to dev receive location uri). When this occurs, the two environments in question tend to take turns processing the files received (meaning if I am attempting to debug something in one environment and the other environment has picked the file up, it looks as if my test file has disappeared into thin air). We have several different environments, plus individual developer machines, and I'd rather not have to check each individually to find the culprit. I'm looking for a quick way to detect what locations are connected to the share once I notice my test files vanishing. If I can determine the connections that are invalid, I can go directly to the person responsible for that environment and avoid the time it takes to randomly ask around. Or if the connections appear to be correct, I can go directly to troubleshooting where in the process the message gets lost. Any suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Biztalk forced suspense?

    - by WtFudgE
    Hi, I am getting the error: This service instance was suspended by a BizTalk administrator. However I didn't force a suspense and it's on my local machine. I get this message all the time with every item i input. The thing is I changed a line in assembly which was a small translation, however this couldn't possibly be the cause. So I was wondering if anyone has encountered this problem before and what they did to fix this. Thx

    Read the article

  • BizTalk FTP - File Rename

    - by Rob Bowman
    Hi I need to send files using the BizTalk 2006 (non wcf) FTP adapter. After successful transmission of each file it needs to be renamed from an "A" prefix to a "U" prefix. I don't want to issue a command using wildcards because I can't be sure of other files in the destination folder. Any ideas? Thanks Rob.

    Read the article

  • Biztalk Flat File Schema - how to accept a LF or CRLF as the line delimiter

    - by FullOfQuestions
    Hi, Our client sends us a flat file as input, which we then take and convert to an XML file before sending to the destination system. The flat file consists of multiple lines, each line is delimited by LF or CRLF. How do I create a Flat File Schema so that Biztalk can interpret each line of data regardless of whether the line was delimited by LF (0x0A) or CRLF (0x0D 0x0A)? Thank you in advance, M

    Read the article

  • Un-enlisting a BizTalk MSMQ send port in batch file

    - by SteveC
    I've got a solution which I setup / cleanup using batch files ... - there are a pair of MSMQ ports, send and receive, with another application on the end of the queues I'm finding I can't properly stop the orchestration in the batch file ... the error is the send port is unenlisted - I'm using the StopOrch.vbs script from the SDK samples But I can go into BizTalk Admin Console and manually stop the orchestration with Full Terminate Ok The setup / cleanup works Ok if I don't actually push any messages down the MSMQ queues

    Read the article

  • Sending Parameters with the BizTalk HTTP Adapter

    - by Christopher House
    I've never had occaison to use the BizTalk HTTP adapter since I've always needed SOAP rather than just POX (plain old XML).  Yesterday we decided that we're going to expose some data via a Java servlet that will accept an HTTP post and respond with POX.  I knew BizTalk had an HTTP adapter but I had no idea what it's capabilities were. After a quick read through the BizTalk docs, it was apparent that the HTTP send adapter does in fact do posts.  The concern I had though was how we were going to supply parameters to the servlet.  The examples I had seen using the HTTP adapter all involved posting an XML message to some HTTP location.  Our Java guy, however didn't want to take that approach.  He wanted us to provide a query string via post, much like you'd expect to see on an HTTP get.  I decided to put together a little test scenario and see what I could come up with.  We didn't have a test servlet I could go against and my Java experience is virtually nill, so I decided to put together an ASP.Net project to act as the servlet.  It didn't need to be fancy, just one HttpHandler that accepts a post, reads a parameter and returns XML.  With the HttpHandler done, I put together a simple orchestration to send a message to the handler.  I started by having the orch send a message of type System.String to see what it would look like when the handler received it. I set a breakpoint in my handler and kicked off the orchestration.  Below is what I saw: As I suspected, because of BizTalk's XML serialization, System.String was not going to work.  I thought back to my BizTalk 2004 days and I project I worked on that required sending HTML formatted emails via the SMTP adapter.  To acomplish that, I had used a .Net class with a custom serialization formatter that I got from a Microsoft sample.  The code for the class, RawString can be found here. I created a new class library with the RawString class as well as a static factory class, referenced that in my orchestration project and changed my message type from System.String to RawString.  Below is what the code in my message construction looks like: After deploying the updated orchestration, I fired it off again and checked the breakpoint in my HttpHandler.  This is what I saw: And there you have it.  The RawString message type allowed me to pass a query string in the HTTP post without wrapping it in XML.

    Read the article

  • BizTalk: Using context for routing

    - by Leonid Ganeline
    [See Sample: Context routing and throttling with orchestration] Imagine the project where most of the routing happens between orchestrations. I.e. routing is mostly between the MessageBox and orchestration with direct endpoints. Imagine also the most of the messages are with the same Message type. Usually in this case messages got the special node only for the routing. For example, the field can be the “Originator” or “Recipient” or “From” or “To”. What wrong is with this approach, it creates the dependency between the message and the message processing. Message “knows” something about Originator or Recipient. So what we can do with it? How can we “colorize” the same message to route it to the different places without changing the message itself? One of the decisions is to use the message context. BizTalk uses the promoted properties for routing.  There are two kinds of the properties: the content properties and the context properties. The content property extracts its value from inside the message, it is a value of the element or attribute. [See MSDN] The context property gets its value from the message environment. It can be the port name that receive this message, it can be the message Id, created by the BizTalk. Context properties look like the headers in the SOAP message. Actually they are not the headers but behave like headers. The context properties are the good match for our case. First, we don’t have to change the message itself to set or change the routing property. The context is stored outside the message body. Second, we don’t have to create the property schema to use the context properties. [See MSDN: How to create Property schema] BizTalk has the predefined schema set for the context properties. [See MSDN: Message Context Properties] Use one of them and that's it. The main purpose of the context properties is working on behalf of the BizTalk internals. But we can read, create and change them. Just do not interfere with BizTalk internals on this way.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21  | Next Page >